General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWomen, black people, latino's, lgbt, jewish persons are not dividing this country.
We are not some pawns that are too fucking stupid to find our way out of a paper bag when it comes to the realities they face.
How condescending, rude and utterly ridiculous it is to promote that fallacy.
Those listed above have been dropped from the discussion. It is not they who have divided anyone from anything. They were cut out of the discussion before it even began and have fought to be included in part of any solution.
I fucking wish people would stop saying it... and that includes Bernie Sanders as well. It's fucking insulting, simplistic and void of reality.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Grilled Charlie
(57 posts)and I've been following Bernie for years. Now that he's running for the Democratic nomination, I make it a point to watch and listen any new interviews and speeches that I can find. He talks a lot about economic injustice which is a problem for all of us.The only time he uses divisive language is when referring to "the billionaire class". Unless you're part of the billionaire class, it seems like your anger has been displaced or you have misunderstood something ( though I can't possibly see how, he's very clear on his positions and he's very progressive socially. Bernie becoming president is the best possible thing that could happen to this country.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/06/03/matters-bernie-sanders-doesnt-talk-race-gender/
"It is time to end the politics of division in this country, of politicians playing one group of people against another group, whether it is white against black, male against female, straight against gay or native born against immigrant, that division has got to end," he said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026873801
TM99
(8,352 posts)He is not criticizing the groups you mention as being divisive. He is criticizing politicians who will use and have used our differences to divide us. Hillary Clinton did that in 2008 while running against Barack Obama. It was called out for the racism it was then. THAT is what he is referring to.
He is also correctly pointing out that despite any differences we may all share, we all have the same economic issues. But he still doesn't use the politics of division, and he still melds social and economic justice. Whether he is speaking out against black youth unemployment and incarceration, women getting equal pay for equal work, or full LGBT marriage rights (which are very much an economic AND social justice issues) , he has proven this for decades.
Clinton had to evolve on gay marriage and until 2004 was an active bigot on LGBT issues. Sanders was firmly against DOMA and DADT when it was not expedient or popular to in the right.
I am a bi-racial man. I am a member of one of the groups you are listing here. And like another poster comment, I do not feel as you do. Why? Because I listen to all he says and just what I think he says. I also pay attention to what he has done and not just what I think he has done.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Well, if that is what we are calling rights for half the population, minorities, lgbt, etc (politics of division)... count me out.
In other words, he is stating that people who care about these issues are to dimwitted to figure out that they are being fooled by others, and to put those issues on the back burner... Because he is speaking about other things we can agree on... What a completely cowardly way of politicking..
Sorry, NOPE, I'll vote for people who discuss these issues and offer plans beyond, hey the 1% sucks.
Know why.. because a good many of the 99% experience the underlying foundation of bigotry that effects them whether or not they make the same amount of dough.. If it wasn't the case we wouldn't have these wage disparities to begin with.
So, chomping around the edges, telling others that issues that effect their lives are just used to divide us, from what, something we are already left out of??? It does not resonate with me.
TM99
(8,352 posts)politicians that have used these issues to attack and devalue these groups and those who support him.
Dimwitted? Excuse me! He never said that, he never implied that, and that is your projection alone.
You are still willfully reading this the way it suits you and not as it actually is.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)He does mean that the issues that divide us, are not as important as others and to not be fooled by it.
Sorry, the issues that "divide" us are real and must be spoken too.
TM99
(8,352 posts)You are taking his words and using them for your own purposes.
You, ironically enough, are sowing division.
He has and continues to speak to the issues that 'divide' us.
Shall we start in the 1960's with his civil rights work? How about the 1990's when he was one of the few politicians speaking out against DOMA & DADT.
What about today? He has continued to be one of the first politicians to speak out against the violence in Ferguson and the horrible massacre last week in Charleston.
He speaks and acts on both, economic and social justice. He has since the 1960's.
The more you try to say that he hasn't when the facts and history show otherwise, the more you are being divisive and dismissive of others.
I am very glad he speaks to my community not only about the problems of racism but also the very real problems of economic injustice.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I understand his history and like it... However, I'm not about to vote for a politician who gives into this type of behavior for a few votes.
TM99
(8,352 posts)
He has not given in to any behavior to garner votes. Unlike your chosen candidate, he has been honest and real for decades.
I really wish I could say the same for her.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)and realize that issues that effect me are not issues used by politicians to divide us.
The ones doing the dividing are the ones who use those already existing divisions to retain the status quo. By stating things like, those issues are used to divide us... so, get on board and stop dividing us.. When in reality we were already out of the equation.
TM99
(8,352 posts)the status quo while supporting the status quo politicians.
With Clinton it will be business as usual with a little lip service to social justice and no economic justice for those not in the 1%.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)We must get under the banner that our issues are used to divide this great nation! And VOTE with those who would like to see us pushed down a few more rungs, so they can make some more $$$... $$$ that we've never seen because of the issues that are used only to DIVIDE us, not keep us down.
No thanks.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Yes, Sanders is going to push you down the ladder a few more rungs. 
You are not even paying attention.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/statement-on-fair-pay-act
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
WASHINGTON, June 5 - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today issued the following statement after Senate Republicans blocked consideration a bill that calls for equal pay for equal work:
"At a time when women make an average of 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, I am disappointed that every Republican in the Senate voted to filibuster the paycheck fairness act to insure equal pay for equal work.
"I am proud that Vermont has been a leader in the fight for paycheck fairness and hope we can be an example for the rest of the nation. This is a struggle that has gone on for decades. We have made some progress, but today's vote is another reminder that we have a long way to go."
boston bean
(36,221 posts)That is why he calls them that. His language on this is akin to dog whistling.....
We are not something that divides this nation. We are the ones already divided out of it.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Wow, didn't take you long did it.
A Hillary Clinton supporter distorts a candidates message, and even when faced with the actual quotes confirming his support for all issues of economic and social justice, she pulls out the 'dog whistling'.
You have narcissistic victim-hood down to an art and a science. Bravo!
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Do I believe he is some racist misogynist, no.. But he is speaking a certain language for votes and that is just really really sad. It's shows me someone who is not really above the fray of politics as usual. His sheen is quickly coming off.
I'm not throwing my lot in with those fuckers no matter how much Bernie Sanders panders to them.
Right wingers are famous for saying that all those issues are "used to divide us". It's not some phrase that doesn't have a history and a meaning.
TM99
(8,352 posts)You know this. You deny it. It helps you to vote for the worst candidate who really doesn't give a shit about ALL of us.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Could he at least stop calling them that???? I mean WTF?
TM99
(8,352 posts)using words you are programmed to respond to.
He may not use the words you prefer. And yet, he actually cares deeply about these issues. He has for decades. He will continue to do so as President.
With Sanders I know that my voice will be heard, and also yours, and also the LGBT citizens, and all others. I can't afford a way for Clinton to hear my concerns.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)is just giving me some damned lip service..
How could I ever be smart or knowing enough to figure this shit out on my own????
TM99
(8,352 posts)It has all to do with trust.
And Bonobo kind of nailed you on Hillary's trust issues on abortion. 
boston bean
(36,221 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)and willful denial of the lip service and vapid dog whistles of Clinton while at the same time pretending that Sanders is doing the same.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Salute 
TM99
(8,352 posts)I am just so sick of the obvious lies, distortions, and smearing being done right now by a small but sadly vocal minority of Clinton supporters.
It will backfire on them.
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)Magna cum laude 
TM99
(8,352 posts)me blush!
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)by making abortions rare because they are a tragedy, right?
Those are HER words.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)election. So by your assessment he needs to address all of our individual issues in every speech he gives or he is divisive because if he is addressing one issue he is ignoring the others. So far in the campaign he has addressed every issue by stating his stand on it. He combines all of us into the speech by addressing the one issue that effects everyone of the 99%.
He does not cause division by addressing all of us - it is you who want us all to be divided up into small groups standing alone surrounded by our own issue. What you are doing is dividing those of us who are concerned about the economy from also being concerned about the social issues.
It is a lie to tell people that he is anti on minority issues. A little honest research will show you are wrong.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)issuing statements regarding all these issues when they are presented in the public. I is dishonest to play these kind of political games as if he is against them. Most of us are not going to listen.
If you are going to make this the main point of Hillary's campaign then she runs the chance of the voters seeing that he is as concerned as she. Many of us already do.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)
JanMichael
(24,885 posts)she is the establ8shment candidate. no more or less than john ellis bush is.
the problem with the bern is that he is the dog whistler.
he has already saud he would capitulate to the man if losing. this is fabian socialism in 2015 2016.
it has failed repeatedly. i suppose i should wax poetically about keynes but please darling....i give up.
Marr
(20,317 posts)The bizarre sorts of strained, hypocritical accusations they're using here have been a trademark of Hillary supporters since 2008 or so, when they released images of Obama in a turban at then indignantly remarked on how Hillary had worn native dress on many diplomatic occasions and never took offense at having the images shown. It takes a really screwed up mind to make racist attacks while suggesting your target is a xenophobe.
Classic Team Hillary, sadly.
840high
(17,196 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)I agree with your every word.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If you're on the left, you are automatically committed to fighting all forms of oppression-and youy can't fight oppression whule committing the country to an interventionist foreign policy and pro-corporate economics.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Bernie of that.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)The OP is misreading the quote on purpose (or perhaps lacks good reading comprehension skills.)
boston bean
(36,221 posts)
cwydro
(51,308 posts)However, it appears to me that you are deliberately twisting Sanders' words for your own agenda. I think these kind of "hit pieces" against either candidate don't do anything for a good atmosphere on DU.
I quite confident that you are an intelligent person because I've read your other posts here. Hence, my belief that you're deliberately misreading his words.
For the record, I'm a longtime Hillary supporter - currently undecided.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)is to not call equal rights divisive issues.
They are not... They cannot be... The only people they are divisive to are those who want the status quo.
I expect better of Bernie Sanders, you should too.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)It is obvious to me that he is talking about those who DO seek to divide along those lines. Christian leaders against gays, Trump's attempt to set Americans against immigrants. white politicians who use code words in an attempt to set whites against blacks. He is calling for unity, and I just cannot see anything wrong with that.
No offense meant.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I'm sorry, I will not agree to disagree with them.. I will continue to disagree vehemently.
He should too.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He said that the opponents of equal rights use those issues to divide the country.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Did he or did he not state that?
He is not talking about the issues because he does not want to alienate those who are opposed.
We are discussing his current campaign here... why would someone who supports everything you say he does not want to make it a centerpiece of his campaign?
I'll tell you why.. because he thinks it will cost him votes where he might be able to pick some up.
That is political cowardice.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That quote clearly blamed bigots for the division, not those groups. And no one who was ever part pf the DLC can possibly care about bigotry, because most of what that group argued for was the exclusion of LGBTQ peopple, the RainbowCoalition, and the poor(and labor).
Bernie's already spent fifty years proving himself as anti oppression. Eight years ago, HRC ran as the "stop the n____r" candidate in states like West Virginia and Texas (that's what "I'm one of you" was code for-it never meant anything else) , after encouraging Bill to equate welfare use and crime with blackness in '92 and '96.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)those issues they oppose can be agreed to disagree upon, because we have some other stuff that is important that we do agree upon. I'm not going to agree to disagree with any of it. I will speak out and so shouldn't Bernie, but you won't hear it in this campaign because it will offend some of the voters that agree with him on some other stuff.
I'm sorry, but to me that is a political calculation and one that I am not fond of.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)with some here on DU. So, +1 to your post. Cheers.
SaranchaIsWaiting
(247 posts)Answers and truths are not being looked for, I hope you know. Some people think if you say Bernie is sexist, homophobic often enough and with enough sound and fury, it becomes true and Hillary gets the upper hand of being The Champion of Everyone.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)the way Boston Bean is interpreting this. Quite frankly, it looks that way to me too.
But assuming we are wrong, the struggles of Women, LGBT, African Americans, Latinos, etc., are too important to risk marginalization.
If Bernie wants to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate, we have the right to hold the things he says to a higher standard.
TM99
(8,352 posts)You mean like the way we have held Obama to a higher standard?
You mean like the way you and other Clinton supporters hold her to a higher standard?
Do tell!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)criticisms of Bernie Sanders.
queue the jeopardy music...
TM99
(8,352 posts)Sanders on his unwavering support for Israel.
Perfectly stated
Grilled Charlie
(57 posts)But I also remember how for the past 30 years the media and right wing politicians have been dividing this country and scalping votes form the lower economic rungs of our society
By trying to control women's bodies.
By inserting veiled and not so veiled racism whenever possible.
By the disgusting nazi-esque vilification of Latinos
By the easy marginalization of the LGBT community (Still the most socially and legally acceptable marginalization around)
I believe he's addressing that. There are people in this country who can justify their bigotry by voting anti-" insert prejudice here" and even those people (odious as they are) can be reached by Bernie's message. And guess what- IF they trust him and vote for him and he turns out to be right (I believe he's right) maybe he can help to change their views on other issues. But now we have one common problem and it's a huge one (I'm not saying the other ones aren't) But since it's one that we can all unite under right now, let's band together on this. Afterwards we may find we can come together on other issues or perhaps not.
But riddle me this
How does Hillary Unite Independents/ Republicans/ And Liberal Dems? Does her message do that? What is her message? Honestly I just hear pleasant sounding vagaries and platitudes from her.
Bernie's message is clear to me.
She might pat me on the head and say "nice gay boy" and I might feel all warm and fuzzy for a moment but how does that fix our dire financial situation? How does that protect me from banks, corporations, wall street and perpetual war? I
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Stop smearing already.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He said bigots were dividing the country. He never blamed any of those groups for the division and you know it.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)This effort to paint Mr. Sanders as someone who only cares about older white voters is contrary to anyone who has heard the man speak. It seems a vain effort to distract his supporters and voters who lean his way.
And it is downright insulting that immutable characteristics are painted as something that naturally should drive voters away from Mr. Sanders, just because Mrs. Clinton's supporters suppose that race or sexual orientation determine someone's political positions on everything from economic volatility to income disparity. My sexual orientation never stopped me from developing a rounded opinion on matters - even the ones that don't directly affect me.
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)a woman, a person of color, and as someone who is bi-sexual.
SamKnause
(13,101 posts)I have never heard Bernie Sanders say that women, black people, Latino's, LGBT, or Jewish people
are dividing this country.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)SamKnause
(13,101 posts)If so, I agree with him.
You can't have white supremacists, anti women, anti immigration, and
anti homosexuals in our government and expect no division.
They constantly demonize and disrespect the people in this country.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)The people who support them are unknowing dimwits who don't realize it?
Come on.. think about how this type of framing comes across to people who care about these issues.
marmar
(77,077 posts)As if the divisions between race and gender in the Democratic Party hadn’t been further exposed through Tuesday night’s exit polls — and by a very heated exchange on CNN between Donna Brazile and Paul Begala — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s interview with USA Today on Wednesday is further mining those tense depths.
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press.
It “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.
While she said her remarks weren’t meant to be divisive, they’re already whipping around the Internet. “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that,” she said in the interview. (Hint, hint, message to the superdelegates still undeclared.)
In Indiana alone, six in 10 white voters went for Mrs. Clinton, where she narrowly won the primary. ................(more)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-white-support/?_r=0
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)At this rate I expect Sen. Sanders to be accused of blowing dog whistles within the next couple of months. It's sad, infuriating and comical all at once.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)And they aren't saying it because they really care about the issues.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If this is all you've got then you've got nothing.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Democratic principles that we are all suppose to agree on... then maybe I will stop.
I'm not going to allow anyone to treat issues I care about as something that is just used by TPTB to get us to vote a certain way against our benefit.
He is doing this for votes.... He is not some honest good doobie politician that shits only rainbows. It's about time people start to realize this.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Because if college was universally-free then things like whites and attending college more than minorities and women would cease to be an issue.
RW framing would be to end Affirmative Action, special tuition funds and set-asides and let the chips fall where they may even though college is economically out-of-reach for most minorities and many women. That is a far, far -- FAR -- cry from anything Sen. Sanders has said.
Yours is a cynical, crass and ultimately pathetic attempt at race-baiting, gender-baiting, etc. against a person who legislative career is beyond reproach. For someone supposedly taking so much umbrage over Sen. Sanders pointing out that some people choose demographics over solutions you sure are going out of your way to be exactly the sort of person he was talking about.
If you're the only one hearing dog whistles you're either hallucinating, deliberately misrepresenting facts or yours are the sort of ears that naturally hear such things.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)My eyes do too.
It is a right wing framing and one that excludes versus includes... It is used to garner votes from people who feel that women and minorities issues are what keeps us away from the dear and loved place this country once was and still wants wants to be.. a place where the privileged make money...
What you are failing to recognize is that the difference wouldn't be there, if the underlying bigotry wasn't what helped propped it up.
You cannot, no matter how hard one tries to solve this economically without addressing the cultural issues that give way to this. The root of the issue is the bigotry for those who actually live that reality.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Bigotry cannot be legislated away; it's a condition of the soul. Culture cannot be legislated away. If you're waiting for the day when all people love all other people unconditionally you'll be waiting a looooooong time.
What can be legislated away are the economic and legal barriers. What does change people and culture is interaction with their neighbors. College is one of the many areas where barriers exist. Universal college would tear down one of the last, de facto, vestiges of segregation.
At least Sen. Sanders has a plan.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I will continue to like the message that we are better people and that the culture can be changed.
You don't seem to think so... But if you want long lasting change, the only way is to change hearts and minds. You need to point out that is what is holding us back from true equality. It is a much more difficult fight. But it can be won...... You can't get what you want legislatively either without changing how people view things.
It is not a zero sum game. Laws don't mysteriously negate the inequality. History shows you that..
So, to hear a socialist democrat describe these issues as divisive is a slap in the face to many who live a different reality, even with laws that are meant to help.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Yes, hearts and minds need to change to eliminate bigotry but that's assuming bigots want to change. No president can change hearts and minds -- and certainly not by someone whose loyalties are rented by the hour.
Yet, here you are accusing Sanders of being a crypto-racist as if true racial harmony and gender equality is just a ballot-punch away if only we'd look past the warmongering and corporatism.
Go ahead, share for us the plan to eliminate bigotry that is within the purview of the presidency -- without using laws, no less since you've already explicitly stated laws won't end inequality. Tell us how you would see college enrollment for minorities and women increased that wouldn't rely on universally-free college.
You can't. You're just posting this crap because you have nothing positive to say about your own candidate so all you have left is to tear down those who actually have a plan and the career to back it up. You're not fooling anyone and the fact that you would stoop to calling Sanders a racist is pathetic. You should be ashamed but all you'll do is double-down.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)and leave those "divisive issues" for another day and time.
Again, no thanks....
You would think Bernie was almost as perfect as some near god like figure, to get this much robust denunciation in pointing out a truth of his campaign.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Sanders has a plan. All you have is cynical race-baiting to cover the fact your candidate doesn't have a plan.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)So you resort to race-baiting to tear him down. The axe you're grinding is obvious.
Go ahead, show us the better plan that would be within the purview of the presidency.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)You have no problem with it. Stop trying to make it seem like I have no right to discuss it. it is an important issue..
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)ie, Bernie courting the vote of persons who believe race issues are divisive and why can't we just go with all the stuff we agree on... Because duh! discussing race issues and bigotry is not what is divisive... the racism and bigotry is.
So, continue on... if you must to try to shut down this very important topic by trying to shame me in some way I have no reason to feel ashamed.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)in this country, but still have a hell of a long way to go. They will not rest on their laurels and be happy with a law that means nothing because the bigotry still exists and is effecting them negatively.
Really, have you no sense of history and how things work in this country?
I like what Bernie says about economic injustice, however, not on the backs of people who suffer from it disproportionately for reasons beyond their control in spite of laws already in place and future ones. They deserve a seat at the table. They don't deserve to be diminished as issues we can't deal with now so we can get other stuff done.
And that is exactly what he is saying.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Ok, we start by addressing the issues in the public sphere and not be afraid we will alienate bigots.
How's that for starters?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)I suggest you watch this speech as to how someone who is not afraid to alienate bigots does it:
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)but to call someone a race baiter when they are for equal rights...
don't usually run across that here... but nothing is too surprising, I suppose.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)egregiously misrepresenting Sanders' comments and did so for no reason except to advance a political agenda with nothing to offer except empty rhetoric while white-splaining to POC who support Sanders why you're right and they're wrong.
"I support equal rights" may as well be the new, "I have friends who are minorities" defense.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)are divisive and there are other issues more important we can agree upon. So, let's just agree to disagree...
I disagree vehemently with that. And that is not race baiting.
Sanders could help himself with this by stop saying what he is saying and address those issues on the campaign trail, regardless if some bigots will stop supporting him.
His supporters could help him to, buy acknowledging that he is coming off like this to a substantial portion of the democratic members who vote in primaries/caucuses. Instead of just ignoring his statements and defending it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If you had left it as a disagreement of policy my involvement in this thread would have ended a couple dozens posts ago but you choose, repeatedly, to claim Sanders -- with his entire legislative and speaking career available for review -- was making dog whistle statements.
He's not a crypto-bigot and he's not trying to secretly court the bigot bloc. Your slander is disgusting and unnecessary. If you had an ounce of credibility you'd explicitly retract your dog whistle statements.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)that I didn't think Bernie was a racist misogynist?
Or did that just not fit your narrative and you decided to ignore it, so you could continue on with your race-baiting accusations?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)is so maddening.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)and many others here in this little bubble. Take note, his stance on this is not playing well.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Take note, you're being criticized for race baiting and white splaining.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Race-baiting is race-baiting. If you don't like it then stop race-baiting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6882064
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Over the top accusation and attack.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 22, 2015, 02:29 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation:
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't think the post was race-baiting nor do I think this is hide-worthy.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a matter of opinion post. "Race-baiting" has no actual definition While it is a pejorative slur and an accusation "over the top" is also a matter of opinion All of this is like beauty; it's all in the eye of the beholder
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Race baiters gonna race bait.
I for one am glad I resisted responding in this thread so that I could be called for jury duty.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)thing. And to assert that a man who has fought these issues for 40 years is suddenly blaming the very groups who are the victims is way over the top. He has worked for them for 40 years.
Laws do not negate inequality when it comes to social issues and that is very clear in what has been happening since the rw started tearing the issues of the 60s to pieces. What was accomplished in the 60s was that the hatred was driven underground and only was able to reappear after raygun, the R party and their hate churches gave the country permission to reappear. I don't think Hillary has any more answers than anyone else on how to solve this problem.
And the division that you are actually causing here is not going to help either. What Bernie is talking about resonates with a lot of people and it can solve one of the problems that effects all of us. IMO what Hillary offers (TPP, triangulation, etc.) will not help anyone in the long run.
You want us to believe that a man who has worked for the people (all the people) for the last 40 years of his life is suddenly going to stop one aspect of his life's work and quit supporting the minority issues he has been supporting. Why would he? He is going to get elected because he understands that all of us regardless of race or gender are having economic problems - because he reaches a wide demographic. But to tell the people of the groups that you mention that he does not care about them is totally dirty politics -divisive.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)She long ago lost the debate on merits. Now she's just going for endurance.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Women and minorities are not some divisive subject to be thought about second.
Inherent in his words is an agreement that we shouldn't focus on those issues as we agree on others.
Sorry, not going to agree with that. If you wish to defend that, it is up to you.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)SamKnause
(13,101 posts)speak about bigotry.
I am talking about the politicians that are bigots, racists, anti women, anti LGBT, anti
immigration.
They thrive on it.
Their sick twisted supporters eat it up.
They couldn't even admit the shooting was about racism or that the
flag is racist.
If these politicians did not keep us divided they would NEVER get
elected.
The majority of Americans do not agree with these AH's.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)different kind of vote. That is why he calls them issues that divide us.
He wants votes from people who believe those issues aren't as important as economic issues. He wants to nibble around the edges in this CAMPAIGN, as to not offend others who may find some views not important.
That is really sad.
SamKnause
(13,101 posts)I disagree.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...Bernie DOES talk about these issues.
He speaks about the high unemployment rates of black youth. He talks about mass incarceration and why we should end it. He talks about pay inequality for women. He talks about immigration policy and the tragedy of splitting up families by mass deportation and the exploitation of illegals. He talks about the so-called "family values" of Republicans that seek to strip away women's right to control their own bodies, and their access to contraception.
YOU are the one being divisive and most of all HIGHLY DISHONEST.
SHAME ON YOU.
brush
(53,771 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 22, 2015, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)
He's not say those groups are doing the dividing, he's saying the country is being divided by politicians seeking to drive wedges between people.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)that people grasp onto to play into the politics of a certain politician.
brush
(53,771 posts)Gay or straight, the religious vs atheist, liberals vs conservatives, and of course blacks vs whites
They exist and the many pols, especially wingers/teapartiers, seek to widen them by driving wedges between them.
Bernie is not doing that, he's calling for the end of the divisions.
I don't see your issue at all, and I'm not committed to Bernie, leaning towards Hillary actually but you're not doing her campaign any favors with this stuff.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)brush
(53,771 posts)And again, this is not helping Hillary.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)brush
(53,771 posts)This post could be hurting Hillary's campaign.
Judging from the Hillary icons in your posts, maybe you care about that.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Do you take it to heart? I have no idea who you support, but maybe give the same advice to everyone, I don't know. But it is not going to have much bearing on what I post, just so you know...
brush
(53,771 posts)I've not participated in any of the Bernie-bashing or Hillary-bashing posts that have been raging here as I consider them divisive — there's that word again — and don't see the point of dems bashing other dems.
One reason being is you never know if bashing dems are really repugs sent here to, you know, divide.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Sure I got some haters, I also got some who like me...
But I am not a troll sent here to divide.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)How fucking disgusting they were? How low they sank? Not even subtle racism or sexism? Dismissal of Gay rights issues? Nearly everyone taking that approach was a Sanders fan. Personally I hope like hell Sanders would be appalled. Thank God DU is a political bubble. A frustrating, interesting one, but as all small communities we make our own realities.
Oh and I read those quotes-I expected better of the Guy. A lot better.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Because I have not seen a one.
The only and I do mean the ONLY posts I have seen separating the two are those with wealth on these boards only promoting Clinton and her come to lately social justice alone. Because gods know, Hillary Clinton is not the poster child for economic justice as a neo-liberal New Dem.
And yet again a very big reminder that Bernie Sanders was support LGBT rights issues decades before Hillary Clinton got her head on straight and joined the rest of us on what is right. To try to turn that around to suggest that he and his supporters are now dismissing gay rights is denial of reality.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Please search "Social justice vs Economic Justice" or reverse the order. One should pop right up. I don't see how you missed them--it went on for several days, with lengthy threads. I miss stuff when I stay away from DU, so maybe you were not around.
On edit: this was before official announcements of candidacy.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)point them directly to this thread, sooner or later.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)I have no doubt
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I was reading them all, and the vast majority of DUers were saying that social and economic justice are equally important.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)We have different standards then. Because I was fucking appalled. Still am actually.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Show me some links to what yr talking about and then if it's what you claim it is, I'll be seriously fucking appalled as well...
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Sorry, I don't want you to think I was speaking on behalf of you. We clearly have very different standards when it comes to being appalled by something that doesn't exist...
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We have been saying that WE cannot have economic equality until WE have social equality ... so there IS a rank ordering, for PoC, with social primacy being of higher value than, economic primacy.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Which I find sadly amusing
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)denies what we all have seen. And, like when every one gets all brand new when PoC point out racist comments on these boards (or women, misogynistic comments, or LGBT, heterosexist coments) ... I'm sensing a pattern here.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Because if the poster who refuses to supply even a single link to support her accusation that there was overt racism is using people saying that both economic and social justice are important as examples of overt racism then the refusal to supply links doesn't surprise me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Not the economic/social equality arguments themselves.
I saw the flatest out, angry dismissal of PoC, women, LGBTs, aND otherefore "others". It was pretty ugly.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I participated in one thread and found what I said of my experience as a single mother was dismissed but I didn't assume those who did that were engaging in bigotry. Nor did I know or care if they were Hillary or Bernie supporters.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Though, I try to note them them forget them, as quickly as possible.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I was trying to find another thread the other night and it kept on timing out on me.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Here are the top 3 when I type "Social Justice vs Economic Justice" into the DU site search.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026693177
This one compares Clinton's stances versus Sanders' on these issues. No separation or division there.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026754005
This post is a poll and shows that 90% of the respondents think both are important and should be worked on together.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026750460
And this one also points out the need for both economic and social justice as it talks about women & children in poverty.
I did it in reverse and it produces the same results. I went back a few months, and I see thread like this one claiming there is a division on DU with these two, but there are not actual threads separating them.
So in order for us to take you seriously, you will need provide links that prove your point.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)I never bother. I rarely get into the kind of back and forth arguments that require them. I was talking to the OP, and she 's well aware of what I'm talking about.
It doesn't matter if I'm taken seriously. They existed and they were disgusting.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Otherwise, the two of you are living in a reality of your own creation.
And you certainly have no right to speak for other minorities as both of you have in this thread.
azmom
(5,208 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)What Sanders meant by his quote?
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Or I guess I must have missed that barrage of posts dismissing gay rights and minorities here on DU.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)To tell a gay person and an African American exactly how a white person thinks they should feel outraged!
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Read again-- and no one can accuse you of lacking nerve.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And I don't need to link it. It's all right there above.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)And there is a lengthy thread by an AA expressing a much similar concern--one in which I believe you participated in.
Hush up, and let ME tell you about your outrage!
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The problem with wedge politics is illustrated by what happens when you use an actual wedge. The piece of firewood on your side must be larger than the one you're discarding. And if you're using two wedges simultaneously?... suffice to say you don't usually keep more than half.
Thankfully, it appears that democrats learned the WoW lesson at the last election.
Sanders is taking one message in which 90% of the people are on our side of the wedge and sticking with it. I'm more impressed than ever.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)And Boston hit the poster trifecta. Poor Sanders.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Women so they can incubate their babies in a state sanctioned way? What the fucking fuck?
Don't ever pretend to be an ally, okay?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)It won't help future candidates, either.
It's lousy framing. The womens' rights message needs to get across, but framing it as "war" is a big ol' loser, just like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty. War, war, war.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)She's the empirical test subject for the framing.
No one with a campaign manager will ever say that again.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Candidates and campaign managers...
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Sanders says it is time to stop being divisive and you accuse him of being divisive for using the word "divide".
It's like a fucking Abbot and Costello sketch.
SaranchaIsWaiting
(247 posts)I find this thread fascinating but with a tinge of sorrow. I don't know what is going on for someone to be so off point and like you say, being so divisive about Sanders' non-divisiveness? It's a classic something or other!
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)90% of their attacks on Bernie are for...wait for it... not for saying something, they are for NOT saying something.
They think it is reasonable to extrapolate from what is NOT there (such as "why didn't he mention abortion?) and then, in the same breath, LITERALLY say that they don't CARE about his voting record on ABORTION RIGHTS-that the ONLY thing they care about is that they want him to SAY IT when they want it said.
A 30 year record of Progressivism out the window because Bernie did not meet their window or something during a particular speech.
He is to be judged by what he (supposedly) is not talking about enough. Oh, that and his DU followers.
Fucking madness.
SaranchaIsWaiting
(247 posts)I don't think many are going to be swayed by this. In fact it may work in the reverse and this kind of oddness will be a recruiter for more Bernie supporters.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I suppose 20 minutes is less than 2 months.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)with the track record that is solidly Progressive.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)by stating that race issues are divisive... but whatever....
You can continue to think I'm some awful person for pointing this out.. But maybe someone smart enough in his campaign will figure out how insulting this is to people who are discriminated against.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You're creating racist division where none exists to satisfy your cynical agenda.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I am trying to point out that someone else is already doing that... hint hint... Bernie and some of his supporters.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Would those be the supporters be the ones down-thread that you're attempting to white-splain to?
It's like you dug a hole, found out how deep you were in it, then reached the bottom and when the shovel broken you decided to use your forehead in an effort to break through the bedrock.
This entire thread is one massive race-baiting fiasco on your part. The Hindu goddess Shiva does not have enough hands to adequately face-palm the magnitude of your race-baiting debacle.
This isn't you fighting to end bigotry -- as witnessed by the fact you have yet to articulate an answer to the question about what would be a viable plan for any president -- this is nothing more than a cynical effort to use POC as political props.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Continue on in this vain, if it makes you feel important.
I fail to see how pointing out that these so called "divisive issues" are not at all divisive issues and people should stop stating that they are.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I see you still haven't articulated an alternate plan. I'm guessing you don't have one; hence the cynical race-baiting and white-splaining.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I don't think I would flip if it was in support of womens issues.
Hell, it happens all the time, believe it or not... Some men agree with me...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)to be amusing.
Peace.
frylock
(34,825 posts)who gives a fuck what the message might be, as long as it's crafted and controlled.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)once the dog whistles are easy to spot, I am removing myself from the place.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
And you're right about the irony. Promoting unity by demanding more wedge politics.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)While using a quote from Gandi. Rich.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's nice to have a shadow/fan club.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Just one question: considering the amount of vitriol coming from Mrs. Clinton's supporters, how will we heal THAT divide?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)others left, in a huff. and formed the PUMA group.
Sad, I am not a fan of any candidate... (except big money), but I am seeing 2008 all over again... on steroids.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)On Mon Jun 22, 2015, 12:29 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Orwell Award for you, OP!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6880612
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Rude personal attack. Dispute the post, don't attack the poster.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 22, 2015, 12:32 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: bonobo is constantly rude and hateful. I happily vote to hide this.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Marr
(20,317 posts)that attracts or encourages this kind of dishonest garbage. This is exactly the sort of thing her campaign became famous for in the last election-- making baseless and offensive accusations while doing the thing they were accusing the other person of themselves.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...Bernie Sanders has said NO SUCH THING and YOU KNOW IT.
Boo, Hiss!!!!!
Romulox
(25,960 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Are you speaking for all POC in your response to me??
Romulox
(25,960 posts) boston bean
(36,221 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)however, that is neither here nor there... If I can't speak for any of POC, neither can you.
This is a ridiculous effort to shut down a discussion..
I am not speaking for anyone but of a particular issue... I assume you will continue to do so, as will I.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)If that's not the center square on the anti SJw bingo card, it should be.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)In my workplace, actually a few times.
I had to lecture everyone that I would be instituting a zero tolerance policy toward bigoted or discriminatory behavior among my staff. There were other occasions.
Perhaps you are confusing speaking for - as in- "in support of" with something else?
TM99
(8,352 posts)and you sure as shit don't speak for me.
I do not feel the same way, in fact, the exact opposite.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)and you don't agree, that is you're right.. But don't try to make it seem as though I have no right at all to give my opinion, by trying to make it seem I am speaking for every single POC on the planet.
But I do believe a good many would feel that racism is only divisive in the way that it keeps them out. Not that their recognizing it keeps the rest of the country from being united.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)who can understand and empathize with others, I can't point out a truth, that these issues are not divisive?
That Bernie Sanders believes other issues are more important... I don't agree with that, and I'm pretty sure many others don't, be they men, white, black, etc...
Continue on with ridiculousness if you can't have a better argument as to how a candidate is ignoring these issues in an effort to court the racist vote. Call me a race baiter all you like.
SaranchaIsWaiting
(247 posts)is bullshit bag full of false accusations against Bernie Sanders.
The circular nonsense logic of trying to paint Sanders as unsupportive of women and/or minorities, is astounding and reeks of manipulations of the truth when the truth of his career and votes is there for all to see. It's amazing. Shocking that these kinds of lies are carried out with such ease and vigor.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I cannot take you seriously after that. That is just titanic level hypocrisy, condescension, and obliviousness all in one package.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)This is a major reason I'm voting for him. I don't have a doubt in my mind that he will fight every day for my rights as a gay person, rather than shifting with the political wind. I mostly trust Hillary too, which is why I'll be fine with her if she gets the nomination. I actually expect, despite this not being my preferred outcome, her to be the nominee. Whoever gets the nomination, I will work for them and vote for them in the general election.
But Hillary HAS said awful things about gay rights in the past, so forgive me for being hesitant to blindly support her. It's not Bernie that has to make up for anything.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Frankly, I'm relieved that the man doesn't pander to people. I know his stance on LGBT issues. I don't need him to mention my community in every speech. I don't need to be constantly reassured he cares about my equality. I know he does. It's there in his record. It's there in his votes.
Frankly, he could mention my community sparingly, because he's earned that. He's done the work. He's earned the trust.
Other candidates I could mention have not. What good does it do me and mine if a candidate invokes the "magical words" of pandering politics and then turns around and doesn't actually support us when it counts? "Hooray for gay people! However, I will only bother with you once I've deemed it safe. Far later than even other national figures in the party."
What on earth do I care if a politician like that says the words?
I don't need the words. I'm not in church. I'm not being led in ideological worship.
Sanders is saying, "Let's not play this stupid fucking game."
And at the risk of irony - amen.
Grilled Charlie
(57 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 22, 2015, 04:19 PM - Edit history (2)
The mean girl in High school who was relentlessly cruel to me for two years but then decided it was cool to have a gay BFF and adopted me as her lap dog sometime during Junior year. Once the puppy love is over (elections) She'll drop me off at the shelter like a 17 year old mutt and go running to her new BFFs wall street banks corporations and perpetual war.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)the right of POC, LGBT, and women are not a "stupid fucking game." I don't believe Sanders said that either.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Using identity politics to divide people into classes and then play them against each other in election cycles is the game Sanders is speaking against.
Do you have a problem with that sentiment?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)and they aren't some stupid block of people who vote against their own interests.
Avoiding them does not help solve the issues... More money does not rid one of the inequality...
Identity politics also is a right wing term, meaning the same thing... and I think it all sucks.
But hey, that's just me...
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Your OP reads as if you didn't. Just saying.
By the way, I used to think that your opinions on issues concerning race and gender had some merit. That has changed in the last weeks.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I wasn't barely on last week as I was on a business trip.. So, I'll take what you say about me with a grain of salt, since one of your points is completely false.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I feel the same way.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)One that has to do with Sanders...
Rex
(65,616 posts)Sorry, but that is how it looks after reading your thread and the replies. You didn't answer a single substantial question when asked. You just keep repeating Sanders doesn't care about minorities without a link to back up a think you are saying.
Free country, but I would stay away from slandering a candidate unless you have some proof, I would be more than happy to look at it.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)the personal here, and I for one don't appreciate it much.
Rex
(65,616 posts)No you show nothing in links, not in your OP or anywhere else. I guess you just want to continue on with this lie of yours, have at it. It just shows you for who you really are to everyone on this board.
I guess I should stop expecting people not to sink this low, but I will remember from now on and try to avoid these divisive threads that show no proof of their claim.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I guess I should stop expecting people not to sink that low.......
Rex
(65,616 posts)You probably should do some research before just randomly lumping together a lot of minority groups.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)You don't think possibly that jewish people would take offense to someone thinking their issues were "divisive"?
I am not allowed to make that leap?
Rex
(65,616 posts)I wouldn't expect you to stoop this low.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)explain it to me?
I just told you I do know Sanders is Jewish. Should I have left Jewish people off? What is it you are thinking I am trying to do?
for real??????
Rex
(65,616 posts)to back all this stuff up? That is pretty bold of you to claim this without proof.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Goodluck!
boston bean
(36,221 posts)a thread you are responding in is not my issue.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts) 
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)If you talk about divisiveness let's talk about our own gender
first. We had a Dem Senator who took on the repug's war
on women. Guess what: He lost.
If all the women, who voted, had voted for him, he would have won.
Women are their own worst enemy at times, because they cause
a lot of divisiveness among themselves.
Bernie is including everyone with his messages. So please, before
you blame him look at what you are trying to do with your OP,
which is obviously an effort to divide.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)And does NOT address women's issues to my satisfaction.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 22, 2015, 01:24 PM - Edit history (1)
of attacking anti-bigotry activists and pandering to bigots).
Bernie has spent fifty years proving himself to be an implacable opponent of bigotry in all forms. And everyone here damn well knows it).
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Nice to see someone who gets it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Both are from historically oppressed groups and Bernie has always been just as committed to fighting bigotry as HRC.
There is no difference in commitment on this.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He's proven himself on all these issues with fifty years of activism, two terms as the most anti-oppression mayor in Birmingham's history, and in and a congressional voting record going back a quarter-century.
Bernie's whole life is a fight against all forms of oppression-and TRUE progressives know that economic inequality (which hits akk the groups you listed in the OP with massive force, just as it hits most other people in this country) and the unjust concentration of wealth in the hands of the few while large areas of the country are left to rot, are just as oppressive as bigotry.
You can't fight hatred with corporate donations. The rich want the hate to go on, because it diverts anger awar from them.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)their issues are "divisive" and not have them uttered because.....
This is a critique of Sanders current campaign... It is not a very progressive way of thinking and calls into question how hard he will fight for minority issues. He has stuff he thinks more important for the majority... where does that leave the minority?
Never works out well for people who are discriminated against to do this... And that is basically what Sanders is asking people to do... get in line and help us with the unspoken promise that I will help you at some later date.
No, he needs to be out front on these issues.. they are important to many in the Democratic Party.
I would of course vote for him if he were the nominee, as I can't allow myself to not do my part in defeating the right wing whackos...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He said bigots used those issues to divide-and he didn't call on anyone to stop fighting bigotry.
And a candidate to Bernie's right can't claim to be better on anti-oppression issues, especially since she has encouraged the Democratic Party to run "tough on crime"
i.e., let the cops kill black people any time they want, and pretend that blacks are to blame for most crime when they never have been) campaigns.
It's not possible to take corporate donations and be truly anti-oppression.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)the same thing into each of your response to me, without addressing anything I have actually said.
When you have something that speaks to what I've written, we can commence, once again.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie did not say what you accused him of saying.
Bernie was anti-racism(working for SNCC) when HRC, as a Goldwater Girl, was still effectivel for it (supporting a candidate who wanted the Civil Rights Act repealed is the same thing as being racist)
Bernie was anti-homophobia when HRC was still pandering to gaybashers by supporting DADT and DOMA(she didn't renounce either until it was too late to matter, and pandering to homophobia is effectively the same thing as as being a homophobe).
And given that Bernie is Jewish...well, I'll just assume you admit you were wrong for accusing him of saying that people who condemn antisemitism are being divisive.
Now will you please stop accusing Bernie of things you know perfectly well he isn't guilty of?
Campaign for your candidate on her supposed merits...don't slander her opponents.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)the actual quotes.
Again, we are discussing his current campaign tactics where he is looking for votes.
You agree, he hasn't been speaking to the issues. I have told you why.
You try to convince me this is some winning strategy. I keep telling you it is not good for a good many people in the Democratic party who don't view these issues as divisive, but extremely important.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie has spoken to the issues his whole life.
And as a member of a historically oppressed community(which HRC is not as a white child of privelege) Bernie is anti-opresiion to the very core of his being.
You know perfectly well Bernie is actually more anti-bigotry than HRC, because she helped form the DLC, a group that argued that the Democratic Party should treat the Rainbow Coaliition, the LGBTQ movement, and all but the most timid feminists as "special interest groups", while appeasing bitter white Southern dudes with promises that everyone they hated and feared would be kept out in the cold.
And no, I never argued for any "strategy" other than treating economic injustice as being just as oppressive as social injustice and bigotry. That "strategy" is the one Dr. King took, it's the one Harvey Milk took, it's the one Bella Abzug took, and it never left any oppressed groups out in the cold. You fight injustice by fighting ALL the injustices.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)of which you agree he does not speak to these issues.
I find that craven and to be political cowardice. Don't be surprised if you see more of it, if he doesn't change his campaigning ways.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I agreed with the statement in the op
All of us agree that the groups you listed aren't dividing this country.
Bernie Sanders agrees with that too.
Bernie has spent fifty years showing himself to be at least as committed to fighting bigotry as HRC is, if not more so(as a candidate to her left, he's automatically going to be stronger on anti-oppression issues than anyone to his right, whereas HRC is irreparably compromised by her history with the pro-bigotry DLC, a group that argued that southern whites and ceo's were the only people the Democratic Party should care about and that pushed the party to leave unchallenged racist smears about blacks and crime and blacks and welfare).
He has nothing more to prove now.
BTW, Bernie IS Jewish, so it's silly of accusing him of implying that Jews are dividing the country. Please delete that word from your OP title.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Anti-Semitism is a huge issue. I have to think that jewish persons would also not like having their issues marginalized either.
Response to boston bean (Reply #212)
Post removed
boston bean
(36,221 posts)opposition to what it is you are saying I know perfectly well.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #194)
boston bean This message was self-deleted by its author.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Clinton did not support LGBT equality until 2013 - long after even the President supported it during an election year, when he had everything to lose by doing so.
Sanders supported full equality very early on.
When one politician sticks their neck out for a community, and another puts their finger in the wind and waits until it is ultra-safe to do so, one cannot say the two are on equal footing. Not in terms of trust, not in terms of sincerity, and not in terms of commitment.
A person's credibility on an issue is not measured by whether or not they have done something when it is safe. It is measured on what they do when it is a personal risk to themselves.
Sanders passed that test. Clinton did not.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie's actually more anti-oppression than HRC and always has been.
SaranchaIsWaiting
(247 posts)Except the very filthy rich. His is a message of equalities and fairness. For Us All.
I don't believe that Hillary is necessarily the better choice because she is a woman. I look at past performance and general character before I look at candidates gender.
I am a feminist, I speak only for myself and I wholly believe Sanders is the right person to take us to the next stage of fixing our sick system of greed and lies.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)stranger81
(2,345 posts)I guess none of them recall that in 2008, HRC tried to win votes by suggesting votes for Obama would be wasted, because someone would probably (hopefully?) assassinate him before the general election.
Good lord.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)stranger81
(2,345 posts)But you know that.
Added on edit: I have to say, that in my 30 years of closely observing US presidential campaigns, I have NEVER heard any candidate besides HRC stoop so low as to suggest an opponent might be assassinated. Not any Republican, not any other Democrat. HRC bears this dubious distinction all on her lonesome.
But do carry on explaining why she is this cycle's champion for POCs.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)such as racism, sexism, etc is something we can agree to disagree on... and expect people to take that crap laying down.
No thanks.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)have so patiently explained to you.
Predictably, you have nothing to say about HRC inviting someone to make sure Obama joined the Bobby Kennedy club. Why is that?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)However, many people do feel that way. I take it to mean that the world doesn't revolve around me and possibly others have a point.
Unlike some...
stranger81
(2,345 posts)of Sanders's comments.
I'd be curious, though, to know how, exactly, you think HRC's reference to a possible Obama assassination should be interpreted. Because there aren't a whole lot of ways to read that, and as far as I can tell, none of them are good. That kind of statement should be utterly off limits in political campaigning in this country.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)the length of the primary campaign.
However, I can see how that was taken and wish she hadn't said it.
But that isn't what you have here in this thread... You have people telling me I am full of shit, a dog, and a bunch of other personal insults...
see the difference?
stranger81
(2,345 posts)or any-- discussion. I am sorry you're having to deal with those. DU often seems a harsh place these days.
On that, at least I think we can agree.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)You claimed you'd been called a dog in this thread. Then when I pointed out you hadn't been called that, you switch to the third person and say you hadn't been called one. Make up yr mind.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)In response to suggestions that she should drop out of the race because it was statistically impossible for her to secure enough delegates to win the primary, she said:
"“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”
I was astounded when Hillary said this. Flabbergasted. Dumbfounded. Absolutely floored. I will never look at her in the same way again. My father, who was an adult when the Kennedy brothers were assassinated, was horrified.
A few months later, in October 2008, my father had a massive stroke. He passed away a few days after the election. While Dad was in bad shape after the stroke, and terribly confused, one of the last things I said to him that I think he understood was that Obama had won the presidency. And when I told him and showed him the front page of the newspaper, he smiled his old familiar smile. I'll never forget that.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I still don't feel that Hillary is a racist, nor that she meant it that way. It was a terrible thing many would not misremember... that was the reference..
But again, I can see how people could take offense to it and I don't begrudge them that.
However, you try and tell someone that Bernie's words are being taken in a way that are basically telling minorities to go pound sand while other more important issues are worked on, and you get complete denials.
Again, see the difference. I'm not here to re-live the 2008 primaries with you. She shouldn't have said it. I don't think she or Bernie are racists.
But as you have so well established, people are responsible for the things they say. Maybe some could be as gracious as I.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Are you suggesting that the expression "all bark, no bite" is misogynistic? Please explain. Thanks in advance.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/all_bark_and_no_bite
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Again, who are you essentially calling a dog?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Or do you actually answer them? And if so, can you point those answers out to me? And can I think you in advance?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Or are you incapable of defending your wild accusations?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)So, who is the 'she' you are essentially calling a dog?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)you continue to seek to make this about me "essentially calling (her) a dog"? It's obvious where you are taking this, isn't it?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)to me it seemed fairly clear.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Do you see how it is that people here (or those who know your typical hide-and-seek games) dismiss your views, a priori?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I felt it was pretty straight forward question.
again the question was "who are you essentially calling a dog?" in response to your declaration, that "she is all bark and no bite"..
Was a pretty straight forward question to a pretty straight forward declaration. Which you still have not answered yet would like to accuse me of feigning ignorance.
I can't possibly answer you more fully, until you answer my question.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)and yet, seem to have laser-focused, rock-solid, unwavering insight into the motives of others here who quip in well-worn platitudes and idioms (expressions which are inherently vague)?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Guess not.
Response to closeupready (Reply #227)
boston bean This message was self-deleted by its author.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)and turn it into WWIII.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)jesus christ i have seen everything now. ROFL!
boston bean
(36,221 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)that you would take a figure of speech LITERALLY just so you could have something to go after a DUer about and feign outrage. anybody who isnt completely brain dead KNOWS he wasn't calling her a DOG for fuck sake.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)And we don't know who he was referring, do we?? That simple question never seems to get answered, now, does it?
SaranchaIsWaiting
(247 posts)what?
are you serious?
WOW
boston bean
(36,221 posts)essentially calling them a dog.
Was it me or Hillary or someone else?
Can you answer for him?
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)They're well-known and commonly used clichés. The first one used means that someone's words are worse than any action they'd take, and the one I used means that someone is wrong and totally in the wrong direction on something.
I think it's time to let sleeping dogs lie...
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Except it's not fucking funny other than that dark irony kind of way
William769
(55,145 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)While the op itself is good, the greatest benefits are in the replies. You have brought them out from hiding.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)in the primary. I have no idea what you are going on about. 
Vattel
(9,289 posts)country. The quotes you give to support this claim don't support it. One quote you offer is this:
I know that there are differences in this room on abortion, on gay marriage, on guns, whatever it may be. Fine, let’s have our differences. But when it comes to whether or not our kids can go to college, whether or not we’re going to make it easier for workers to join unions, whether or not we’re going to have a trade policy which creates jobs in this country or whether it creates jobs in China, whether or not college is affordable, whether or not all Americans are entitled to health care as a right, let us stand together and not be divided.
What Sanders says here is true. We are divided on the issues he mentions. That doesn't imply that we should ignore these issues. Sanders has made it clear in other speeches that he thinks we should pursue justice on these issues. Sanders does express the hope that we can at least be united on certain economic issues. But again, there is no implication that the other issues should be ignored or are unimportant. Saying "let's have our differences" about these other issues simply advises continuing to debate them, and Sanders then goes on to suggest that even as we debate these other issues let's be united on some basic economic issues. I simply don't see any suggestion that he wants anyone to ignore issues like gay marriage, and he certainly doesn't suggest that gays should stop "dividing this country." That interpretation is not reasonable.
Even more surprising is that you find fault with him for saying this:
"It is time to end the politics of division in this country, of politicians playing one group of people against another group, whether it is white against black, male against female, straight against gay or native born against immigrant, that division has got to end," he said.
How can anyone disagree with Bernie that politicians shouldn't "play one group of people against another group, whether it is white against black, male against female, straight against gay or native born against immigrant." That's what republicans do and, thankfully, Bernie is opposed to it.
Grilled Charlie
(57 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)by politicians is rude and insulting. Because on the other side of that equation are people who face those difficulties day in and day out. Who aren't being played by anyone. We are not to be categorized as some divisive issue that plays right into the Right Wings hands.
And no, we don't need to just set those differences aside for some other goal that sounds nice but won't do a damned thing is the other issues aren't being just as strenuously spoken of. It should be inclusive, not exclusive.
Grilled Charlie
(57 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 22, 2015, 04:26 PM - Edit history (2)
The HRC brand is sponsored by Corporations, Wall Street and the MIC. If you're lucky she might mention an issue you're passionate about but if it eats into the profits of the people who own her presidency and they disapprove with any of her so called social justice issues.
She'll drop you like a sack 'o' pataters.
You can't have two masters. She's got hers (see above).
And Bernie's got his- The people
Bernie Sanders brought to you by the People of the United States of America
boston bean
(36,221 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Hillary did not get where she is today by supporting the little guy. Her entire political career was bankrolled by the the rich, the patriarchy, the corporations where men make up nearly all of the executives. Yet you think the patriarchy will be shaking if she's elected?
She's playing identity politics. And feminists are being suckered into it on the premise of having a woman president. Hillary doesn't want to talk about economics because she favors the status quo. She favors corporations. She favors free trade. She favors more H1B visas so the high skilled sectors can have cheaper labor. So she can't focus on these issues, she needs to focus on identity politics. And that's what she's doing.
Hillary Clinton may very well become the most pro-corporate and pro-establishment president the modern Democratic party has ever had.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but expected.
Nope not needed. Thanks, test drive?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Are they not also discriminated against?
and your post to me is amusing (that is one word that sort of fits) after what you said to/called me.... surely I don't need remind you do I?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)on this site.
Link by the way...
boston bean
(36,221 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)which is precisely what I expected.
I see this thread did not go the way you expected.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I know you know exactly what it is I am speaking of..
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and this is a test drive of what is to come. Southern Strategy 2016 edition, since the southern strategy part 1, 2008 edition, worked so well. And we are about to elect a new POTUS after the two terms of the candidate you support.
We expected this. Past is prologue.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I know and you know what you said and what you called me... others do as well...
I don't need to get any link for you, because you do know exactly what it is I am referring to.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but that is exactly what I saw in your attempt. So did others. I am not alone.
And I will spell it for you. I expect antisemitic attacks on the son of a holocaust survivor. just like we had attacks on then Senator Barack Obama that were out of the Southern Strategy handbook. We just do.
Perhaps you should reconsider your tactics, because you are the one being divisive here.
Have an excellent evening.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)In no way was stating what you say.
Anti Semitism is an issue... would you have preferred I left it out.
It was primary to the point of people stating those issues are divisive, whereas the Sanders point was secondary to that and not all apply. Of course I don't think he is anti semitic.
I'm not deploying any tactic.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and I did apologize, but of course you will continue to bring that up because you were wounded, and cannot accept that this was an error in communication on my part.
So let me me make this in bold. I AM SORRY FOR WHAT YOU FELT WAS AN INSULT WHICH WAS NOT MEANT THAT WAY>
I do not expect you to do that though from this OP, I just don't.
And no, I did not say he was anti semitic. Your OP actually hinted that though, and it is highly divisive.
I suspect you are test driving a talking point, and it exploded in your face. As a woman I take offense at your OP, and as a Jew, and daughter of a holocaust survivor, I take offense at your OP. I am not talking for others like you tend to do. I am talking for myself.
And I will repeat this, given what was attempted with Obama in 2008, I expect more of this crap. I expect the next attempt to be a tad more... subtle, assuming subtlety is something you are capable off.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I was not intimating Bernie Sanders is anti semitic.
I was intimating that some people were though... That is why I left it in. Do you disagree with that?
But hey, you can believe what you like about me.
At least now, it is known you know exactly what it is was I was speaking to. And again, the apology doesn't work as you are blaming me for what you wrote.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that's it. You will not take the apology, which is what mature people do.
And your OP is still offensive, actually to the level of that word you find so offensive.
Why do you think this blew in your face?
You not only took a speech OUT OF CONTEXT, but you implied things.
Again, this blew in your face. I would not continue digging, but feel free, to call in the cavalry, I need to check my watch. Also feel free to continue to dig.
And with that, I think it is time to trash the whole issue and go back to work.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I did not imply what you are stating I did. Anything else... I guess I should be grateful you are trashing the thread.
Lastly, your apologies are severely lacking... I did NOTHING to you, nor did I say anything to you to prompt what YOU wrote and called me. I misunderstood nothing.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)sorry, you did.
And adults accept apologies.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Not in your world I suppose. I am certainly glad I do not live in your world.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)for things we have done or said wrong.
An apology means you recognize you have done something wrong and you don't blame the person you done wrong to in the middle of an apology.
My mother made my sister write a note of apology to me and she still keeps it. My sister stated she was sorry throughout the whole entire thing, while in every other sentence explained how it was me who made her do it and how she didn't really mean it.
This feels eerily reminiscent. My sister was about 9 years old and my mother kept the letter for the laughs.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)becuase I think you cannot accept an apology. And at this point, that is YOUR ISSUE.
I did what I needed to do on a message board, I cannot do anything more. Nor am I putting you on ignore, but to avoid future misunderstandings, and I am sure they will come, please do put me on ignore. If you do not, well that is your issue.
I know that from now on this is what I have to walk on when BB is around.
This is not what adults do, but if I have to go back to Junior High when around you, well, now I know. After all, no apology will ever suffice for you.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)You've written about the eggshells before too and about how I am making you act here, which is another way of just not owning what you did..
Again, own it, or don't... but please stop blaming me for what you did.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and you are turning what you were told, around. You are doing this with almost everybody on the OP you started. You are the one playing victim.
In other words, and I mean it this time, you are acting like a petulant five year old who cannot accept an apology as an adult would.
No egg shells, that is exactly what you are doing. You are accusing others of doing what you are doing. It has a name. It's called projection. By the way, so you know, the strong feminist women I know off, INCLUDING YOUR CANDIDATE, do not play victim.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)stop trying to push buttons. It won't work.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Then maybe you should be quiet and not decide for Jews if Bernie is offensive to Jews.
Actually, find me ONE Jew, even ONE, who finds that Bernie is being divisive about Jews.
Please, Boston Bean, find me one offended Jew over Bernie's behavior towards Jews.
Otherwise Sheket Bavakasha.
Response to Bonobo (Reply #308)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Then yeah, I will ask him or her to keep their mouth shut and the type of genitals they have has not a thing to do with it.
Response to Bonobo (Reply #331)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And i found her OP beyond offensive. So did a black person, and a gay person. As far as I could tell other women also found it offensive.
But hey, keep digging. I s'pose the talking points need refining, so who am I to get in the way and point out how offensive it was.
Oh and by the way I do have lady parts.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #333)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)If you are not Jewish and you can't find a Jewish person to back up your claim that Bernie is dividing Jewish people (Anti-Semitism? Really!?), THEN you need to be quiet.
That is what I said.
It is a conditional statement and I stand by it.
Because NO minorities need non-minorities to tell them what to feel, Jews included Ms. Frog.
Response to Bonobo (Reply #335)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Sheket Bavakasha is very polite.
https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130623070030AAwBIIc
What is the exact translation of sheket bevakasha and how do you pronounce it?
Hebrew to English
Follow 3 answers Report Abuse
Tom F
Best Answer: In the correct word order, it is "quiet please." It is pronounced exactly as seen. She-Ket Be-Vakasha, with the accents on the syllables "she" and "va." (Quite literally, "bevakasha" in Hebrew is actually two words. "Be" means "in" and Vakasha means "request."
Response to Bonobo (Reply #340)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It means "please be quiet" and that is exactly how I used it.
So your claiming I said STFU is the bullshit lie.
Response to Bonobo (Reply #349)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am talking for myself She is getting this shit storm because she posted a rather insulting and full of lies OP.
And lord knows my candidate will win. I got behind big money a while ago.
I know this is novel, since the OP likes to speak for others, but I am speaking for myself.
If I took your post the same insulting way. I would say you are telling a woman, that be me, to shut up.
And you are right, there is no debate on DU. Has not been since at least 2011. The place though is highly entertaining, but at times, like with this OP, full of dog whistles. And no I am not calling the OP a dog either. but I am sure she or you, will twist the words. Sad that one has to explain meaning, expecting fully to be misunderstood anyway.
Pro Tip. The OP is not doing any favors to the candidate, and if the candidate goes there again (2008). I expect her to lose.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #336)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and at this point it is highly entertaining.
By the way, I do fall in several minorities here, so I think I have more than a right to an opinion on white 'splaining on the part of the op and dog whistles.
I am Jewish. I am woman and I am Latina.
So she hit several wickets with one wonderful post.
And I expect more of you guys and gals to come to the thread, or even the sub thread, because the whole thing has been a royal backfire.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)She is really mad though. I'm not sure you'll get through to her.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"Bavakasha"" is actually added to soften it.
If I had wanted to say "Shut up!" it would have been better to simply say "Sheket!"
But go on and keep speaking for Jewish people. It's pretty amusing.
Response to Bonobo (Reply #341)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"bavakasha" softens it by making it a request, like "please".
Response to Bonobo (Reply #344)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and it is a very polite way of asking somebody to be quiet, like in a library. And Hebrew is my third language. I should practice it though. I used to be very fluent with it.
In English Sheket alone would be BE QUIET. The difference between "BE QUIET" and "quiet please," should be kind of obvious.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #348)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and with that, I think you can please proceed governor.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)they're off-the-charts divisive. Same with Tami Fitzgerald of the North Carolina "Values" Coalition. Thanks in part to her tireless efforts, magistrates in NC can now discriminate against gays by refusing to perform marriages. If that's not divisive, I don't know what is.
I'm a woman and don't feel dropped from the conversation -- at all.
TM99
(8,352 posts)And that is who we should be standing up against, not Sanders who is in our corner on these fights. 
