Why not call it by its real name?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bells, Nov 9, 2018.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,311
    There is no doubt that Bells is correct in her assessment of racism and the discrimination this leads to. But has it's limitations IMO
    Is it worth considering for sake of discussion that there maybe at least two classes of racism. Thus demonstrating how inherant discrimination in the human cognitive prosesses.
    1. People who have surrended to the low self esteem propping behavior.
    2. People who struggle knowing that their own self esteem is really the issue.
    For surely all people discriminate, as it is a fundamental mind requirement to do so as we attempt to make sense of the world.
    Example:
    The letters A vs the letter B are only able to be distiguished via discrimination.
    Axiomatic perhaps?

    However racism is heavilly asociated with low self esteem indoctrinated by others with similar low self esteem. Discrimination is not always about self esteem, but racial discrimination of a racist nature is.
    "Racial discrimination is not always racist"
    Bernie Sanders i believe, like most people, is a person struggling with his own insecurities; his own needs to prop up his self esteem and should be admired for at least attempting to acknowledge them.

    Racism is not ever able to be considered as a black and white issue but more an infinite variable, at least as variable as degrees and quality of self eseem is.

    Just thoughts....
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,048
    But that's not what the quote says. That's your extrapolation.


    The quote didn't do that, either. It refers to a discomfort that is prevalent in the United States. It says, you overcome it by the act of voting.

    Isn't that what you're advocating? Nobody saying what they actually witness or feel?

    Gods know that's said often enough! Believe it or not, even people who are uncomfortable with racial relations, who are uncertain of their tribal loyalties, who wish they were less afraid of what they've been conditioned from infancy to fear, do have sensibilities. Nobody learns from browbeating.

    The whole system is so fucked up, pasting labels on a handful of ambivalent voters is not going to fix it. Nor are these people in charge of employment and health care; they're just products of the same system.

    NO, they were not. They were appealing to the people who already felt perfectly comfortable in their bigotry. If you lump the nervous people who are not quite sure in with the hardened white supremacists, you'll drive them into the Trump camp.
    One of the [several] huge political mistakes was leaving the poor whites in the south unreconstructed, back in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. They became easy prey for opportunists.

    See, there you go again. Filling in all the steps that have not been taken. If it's not perfectly wonderful, it must be egregiously horrible, nothing in between.
    Why not hold people responsible for what they have actually done, rather than what they may be feeling and what a similar feeling might cause somebody somewhere to do at some time?

    No, what he said was that they might feel some discomfort the first time they do vote for a black candidate and the discomfort will go away as they do it again.

    That would be difficult, but could be done in most cases, through - as you say - exposure: integration, particularly in schools and in the workplace, where employees discover their common interest - and far more significantly, their common enemy. It's no accident that Republicans have so consistently kneecapped trade unions.

    That's a different matter, much easier. If you were serious about solving the problem, you'd look into income disparity, access to decent urban housing and education. But, first of all, you'd have to disarm the several thousand right-wing propaganda machines - broadcast media and church pulpits - that poison their minds, day after day. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/my-descent-into-the-right-wing-media-vortex

    But you're not interested in difficult solutions to complex problems, are you?
    Just name-calling. Hell, if it makes you more comfortable, go ahead.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,392
    as soon as hilary had won, the republican campaign changed and copied bernies campaign.
    i didnt realise how ignorant the american voters were until i saw that make the difference.
    i am still confused by it, unles you define bernie as being proxy black and the republican campaign being racially orientated to pander to white superiority.
    yet... bernie was defined by the right as being a commy because he was promoting working class issues.
    then the right copied his campaign when hilary won and painted hilary as a minority elite.

    are you suggesting that bernie was inherantly prejudice/subconscious-bias or segragationalist ?(i doubt he is racist though that seems to matter little when its all about taking power what ever way you can. the voter is not concerned about actual value, only implied social conformity).
    noting how normal it has become to hear people crying
    "i dont care about racial/equality/culture or gender issues, i vote for who ever is going to make me the most money"
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    By advocating for, and working toward (an area of weakness for Sanders, btw), policies and reforms that reduce the influence of the direct causes of of economic inequality for minorities.
    Instead of, say, working for and advocating policies that exacerbate them, while adjusting one's rhetoric to whatever sounds good this year.
    Yep. He's insular, rural, white, elderly, and northern, with the expected racial blind spots especially in rhetoric. And he's Jewish - black and red people in the US lean anti-Semitic.
    - - - -
    Depends on what you are talking about. In a primary anywhere in the US, race would be a consideration in estimating any candidate's odds of winning the general.

    And that is from acknowledging, recognizing, and naming racists and racism - explicitly and openly.
    Same as one would carefully assess a vote - in a primary - for an elderly white Jew, to be Democratic Party candidate in a southern US urban campaign - one in which a heavy black turnout and vote, or lack thereof, would be decisive. Not taking normal black attitudes toward Jews into account would be a mistake.
    "We" (my little corner of bloggers and writers and so forth) have been calling it by its name for a long, long time. It was old hat back when Clinton was playing footsie with it, in the famous "transactional politics" that sacked so many nice things for such problematic gains in the 90s. And we called it by its name.

    But we usually voted for Clinton, argued for Clinton, supported Clinton's run - in the general - anyway. Both Clintons. Likewise Al Gore, John Kerry - the racism was obvious, in the drug wars and the economic policies and so forth, but their's was lesser, milder, an improvement, progress, less policy and more rhetorical blindness. Some of us were purists, declaring a pox on both houses and a lumping into bothsides, but most sucked it up and - what's your term? oh yeah - sold out.

    Lesser of two evils, see?
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You're assuming goodhearted but nervous people trying to do right and honestly assessing the rhetoric of both sides as they encounter it in their lives, then voting for Trump. That's largely myth.

    The Trump voters were already hardened. There was no significant "driving" by liberal labeling - they were being driven by rightwing agitprop, as they had been for decades. The only way to jack them out of their shitbubble even temporarily is by hitting them with hurricanes and foreclosing on their houses and costing them their children via overdose or AIDS and the like. And when the memory wears off - a matter of months on the outside, with today's media - they will circle back to the Republican spew like a cocker spaniel to its vomit.

    The people to consider are the nonvoters. And considering them: They are more liberal and progressive than the average American. They are more likely to be left of center, minority of some kind, indifferently religious, that kind of thing. Labeling racism - in particular, labeling the Trump voters racist - is just acknowledging an obvious fact, to them. Weaseling around with PC lingo intended to coddle and reassure and manipulate Trump voters into becoming reasonable just tells the average nonvoter you either haven't got a backbone or you're running a con.
     
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,392
    no doubt at all.
    however...
    the subject needs to be rendered child-safe to gain general discusion value because of the vast gap in intellectual ability.

    what better place to talk of the complex workings and issues of addiction than among a circle of hard core addicts doing drugs...
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,166
    Listen to the audio. It is the actual quote.

    I provided a link to the audio as well in the OP.

    Huh?

    The context of the quote was in regards for voting for black candidates in the last election in the South. The comment was in regards to those black candidates not being successful in those two states, because the white people there are not comfortable voting for a black candidate and that this is apparently not racism.

    The quote (as per the audio and the links provided) speak directly of the South.

    Did you not read any of the links provided?

    Because you are taking everything and placing it in a completely different context and you are literally attempting to rewrite what he actually said and what he was talking about. Why are you doing that?

    Aside from Sanders..

    Where did I say that racism should be ignored? Are you, perhaps, posting in the wrong thread?

    My god..

    Racism, blatant racism, is now being labeled as mere discomfort.

    Discomfort is eating too much and your pants getting a tad tight around your waist.

    Racism, in this instance, is deliberately not voting for a candidate because they are black. What you are describing as being merely "uncomfortable" is racism.

    A handful? They are in the majority.

    And they vote to ensure that minorities, women and LGBTQ are denied access to things like healthcare, education, housing, and all things that come with economic equality. These are Trump voters.

    These are States that go out of their way to suppress the votes of minorities and those people you think are simply uncomfortable, support these measures. You know, racism.

    They are racists. One does not have to be a white supremacist to be racist, Jeeves.

    That "discomfort" is racism.

    That tribalism, is racism.

    That nervousness, is racism.

    They voted to protect institutional racism. They voted to protect their status in society.

    Even a poor white person is valued higher than a rich black person, Jeeves. They are less likely to be stopped by the police, questioned about why they are sitting, walking, standing, wherever, compared to a black person. They are less likely to be viewed with suspicion, to be "uncomfortable" around.. You are literally attempting to justify racism in your posts. It is those voters who Trump won over. It is those voters that Sanders is trying to win over to the Democrats, at the expense of minority voters, because as far as Sanders is concerned, those poor white folks, are the "ordinary Americans". Everyone else who does not fit into that little Anglo Saxon box fall under the "identity politics" that Sanders and the right demand be ignored.

    Bernie's comments were for the protection and justification of racism. Coining it into polite terms, still does not take away the fact that not voting for a black candidate because they are black is racist.

    What do you think these people do, Jeeves?

    What? Do you think these things only happen in movies? Those people who won't vote for a black person because they are black, are also the ones who would not hire a black person because they are black. Who support police brutality against black people, who literally vote for measures that ensures minorities are further marginalised and discriminated against. Who do you think supports these measures? That "handful" as you described them, are the majority in those states.

    No. In context, he said that they did not vote for these candidates because they would feel discomfort about voting for a black person and that this is not racism.. That not voting for a candidate because they are black, is not racism. But that next time, this could possibly change and they might look past skin colour and so called race and vote for progressive policies.

    This is what he said. Please stop assigning different meanings to his own words.

    What do you think has been happening since the 70's? How many generations is it going to take?

    How much kowtowing and excusing should black people be doing? How much more should they be willing to take and accept because the white folks are "uncomfortable" with their blackness?

    What the hell did you think I was doing in this thread? What? My repeatedly pointing out in this and many other threads, that the failure to address the underpinning racism that drives income disparity, access to housing, health and education for minorities, will only ensure that minorities never rise above where they are now? That Sanders economic plan "for all", clearly fails to address the causes of income disparity and that he cannot have these discussions while completely ignoring race?

    That it will never be fixed for a large portion of the population, because it has been consistently ignored.

    I'm sorry if the subject makes you "uncomfortable", Jeeves. Many people are unable to accept that inequality is driven by many factors and attempting to ram through a one size fits all, that fails to address the causes, will consistently fail and it is why minorities did not support him the last time and won't again. His latest dismissal and excusing clearly racist ideology and practices, just shows that he still refuses to acknowledge minorities and in particular, African Americans.

    If you cannot call racism by its name, then you are simply a part of the problem and you are literally attempting to protect said racism and bigotry.
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,338
    I did not vote for Obama because he was black------(He was 1/2 white)---(his momma was a pistol-he's a son of a gun)
    I would have voted for Palin...
    I voted for Obama because McCain seemed a confused walking disaster, and
    Bush commented that Obama was the better prepared of the 2, and
    1/2 way through the campaign. Obama quit "campaigning" and began to sound presidential
    and, really, who could win against that rich baritone?

    In retrospect
    I think what the USA did in Libya was criminal
    I think Obama was a bit too free with his bombs and drones and presidential decrees

    It seems that we have far too few good choices for high elected offices
    and are left to choose the "smallest of two weevils"
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    They are about a third of the population. At most.
    That's not the case. It does address the causes of income disparity.
    Policy trumps rhetoric.
    He listened to W. He would have voted for Palin.

    There is no reason whatsoever to avoid insulting the Republican voter.
     
  13. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,460
    so you hate obama for continuing republican policies you supported? got it. still don't believe your a democrat
     
  14. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,460
    showing your pathologically incapable of nuance and helping the republicans with their fascist takeover of america
    your proving to be the stereotype that republicans paint of democrats. that their not for everybody they just want to pander to different groups. your problem is he is not putting black people first. your complaint is he wants to help everybody. thats why your attacking him which you've repeatedly stated in this thread. wanting to focus exclusively on small groups doesn't make your principled. it makes you selfish and entitled. because while all of his big ideas are for everyone his voting record show is is a staunch supporter of minorities. hell it push back against the clintons in the 90's with their racist dog whistles. super predators anyone. this thread is pure virtue signalling on your part and is childish and counter productive. this is going to get trump reelected. we tried it your way in 2016 and hillary's president right? oh thats right we have an open fucking fascist in office. why because people like you thought it was a good idea to tell poor rural voters in wisconson and west virginia that they didn't matter and their issues didn't matter. you keep using this false dichotomy to defend your choices that put trump in office. its not help everyone or help minorities. its help everyone and help minorities.

    its not the topic its your hypocrisy and dishonesty
    still continue your lying propaganda from 2016 i see. he does. if you'd look at his record in congress instead of pulling things out of your ass you'd see that.

    to put mu point into prospective im going to give a quote from my grandma about trump.

    "He wouldn't kiss the n****r women."

    she is a pretty solid democratic voter. she is also a rascist old german lady. about how demonizing everyone and screaming racism at everyone who has said anything slightly questionable is a problem because it is going to push people like her to vote republican. If we don't tell them their pure evil and keep them in the tent they can be reformed and turned into champions of justice. I mention this because she spent her formative years in yugoslavia during the runup to and the duration WW2. she got to watch her grandparents murdered by fascist and communist mobs. so yes she has an old european attitude on race. but she still voted for obama. because at the end of the day she supports their policies. and she hates the fascism trump represents. do you really want to force people like her to go through another fascist takeover and reign of terror. because thats what this comes down to. you'd rather virtue you signal about your precious sensibilites and clutch your pearls and help fascists win because at the end of the day its more important to you to feel warm and fuzzy about your choices than stopping the people who want to hurt women and minorities.





    also everyone even you bells has racist ideas. because lets be honest if racism was as a big of a deal to you as your trying to claim with your whining this thread would be about all the entitled white women calling the cops on black people just minding their business instead of attacking an old socialist jew who wants to help everyone. but your not because they look like you they are similiar to you so they cant be attacked. and they have caused far more harm and defended racism far more than your personal punching bag bernie.
     
  15. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,048
    I know that. Trump always plays to his core audience - the ones who cheer loudest. External validation is what he's in show biz - and don't imagine politics is anything but show-biz - what he lives for.
    It's Bells who wants to drive the fence-sitters and maybe voters into Trump's chubby loving arms.
    What has been happening since the 70's is a deliberate, concerted, extremely well funded campaign by conservative politicians and their corporate sponsors, to divide America by ethnicity, geography and income level, into easily-manipulable, readily-exploitable, compliant and brainwashed, mutually hostile factions. Nixon's evil brigade (some members of which had continued to serve Reagan, the Bushes and The Donald) devised a brilliant strategy. They took a page from McCarthy's playbook and kept expanding the "war-on" policies, to include drugs, gays, academics, immigrants, free-thinkers, conservationists, labour unions, protesters, internationalists, anyone who advocates raising taxes for any reason other than to make more war, Muslims, and lately, journalists. They managed not only to undo most of the progress made during the sixties, but actually widen the divides and ratchet up the fear and loathing.
    It's not a question of generations, when you take take two steps back for each step forward. No progress of any kind will be made, as long as the most powerful vested interests keep profiting from regressive politics.
    Racism is bad. Leprosy is bad. Neither will be cured through blaming and shaming. Find the causes and heal the patient.
    Or make it worse by vilifying somebody.
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,338
    <----------Liberal

    I'm a liberal. My vote is not constrained by party affiliation. I am free to vote for whomever I think will do the most good, or the least harm.

    Perhaps, you conservative party hacks would be delighted if you could cast one continuous lifetime vote for your affiliated party?
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Calling racism racism won't do that, though. All you gain by refusing to label properly is a reputation for - at best- PC dissembling and timidity.
    Bell's tack is to lump all the bad as terminal evil alike, Sanders and Sessions in the one bag. That's destructive. But the problem is not in the label "racism".
    Racism will not be suppressed and reduced in effect without blaming and shaming.
    You are a Palin voter, and somebody who takes W's political analysis and character evaluations seriously. That's not something one can do and claim to be a liberal.
    That's a current Republican wingnut meme (the presumption that disparaging Republican stuff is praising and affiliating oneself with Democratic stuff), and using it to attack personally is a Republican wingnut rhetorical reflex. You post like that frequently.

    You can tattoo "liberal" on your forehead if you want to, but as long as you continue to post Republican wingnuttery here, routinely, that is your label. And here's your sign.
     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,338
  19. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,048
    A final note on voters' discomfort. No, make it three separate notes.

    One on the word discomfort. No, it is not synonymous or interchangeable with hate, oppression, hostility, disgust, disapproval, paranoia, dread, despite or resentment. Each of those words has its own meaning; each of those emotional conditions have a number of primary, secondary and contributing causes. None of them is a single, simple, state that can be turned On/Off at will. Racism is even more complex, both on the personal and societal level, and far from uniform in either its causative agencies or its manifestations. However, all of those conditions and states of mind can be deliberately instilled in a culture, in a population and in a child.

    On the act of voting. If we take our democratic obligation/privilege seriously (risible, I know, but a lot of people do still believe in miracles) we expect our chosen candidate to represent us in a legislature. Their party affiliation, social background, class, gender, age, occupation, education, what they wear and how they speak, how they eat pizza are all indicators of the interests they're likely to promote, once they're in office. Race, like it or not, is one of those indicators. I would not be surprised if some Black citizens voted for Black candidate because of his race, and some women voted for a female candidate for that reason alone. For some people, it's enough that a candidate is chosen by their party; for others, that he or she is from their own neighbourhood, or of their own educational attainment, to trust that candidate to represent their own interests. Some people need more points of similarity to invest their trust in a stranger.
    Because that's what a vote is. It's quite different from having someone move in next door, or come to your house for lunch, or send their kids to the same school as your kids: a political candidate is a person who will make laws that affect your life in every possible way. You need that person to be your alter ego, your voice in government.

    In America, economic insecurity is necessary to doing business. Coupled with a culture of ruthless competition and artificial scarcity, the American economic structure is predicated on making all the little people fight for scraps off the big people's table. It's not a climate of trust.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018
  20. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,048
    Nothing is ever cured by suppression. It just settles in the bones and cripples you, or congeals in the gall bladder and erupts as toxic bile.
    What reduces the effects of racism - or any other kind of internecine hostility - is a society in which people are prosperous and hopeful. Guaranteed basic income would make a good start.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,166
    Firstly, I did not "tack" Sanders and Sessions together.

    Secondly, people seem to be afraid to say the word "racism" full stop, because for some reason, the feelings of racists have to be protected.

    Thirdly, suggesting that my calling Sander's comments and excuses for racism as being destructive, shows where the problem actually lies.

    You are willing to put up with appalling behaviour, from sexual assault, sexual harassment and racism, for the sake of politics. And you think I am being destructive?

    Racism is racism. That is what is destructive. Calling it out is not destructive. Hoping that he actually learns and changes is not destructive.
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,166
    By calling out racism?

    Ookay..

    If I had posted that quote and attributed it to a Republican, you'd have lost your shit at their racism

    But it's from Sanders, so racism, full blown and full frontal racism and excusing said racism and refusing to call out said racism, becomes "nuanced".

    Are you done with your white supremacist arguments?

    Or do you have some more to let out?

    Normally, I would have a grin that would match a cat that got a bowl of cream at the thought of responding to this portion of your post, pjdude. But all I feel is revulsion. So let's get on with it, shall we?

    1) No, my problem is not that he is not putting black people and other minority groups first. My problem is that he completely and utterly ignores and disregards the central issue that only enables and continues their inequality.

    Sanders refuses to acknowledge that to treat economic inequality, to ensure equality, he has to hit the causes of the inequality. So when he says "free education for all!". Great. I applaud. But what about the minorities who are unable to access education because the colleges and universities have selection systems in place that literally deny minorities a place in that college? When he declares "more affordable housing for all!".. Terrific. I cheer. But he then fails to note that minorities are often locked out of housing markets, denied the ability or the right to view or even buy houses in many areas, denied the right to a loan, banks and lenders close in areas heavily populated by minorities and they find it much harder to obtain a loan to buy a house to begin with and the reasons for that happening has nothing to do with economics or rich people and everything to do with racism. So cheaper houses for whom? How about the minorities who are denied the right to rent a house in the city or close to their work or school, for example, because they are minorities. Cheaper accommodation for all does not tackle why a lot of minorities are unable to enter the housing market, either for rental or purchase, to begin with.

    It's not a matter of putting them first. It is a matter of acknowledging where the issues lie to begin with.

    His system, his solutions would be like giving the same chemo drug for all types of cancer. It would not work.

    Understand now?

    So when minorities question Sanders' refusal to actually listen to their concerns and who question why he keeps applying the same 'cure' for all, despite all evidence that it would not work or actually help them, it's not because they are whining that he isn't putting them first. They are concerned and angry that he is incapable of and refuses to listen or to acknowledge what is actually happening to them.

    When they question his motives and why he is now refusing to call out blatant racism for what it is, they have a very valid reason to be concerned.

    Obviously you disagree. Because hey, he got arrested once or twice in the 60's.. But ask the minorities in Vermont about how well he works with them and you might start to understand why minorities are not happy with him.

    2) Calling me entitled when you have come out and literally whined about how the "white men" are being treated and how also addressing issues surrounding minorities means that the white men end up going to the back of the line, is frankly, batshit crazy.

    Tell me, pjdude, why do you feel so threatened at the very thought of Sanders also addressing the concerns of minorities and also addressing the causes of their inequality?

    3) If he was a staunch supporter of minorities, then he would have no issue in calling a blatant form of racism as being racism. Why hasn't he? Why won't he call out these forms of racism from voters? He refused to call it out during the election. He refused to call the Trump supporters who were being racist "racist".. Why?

    Does he want these people to vote for him? Is he hoping that the people who voted for removing Obamacare, who actively vote against their best interest over and over again, are suddenly going to embrace free healthcare and free education? Does he not understand the racism behind how poor white people vote?

    Why does he prefer to alienate minorities as a voting block in favour of actual racists?

    What? Calling racism "racism" is going to get Trump reelected?

    Okay then.

    Who told the rural white voters that their issues did not matter? I do not recall anyone saying that. Are you suggesting that also working to address institutional racism is somehow or other going to impede white rural voters in Wisconsin and West Virginia? Oh that's right, are these the voters who get "uncomfortable" if a candidate so much as discusses or looks like a black person? These are the same people who believe they are the real victims, yes? That if blacks get equal rights, then they get no rights.. That if a candidate also addresses institutional racism, then that somehow or other putting black people first.. Because addressing multiple issues infringes on the rights of whites?
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,166
    Ah, I love it when people such as yourself cannot actually address the issue at hand and instead resort to these sorts of responses.

    Where is my hypocrisy and dishonesty? This issue has dogged Bernie Sanders for years. Literally years. Focusing solely on class, without addressing race, sexism, homophobia.. Refer to the cancer analogy above. It will never work if the message cannot be tailored and if the cause of the inequality is not addressed. If you know something is not selling and is not working, you look at the cause. You go back and look at the reasons as to why it's not selling or working. Then you try to fix it. That does not mean you stop selling everything else. It just means that you are able to tailor your product and address the issues of your customers. That is something Bernie Sanders refuses to do, just has he repeatedly and blatantly, refuses to call out racism. He will call it out when politicians are racist. But voters? No. He refused to say that the racist voters who are white supremacists who voted for Trump, are racist. Why is he trying to court these people at the cost of minority voters who would stand to gain and benefit the most if he actually addressed the causes of their inequality? It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Is multi-tasking that much of an issue?

    Why does he still refuse to address race when it comes to economics and minorities? Why is he tailoring his message to apply only to white people and then literally separating minorities and making a clear distinction between them and the "ordinary Americans" (ie white people) in who deserves his attention and policies?

    For other progressives — many of them black or Latino — economic inequality is important, but so is racial inequality. They're extremely concerned about racial bias in policing, and about ending mass incarceration. They're concerned about the treatment of unauthorized immigrants, and about protecting voting rights (an issue like campaign finance where progressives are worried the integrity of the political system is at stake — and where the outcome doesn't look good for them).

    Bernie Sanders doesn't speak to those concerns. He didn't mention those issues in his campaign launch in May. They're not on the issues page of his website. And his appearance at Netroots Nation in July left many attendees frustrated: Sanders answered questions about racial issues by pivoting back to economic ones.

    This isn't an accidental oversight. These simply aren't issues Sanders is passionate about in the way he's passionate about economic injustice.

    [...]

    But Sanders has only been able to build a career on talking about his own political principles, and assuming voters will respond, because he's in an unusual position for a Democratic (or Democratic-affiliated) politician. Sanders's Vermont is pretty homogeneous: 94 percent white, 96 percent American-born, relatively well-educated. Sanders has never had to win an election by working to appeal to white, black, and Latino voters all at once — he's won election after election by successfully representing the concerns of a single constituency. Most Democratic politicians at the statewide level don't have that option
    .​

    I have supported all of my arguments with links. You have provided nothing but whining about how white men are being treated and apparently sent to the back of the line.

    I'll get back to this in a second..
    You just called your grandmother "a racist old German lady".

    Your own grandmother. Yet Sanders cannot call people who will not vote for a black candidate because they are black, racist. He also won't call the racist Trump voters who chant racist chants at his rallies and who voted for him, who scream "build the wall" at the thought of brown people cross the border, racist.

    Do you understand now?

    Okay..

    Wind this back a second. Let's deal with reality..

    Sanders refuses to call people who will not vote for a black person because they are black, racist. And your participation in this thread has been to whine at people who comment at his refusal to address racism in general.. In doing so, you have spouted white supremacist bullshit about how the 'white men is being sent to the back of the line' because candidates dare to address the issues of racism...

    Then, apparently to throw it in there to prove a point..

    You called your Grandmother who voted for a black person, racist.

    Are you out of your mind? Do you even understand what this thread is attempting to address?

    Or did you see a criticism of Sanders and you just shit your pants?

    Do you even understand why minorities distrust Sanders and supporters like yourself?

    Inquiring minds want to know..

    No, I actually don't.

    That's the excuse racist give to justify their racism. You all think that everyone's doing it. Not everyone is.

    Yo.. I'm a woman of colour who has been refused service in stores, who has been called "little nigger" more times than I care to count, who has been told, repeatedly in Church as a child that my place as at the back of the Church with the rest of "my kind" and so on and so forth. So can your racist dog whistling bullshit.

    And the people who call the police on black people for having BBQ's and swimming at public pools, sitting on benches, walking down the street, sitting in cafe's, entering their apartment building, living in their houses, entering their houses, doing their jobs as firefighters, are racist.

    It's a shame that Bernie Sanders would refuse to call them as such. He would only refer to them as being "uncomfortable".
     

Share This Page