The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on January 08, 2017, 08:19:29 PM
-
It's a barn-burner of a thread...
bravenak (32,353 posts)
Dkos: No, Senator Sanders; YOU are out of touch (opinion piece)
In 2015, in interviews, he made it clear the voters he wanted to attract were the white middle class.
This, in a nutshell, is why Bernie lost the primaries.
In an excellent article in Fusion, by Terrell Jermaine Starr, the reasons why Bernie lost the primaries are described:
How Bernie Sanders lost the black vote.
Based upon interviews with people that worked for the Sanders’ campaign it is shown that Bernie from the very start chose to ignore POC voters.
Despite desperate pleas from his black outreach team staffers, it was considered a waste to focus on POC voters by people high up in the campaign, because it was thought Bernie couldn’t win them anyway.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/08/1618051/-No-Senator-Sanders-YOU-are-out-of-touch
tecelote (3,576 posts)
1. Enough of this crap.
When Democrats exclude Independents, we lose.
Time to come together... to save the world.
bravenak (32,353 posts)
7. Then they need to join if they want to be included
bravenak (32,353 posts)
16. How is ignoring my demographic then calling us corrupt helping us?
bravenak (32,353 posts)
18. Black folks
Even his staffers said he ignored it. We have complained since the summer of 15. His supporters decided to attack us for wanting to be noticed.
Exilednight (9,159 posts)
33. I'm African-American, well half, and Sanders didn't ignore me.
He talked about economic issues that affect every sex, gender and race.
bravenak (32,353 posts)
37. I'm black and hispanic and female. He ****ing ignored my blacks ass
bravenak (32,353 posts)
53. I wanted him to notice that his basic message that worked on white people
Sounded completely different to us. His was nostalgia for past times that sucked balls for us black folks. He tried to minimize how impactful race is on economic justice. He tried to act like economic justice would solve it all without taking time to notice that the economic justice misses those of us with color, just because we HAVE color. I wanted him to discuss affirmative action to historically displaced and marginalized groups. His message was one size fits all. That never helps blacks. He said we should not worry about our skin color or gender. That's fine for him; he is white and male so those two thing do not affect him like it affects me so I cannot not worry about it.
You have color?
What the **** are white people? Translucent?
And just out of curiosity:
How would economic independence NOT help blacks?
What is it about black people that you feel makes them so dependent upon non-blacks?
Exilednight (9,159 posts)
52. You sound more like you have a grudge vs any actual argument.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512676460
-
Wow.. Anti-Semite much ?
That's how it works, isn't it ? When a member of a particular class of people make a disparaging comment about another class of people who hold far less power, then the person who made that comment is wrong for doing so, correct ?
The number of blacks in the United States outnumber the amount of Jews several times over.
Therefore bravenak, you are the oppressor. You are the 'hater' - You are in the wrong. You nasty Anti-Semite.
-
this is the one that kills me... we are scared, right? stupid, uneducated and scared.
I know, I'll be smart next time and vote for the people who call me stupid. That should work. Great message.
Response to bravenak (Reply #63)
Sun Jan 8, 2017, 07:31 PM
Exilednight (9,164 posts)
71. I did. I'm done looking.
All I see is some diatribe about "only focusing on economics" blah blah blah.
He also spoke of education, which is the silver bullet for defeating ignorance. As long as we keep allowing our kids to learn from stupid people, then we will never fix anything. The way to fix education is to fix our economic issues.
All racism is rooted in ignorance. People are scared of things they don't know about. If someone doesn't know a poor person, they're scared of a poor person. If someone doesn't know Hispanic people, they're scared of Hispanic people.
People aren't born to hate, they learn hate because they are taught fear.
while they have all these stupid arguments, Trump voters are standing off to the side saying "and that's what they think of us"
I wonder what else they will "allow" us to do?
-
hey brassiere-neck
Here is a FACT. You and the rest of holder's people have consistently made up only 12% of the population. You have continued to achieve margaret sanger's eugenics dream by aborting yourself into a stable minority. Of that, it would be amazing if more than 25% of you vote, unless it is for a 1/2 black manchild.
So the bottom line is you are at best 4% of the electorate.
IOW: other than being noisy and playing the race and guilt cards, you have no political clout whatsoever. And you never will.
President Trump exposed the eGOP lie that you had to be brought into "the big tent." Now we know how meaningless you are and you can either come in on your own or stay out in the rain.
-
President Trump exposed the eGOP lie that you had to be brought into "the big tent." Now we know how meaningless you are and you can either come in on your own or stay out in the rain.
Did he really prove that? Trump got more black votes than almost any other republican candidate in the past.
-
tecelote (3,576 posts)
1. Enough of this crap.
When Democrats exclude Independents, we lose.
Time to come together...
Just how do you intend to do that when your only argument is: racist, racist, racist?
to save the world.
That ridiculous hyperbole won't work on anyone other than you and your urban retards. You've already maxed that out and you're being tuned out by more and more. Slowly, yes. Eventually, your cries of "wolf" will echo endlessly.
You have nowhere else to go, but even further left. Enjoy!
bravenak (32,353 posts)
7. Then they need to join if they want to be included
We don't want to be Borg, jackass. They don't either. :rotf:
-
Quote from: freedumb2003b on January 08, 2017, 10:03:24 PM
President Trump exposed the eGOP lie that you had to be brought into "the big tent." Now we know how meaningless you are and you can either come in on your own or stay out in the rain.
I not so sure as it was exposing a lie as much as it was his simply doing better with people who don't traditionally vote Republican, by default. If that was expanding the tent, it was done more by the (D)Marxists themselves. People are seriously fed-up with them. They exposed themselves and a lot of people are horrified.
Did he really prove that? Trump got more black votes than almost any other republican candidate in the past.
I believe he did better with the Black vote and Hispanic. I haven't checked the figures.
-
Sure is hard to split people into groups and then try to convince them all to stay equally poor forever.
-
Sure is hard to split people into groups and then try to convince them all to stay equally poor forever.
That's the problem the democraps have. Their "base" is fragmented into a myraid of sub-groups, each with their own agenda. Normally, a coalition would form but for the dems, each sub-group "outvictims" the other sub-groups leading to a war within the party over who should be pandered to making a coalition impossible.
No matter who they pick to pander to, it's going to piss off the rest of them.
Good for us, sucks to be them.
-
That's the problem the democraps have. Their "base" is fragmented into a myraid of sub-groups, each with their own agenda. Normally, a coalition would form but for the dems, each sub-group "outvictims" the other sub-groups leading to a war within the party over who should be pandered to making a coalition impossible.
No matter who they pick to pander to, it's going to piss off the rest of them.
Good for us, sucks to be them.
As professional political scientists--not the kind that hang around Skins's island--have been aware a very long time now, it's generally the tendency of the "right" to come together, and of the "left" to fragment.
All one has to do is sit back, watch, and wait. Inevitably it happens, and nothing can stop it.
I think it happens because people on the "right" tend to bury their differences on issues of common concern and work together, while people on the "left," well, they each want to be the leader, in charge. One side's more concerned about solving a problem; the other side's more concerned about who's going to be boss.
-
As professional political scientists--not the kind that hang around Skins's island--have been aware a very long time now, it's generally the tendency of the "right" to come together, and of the "left" to fragment.
All one has to do is sit back, watch, and wait. Inevitably it happens, and nothing can stop it.
I think it happens because people on the "right" tend to bury their differences on issues of common concern and work together, while people on the "left," well, they each want to be the leader, in charge. One side's more concerned about solving a problem; the other side's more concerned about who's going to be boss.
I don't think many things could be closer to the truth.
You remember the back-stabbing going on during primary season, I'm sure. A LOT of republicans absolutely despised Trump. Other than my refusal to get dirty and fight with people about it, I was one of them.
It's about winning with diminishing returns. Logic dictates that if you accept an "all or none" approach to this, you get nothing, just like you asked. Leftys are professionals at that, and when they lose, blame all of their disparity on the right, all the while holding their breath and turning blue.
-
As professional political scientists--not the kind that hang around Skins's island--have been aware a very long time now, it's generally the tendency of the "right" to come together, and of the "left" to fragment.
All one has to do is sit back, watch, and wait. Inevitably it happens, and nothing can stop it.
I think it happens because people on the "right" tend to bury their differences on issues of common concern and work together, while people on the "left," well, they each want to be the leader, in charge. One side's more concerned about solving a problem; the other side's more concerned about who's going to be boss.
Even when Proglodytes and conservatives observe the same phenomenon we come to completely different conclusions...
ThomPaine (1706 posts)
I see an inherent problem among progressives. I will call it the “anti-herding”
complex.
Conservatives can be easily herded (controlled), and they get schtuff done. Not good schtuff. Progressives, on the other hand, have great ideals and values, but they will argue among themselves (ourselves) about all kinds of schtuff.
When the Third Way stole the primary, some progressives shook it off and vowed to march forward, while others wanted to fight about which way to go, who was to blame, and who to hate more. Some wanted to (some did) abandon the Democratic Party, and because of their passion and injury, labeled those that didn’t as apologists. We need to stick together whether within the Party or without.
These divisions among progressives are easily exploited by those that want to see progressivism die.
How the frack can we expect the 99% with our Yuge differences in ideals, values, needs, etc., to get together and fight the 1% when the potential leaders, the progressives can’t get together among ourselves?
It’s waaaay past time to get over who is to be hated the most, Clinton or Trump.
It’s high time to get busy trying to save ourselves from both the neo-liberals and the fascists. Who’s with me?
http://www.jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/i-see-an-inherent-problem-among-progressives-i-will-call-it-the-anti-herding/
I see it this way:
* Conservatives just want to be left the **** alone to rise or fall by our own hand
* Proglodytes want the world and everything in it and they want everyone else to pay for it while they themselves are in charge.
Conservatives will walk together for a mile or 10. Limited goals require much less effort.
Meanwhile Proglodytes demand an around the world journey in a plane they intend to build in mid-flight to be made from nothing they produced themselves but built to their individual demands and flown along a path to be decided by a never-has-existed consensus.
The latter is a far greater logistical effort that begs for competing interests to interfere.
-
That's the problem the democraps have. Their "base" is fragmented into a myraid of sub-groups, each with their own agenda. Normally, a coalition would form but for the dems, each sub-group "outvictims" the other sub-groups leading to a war within the party over who should be pandered to making a coalition impossible.
No matter who they pick to pander to, it's going to piss off the rest of them.
Good for us, sucks to be them.
Exactly! And to be frank, the Rs also are a coalition of people with identifiable special interests.
The task of keeping a party's core working together is to keep everyone assured that when the party's candidates win, everyone will benefit in some significant way. Conversely, being a coalition of groups with specific interests/concerns can be a vulnerability.
For example, many R leaders fell for the Ds', Libs', Progs', and MSM's denigration of the "Religious Right". By 1988, Evangelical (and other) Christians were already being told to shut up, sit in the back of the bus, and vote as they were told. Come 1992, this tactic (among other issues) bore fruit for the Ds, and the Ds', et al, next iteration took the form of The Tolerance Game, which the Rs, again, tried to play, rather than overturn the game table. IMO, the nadir came with McCain-Feingold, which John McCain carefully aimed at Christians participating in political processes.
In 2008 multiple pot holes drove John McCain's campaign into the ditch - e.g. war-weariness and people voting their melanin - but one was the fruit of McCain-Feingold. A minority of Christian voters voted, "Oh, Hell no!". As we just saw, a small minority here and a small minority there can add up to defeat.
Well, we just saw that. Enough people with various interests whose votes the Ds assumed were securely theirs saw the Ds had attacked their interests or brushed aside their interests, and in response voted Trump, or otherwise didn't vote for Hillary. Hillary & the Ds failed to show all their coalition members that they would all benefit from voting Hillary. Worse for the Ds, some of the interests within their coalition had come into conflict, to some degree due to D pols: Enviros vs. unions and "the working class"; the race-baiting industry vs. police & fire unions, middle/working class people, and business people whose lives and livelihood depend on communities being safe.
bn and her ilk are so melanin-blindered that they think they can drive and dominate a political party's agenda and have the party be successful. They're going to find that it's not just people who voted for Trump who have a tolerance limit for race-baiters' verbal clubbings, that even Progs' white guilt has limits. And I think they're transitioning into seeing the consequences of exceeding those limits.
-
<snip>
Proglodytes demand an around the world journey in a plane they intend to build in mid-flight to be made from nothing they produced themselves but built to their individual demands and flown along a path to be decided by a never-has-existed consensus.
<snip>
That there is a mighty fine distillation of today's "Progressive" movement.
H5 given, sir!