I only get into trouble on DU when I try to get to what's real.
****THIS IS POSTED IN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN GROUP****
The above notification will hopefully keep too much flack from being hurled in here.
I love Bernie, but I have been banned from the Bernie group. I'm probably the only Bernie support here to be blocked from that group. What I was trying to do was discuss the cause of Bernie's lack of support among the African-American community. That's a serious problem, but I think it's come to light early enough in Bernie's campaign to do something about it.
To fix a problem, you first have to understand the cause. Apparently, a host in the Bernie group feels that gaining such an understanding of Bernie's current problem is beyond the purpose of his or her group. Suggesting a little self-examination of his supporters seems to be too much to ask.
Democratic presidential candidates do not win without strong support from the African American community. Bernie is now polling close to zero in the African-American community. That's a bad problem, and Bernie will lose if it's not sufficiently addressed. Saying as much will get you banned at some places. But that's reality. You can try to deny it, but it's not going to get any better if you ignore it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
You went off the rails in your last paragraph.
The understanding that I have come to is that sanders big problem is just what you indicated, that many white liberals view that problems of race relations as fundamentally about economic class.
That is does not appear to be the case, rather, African Americans come from the opposite tack, which is that economic class is fundamentally about race in their communities.
That understanding should help refocus those of us who support Sanders to better communicate that economics should be looked at through a prism of race rather than race through economics.
Holy Hell, did you really just say that?
FFS.
hate it equally when liberals do the same. Dr. King is perhaps the most misquoted figure in American history. His legacy has been sliced & diced to support some of the whackiest shit I've ever heard. None of the candidates have the right to co-opt his legacy, and I don't give a shit when they "marched" or how far.
I hope you're enjoying a nice weekend. 
I remember riding though Jacksonville and seeing a huge billboard:
One of the worst thing about being dead is folks trying to appropriate or misappropiate your legacy.
there. Simply because I don't usually have a lot of time to spend.
You know, if we could sit down over a cup of cappuccino (I'm not into coffee, but I do like chocolate 
) and talk face to face, I would enter into this discussion with you. We might find we had a lot of common ground.
But not on a message board.
BTW, I'm a mother too. And a stepmother. And I know, with good reason, what it is to fear and hate the criminal justice system, which is, in my opinion rotten from the top down and the bottom up. I do hope you can save your children. I wasn't able to help one of mine... who is developmentally disabled... when the "criminal justice" came calling.
Response to bravenak (Reply #234)
must be with the enemy if you don't pledge your undying love immediately. 
remember when Democrats/liberals condemned such thought?
But amazingly, the same folks doing that crap ... absolutely lose they sh!t over "loyalty pledges", when Democrats advocate Democrats voting for the Democratic nominee, whomever that nominee might be.
26% identifying at very liberal
19% identifying as liberal
16% identifying as moderate
31% identifying as somewhat conservative
42% identifying as very conservative
Response to lovemydog (Reply #238)
you're back to square one, you're with the enemy. 
though you were not one of those that come to mind ... probably because I have rarely, if ever, seen you go off the rails or over the top.
'cuz it just happened to me.
They get a better, more useful "superpowers" button, or something?
That was a bitter joke, for the humor-impaired!
I wanted a Super Powers button.
I'd go through GDP pressing it. It would get some folks to simmer down.
tech·ni·cal
ˈteknək(ə
l/
adjective
adjective: technical
1.
of or relating to a particular subject, art, or craft, or its techniques.
"technical terms"
(especially of a book or article) requiring special knowledge to be understood.
"a technical report"
synonyms: specialist, specialized, scientific; More
complex, complicated, esoteric
"this might seem very technical"
2.
of, involving, or concerned with applied and industrial sciences.
"an important technical achievement"
synonyms: practical, scientific, technological, high-tech
"an important technical achievement"
It really is that simple. a lot simpler, and more effective/definitive, than typing a wise ass comment!
looks like i did post there, over 2 weeks ago
and i am impressed, with your ability to monitor other persons on the internet 
time well spent, I'm sure
We're not supposed to know. 
this sub thread has told me a lot about this site 
lots of very negative energy here
I can't say it'll have any effect but it seems a positive thing to do
Only 1% of Howard Dean adherents were African American:-
Some of that is down to mundane reasons. Both Dean and Sanders are from the same largely white state. As such most of their supporters originated from that demographic.
More fundamentally, white radicals have always fared poorly with Black voters, even going back as far as Upton Sinclair. The Communists and Socialists found it very difficult to recruit Black workers, although they made significant efforts (eg funding the legal defence for the Scottoboro Boys).
On the flipside, black radicals have always fared poorly with white voters, even if their politics were simply left-wing rather than Black nationalist (eg Shirley Chisholm).
The upshot of all that is that any serious Black candidate today sticks as close to the political centre as possible to avoid spooking the horses (ie Obama) and any white candidate generally seeks to do the same (Clinton).
Whats interesting is that Dean never encountered overt hostility due to the makeup of his support base, whereas Sanders currently does.
This is a very good conversation.
Just so rarely see "Jung" mentioned on the internets, I had to comment.
"No. I, actually, don't think you are insane ... but, rather a/the product of being at the political extreme that benefits from being on the outside yelling at those that actually get things done; albeit, slowly and through pragmatic compromise."
First, we aren't the political extreme, that's a common mistake. I could post links to decades of polls that show bipartisan support for progressive ideals among the majority of Americans, but it's not actually necessary. Just listen to the rhetoric of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Look at the campaign promises they made. The lies they tell, are essentially the progressive agenda, with a few caveats and a warning that the other party probably won't let them do it.
Second, how many times does "pragmatic compromise" have to result in the exact opposite of the stated goals of the party before you stop and ask if maybe someone (or everyone) on our side of the negotiating table might have lied about their intentions? Will 30 years be enough? Because if 8 years of Hillary Clinton isn't going to do it, I'm gonna move to...well...any other country in the developed world, any country but Greece, that centrist utopia of compromise and fiscal austerity, I'm gonna move to one of the grown up countries where the extremists have instituted radical programs to provide Health care, education, and economic protections from corporate predators.
I want to experience the wild abandon of the Canadian way of life.
----------
"I largely, agree here, though I see little space between the Democratic candidates on addressing climate change."
I see no difference between the centrist candidates of the democratic/republican partys at all. When you consider the "All of the above" (more fossil fuels please!) Policies of the centrist candidates, there's no hope there. They aren't even bothering to lie anymore.
-----------
"First, the New Deal and the Great Society legislation and regulations remain intact, and the work that unions had been fighting and dying for since the late 1800s has not been wiped away"
OK, a lot to cover.
There's two ways to undo governmental protections. First, repeal or replace a law, as with the Glass-Steagall Act or Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (welfare "reform" , or through stripping agencies of the people who want to enforce regulations and replacing them with industry insiders, as they did with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the EPA, the FDA, and most tragically, the commodity futures trading commission. If you don't know who Brooksley Born is, it's worth your time to look her up.
You understand that the economic crash of 2008 was Clinton's fault right? That Allen Greenspan and his boys engineered it? That it was predicted, in detail, and warned against?
Allen Greenspan's boys of course were Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and Ben Bernanke. Hmm, why do those names sound so familiar?
----------
Education was a big part of the Great Society, how's that going? Has privatization saved us yet? Did slashing budgets until teachers had to spend the little money they make to by basic supplies for students work? If the goal was educating kids, no. If the intention was breaking unions, and the corporate takeover of education, absolutely yes! Well done centrists.
-----------
The Clinton crime bill. Centrists or progressives?
-----------
It's possible you could have been more wrong about unions. Maybe you were short on time.
You wrote, "That is a bunch of facile bull shit, conspiratorial facile bullshit, at that." Then you say a bunch of things that are easily proven to be untrue. It's a strange time when a democrat uses right-wing talking points to belittle what was once a foundational pillar of the democratic base (some people would have seen the decline of the influence of the unions as dramatic foreshadowing of what was going to happen to the influence of black voters, but that would have required some sense of awareness about the nature of the DLC wing of the party). OK, let's begin.
"The decline in union membership is more traceable to unions' becoming the monster that they were born to fight AND a generation (or more) of narcissistic workers."
Nope. The decline in union membership in the late 50s through the late 60s was the result of the economic boom creating a middle class economy that employed an enormous, expanding number of non-union workers. Most of those were sustained by the high wages of the union workers.
The problem with this system of self sustaining, mutually reinforcing "redistribution of wealth" from those that produce goods to those that provide services is of course that the wealthiest Americans are proportionally less obscenely wealthy. The obvious fix for this problem was for American workers to agree to go back to the gilded age when workers had no rights and would work for starvation wages. The unions objected.
So the factories were closed and reopened in countries that provide such cheap and plentiful labor that they can produce goods, pack them into ships for an intercontinental trip across the Pacific ocean, then drive them across america to sell them at Wal-Mart, (where Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors), and still sell them for less then the the competing small businesses could afford, this left both the union and non-union workers out of work and left them with nothing but multinational corporations with their part-time, minimum wage, no benefit jobs.
With "right to work" laws the unions ARE dying. Meanwhile the labor department saw that a southern senator and governor were interfering with a VW plant in Tennessee where the company and labor were working together to form a works council. They did it by offering 300 million dollars in incentives to the company and warning the workers that jobs would be lost if they unionized. The labor department, whose whole purpose is to prevent that from ever happening, looked at what was happening and said, "wow, that sucks for you guys, to bad nobody can do anything about it.".
Again, the company, VW, had gone to the workers, and offered a workers council, BUT, representatives of the state and federal government interfered. They left a paper trail of proof and VW confirmed it to anyone who asked, that yep there were both bribes and threats, but the labor department of a democratic president couldn't be bothered to act.
To use your phrase from earlier, "fuck you".
Your claims about the unions are the opposite of correct.
They are based on heritage foundation and Cato institute propaganda. They have been peddling the idea that unions destroyed American manufacturing right along side the myth that social security and Medicare were clever schemes spread by communists to make minorities and old people lazy while at the same time bankrupting the country.
-------
It wasn't being called silly and unrealistic during the Clinton and Bush administrations, that caused the emotional reaction from progressive activists towards African-American activists. It was us, pointing out that president Obama was doing the same centrist, business first, bullshit that he promised he wouldn't do, the exact same things that we had been saying were wrong since the Hoover administration, but know, we aren't just silly and unrealistic, we're racists.
We weren't racists when we supported these exact same positions and policies in the forties or fifties.
In the forties and fifties we were communists,
in the sixties, we were communists and race traitors for supporting civil rights,
in the seventies and eighties we were communists and race traitors and deviants because we also supported women's rights and gay rights
But that was conservatives.
In the nineties, "democrats" started saying that we were fools. That sucked. But it wasn't personal. We knew it was still technically conservatives doing the talking.
Then in 2008 we became racists. We advocated the same policies. We made the exact same accusations. But now we're racists.
The frustration that lead to the emotional reaction to the BLM protesters is the result of a combination of factors, I don't doubt that some of it was outright, overt racists who call themselves progressive for purely economic policy reasons, and a good part of it was people who've been subconsciously waiting for an excuse to say something racist to satisfy some inner sickness, some were likely just trolls. But some of it was pent up frustration at being called racists, by people who were defending a president who broke every promise he made. Who got elected, then told us to shut up and sit down while he fucked us all over in exactly the same way that Bill Clinton did.
President Obama made Tim Geithner, one of the architects of the the crash, his Secretary of the Treasury.
That should be all the proof that's needed. There's mountains of evidence, but none with the same elegant poetry to it.
Oh, he made Eric Holder, a lawyer from Covington & Burling, a law and lobbying firm that works with, GE, bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Halliburton, and Fucking BLACKWATER, the mass murdering corporate army. Which was probably no big deal for Holder since he personally defended Chiquita International Brands from "one count of supporting a designated terrorist organization", for being in bed with a group responsible for the mass murder of civilians.
When we questioned having a partner at a law firm that lobbies on the behalf of military contractors who should be facing war crimes and fraud charges, as well as half of the to big to fail banks and wall street firms that the justice department will be investigating, we were again called racists.
Maybe Eric Holder's people tried really hard, but just couldn't find anybody who broke any laws. His lead investigator Lanny Breuer certainly would know his way around wall street, he worked for Covington & Burling defending wall street before he joined the justice department and failed completely to achieve any of his goals, but that's ok, after he left the justice department he went back to Covington & Burling for a 4 million dollar a year contract to defend wall street from the justice department, and now he'll have help, since former attorney general Holder has also rejoined the firm.
That's some pretty epic corruption occurring right out in the open that I'm a racist for noticing.
Then, in the middle of the only progressive event that ever gets any press, instead of talking about our issues, a group of people walk in, TO THE ONLY PROGRESSIVE EVENT THAT EVER GETS ANY NEWS ATTENTION AT ALL, and makes it all about their issue. An issue we support, that we've always supported, that we would have gladly discussed, and we watch our candidate booed off the stage.
That's why we were upset.
If it's a contest about who's issues are going to be heard, BLM will win. Because black voters are more influential in the party than progressives, because dead people on the street are hard to not talk about, and because the people who own Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush don't want them to talk about economic issues.
Also because they know that 12 percent of the population don't have any real power other than their vote every couple years and the good will or collective guilt of the 65 percent with most of the money and power.
If we're not together they WILL FUCK US BOTH. If we are together we can fuck them. That's not sentimental, "we're all in this together", bullshit.
That's just math.
But I'm not going to get closer.
They need to stop.
just look at the fast food worker strikes all over the country:-
At the local level, there is a workaround. You simply have white people organise the white workplaces and black people organise the black workplaces. The Service Employees Union always makes sure that the public face of the Fight for 15 (in a city with predominantly black services workers) is always black. You can't do that with a president, because its only one person.
You're asking the wrong question. Its not just Black people. All across the country, white working class people line up to vote Republican against their own economic interests, because the Republican party is essentially a nativist, white party. It's their team.
The real marvel is that Black people actually bothered to vote for the Democratic party for so long even though it had hardly any Black people in it. My guess is that having basked in the glow of a Black president for eight years they will probably be less prepared to do so in future.
Its always easier to appeal to a person's race over their class. Race is more tangible, more definable, less immutable, more visceral, more atavistic, more permanent. The vast majority of people in America demonstrate a preference for the company of their own race, for example by marrying someone of the same skin colour.
One of the rare Socialist successes in America was Kshama Sawant's election in Seattle. She is Indian. I wonder whether this was the key to her success. Indian people don't spook white people, they're seen as a "safe" minority. On the other hand they're not white either, so that overcomes a lot of objections that would otherwise be raised by people of colour.
Career politicians are masters at saying different things to different demographics. Hillary Clinton changes her accent depending on where she goes, as does Obama. I personally cringed through most of his Cosby-esque "popeyes chicken speech" but apparently he got away with it.
Part of the appeal of Sanders is that he doesn't do that. He rocks up and delivers the same pitch in the same Brooklyn accent no matter where he goes. Its definitely authentic. What you see is what you get.
Part of the pushback from his supporters is that they can't believe that people would actually prefer a typical bullshit politician that tailors his speech to suit the audience and that consciously employs a carefully considered demographic assortment of staffers to persuade voters that he's on board with everyone and not a racist (or as its known in the business "add Black people/women and stir"
A lot of Arabs said that Clinton employs Huma Abedin as a staffer and is close to her, therefore she doesn't hate Arabs. My reaction is always: well whoopey-fucking do, it didn't stop her from supporting the Iraq war or threatening to annihilate Iran.
But I suspect that is something that is a lot easier for white/university-educated people to say - after all, there's always going to be white staffers on anyone's payroll, and to be honest I can see why, instinctively, Black people would be reassured to see Black people on someone's staff. After all, Black people have been taught distrust of white politicians through long, hard lessons.
Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #51)
You pretend like we are the only safe haven that does not accept concern trolling, excessive criticisms and negativity directed at Group members, and violations of a safe haven TOS.
These types of threads can and are done in GD-P, and that is where they belong.
I think Clinton has a far worse history on racial issues that Sanders. If I want to start a thread to discuss that, how far do you think it would go in the Clinton Group? Now, if I do it in GD-P, you and I can argue to our heart's content.
You and a few others are holding the Sanders Group, its members, and its hosts to a very strict set of rubrics that you certainly don't require of other groups.
Now, I wonder why the fuck that is? 
You play word games. If it does not come out the way you want, then you just try to throw it back on the other person.
I have observed and know this tactic well.
Being open to legitimate criticism does not necessitate being open to concern trolling, criticism of supporters without backing evidence, and violating the TOS of a safe haven.
And when you know that this is the case but you want desperately for it to be otherwise, you insult. I put the other insulting person in this thread on Ignore. I actually like reading your posts so I won't.
But yes, you are quite right, we are done here. You have a real nice day!
I'm so pissed about a hide Number23 got right now - that I'm fixing to block every single member that's posted here, is a member of the b.s. group, and is on the thread she got a hide on.
It was one of them and I'm kicking them out of the sandbox.
Because my dad used to sing brattanellaaaaaaaaaa to me and I can so there.
Ummmm... is this some saying that's only localized in Arizona because I ain't EVER heard an expression about pigs and orgasms.
You have something you need to tell us, 1SBM??? 
I know more is coming.
Been reading through this thread, and I can't thank you enough.
buddies to stfu for us. Never once seen certain folks defend another fellow black duer from racism. Never have anything to say to them about this mass trolling of black folks. Just seems to think he is MORE ENLIGHTENED than us, and that is amazing to me. And he has ME on ignore. My black ass.
If you are so incensed by what black people have to say, then WHY COME IN THE FUCKING AA FORUM???!!
I'll keep an eye out.
randys1 is a strong supporter and was banned.
I'm a member of the O'Malley Group - I just checked the Sanders group.
We have NO members blocked there -
Sanders Group has dozens.
Now I'm going to call out sheshe here - she shouldn't be posting there. From watching her political point of view - that's not her candidate. It's just not. Love her! But her passion for what she is FOR if you aren't also FOR it could be overwhelming - and to me that's a good thing. But people are different and respond in different ways to challenges in their thinking.
Me - I have the group blocked - there's no need for me to be back there so I have a full trash so I don't see the threads - I don't want to intrude etc. etc.
What is disturbing is you ARE a supporter - and I would think that from a GOTV p.o.v. there should be every opportunity to explore the candidate and strategize as a cohesive group on canvassing and calling efforts. Each of us in the Primary and in the G.E. will have to overcome objections and if you have ZERO idea about the objections you will face - you are dead in the water at someone's front door.
You know - I did a post in the O'Malley group about black folks (friends and family) who are supporting O'Malley to tap down the 'Hillary has that vote in the bag' voices. At no time did the group hosts block me for discussing a demographic that is need to win the primary.
And in reading what you've posted here - it appears you just wanted to have a discussion.
If Bernie Sanders is the candidate elected to run on the Democratic ticket - we are going to be struggling to find ways to overcome objections a few months before the election.
Not good - we should know BEFORE the convention what we need to say to generate votes.
I know you are getting into the campaign at the canvassing/gotv level. 
I think to myself - when I see something incendiary about O'Malley -
If he read it or it was said to him - what would he do? Say? Write in response.
Look again. Seriously. The man who let us know that Sanders was running late was AA. There were more on the dais. There were even more in the crowd. Given our population numbers in Phoenix, that was an excellent turn out.
But you know what really insults me? This constant focus on optics and made up shit like you are trying to push here while acting all wounded that someone would call out your lies.
You're absolutely right: its all me.
Bernie Sanders a Virtual Unknown Among Black Voters
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-lags-hillary-clinton-in-introducing-himself-to-black-voters.html?_r=0
By PATRICK HEALY and JONATHAN MARTINJUNE 24, 2015
Blacks, a crucial constituency in Democratic presidential races, have been absent from Senator Bernie
Sanders’s campaign events. Credit Win McNamee/Getty Images
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is climbing in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he has drawn thousands of people to rallies for his presidential campaign recently in Denver and Minneapolis. But the shooting last week in Charleston, S.C., has highlighted a daunting obstacle he faces in the Democratic primary contest: Black voters have shown little interest in him.
Even his own campaign advisers acknowledge that Mr. Sanders is virtually unknown to many African-Americans, an enormously important Democratic constituency.
Though he led sit-ins as a civil rights activist in the 1960s, helped the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr. pull off a surprising campaign victory in Vermont in 1988, and espouses liberal policy ideas broadly popular with many Democrats, Mr. Sanders has had little direct experience with black voters as a politician in a state that is 95 percent white. And they have been largely absent from his campaign events so far.
Mr. Sanders, 73, had planned to start introducing himself to larger numbers of African-Americans last Sunday at a large gathering in Charleston, but he quickly postponed the event after the church killings. The massacre also revived debate over a highly charged issue on which Mr. Sanders has a mixed record: gun control.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said on the Senate floor on Tuesday that the country has a long way to go in terms of civil rights, and he mentioned his own experiences protesting segregation. By YouTube/Bernie Sanders on Publish Date June 24, 2015. Photo by David Becker/Associated Press. Watch in Times Video »
Hillary Rodham Clinton is working assiduously to cement her support among black voters. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll this week, 95 percent of nonwhite Democratic voters said they could see themselves supporting Mrs. Clinton for the nomination in the primary. Only about one-quarter of respondents said they could see themselves voting for Mr. Sanders.
And Mrs. Clinton is hardly sitting still: She has spoken out assertively on race relations and gun control over the past week, and she visited a black church on Tuesday near Ferguson, Mo., where the killing of an unarmed black man by a white police officer in August ignited protests.
Mr. Sanders has lamented “the ugly stain of racism that still taints our nation,” but he has yet to take the subject on in a forceful way.
Given the makeup of the Democratic primary electorate, Mr. Sanders’s capacity to win support among blacks represents a test of his relevance: It will help determine whether he can drain many votes from Mrs. Clinton or is bound to be merely a nuisance candidate with a following among the most ideologically driven liberal whites.
Mr. Sanders’s advisers concede that Mrs. Clinton is more familiar and popular among black Democrats, but they say his background and views will allow him to speak credibly to African-Americans in places like Charleston, Ferguson and elsewhere. His struggle, they say, is to introduce himself swiftly and on a broad scale so his remarks resonate and have an effect.
Continue reading the main story
What Bernie Sanders Would Need to Do to Win
“We’re reaching out, but it’s no secret that Bernie represents a state that is heavily Caucasian, and his decades of work on issues of importance to African-Americans aren’t known amid the national conversation on race that is underway,” said Jeff Weaver, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager. “I don’t think it’s presumptuous of him to speak out on these issues. And his message — the need for more good-paying jobs, and opening up higher education regardless of wealth and family background — will have strong appeal with African-Americans and many other voters.”
The challenge facing Mr. Sanders as a Ben & Jerry’s candidate seeking the nomination of President Obama’s party was on vivid display last month in Burlington, Vt., at his first campaign rally.
Nearly all the speakers who preceded him — including the two ice cream entrepreneurs — were white, as were nearly all the supporters, many of them in tie-dyed clothes, who packed a park on the shores of Lake Champlain. His jeremiads about campaign-finance overhaul and climate change inspired cheers and ovations. But he made no mention of problems of deep concern to many African-Americans, like policing, gun control, racial inequities or the high numbers of black men in prison.
“The Bernie Sanders voter is still a Volvo-driving, financially comfortable liberal who is pretty much white,” said Paul Maslin, a pollster who worked for the 2004 presidential campaign of Vermont’s last Democratic contender, Howard Dean. “I don’t see how Bernie takes large numbers of black voters away from Hillary Clinton, and he needs to if he wants any shot at the nomination.”
David Axelrod, formerly Mr. Obama’s chief strategist, noted that insurgent Democrats like Gary Hart and Mr. Dean who were able to win over many white voters fell short because they could not attract blacks.
Supporters at Mr. Sanders's first campaign rally last month in Burlington, Vt. His events have drawn predominantly white crowds. Credit Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times
But apparently the members of this Group feel that way. I am not welcome. I will not come back. I am trashing the forum which is sickening to me.
96. Yes, bluntly I believe that the AA and minority communities
View profile
are really know different than white communities. Politically speaking, they vote against their best self interests. They are very easily swayed by media propaganda. And often they are low information voters.
Given his history, given his voting record, and given his responses to minority concerns over the time frame in question, two months in, yes, I do think that is more the case.
And it is rich as fuck, that you continue to insult me and push the 'grow up' statement now. We are done here.
Like, the Black Community didn't fight and die for their Voting Rights.. and this guy comes along and insults them like this in the African American Group.
WTH.
Our Nation owes a great deal to the African American Voters for standing in long lines for hours.. and helping so much to get Obama elected President twice! And, I am forever grateful.
Three hosts agreed - Number23 pulled the trigger - he's been blocked from the group.
Eta: His insult was alerted on and survived. We have areal problem with a jury that won't hide a direct insult/attack.
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert
On Fri Jul 24, 2015, 12:48 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
Now you are just being a jerk.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=19543
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
Flat out insult of a post and kind of accusing the poster she is responding to of being a racist because she is bi-racial yet supports Sanders. AA Group hosts are very tolerant but this needs DU's eyes on it
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jul 24, 2015, 12:54 PM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So, didn't get enough people agreeing with your reply?
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Name calling is lame, but I don't think it's that over the top for DU.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you.
From the Democratic Party leadership.
Can you give us a reference? Is this that asshat Rendell? He's good for that kind of assery running it's course. Pretty much the entire Democratic party is 'white elitist' - so I don't get why that statement would be made.
I know O'Malley hasn't made a statement like that.
I think the Democratic Party as a WHOLE is better for the black community -
But you know what is the best?
When the black community seizes the reins from the Political leadership and reaches down and side ways to help each other.
While I believe in a strong Federal Government - I also believe that all politics is local and we should be able to bypass state and Fed gov when it doesn't meet its needs. The real impetus *I think* for the expansion of Charter Schools in mostly black sections of cities?
A lot of that has to do with the fact that our childrens' needs are not being served by our state or federal government bodies.
They aren't. If they were - when the magical candidate ascends to office in January 2017 every black child who would have liked to have gone to this 'free university' would be able to attend AND excel in September 2017. Our children are not prepared - and Political Leadership playing games at state houses and in D.C. have been completely ineffective. They punish public school teachers who give a damn and try - and they reward those who keep the young ignorant.
This is just ONE hot spot. Just ONE - that the Leadership at the National Level in America is blind to.
Understand - you now have the grandchildren and great grandchildren of black Southern Republicans that had the money to vote PRIOR to the VRA (my grandfather is one)- and we can see how effective those people born at the turn of the last century were when they were their own islands. When they bought their own buses, hired their own teachers, worked together to get books into their schools, held study groups for share croppers kids (to bring them up to speed), worked as a community to get a share croppers kids a pair of shoes so they could walk to school.
^^^^^ These are not REALITY based narratives that Sanders can tell - because back then "marching" was not the same as surviving and well - Saying is not the same as surviving today. ^^^^^^^^^^^
We also see what happened when we were loyal to an idea/philosophy/party instead of ourselves.
When you tell us what is 'good for us' . . . You are causing some of 'us' who have the money and influence to work to work around you - to go behind your back and do what is best for our communities - regardless of what you or Sanders think . . .
Because we are DEFIANT.
I don't care about what goes on in the Sanders group - have the whole dang thing on Trash. I don't wish to go in there and 'offend' or create issues by TALKING DOWN TO PEOPLE and telling them what's good for them.
I wish everyone had that sense of respect for others.
I can relate to him - and I can't relate to Bernie at all. And that's not on me - it just is 'out there'.
As of today - what I hear in the media 
is that O'Malley is a coal hating, gun grabbing, rain and toilet taxing Liberal, that Bill O'Reilly thinks is a waste of an apostrophe and Jeb Bush thinks is an idiot for apologizing for saying all lives matter.
Over here on the Left - those of us supporting him are LOVING how the grass roots on the Right as well as their talking heads and leadership are pummeling him. Have a day! He's got grit.
And he goes to the riot, he goes to the protest, and he sits down with two black women to have a conversation after being a jack ass and saying all lives matter.
It was important that I be at Netroots Nation this weekend,and I am grateful I was a part of the important conversation about #?blacklivesmatter—a conversation that must not end with this conference. I am already listening to and speaking with leaders from this movement, and I will continue to do so throughout my candidacy to ensure those voices and needs help shape my criminal justice reform package to make it as comprehensive and effective as possible. -O'M
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/06/you-have-martin-o-malley-all-wrong.html
He also (all things which directly impacted blacks in Maryland)
Ended death penalty in Maryland
Provided health insurance for 380,000
Reduced infant mortality to an all time low (this is huge in the African American community)
Provided meals to thousands of hungry children and moved toward a goal for eradicating childhood hunger.
Enacted a $10.10 living wage and a $11. minimum wage for State workers.
Cut income taxes for 86% of Marylanders (raised taxes on the rich).
Reformed Maryland’s tax code to make it more progressive.
Enacted some of the nation’s most comprehensive reforms to protect homeowners from foreclosure.
Daily Beast - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/06/you-have-martin-o-malley-all-wrong.html
“He was trying to stop the crime on the streets. People were getting killed daily on Old York Road and in Park Heights,” Robert Nowlin, a Baltimore community activist, told The Daily Beast. “He did something a lot of these mayors don’t do: He walked with the small people. A lot of these mayors stay in the affluent areas. He walked the streets.”
Only two former mayors have served in the White House, and it has been a long time since any major presidential candidate had a City Hall stint (other than one in New York) on his or her resume. It’s no wonder why. The problems facing America’s cities are so severe that anyone with visions of higher office better look for a job elsewhere. But attempting to face up to that challenge, and chip away at it in the manner that he did—however overzealous and incomplete—is what actually qualifies him for office, O’Malley says.
Drawing a bright red line between the Clinton and Bush years, O’Malley said, “We haven’t had an agenda for our cities in 30 years. It is not something you solve with a nifty pilot program. It is not something you solve with philanthropy or with a thousand points of light. When you create an economy where you subsidize corporate profits through a welfare program and food stamps in order to keep wages low in some perverse pursuit of ‘competiveness,’ than you reap the fruits of the anger that you sow. And that is what is happening in our country today.”
And the end of the day - if you are on the Left - what we have in common? Us is pissed. And with good reason.
is exactly what I've been thinking.
Now get outta my head!1!
Love the gif!!!
Donna NoShock ?@NoShock
#BlackLivesMatter #SayHerName #SandraBland
6:42 AM - 22 Jul 2015
40 40 Retweets 15 15 favorites
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/07/22/profit-and-loss-why-blacklivesmatter-matters/
And to have some jerk "from the left" adding fuel to the fire at that time was unconscionable, and for me, unforgiveable.
a lot of positions on him that he may or may not share. I find his views on gun control very troubling, but perhaps that's why conservatives are so attracted to him.
Do you remember when the other BS (Brian Schweitzer) was making noises about running, and he was slamming the president for this, that & the other and liberals immediately fell in love? That is until his actual record and policy positions got closer scrutiny, and now you don't hear a peep about him. I predict that as time goes on, these conservatives will continue to outnumber the liberals who are in love with BS.
He is definitely not a "good fit" for me.
Oh, and welcome back. You are always welcome here.
I responded to you in another post - and I think you will *get* what I'm saying there.
I think BLM is a reflection of the lost patience of black Americans.
We can't wait.
Lots of interesting thoughts and observations. Thanks Tobin S. and thanks all.
Okay. How do you explain this?
I hope he gets help for that.
As I have indicated elsewhere, I am not a big fan of essentialist statements on race (eg "White people love carrots" or "Black people like bicycles" . So, no, I do not think that "Black people are homophobes".
My interpretation of that graph is that generally, white liberals (and even not-so-liberals) will strive to adhere to the safest, most anodyne political positions possible (on race and other socially topical issues). They get very anxious if they are called racist, or homophobic, etc etc.
Non-white people seem relatively indifferent to being called a racist. My wife is Asian, her parents are quite racist, in a casual kind of way. I know from personal experience that Arabs can be quite racist, Saudis in particular can be extremely hard on the hired help, and Arabs in Mauritania treat Blacks as if they were slaves (no exaggeration, honestly). On the other hand, the only time my wife was called a "ricer" was by a Black guy (who was actually behind the counter in a shop). No anger in it, he just threw it out there in a completely casual, offhand sort of way.
That anxiety about being on the wrong side of an issue explains why, in part, once support for gay marriage reached some kind of critical mass white people flocked very quickly to support it (and it is striking how quickly this happened, it really did flip from one side to another in mere years).
Exactly why white liberals so anxiously hew to orthodoxy is the real question. One potential answer is that whites have lower levels of ethnic affiliation than others, and that therefore they invest in orthodoxy and the organisational status quo so much because they have relatively little invested outside of it.
An example: during the 2011 London riots, groups of Turkish men formed groups and barricades in the street to protect the Turkish sections of town from the rioters. Sikhs and Punjabis and many other ethnic communities did the same. The whites could not assemble their own groups - precisely because they were not a "community" as such - and therefore they were therefore critically reliant on the police in order to establish and maintain order. When that order broke down, they were lost.
is non-responsive to my post.
You're free to start a threat entitled 'Charts about black people that piss off shaayecanaan.'
Go right ahead.
Knock yourself out.
In response to nonsense I've ever seen.
He should just be happy he doesn't have a bunch of African Americans moving to his country to upset the apple cart!
IKR.
I'm picturing him meeting the new neighbors.
'Hello. Read this chart.' 
