...about these two progressive targets of Bernie's revolution.

...a rogue band of endorsers?

it would seem that all available evidence does point to that conclusion.

Although, I would not have phrased it as harshly.

That is their whole objective!

The leadership of a union endorses Hillary but the membership comes out saying "nobody asked us!"

SEIU endorses Clinton
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/seiu-endorses-hillary-clinton-215980

The 2-million-member Service Employees International Union approved the endorsement through a vote by its executive board.

The American Federation of Teachers endorsed Hillary Clinton’s candidacy on Saturday night, July 11th. Almost immediately there was a backlash on Facebook and Twitter from teachers across the country who pointed out that no one ever asked which candidate they would prefer.

“The story isn't ‪Randi Weingarten and AFT’'s endorsement of ‪Hillary Clinton. The story is all the amazing teachers saying no freaking way!!!!”

Kand R...

wanted all the groups to support him. Then he went on and talked about Senators, Governors which I think he called the establishment. Regardless, Hillary started the tweet and then the snowball effect. I can't confirm what HRC campaign had to do with the backlash, but betcha there were some "messages" sent, implied or planted.

Their campaign is taking MY BERN to a higher level! I make monthly payments to his campaign, and had to rework my budget. But now I'm going to try to give $75.00 very soon!

They should save their ammo for fights against politicians who actually OPPOSE their agenda, not try to defeat politicians who support their goals, just to grease the skids for the buddy of their leadership.

... not a good sign that these worthwhile organizations are trashed in the way of his revolution. Interesting that they're the first to feel the bern. With Bernie or against him? Pathetic.

...slandering them doesn't make a better case for Sanders.

And I will proudly fight them by campaigning for Bernie. If Bernie wins there will be a lot less need for either in their current forms. PP will have to convert their clinics into clinics that treat general illnesses plus what they do now. And the Human Rights Commission won't have to work so hard when people make a living wage, there is an actual safety net, and we are not bombing other countries for their resources.

...like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

They do good work. But, I would like to see a lot less need for what they do. That is why they exist anyway. We want a better record on Human Rights, correct? Bernie will take us there. Less occupation of foreign countries and less war. Women will have better access to medical care at any clinic they choose so less need for PP they can start serving everyone for all medical needs that are within the scope of a regular medical clinic. But, thank you so much for missing my point.

...I see a broader point in there... or maybe it's just me.

rated (their own rating) of the two candidates. That's the question Bernie should ask.

Now isn't it better that people have their basic rights than an alphabet soup of agencies that are still fighting for those rights?

They know exactly how it was said and what it meant. Shame on YOU HILLARY!

their own personal interests?

Face it, if one day in the distant future there is no further need for those organizations, there will no longer be a need for leaders of those organizations. Now will there?

I don't think society will ever be fully civilized so we will still need watchdogs to preserve any rights gained. Look what the heck happened to this country in the last 40 years with so many rights being eroded. If the watchdogs had been on it, perhaps that wouldn't have happened. But, Reagan and his minions have been riding roughshod all over everyone. So, first we get back the ground we lost, then progress, then set up some sentries to keep the Randians at bay.

Into clinics?

And the HRC will not have to work so hard because people have more money in their pocket?

Really?

The part where we stop creating wars all over the globe completely went over your head. And yes, we will need more clinics if there is universal or single payer for health care where are people going to go for treatment? PP clinics are already in the neighborhood so they can easily convert and still continue to do what they currently do.

It still lives me saying wow.

Convert its clinics from what to what?

How will any of that reduce the need for low cost women's (and male's) reproductive health ... which constitutes 97% of PP's efforts.

How will putting more money in someone's pocket and ending wars, everywhere; change the need for HRC's fight for heterosexist equality?

They will convert to regular medical clinics. Or not. The fact is we will need more clinics not fewer since they are already there it would make sense for them to expand on the things they treat.

Have you ever been to a medical specialist?

when I am talking about general practice clinics. I have been to PP many times. It would seriously not be that hard to convert to a general practice medical clinic.

Why wouldn't PP and Hilly be thrilled that all women could have pap smears?

And/or eliminating all wars will reduce the need for reproductive health services?

I don't know which one of us is more confused. But, I do know which one of us is arguing for the sake of having an argument.

And, I suspect, it stems from the false belief that money addresses social inequality.

nor, does it address the LGBTQ community facing being fired, not being promoted, evicted (or unable to find housing) in the 29 states where it is legal. Nor, does it address the reproductive health needs of women being denied access.

It addresses the black folk who are freezing to death on the streets. It addresses the black folk who are unemployed and want to work. It addresses black folk who can't afford college but who would make excellent students.

BTW Hillary has made the same argument for economic justice over social justice to BLM, yet that is fine and dandy.

1StrongBlackMan (26,640 posts)
20. During my recent visit to Cleveland, OH ...

I spoke with a member of BLM's inner circle (a cousin of a very close friend), several community activists (that I grew up with and worked with when I lived in Cleveland), a couple family members that work in the Cleveland PD, and an Asst. Prosecutor (that I went to Law school with ... she was in my Criminal Procedure study group).

And from those discussions, I came away with a couple conclusions ... specifically, a bad outcome does not constitute a crime.

First, the rookie cop that pulled the trigger was rightfully exonerated ... Yes, he shot a kid; but, the facts suggest, he was placed in a position, by his (veteran) Training Officer, that NO jury would have convicted.

However, just about everyone agreed, the veteran Training Officer should have been charged with Negligent Homicide, for "cowboying it up" and driving too fast and close to the scene, placing the rookie in a position of having to make the split second shoot/no shoot decision, from a distance of less than 6 feet, and no cover.

Now, there were other non-prosecutable problems with how the CPD handled the immediate aftermath of the shooting, i.e., failure to render aid, the treatment of the family (particularly, Rice's juvenile sister).

There, also, was a failure of the community center program ... Tamar and his sister, went to a daycare program. His sister showed up; but, Tamir didn't ... she told the operators that Tamir was outside playing and no one took the time to go get him.

Sadly, we all agreed that a bad outc

and stop listening to that voice in your head.

Nope. It was a bad shoot. The whole scene was bad. The cop driving you have made a case for being worse. But, the shot was done within a split second of driving up to the curb.

that is why we need special prosecutors for cops and posting history for me.

So let's just go with the opinions of people that haven't spent a day in court.

It's the way of the internet!

You do know what the HRC does, don't you?

The name fooled me. But, they do good work. I have no idea why anyone in the HRC would support HRC for the primary knowing what they do now. It is mind bobbling.

That doesn't make sense. People will still need gynecologist and reproductive healthcare. Lots of women have a general practitioner doctor and then an OB/Gyn or just gynecologist.

But, what they will not need is sliding scale fees. They will be able to go anywhere.

Once Sanders is elected Congress will line up to pass all his proposals.

people are and how little they care about real people who are helped by PP or whose causes are advocated by the HRC.

Sheer spite indeed. Pettiness to the nth degree, IMO.

Dear straight people,

The HRC is not the One True LGBT Organization. They're generally an affluent, mostly white, highly politically interested organization that sucks up corporate donations in order to host lavish dinners and parties for themselves while pulling in more money from what amounts to a marketing campaign.

There are literally dozens of organizations out there that serve the community, the grassroots, and the most disadvantaged among us.

I suggest:

The Trevor Project (to prevent LGBT suicide)
The It Gets Better Campaign
Get Equal
Any local youth shelter - homeless youth are disproportionately LGBT

The HRC is a joke in the LGBT community, and it's somewhat amusing to see so many straight people offended on our behalf that it isn't as beloved as they feel it ought to be.

Please stop straightsplaining this for us. It would be offensive if I didn't think it came from a place of total heterocentric ignorance.

...it isn't just members of the LGBT community alone who advance civil rights. In my own state, thousands of us 'straights' joined with the LGBT community in enacting reforms and guaranteeing rights under the law.

I don't expect we'd have heard a word against HRC if they'd endorsed Bernie. But, for the sake of a politician in a primary, they're cast aside. All of the grousing by the Sanders campaign has nothing to do with any of what you wrote. It's about politics, pure and simple. Petty, destructive, self-serving politics.

Not very revolutionary...or, is it?

Not only would you have "heard a word" against them, you would know that the HRC has heard plenty of words from the LGBT community for many years now. Particularly when they tried to run over our transgender brothers and sisters to protect their political access.

Furthermore, the ire is that we have, yet again, an executive board making a primary decision at a premature time. The HRC did not endorse Barack Obama in 2008 until June of that year. Taking a position in a contentious primary will not only draw ire from the community, it will divide us. It was, yet again, another stupid decision from the top down by Establishment figures protecting their political connections.

I'm somewhat baffled that you feel confident enough to hold forth on this subject when you don't seem to have any working knowledge of it whatsoever.

Thanks for the run down on HRC.

...so quick to alienate.

All of this for Bernie's sake. I hope he's worth it. Not one dissent has been met with acceptance from supporters. More than that, the responses to dissent against Sanders has been met with this type of vindictive lashing out. It reminds me somewhat of the French 'revolution'.

Let me remind you that the Sanders spokesman was expressing NONE of what you've written here about HRC. In fact, they're downright put off that this horrible organization didn't endorse THEIR candidate.

Baffling, indeed. Changing the subject to the LGBT community's supposed rejection of the HRC raises even more questions about why Sanders would want their endorsement in the first place?

Did Sanders EVER express opposition to HRC before they spurned him??

They should have stayed the hell out of the primary and saved their resources and political capital for the fight against their REAL opponents.

Throwing Bernie and O'Malley under the bus is not the way they are going to advance their agenda. Why the hell do that?

...choosing one of our Democrats to support isn't 'throwing' anyone under the bus. It's the same for any endorsement.

Saying they should 'stay out of the primary' is an amazing statement. The obvious conclusion to that would be only those who support the folks we want should be involving themselves in our primary and that's ridiculous on its face.

They chose the timing of their endorsement.

I supported HRC until they threw transgender people under the bus and the only reason I knew about that is because your community spoke up.

Looks like they know they fucked up. Should have withheld endorsement until the general when there is a clear difference between the two candidates.

I'm giving PP an earful the next time they ask me for a donation. Feeling less generous until they withdraw the endorsement.

And I doubt Bernie would be suggesting PP's endorsement reflects that, if PP or Human Rts. Campaign had
actually POLLED their membership, and based the endorsement on that, rather than a cozy relationship
the top executives & directors have had over the years with the Clintons.

It's that point -- of Hillary getting top-down endorsements from the established higher echelon, not the
membership -- that Bernie is making. You may disagree, but it's a valid point to make IMHO.

...UERMWA: the endorsement decision was made by their executive board.

CWA voted.

NNU did poll their workers but the decision was made by its executive.

APWU: endorsement decision made by the executive board.

And Progressive Democrats for America endorsement was a forgone membership-based conclusion, since
PDA championed Bernie getting into the primary race from the get-go, with a membership-driven petition
campaign to encourage him to run in the first place.

We've seen some pretty severe blowback from several large unions whose leadership endorsed Clinton and then found their Facebook pages and other social media flooded with objections in favor of Sanders from rank and file members.

Sanders is FAR more pro-union than Clinton because he supports policies that are pro-union. Clinton pays lip service to unions to get elected and then turns around and advocates 'free trade.'

Now with Pac money going to Hillary...I will not do so for a long while.

...members were not asked and instead of waiting for a nominee chosen by the voters, HRC & PP endorsed early.

Both organizations have a tie to the Clintons. Chad Griffin (President of HRC) was in the Clinton White House Press Office.

At what point does that become a "storm"?

Shitstorm in monkey cage now enters third day.

Zoo director: "No one, monkeys notwithstanding, cares".

DEPTH AND BREADTH! PITIFUL! Bernie Sanders All The Way!

PP endorsed Clinton, it became part of the establishment, though they should definitely be forgiven and continue to be funded.

But where did Bernie say PP was 'part of the establishment?'

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

EMILY's List, PAC supporting pro-choice female Democratic candidates

Equality California, LGBT rights group

League of Conservation Voters, environmentalist group

LPAC, Lesbian Political Action Committee

NARAL Pro-Choice America

National Organization for Women

National Women's Political Caucus

Stonewall Democrats of Arizona, LGBT rights group and PAC

U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce

Women in the World, media organization

Anti-establishment = blind obedience.

Turns out the revolutionary wormhole is actually a simple hole filled with obescient worms. Nasty.

He is turning progressives against one another.

It's kind of a last resort way to insult those of us who want to be part of the Democratic party and not be on the sidelines looking in anymore.

They deliberately got rid of the party's left in the late 80s, and now those folks who were marginalized by the party have had enough.

.


This is no different than the GOPers using coded language to specify "the other" or a minority, without saying it.


.

The dog whistles are getting louder.

We ain't seen nothin' yet.

Enough to identify the people... I might just delete the image even if you found it online.

...bragging about withdrawing support.

It's clickable.

It seemed like she tried to cover up the address but failed... But if it's Twitter I'm sure everyone knows who they are.

Thanks.

But he did.

He ran, when it's not his "turn".

That is the big egregious offense the guy has committed, which really bothers some people.

What part of having a right to respond don't you understand?

...it's politics, pure and simple.

That's the ONLY issue involved, and it's disgusting to witness. I'd never have believed Sen. Sanders could be so petty.

Answer, he didn't. He encouraged no such thing.

So you made it up. More divisive nonsense which has zero bearing in the issues which concern the American people, INCLUDING reproductive choice.

Why?

Because obviously, Hillary can't run on the issues.

...to the effect of this epic pout by Sanders and his campaign.

Stop pretending like this isn't an encouragement for people to pull out support from these groups. What the hell do you think is the effect of these Sanders campaign attacks on these organizations?

This isn't about 'issues.' It's about rolling over ANYONE who dares oppose Bernie. The revolutions first casualties are Democrats who dare support someone else.

But, then, when you can't run on the issues, you have to make shit up.

...deny it all you want. Deflect all you want.

It just makes the campaign look even more craven and abusive.

Oh, the drama. OH, THE DRAMA!


Just be friggin' honest for a second. The only "unacceptable outrages" Bernie Sanders has committed are twofold; running against Hillary (when it is HER TURN!) and doing well against Hillary.

That's it.

...there's nothing he can do wrong, as far as you're concerned.

But at least he takes bold specific positions and articulates them, because he's actually running on issues.

The epitome of projection on the part of Hill folk is when they imagine that Bernie Sanders supporters are some sort of cult of personality. I never had any particularly strong feelings about the Vermont Senator, always appreciated his caucusing with us, thought he made some decent points from time to time. I wanted Liz Warren to run, as did many others... he got in because he saw a need for certain arguments to be put forward in this race and he knew (correctly) for damn sure Secretary Clinton wasn't gonna do that.

But it's never been about the guy. His ego, his identity, whatever. I do like the idea of electing the first secular Jew to the Presidency, but even that only gets barely passing consideration.

Compare that to the whole "Hillary™ must be supported because she is Hillary™ and why wouldn't you support Hillary™ when it is self-evident that Hillary™ is not just the best Hillary™ but the only Hillary™ and CERTAINLY the Hillary™ we need so come on get on board the Hillary™ train..."

...even defending him to an O'Malley supporter comes with an anti-Hillary screed.

The subject is Sanders' attack on these progressive orgs, not just Hillary complaining about it.

Part of the Washington establishment. He didnt "attack" them, their mandate, or the work they do. Nor did he tell anyone not to continue to support them.

This is just this week's weak attempt at trying to find a gotcha, trying to find an angle, dramaoutrage outragedrama; trying to say that sanders supporters are this,because bernie said that, that someone's brother's aunt heard someone at a sanders rally say a bad word, why doesnt sanders support magic beanstalks because he supports single payer and that is impossible so he must support every other impossible thing too because reasons. Oh and "berniebros libertarian ponies unicorns socialist ayn rand mac using white supremacists, volvos!"

Know why?


...




...







...





...




...





...







..






.





.




..




...





.....because obviously, Hillary cannot run on the issues.

After the Human Rights Campaign announced on Tuesday it would back Clinton, the Sanders campaign criticized the nation’s largest LGBT group in response to a Washington Blade inquiry for a reaction.

“It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record,” said Sanders campaign spokesperson Michael Briggs.



Touting Sanders as “somebody who’s been for gay rights long, long ago” since he was mayor of Burlington, Vt., Briggs said Sanders as a U.S. senator voted against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993 and he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Briggs also cited Sanders’ support in calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn DOMA.

Recalling Sanders’ support for civil unions in Vermont when it became the first state to enact them in 2000, Briggs said Sanders was “a pioneer on this early version of gay marriage, and has by far the most exemplary record on gay rights of any candidate ever in American history.”

“So who knows what prompted the Human Rights Campaign to do what it does — I have trouble myself figuring why they do some of the things they do over the years — but I think the gay men and lesbians all over the country will know who has been their champion for a long, long time and will consider that as they make up their mind on support for his campaign,” Briggs said.


http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/01/19/sanders-campaign-blasts-human-rights-campaign-over-clinton-support/#sthash.yGn229QN.uxfs&st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/RC7NTQraJS


...really poor deflection. This is about Sanders, not Hillary.