Very professional.

add that to your OP. That shows a total disrespect for authority.

to do with facts and the record. What people do with those facts is another matter.

So in Texas, the history books, approved by democratically elected state school boards, really are accurate? Even if they disagree with actual historical scholarship?

Well to each their own.

Bryant

decide how they feel. What the OP says/believes, really doesn't matter, does it?

Anything?

Bryant

think it's a good income. People making more, not so much.

In politics, there are few facts. You guys think Sanders is the best on Civil Rights. Yet a clear majority of those most affected by civil rights, in the best position to gauge, disagree with you. That's a fact too.

Unfortunately, there are many things Americans believe that are at odds with the facts.

When it comes to facts, the majority doesn't rule.

The encouraging news, however, is that our fellow citizens have demonstrated a capacity to sync up their opinions with reality once they receive reliable information.

We've reached saturation at DU. The question is, how can Sanders get the message outside of DU. The media aren't exactly helping. It's the new media and social networks. Forget DU.

He jumped on the "super predator" quote. He was quite good and I was glad to see him
getting some exposure before the SC primary. I believe that when more POC hear Bernie,
learn about both Bernie and Hillary, they will switch over. I truly puzzles me that Hillary has
the majority of the POC vote. Bernie is by far the better civil rights candidate.

He certainly has some AA support.

Curious.

Fear that he'd lose the general.

Fear that they'd be left out of the economic reforms - that this is just the latest "40 acres and a mule".

With Clinton, they know specifically how they will be screwed. With Sanders, there could be a big upside, but there also could be a big downside. And far too many of our party have delivered "downside".

But I'm on the outside peering in.

My personal thought is that it has to do with white blindness to AA history. Human beings tend to think our experiences re the same i.e., The experience or being working class and black is the same as being working class and white, when that is simply untrue.

The Sanders economic justice platform was almost destined to NOT resonate with the historically oppressed, because it makes the same assumption.

won't work either.

People seeking wealth and power have used racism and economic oppression to gain and maintain that control. When people seek economic justice, those in power ramp up the racism. When people seek social justice, those in power ramp up the economic oppression.

So an economic plan that only helps the historically oppressed gets killed via racism.

We have to tackle both economic justice and social justice, and we have to tackle them at the same time. Or the forces aligned against us will continue to use the opposite issue to derail reform.

With there being so many cases where economic reform was limited by racial lines, the skepticism is completely understandable. That skepticism is what we'll have to overcome, and most importantly, we have to actually deliver.

Although I'm a strong Hill supporter, the person running who seemed to "get" this the best was O'Malley. To address racism, we need to hold social justice just high as we do economic justice, and address the results of historical oppression and at least attempt to root out institutional racism.
Of all the things that bother me about this primary, the lack of historically correct context in all areas is number one.

That is why politicians against economic equality and social equality want us divided. One in particular is using this tactic quite successfully.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280123066

I think the OP listed above is worth a read.

Bernie is planning on economic growth and overall equality for ALL citizens regardless of isms, that is why I like his plans, historically the divides, race culture, religion, sex, etc. are what's used to keep us poor and those that wold divide us along those lines do so for one reason, so we do not find our common strength and rise up against the true common enemy.

accomplishments.

Ridiculous stuff is annoying.

The people who push her as some civil rights leader are people who very obviously do not count LGBT rights as civil rights. Many, many of her endorsers in this Party have been strong opponents of civil rights for LGBT. Many of them have voted to deny equal rights to us, repeatedly. Many of her endorsers were proudly standing with her as the last holdouts opposing LGBT civil rights.

Hillary was not the only dog whistler on her team in 08. Many of those same people are pulling the same crap on Bernie, and lots of it is still about him being 'the other'.

with the lion share of support. Bernie was not likely to run for POTUS had another
progressive had...he plays catch up. If you have the WH in your sights you don't
wait until you're 74 years old. Why she clings to Obama when convenient is to invoke
a distrust and a disrespect that Bernie had to Obama, to try and portray him against the
man versus the policies. In reality, Conyers and many other Democrats have called
out Obama..not just on TPP, but early on, about health care, Guantanamo, etc.
As president he does not appreciate that, duh...no president does.

To his credit, Obama discredited Clinton on that score yet it is obvious
who he prefers to take his place..and it is of no credit to her campaign
that he came out early with an unofficial endorsement, not once but
twice. I can speculate he prefers her due to TPP for the most part, even
though she claims it is imperfect at this late date.

I do think Sanders should go into heavily Clinton favored districts and
ask them, what do you think of the claims Hillary has said about me
and Obama...what do you understand about the primary statements
I made in the past. If he is not going to get their votes, they should
at least hear from him in a direct way what his objections were instead
of hearing it from that fucker, Brock.

It's not Hill or hill. Please give her that much respect. Thank you.

to pile up on my face conflicts of interest.

That's why I said please. You will do as you please, naturally.

Jame Clyburn apparently doesn't, but that's when she died to me as a human being worthy of respect.

"It was against that backdrop that Mrs. Clinton’s mentioning the Kennedy assassination in the same breath as her own political fate struck some as going too far. Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an uncommitted superdelegate, said through a spokeswoman that the comments were “beyond the pale.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=0