after being confronted with his near complete ignoring of one of the problem for about 40 years ... hiring a Black women that brought it to his attention, helped.

And as much as I like Warren, I must correct for this board the mis-interpretation of Dr. King's legacy ... he was talking about INTRA-CLASS inequality ... his legacy had NOTHING to do with "the oligarchs."

Martin Luther King most certainly did question and condemn the capitalist system and the narrow control of capital and political power, which is the oligarchy.

That is part of his legacy. He called for a radical redistribution of economic power from the controlling class to the people at large.

But no one more radical is getting elected President any time soon.

I think MLK would have grave concerns about US support of Israel in the occupied territories.

Not to mention the Iraq war, cluster bombs, etc. ad nauseum.

This was also a defense of Jesse Jackson's position, whom he had endorsed.
http://www.alternet.org/1988-bernie-sanders-condemned-israeli-attacks-palestinians-reprehensible

However, he seems to be more pro-Israel now. It took a while for Cornel West to decide to campaign with him due to disagreement on that issue. Sanders is definitely more anti-war and likely more anti-Israel than Hillary, but he's certainly not a peacenik, so anyone looking for something like that will be disappointed.

Last edited Tue Sep 29, 2015, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)

A lot of internet people say he is in the bag for Israel.

Is it true though? I'm already voting for him but I'd like to learn more about his record on this.

But more pro-Israel than he should be. He's less so than Hillary. Not sure compared to Obama.

Note, I edited this.

Maybe he'll get better if he becomes President.

If it's a "political revolution" new possibilities can emerge.

However, 98% of Congress including him and even Barbara Lee voted to give $250 million to Israel for their defense system while they were waging war with the Gaza strip.

FeeltheBern has a lot of information about Bernie's positions on Israel and the Palestinians:

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-israel-and-the-palestinians/

But he's still pretty pro-Israe enough that it took a while for Cornel West to overcome his objections there.

Note that I've edited some of my posts a bit.

Also, I edited some of my posts a bit.

I'm sure it will come up.

Thanks for being honest about the edits.

That's a pretty handy site to keep in mind.

His position is seems exactly same as the official position of the US government: two state solution. It's basically the same stuff every Democrat says. It doesn't really get into the hard issues of what's blocking a two state solution.

As I told jfern, I hope the topic comes up in the debates so that we can learn more.

Hillary's ideas about a "muscular" foreign policy worry me far more than anything Bernie has said about Israel.

It's really very impressive.

I went of on a tangent by mistake

I don't think anything Bernie does will ever be enough for some folks.

Tangents are good, we all learned more about his positions on I/P.

Kinda, what's the word... Dog whistle?

Here's a lengthy but incomplete list of some things he's done. Sure, there are others who have done more, but he has a long history of fighting for civil rights.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/20-examples-bernie-sanders-powerful-record-civil-and-human-rights-1950s

Another thing is that he was the only white guy to show up when Greg Palast and members of the Congressional Black Caucus testified before the US Civil Rights Commission about the racist Florida scrub list. 88% of the people scrubbed were black, and Jeb used it to steal the 2000 election for his brother.

What isn't new is Sanders' record. What is new is strongly addressing it in his campaign speeches and having a racial justice section on his website. Obviously he's had to listen and learn some things from the black lives movement.

Please link to one piece of legislation that sanders sponsored or co-sponsored that got passed into law that had anything to do with PoC.

just isn't good enough for some people

http://action.naacp.org/page/-/washington%20bureau/113Congress/VERMONT2.pdf

his legislative record is readily available. he has supported many bills of justice and civil rights and equality, as well as economic justice, the cornerstone of his campaign.

so if you require more than the assurance of a 100% rating from naaacp, its out there for all to read.

slightly downthread of his complete record

much of his work has to do with things like Social Security benefits, veterans benefits, equal pay, fair housing, which affect all people including POC. I guess it will be up to you to decide which of his legislative activities meet your parameters for being acceptable.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/23/black-lives-matter-air-pollution

well ... an amendment.

But he HAS supported/opposed the right stuff ... which isn't the same as drafting and shepherding legislation to passage.

http://action.naacp.org/page/-/washington%20bureau/113Congress/VERMONT2.pdf

that there is an obstructionist gop congress that won't pass anything

but here is his record



https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033

and faced an obstructionist gop congress the last 7.

Bills benefiting PoC never pass under Republican congressional control.

HRC hasn't didn't get anything benefiting PoC passed until 2007, if she got anything passed at all.

the House and Presidency since 1980. It's quite sad.

It seems that Palast is conflating two separate events ... neither of which that claims appears to hold up. But ask Chitown Kev, what HRC was doing that day ... I'll give her a pass for her absence.

You keep trying to separate two intertwined issues. You keep bringing this shit up when it doesn't hold water.

Where are you complaints about Hillary? BLM sure wasn't pleased with her. Didn't see the flurry of OPs and outrage about that on here. Why not? I'm sure you're just giving her a pass on that too. I mean she'll protect the finances of people who are well off since she's beholden to big money, corporations that basically are running our country now, you know, the ones run by mainly rich white men. You disparage capitalism as being dependent on white racists, well you are trying to tear down the man who is fighting to change that and to change the way capitalism controls our country. So you're basically arguing against your own mission.

The issues (social/economic justice) are only "intertwined" for those that are affected by both ... and those without (intra-class) economic justice, are/have been denied it BECAUSE of a lack of social justice.

There it is! Why does that matter? I'm a Black man talking about Bernie on a message board where 85+% of the people are telling me that Bernie is the man ... even as he has only recently began talking about racial justice, as an issue he would address.

You want to know my thoughts on HRC, with respect to racial matters ... again ... if she is elected, we (PoC) will get more of the same; but, in my estimation, she (or O'Malley or Biden) has 1) a shot at winning the G/E, i.e., will/would be in the position to actually enact her (their) tepid racial cures, her (their) economic plans and protect the SCOTUS; and 2), she (they) all have demonstrated an ability to work with others, so should she (they) win the Presidency, they will/would be more likely to actually get something done ... again, in my estimation, Bernie has demonstrated neither of these traits.

I have to take the points you're making on two levels. And I can only speak for myself but I think many feel the same way.

1)I've admired Sanders for years because he was one of a few (though not the only) truly progressive members of Congress who were willing to raise issues that were glossed over by the Democratic establishment, and to push for a more progressive agenda. Yes often on economic issues, but also on social issues -- and more importantly on the intersection of those. So I got mightily pissed when Sanders was attacked on the very basis on which is one of the most supportive of progressive social issues, including racial issues. It was a total mischaracterization of him and it was a form of Swift boating (attack someone by distorting their strengths).

but...

2)Giving your position the benefit of the doubt for a minute. Let's say on racial issues Sanders is just a run of the mill liberal white legislator. Not a champion of racial issues, but someone who generally goes along in the same way as any otehr white liberal politician does. It still was incredibly misleading and bogus to paint him as WORSE than any otehr white politician, as he was characterized early in his campaign. This racist taint was placed on him -- this image that he is especially oblivious and insensitive to the concerns and needs of minorities, much more so than the other candidates. That's truly bogus, and it cast a shadow on his candidacy that didn't need to be there because it was untrue.

If AAs and any other group believe their concerns are being neglected by politicians, and that racial issues needs to be addressed okay. I agree with that. I am fairly confident that the vast majority of his supporters would agree with that.

But singling singling Sanders out and implying or directly stating that he is worse than his competitors, and has a "problem with Black people," is totally distorted and unfair.

Sanders has initially had the same problem with Black people that he has had with white people. 85 percent of the country had no idea of who he is. He has had to introduce himself, and also to overcome the bias of a media who ignores or mischaracterizes any candidate who does not fit their narrow definition of viability.

If people want to disagree with, dislike or feel neutral about Sanders because of his message policies or persona, okay fine. If people feel that Hillary is a more "electable" candidate, okay. If people decide he;'s too old, too grumpy,, too liberal whatever.....Okay. Fine. That's politics. There are plenty of areas where people can agree to disagree justifiably.

But the fact that he was introduced and immediately tarred with these select confrontations, and singled out as the worst candidate on race, while Clinton got to watch from the sidelines, was a distortion of who he really is, what he really stands for and his goals and message. And we (I) get pissed when it keeps getting repeated. And unfortunately not always polite about it.

Okay.



I think you are correct ... you are mighty pissed; but, you seem to be mistaking what I have said for what you have heard ... no matter how many times I have corrected you (which I will no longer attempt to do).

But you are incorrect ... I have NOT cast Bernie as lesser/worse than any other candidate on racial issues ... In fact, now that he is actually speaking on racial issues, I have him about the same as other politicians ... except for my speculative, electability concern, which is a threshold matter.

In response to the rest of your post, I will only say ... okay. It is about your admiration of Bernie. Good. But that has nothing to do with me; nor, does it address my concerns.

The surrounding environment effects how people respond to individual posts.

I have noted in another post that we should all try to avoid personalizing disagreements, which I am trying to practice what I preach. Unfortunately hot buttons do exist on all "sides" and part of diffusing that somewhat is to understand the context of people.


blah,blah,blah...I'm tired at the moment, Hopefully you know what I mean.

you ONLY go after Bernie on them.

Again, clear agenda.

But I'm pretty sure he was talking about the US Civil Rights Commission event when he said Sanders was the only white guy to show up. The other event was a convention and didn't involve an official commission of the federal government.

I don't think anyone co-sponsored the federal commission. There was some panel discussion event that same day, but that's not testifying before a federal commission, and not what I or Palast are talking about.

where Katherine Harris also testified? Well ... I guess Palast is technically correct, Harris isn't a guy; but, I'm pretty certain she was accompanied by someone.

And, I'm pretty sure the white members of the Commission were present.

Yeah, he really should have worded that differently.

And Bernie has never ever said that economic justice was all that was needed to beat racism.

He always spoke out against police violence towards PoC...he saw it as an organizer in SNCC (an organization Bernie only parted company with because, in 1967, SNCC kicked out all of its white activists(for no good reason whatsoever). As an organizer, Bernie SAW police violence. As an organizer in Chicago, he could easily have been a target of it(especially being a Jewish leftist in a heavily Polish and Irish Catholic city). And it's a major part of why he endorsed and campaigned for Jesse Jackson in 1988. A person who didn't care

You can't point to any example in all the years before he sought the presidency where he ever actually refused to condemn institutional racism. Not once. He just didn't lead with it in his first round of campaign speeches. Bernie did nothing to deserve being singled out on this

The only reason you've been obsessively anti-Bernie is that you still think that capitalism is open to PoC, or ever could be, and you think it's actually possible to get rich starting from nothing. You might as well face facts: it isn't possible for market economics to be colorblind or to produce a racism-free society. Capitalism depends on racism and as a system it is gamed against the vast majority of us. It simply isn't possible to speak out against police violence with any credibility when you champion the system that feeds the racism that causes police violence.

Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce will never believe that Black Lives Matter.

I should have said, his lack of focus on institutional racism, in favor of economic justice ... there is a wide gap between championing something and being merely a reliable vote on that thing.

What is your source? From what I understand, tt seems that history is repeating itself ... Did SNCC kick out the white activists for "no good reason whatsoever" ... or were they get "kicked out" because they (Bernie) "grew frustrated with" with SNCC's insistence on focusing on racial justice (his words)?



You are incorrect on two points, here ... first, I am not anti-Bernie, obsessively or otherwise ... though I suppose it might seem that way to you because I see his flaws, as they relate to me and my interests; whereas, you do not/will not/cannot. Secondly, I have no illusions about capitalism ... it is an American institution, and thus, subject to the racism that America is based upon.

And another thing, let me correct something:

So then why are you supporting capitalism so much and defending the status quo?

You argue that social justice is more important that economic justice and that you would choose just social justice if you had to. So you are just choosing to perpetuate the capitalist system in our country because it is basically run by major corporations that are owned and run by white males. Do you think they are just going to say oh, okay, we'll give away all our power and control over the world now that PoC aren't getting murdered by cops? Business doesn't work that way. How are you going to get PoC to control the big corporations or get a piece of them? You're not going to do it without a big fight against the economic system of our country, without changing the power structure, and that's exactly what Bernie is fighting for. So while you think it is a separate issue, it is fundamentally a fight for PoC when he fights for economic justice.

The two are intertwined, it can't be more obvious. The fact that you just won't accept that and think it's all just racism and then try to use that to make Bernie the weaker candidate exposes your agenda plain and simple. You constantly harp on it just to try to tear Bernie down. There is no basis in reality with how you attempt to separate the two issues and Bernie has been fighting for equality for ALL for DECADES.

No ... I don't delude myself into the fantasy of believing that the wealthy will give away their power and/or control, ever ... short of a revolution, and that revolution (which we, as a nation and a people, are nowhere close to seeing) will not be an electoral process.



Thank you; but, this Black man will define, for himself, what "fact" (that has yet to be establish, nor observable in my life) to accept.

That is having more socialism. He wants more worker owned cooperatives.

and deal with income inequality. He's against all these crazy free trade agreements and for regulations. Your whole argument is that he's only focused on economics but now you say he would do nothing to change it.

Oh ye of little faith and grand agendas.

I have little faith that Bernie will be able to cobble together a coalition to address banking, corporations, or free trade.

So I guess it's "ye of little faith and grand agendas" versus "ye of grand agendas and no way to carry it out".

There are innumerable important issues in the world, There are not enough hours in the day to champion all of them. But I would say that arguably at the core of most of the issues is simple "justice." And if you champion that, then you are, to some extent, championing them all. Whether it's for PoC, or LBGT, or women, whether its social or economic, BS has consistently been on the best sides of all of these issues.

The idea of taking someone to task because they talked more about A than B even though you agree with them on both seems to create a bar that can never satisfy most people. There are too many issues that are (justifiably) important to too many people. Do we really have to choose between social justice and economic justice for PoC, or between either of those and gay marriage or right to choose, or between any of those and support for the patriot act or the iraq war, or whatever else, and not support merely those who we agree with, but only those who give each of them the amount of relative weight and attention that we think is best? And really, even strictly from this perspective, is any other candidate really so much better?

I can sympathize more with your other post, where you said,

I don't agree... but I find that more easily defensible than taking issue with Bernie's position and actions. I understand the electability concern, and while there has been some good news for Bernie supporters on that front, I hope that polls make it less of an issue for him between now and when the first primary votes are cast 4+ months from now. And considering the likelihood of a Republican controlled Congress, I don't expect immediate great strides leftward regardless. I just think we have to start at least trying to move the ball.

When the campaign started, one item was not talked about AT ALL ... that's why I was constant told about his history.



Yes ... That is how it is ... on the issues, we support those candidates that give weight to those issues that mean the most to us and withhold support from those candidates, based on prioritization.

It's nice to be able to agree with both candidates so much that these distinctions in priorities are even worth making. I'm not sure I personally see HRC as stronger than BS here, but that's the kind of call people will pretty much make for themselves.

Getting back to electability... as I mentioned in another thread, I think with so many states solidly blue or red, it will come down to a relative handful of states... and looked at that way, I feel good about our chances with either one of these candidates. But we'll see as time goes on... things can change... variables like the debates, who wins the republican nomination, who the running mates are, and "the unpredictable" can sway things one way or another...

Last edited Tue Sep 29, 2015, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)

The poing is, you can't fight institutional racism without also fighting against economic inequality. They are bound together. All Bernie has done is acknowledge that. And you can't fight it without forming a broad alliance of the economically locked out(which includes the majority of the people of this country). What harm do you think there was in saying that the freedom movement(as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X-in his post Nation of Islam years, after he had given up on black separatist capitalism-both said it needed to do) also needed to fight economic inequality? That economic inequality was just as much a form of oppression as Jim Crow? Do you really think that saying that somehow meant saying that it didn't matter that cops were killing black people? When did the people who said the first thing ever NOT say the second?

What is Bernie supposed to do, pretend that racism exists in isolation, continuing solely for its own sake? Was he supposed to pretend that PoC aren't affected by outsourcing, layoffs, wage cuts, benefit cuts, the disappearance of pensions? The truth is, PoC are disproportionately affected by those things.

Was he suppose to say that ALL whites are always equally complicit in racism(not just equally obligated to fight it, as we are, but equally guilty for it ever having existed, as if racism had nothing to do with what the power structure felt it needed to stay in power), and relentlessly condemn all whites, even those who are powerless themselves in this system, those who have been tricked into screwing themselves over by false consciousness, even those who do devote themselves to fighting racism?

How do you fight racism WITHOUT challenging capitalism and greed? Hubert Humphrey and the white "anticommunist" liberals tried there best to do that in the Sixties, and were crushed along with everyone else, because capitalism needs racism), and without forming alliances(the "Rainbow Coalition" that Fred Hampton spoke of years before Jesse Jackson popularized the term)with working-class whites and other PoC(alliances that don't require compromising on the fight against racism)?

And you say that you don't hate Bernie, but, even though he has proved he's on your side on all of the issues you and I care about, you STILL won't let up on him...you STILL won't stop treating the guy as if he's your enemy. You still act like he never did a damn thing to help.

Frankly, it sounds as if you think the defeat of racism requires the defeat of Bernie.

Since you can never get better anti-racist policies from candidates who are less progressive overall, why would you think that?

And who is your alternative?

O'Malley? The guy who gave the Baltimore PD the thumbs-up murder thousands of young black men? The guy who was just as much a supporter of "Broken Windows" policing as Rudy Giuliani?

HRC, who helped build the DLC and cheerled for "law and order" crime policies?

Biden, who hung Anita Hill out to dry and has never made an anti-racist statement in his life?

Webb, the Last Confederate?

The dude from Rhode Island who nobody even remembers?

In your rendition of Martin and Malcolm (after he had given up on "bean pie" black separatist capitalism ... I suspect you see nothing wrong with that statement), who were they advocating to attain economic equality ... and economic equality with whom?

They were also talking about freeing everyone, regardless of skin color, from economic and class injustice, because it is the insecurity and fear of greater want that plays a greater role in anything else in keeping working-class white racism alive than anything else...in a nation where everyone had their fair share, racism would still exist, but among far smaller numbers of working-class whites than now. It would be much easier to defeat. At the very least, it would be possible to defeat it. That's what Dr. King and Malik Al-Shabazz both saw...it's why they called for class-based multiracial alliances and why Dr. King announced the Poor People's Campaign(which is the real reason he was killed).

We agree that racism must be wiped out. We both agree that police violence needs to end YESTERDAY. We both agree that institutional racism can't be solved solely through economic means.. And so does Bernie(as he always did).

From what I can see, the main differences between us are that you seem to think that racism can be ended without making any economic changes at all, and we should talk about racism in complete isolation. And that white leftists(I'm not talking about wishy-washy Hubert Humphrey liberals, I'm talking about committed left and working-class activists-the second group isn't responsible gor the failings of the first) can never be trusted, can never truly be allies in the struggle. Have I got that right about your views?

If you want to say white Democratic presidential candidates as a group fall short on fighting racism, fine, they could ALL do better. They could all always Just stop singling Bernie out, because he has never been worse than the others and has never done more to deserve personal attack than the rest. And the anti-racist cause would not be in a stronger position if HRC had no real challengers for the nomination.

And the term I used there was a reference to the bean pie shops the NoI ran and Elijah Muhammad's essentially conservative economic separatism...a project that was always doomed to fail because it never addressed getting democratic control of the financial and insurance systems, which meant that...not to anything else...it was just a comment on the NoI as a group Malcolm left because he saw its shortcomings. I have no deleted it because I caused offense by using it.)

That is their legacy ... period. End of mission.



What is your source for this ... beyond your misappropriation of both men's legacy?



No. You do not have my views correct. Racism CAN be addressed in isolation of economic changes FOR ALL PEOPLE, as the intra-class disparity is the result of racism. And as you note, economic insecurity is NOT the cause of white racism, though it no doubt is an aggravating factor.

And NO, I do not believe that all white leftists can never be trusted, or allies in the racial justice fight. I have never said that ... In fact, I know, personally, dozens of white leftists who are, both, trusted and allies ... but they are NOT the ones telling me they are allies, while attempting to convince me that the cure for racism is economic security for white people ... and, oh yeah, Black people. History is witness to the falseness of that notion (witness the industrial labor movement and the Tenant Farmers-share-croppers' organizing movement before that.)

See, this here proves your agenda ... Everyone (it seems) making your argument, do so in the context of Bernie. That is a false frame ... the racial justice fight preceded Bernie, continued during his tenure in congress, and will likely continue long after Bernie has left this Earth.

Beyond that ... I have already (and repeatedly) conceded that NO politician in this race will appreciably affect racial justice. However, in my estimation, HRC stands a better chance to affect racial justice, even with her tepid racial platform, than Bernie BECAUSE one must be elected to initiate a national agenda. And further, in my estimation, ALL of the other Democratic candidates, would be better, if elected, because ALL of the Democratic candidates have a record of getting things done (beyond registering support for issues).



I know what you were referencing in that comment ... and it remains offensive. What you term "conservative economic separatism", is better termed "Economic Self-determinism", the term both The Nation and Malcolm used. But more, your analysis of the system's "failure" betrays a lack of understanding of the mission, as the system is about Self-financing and Self-insuring ... which The Nation does, quite successfully, to this day. And still further, Malcolm's departure from The Nation was wholly, unrelated to any financial modeling.

And, to another point you made earlier ... Malcolm remained a racial separatist and a (capitalistic) economic self-determinist, until his death.

I'll grant you that something like that sort of happened in the New Deal era, but we don't have anything in the mix today like the Southern senators and congressional committee chairs that forced FDR to do that then. What happened in FDR's day has nothing to do with what would happen today.

And again, nobody is saying that economic security(which would be equally for everyone-no one on the left is calling for economic security for whites only)would end all forms of racism. Saying that taking insecurity and fear of want out of everyone's minds is a crucial component of ending grassroots racism(as opposed to police racism) because doing so removes the major fuel of backlash politics is a different point. And saying that unemployment and poverty are a major component of racism has never meant denying that police racism matters, or in any way done harm to the struggle against police violence.

The fight against police and institutional racism is a separate issue and the candidate I support has always been committed to fighting it.

If my response to your posts has seemed Bernie-centric, it's because your posts themselves were Bernie-centric. You didn't just say that we all need to deeply support the fight against police violence(something none of us disagree with you on or ever have disagreed with you on) you have posted with specific and unrelenting personal contempt towards the guy. Do I think Bernie is perfect? Of course not...I don't think that of anyone, politician or not. But I do sincerely believe it was unfair of you to not imply that he didn't care about institutional racism and that he was only interested in economics, and also to equate virtually any challenge to your assertions on that as either personal attacks on you or as at least unconscious racism.

If you back HRC because you think she's the only one who can win, fine(though the polls now show Bernie doing just as well as HRC against most Republicans) , that's your call. But you could have done that without maligning the record and the commitment of a candidate who has never given you reason to doubt him or to (seemingly) treat him as an enemy to be crushed at all costs. And you never needed to accuse him of holding views on race that you know perfectly well he doesn't hold.

I never said that the fight against racism began with Bernie or would die with him, so please don't accuse me of holding views that I don't hold.

Finally, Martin Luther King's support of socialism(a position that never conflicted with the fight against racism, since capitalists of any race never played a meaningful role in that struggle) in his later years is well-documented. So is Malcolm's move to the left on economics. The cites I can show you on that are well-documented. Why do you act like I'm insulting the memory of these men when I point it out? To me, it's a sign of their courage(and it's the only thing that could explain their deaths-they were too prominent to be killed just for opposing racism). I'm paying homage to them in pointing it out.

I should have said, his lack of focus on institutional racism, in favor of economic justice ... there is a wide gap between championing something and being merely a reliable vote on that thing.

Why is that? You don't care if poor people die? You know PoC are disproportionately poor. So why don't you want to help them economically?

Honestly, I'm white and I care about social justice and would NEVER say I would choose economic justice over social justice just because I'm white and it's not as crucial for me since I don't suffer from racism. However, you have stated that you would choose social justice over economic justice and you have posted that you are well off financially, so you are basically saying you got yours and now you want more of yours and screw the poor, even though a higher percentage of PoC are poor. Now do you really believe that? I don't know. But I can see that it sure didn't take long for you to bring back that whole "doesn't care about Black people" meme.

I can't understand why you think of your group as a monolith - once upon a time it was racist to do that - even going so far as to call those that disagree with you "outliers" just because they support Bernie. While you were gone Spike Lee said he likes Bernie. Boy, I would love to see you call him an "outlier" to his face.

I suspect the reason you dislike Bernie so much as to have to attempt to smear him - and yes, smear, I saw your "it's not racism, it's economics" comment before you got your time out - is because you are trying to help your corporate candidate. We've all seen your posts where you disparage "progressives" and "liberals". You defended all of the centrist policies of Obama. I get it. You're a centrist. You're fiscally conservative and socially progressive (which doesn't really make any sense since as I pointed out, poverty affects PoC disproportionally in this country).

Too bad you're not willing to fight for everyone all the time. But then that's what liberals and progressives do. We're funny that way.

but economic justice doesn't (necessarily) include social justice.

Yes ... I care very much if poor people (of all races and creeds) die. And, I know what is killing PoC (both figuratively and literally) has little to with economics ... Sandra Bland wasn't poor. And I know without social justice, there is no way for economic justice, once attained, to be maintained.



Really ... then why DO you choose economic justice over social justice ... Honestly.



I have said none of that ... But it can just as easily be said that you choose economic justice to get more of yours and screw those that will lose out to you because of intra-class disparities.



Notice that it is YOU bring up that meme ... where have I said anything approaching that?



LOL ... when a person holds an opinion outside of the mainstream of the opinion held by that group ... that is pretty much the definition of the term "OUTLIER." And that includes, Spike "I'm curious about Bernie" Lee should he decide to support Bernie (once he finds out more about him) ... and any other "negro of the month" you choose to hold out. They will continue to be outliers until such time the mainstream of the Black community supports Bernie ... and certainly until Bernie's support among the Black electorate exceeds single digits.



Martin O'Malley is a corporate candidate? Who knew?



Great ... then, you will agree that I don't disparage progressives or liberals; just, those that claiming to be so ... without bothering to include social justice ... well, to be fair ... those that want social justice concerns to wait until they get more money ... and have only a dream on how to get there.



No ... Actually, I am, both, fiscally and socially, progressive ... but here's the thing: I am NOT a dreamer, I cannot afford to be. I recognize what can, and cannot, be done in our current political environment.



LOL ... Okay.

And you keep trying to make a divide between the two and I suspect it's in order to justify and rationalize choosing a corporate candidate over a progressive one. You just said yourself elsewhere that Hillary is no better than Bernie on social justice, and it's pretty clear that Bernie is better than Hillary on economic justice, so there you have it. Feel the Bern.

I have never, ever, chosen economic justice over social justice. In fact, I can recall another exchange we had where I asked you what's wrong with, and what's keeping you from fighting for both at the same time. Why not fight for EVERYONE, ALL the time? You even quoted me saying that at the end of my post, so I don't understand where you're pulling that out from.

And since you have now admitted that Hillary is no better than Bernie on social justice, it shows that your relentless unfair attacks on Bernie over social justice are misguided and biased. Your attacks on other PoC for supporting him are seriously awful. You practically called someone a traitor to his race and you know very well your use of the term "outlier" is used disparagingly. I might believe you were innocent on that one if it weren't for your constant attempts to paint Bernie as bad on racial issues, even snickering that he might just be racist. ("it's not racism, it's economics" and "when do minorities get to play&quot

And you just couldn't wait to get started on it all over again as soon as you got back from your time out.

And as I've mentioned before, you are not progressive by a long shot. Not when you defend moderate Republican policy constantly as you did on here when you defended Obama all the time. He's not progressive. He's a self-described moderate Republican when it comes to policy.

And holding hearings on the situation. I think it's fairly unusual for a Senator to visit a poor area of a different state.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251437633

Do you want change, or do you just want to complain about Bernie Sanders? No need to answer. The question was rhetorical, and it served its purpose.

whatever that might be ... I will give you an answer.

I want non-Black Bernie fans to stop telling me my interests. Plain and simple.

you asked me what I wanted. That makes it about me.

Suggestion: IGNORE works.

The OP was directed to the general DU-reading public. If you're instead referring to me, I'm damned sure not telling you what your interests should be. I'm questioning exactly what it is you want out of this man.

He just said it wasn't the only issue.

Bernie never ever said that police violence against PoC didn't matter.

Why are you STILL on his case?

Bernie doesn't just say he's for social justice; he has a well thought-out and specific set of proposals for each type of violence perpetuated against black and brown Americans. https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

Here is the intro followed by Bernie's proposals for the first type of violence, physical violence, as perpetrated by the state and by extremists:

Source: https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

I'd like to post his proposals for dealing with political, legal and economic violence against people of color but am too sleepy to do so at present. But you can read them at the link. They're very good.

Who'd have thought that!

He makes that point quite clearly, and you too should make it. Otherwise, you leave yourself open for the disingenuous response you got from someone who pretends to care about AAs but who can't be bothered with the ONE candidate who has extensive, workable policies to support AAs and other people of color.

Thanks for the thread, jfern.

And you privilege racial justice over economic justice?

If so, AA wouldn't agree. That's why they're rightly attracted to Bernie's biggest campaign issue -- that economic inequality increases the likelihood of more racial injustice.

The cost of poverty is greater than the cost of racial injustice, I believe. When money and resources give people more freedom, freedom of choices comes with that, along with just being safer, more comfortable, less exposed to random crazy. It's what's for dinner.

Racially changed hearts and minds are less likely to open doors for minorities than will money. Prejudice is still there, but with a good income, it's less. It's a sad reality that, so far, there has not been enough money to avoid racism altogether, but as for your claim that it will never be sufficient, I think they'll take their chances.

Just saying that AA still believe what King said, so does Bernie and so do I. So actually I think we might both agree?

It was about refuting the argument that what Warren said was totally different from what Sanders said.