How am I refusing to acknowledge their rights? Everyone needs free medical care, free educations and a basic income as a human right. They can put what ever they want in their bodies and can have taken out what ever they want from their bodies, what right am I refusing to acknowledge? And how is letting the republicans take control not failure to support fundamental human rights? Because that is what will win in that county and state? Stawman premise Stawman conclusion Stawman question. What do you think I'm asking for? A presidential candidate that is anti-gay, pro-life, trandcon that wants economic reform, I would just vote paul ryan then! You confused "prioritize" with "only". Tell me is Bernie Sanders Pro-life or is he pro-choice and has openly said so? -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/united-against-the-war-on_b_1464730.html and yet he is well respected, in fact the most popular politicians alive today -- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-country-poll-says How is that? Because the economic platform is the most inspiring to the most people across every demographic. His open support of gay marriage, feminism, BLM, Palestine, is ignored by the independents and moderates because those are not his central issues, the issue they care about most is. Funny that: how many women voted trump? heck what percentage of women are pro-life? You seem to think all women think the same. Typical bells, goes for shaming. Take a moment to note what gets elected in red counties and red states, usually religious wacko pro-life republicans, now if we could get less religious and less pro-life democrats elected there and get a democrat majority, specifically of democrats willing to tax the rich and actually finance public services like planned parenthood, I would call that a win for women. But to you those red state democrats are not pure enough, too pro-life, no you would rather we lose everything and let the republicans control everything and defund plan parenthood and eat way at abortion rights. Your all about talk but no action, and that is how we got president trump. If you mean by I was right, and you were wrong and choose the most unelectable candidate possible dooming us to a trump presidency, then yes, I gladly take the title of "Ultimate Bernie Bro", your sexist shaming cost us everything, I hope your happy. I also took women's studies in college but that was a while ago, I was told by the instructor then that I, as a man, could never be a feminist, at best a castrato, I mean "allie"... that was the first seed of doubt that grow over mean years. Modern Online pop feminism has hurt democrats, everyone knows it, everyone but you apparently: Here was today on imgur: http://imgur.com/gallery/L25Iv Take a look at the comments.
Oh, everyone knows it. Well, why didn't you say so? Yet, you've still offered no evidence for anything. Just your dumbass youtube videos and comments sections. Idiot. Edit: First, modern feminism. Then, modern pop feminism. Now, modern online pop feminism. And also, thanks for proving my point (from satirical blog post thread <<<) regarding born-rich idiots dumbing down American universities, by virtue of mommy's and daddy's ability to pay up.
If you go back a few years, many of those seats were held by just such Democrats as you describe - Blue Dogs and the like. They got beat by Republicans - that was the Dem Party reward for that compromise.
By shaming and insulting us? By referring for the fight for equality as "pop feminism" and whatnot, you cannot see just how you are refusing to acknowledge the rights of women, minorities and LGBT? You cannot see how you see the fight for equality for all of those groups, which make up more than half of the population of the US combined, mind you, being something that is detrimental to your party, so much so that you are calling for ignoring it all and focusing only on economic reform and then waving your hands about and saying the rest can come later, is a failure to acknowledge the huge problems in the US? Seriously, I need to ask and support Parmalee's question here, do you even read any books? Or do you get all of your information from youtube and their comments section? Because it is clear that you are so focused on winning, that you cannot see just how much you will lose by going down this route. If the Democrats sell out on their principles just to win, then you do not deserve to win. How do you think you let them take control? It's an election. They won. You ignore the fact that they lost the popular vote by a fairly large margin, by the way. So how do you think you let them win? And as much as I detest their policies, I will say one thing, they haven't won by caving to their principles, which is exactly what you seem to think the Democrats should do. What does that make you? Seriously? You cannot see just how fucked up it is that the party that touts itself as supporting women's reproductive rights suddenly changing gears to support a candidate that does not support women's reproductive rights? What do you think female Democrat voters are going to do in that county and state? Probably not vote Democrat. Why would those women vote for a candidate that fails to support their basic human rights to their won bodies? Or have you yet again failed to factor that in? If you believe that selling out and appeasing to the right to try to win is the way to win, then you do not deserve to win. And it will be a reason for Democrats not turning out to vote. Women, minorities, LGBT are not and should not be an afterthought, EF. Treating them as such is why you won't win. And that is exactly what you are suggesting the Democrats do. But you are arguing that if that is what it takes to win an election... Are you even aware of what you are arguing for at present? You just want to win? Selling out your voter base and a huge chunk of voters as an afterthought, because you want to focus on gaining white male voters is not going to get you a win. Then Bernie Sanders is a sell out by supporting a pro-life candidate. He is against the war on women, but he supports a candidate that holds views that are at the heart of the war on women.. He's a sell out. As for his support for gay marriage, well, his record speaks for itself and it is not as he makes it out to be. As for whether he would have won or not. Well, history shows that they would have wiped the floor with him. And it would have been the end of the left and progressive politics in the US for a very long time. As for his support for BLM.. Funny.. Is that why you think BLM supporters disrupted his campaign gatherings so much? To voice their support? Or was it possibly to point out the glaring problem of his whole campaign? As the campaign lurches forward, some Sanders supporters are grudgingly getting behind Hillary Clinton, but others are clinging to the movement, hoping that there’s a way—through the Green Party, which officially nominates Jill Stein this weekend at its convention in Houston, or just refusing to vote at all—to keep fighting for their revolution. But their willingness to shout down one of the most iconic figures in modern civil rights raises a question: Just what revolution are they talking about? And for whom? A look at the Sanders rooting section, or a Green Party rally, is a striking picture: They are every bit as white as the typical Trump rally. Susan Sarandon, writer and activist Naomi Klein, novelist Jonathan Lethem. Black people? Aside from a few high-profile Sanders supporters—author Ta-Nehisi Coates and former NAACP president Ben Jealous, to name two—they overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton. Black people’s absence raises an important—and uncomfortable question for the uber-progressives who see themselves at the heart of Sanders’ movement, which continues to march on. If you look at who’s really on the bottom of the American economic hierarchy, you realize that any genuine revolution is going to have to be a campaign to lift up people of color. This isn’t just a critique of the Sanders movement for not being diverse enough (though that’s a problem, too). The absence of black and brown people is a genuine impediment to their movement. It’s black Americans, not would-be white revolutionaries, who’ve led a successful movement to claim power and rights in this country. And it’s black people who are going to be the beneficiaries. If they're missing—which they are—it suggests both that the movement is getting something wrong, and isn’t long for the political world. Sanders had some high-profile minority surrogates, but in exit polling data from 27 states, black voters ultimately rejected him by a margin of 7 to 1, and Clinton won the Latino vote by double digits. Jill Stein is now making an overt play for Sanders’ voters, but her supporters are overwhelmingly white, too: She has the support of only 3 percent of non-white people, according to a late July CNN poll, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 61 percent. Even if Stein can siphon off enough Sanders supporters to give Clinton headaches in November, can a revolution built upon the idea of tackling some of the country’s most pressuring divides and economic inequality be a legitimate movement if it is made up mostly of white activists and rabble rousers, given that those issues have hampered the lives of people of color more than anyone else’s? It’s almost impossible to understand the fundamental nature of poverty and related social problems in the United States without understanding how race factors into it. It’s not happenstance that white families have 16 times the wealth of black families, or that 73 percent of white families own their homes, compared with less than half of black families. Those 21st century realities are rooted in discriminatory practices that date to the early 20th century and earlier. To be sure, race and poverty are still two distinct issues. Economic troubles can’t explain the persistence of racial discrimination that comes in covert and overt forms, whether it is the reality that applicants with black-sounding names are less likely to receive a job interview or black men and women, regardless of their economic station in life, are more likely to be involved in uncomfortable and sometimes fatal encounters with police. These issues can’t simply be uprooted by a focus on economic inequality. So you want to put that on the back burner and focus primarily on economic reform, while ignoring the issues affecting minorities at present? Good luck getting them to turn out to vote for your future candidates. You cannot push these issues on the back-burner and expect voters to believe that all will be fixed if you win because you are running on a platform of economic reform. Economic reform for whom? When you whine about how the "rich" are paying for everything, you aren't winning over voters. Frankly, you just sound like a Republican.
And you seem to think that women can just be shoved to the side and the issues that affect us can be ignored for the moment, so you can focus your priority on one thing... What? You think ignoring women in this way is going to get you to win? You don't think being able to articulate how issues of reproductive health and access to reproductive health, wage equality, access to education, sexual harassment, sexual assaults, access to proper nutrition and health care, access to child care, access to proper schools for their kids, is worthwhile enough to make it onto the Democratic Party platform because "economic reform" is where it's all at? You don't understand how the economy plays into it all? Failure to understanding these issues and the willingness to compromise on these things because 'gotta win!', means that you will never succeed. And frankly, if you are bending over backwards enough to support pro-life candidates, then you do not deserve to win. But you ask, how many women voted for Trump? Trump garnered a large portion of white female voters. Clinton had more female voters over all. Nationally, Clinton picked up 54 percent of women voters compared with Trump’s mere 42 percent. But Trump outperformed Clinton among white women, winning 53 percent of voters in that demographic.Drilling down further, he beat Clinton among white women without college degrees by 27 points. In the three states that decided the election — Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan — that margin was enough to send Trump to the White House. So why do you think that is? And why do you think not prioritising issues affecting women and instead putting more priority on economic reform and supporting pro-life candidates is going to get you more women voters? Let's face it, your argument comes down to your desire to woo back white voters and you wish to do so by focusing on what you think giving white voters what they want to hear. Clinton’s success with women is a statistic largely driven by her popularity among minorities. Among college-educated voters, more than 90 percent of black women voted for Hillary Clinton — 95 percent of black women voters without a college degree also voted for her, according to exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and the Washington Post. She performed similarly with Hispanic women and nonwhite women. Trump, on the other hand, found his strength among white women, whom he won by 53 percent overall. Break that number down even further, and Trump’s success is specifically among white women without college degrees, 61 percent of whom voted for him. Clinton actually did 7 points better than Trump with white college-educated women. By mocking and diminishing female voters and their issues as being some sort of social media event, you are attempting to appeal to the uneducated women, those who supported Trump. Because educated women voted for Clinton. I wonder why that is? Funny that, huh? And it is those educated women you are attempting to dismiss and mock, by diminishing women's rights as being something minor, something to be mocked.. Really? That's what you are going with? Tell me, do you want me to rehash your pathetic performance in this and other threads, where you have mocked women and women's rights, minority rights and LGBT rights? You want the Democrats to win? Then you should start by not sounding like a Republican and only appealing to white male voters and arguing that everything else can simply come after. You have no idea what would be a win for women and coming off like a raving right wing nutbag, going on about taxing the rich, is not what the left or women need in politics. Especially when you have a record of dismissing women and the concerns of women and their rights on this website. You got Trump because of people like you and the beliefs you so freely spout. Angry Bernie Bros, such as yourself, who were so enraged that he lost, that they refused to vote or voted for Stein, the anti-vaxxer. That is why Trump won. So let's consider.. Sanders would not have gained the minority votes (which is evidenced above, because of his inability and failure to account for issues affecting minorities until it was obvious that he needed their votes, when he suddenly started to pay attention to them - after all, when you ignore the people most affected by the economy when focusing on economic reform, those people tend to take notice and take their votes elsewhere), and when he lost the primaries, his voters went with Stein, etc.. So you want to ask why Trump won? Ask your fellow Bernie Bro's. I hope you are happy.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So real life examples is not evidence for you, so you basically deny reality. How about this, go door to door in the suburbs and ask people about patriarchy theory, see how people respond, then ask your self if that is really the kind of talk that should be used to advocate liberal values. Call it what ever you want, the feminism of fighting against female circumcision and sharia law, fighting for birth control and abortions, is not the feminism people are sick of hearing about, this is: The blue dogs were corpistists and sell outs, and yes the political pendulum does swing, what matters is we implement effective economic changes in the time we have.
Pretty sure healthcare, wages, price of education, basic standard of living is are issues that affects women, lots of women, in fact even more women then the pro-choice ones. You your self even name said issues, great just name them UNIVERSALLY, not simply as issues for women but for EVERYONE, how Obama won was on unity and "hope" and "change" not "women first" So you prove my point, you rather have republicans run everything. It is you and tiassa and your ilks purity test that have brought us to this point. Oh yes the 1-2% more in female voters was worth the drop in every other demographic, and the losings of the election? You just showed that we lost white women and uneducated women. Economic issues are more important to uneducated women, suburban and rual white women care alot about how outsourcing has destroyed their local businesses that either they ran or their husbands ran, putting food in there children mouth. Abortion is not their biggest concern and to many of them it is evil anyways, campus rape is not their biggest concern because unlike bourgeois college girls, poorer women are MORE LIKELY TO BE RAPED and no one talks about it. Putting more priority on economic reform and supporting local candidates that that fit their wacko beliefs about jebus will get us more votes in the house and senate. Meanwhile the city bourgeois tumblr feminist will still have her local pro-choice black transsexual otherkin candidate to support. Heck we could even have a female president so long as she is Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard and her primary concern is fixing the economy first and foremost. Let me put it simple for you, you have your progressive stack backwards, it is not class<race<gay<sex, it is class>race>gay>sex: class is the biggest issue, money is power, money is the means to doing anything, class covers the most people and is the issue that must be priority number 1. Replace white with majority, and then I will say yes. What would that have to do with the issue at hand? Go right ahead won't stop how trump is president and you and your kind help make it so. Oh but you know what the left and women need in politics right, that why we have Hillary in the white house now and democratic majorities in the senate and house? Hey I voted for Hillary in the general so you can't blame me, but if your going to blame bernie bros for burning it down, then next time don't enrage them and choose a more electable candidate instead. Sanders would have garnered the minority vote, who else would the minority votes for? Trump? And yes think about it: who is most affected by the economy, or right poor people of whom and plurality are white but disproportionate percentage are minorities, would not economic reform not be their top priority, how is giving poor blacks free healthcare and free education and higher wages, and debt relief not something they are going to vote for enthusiastically over "build the wall"? You choose the wrong candidate, simple as that.
Yo do realize that "women's health" covers way more than simply abortion and reproductive matters, right? (Rhetorical.) Why Medical Research Often Ignores Women <<< And that "economic concerns" affect women, minorities, et al disproportionately, yeah? Not expecting you to grasp this, being a child of privilege and all, but I was raised by a single mother with a medical condition which frequently resulted in death by the age of 40. Mortality has improved considerably over the past 20-30 years, but the reason for the high mortality rates and relative lack of awareness and research was--guess what?--that lupus afflicts nine times as many women as it does men. My mother is smart--she was valedictorian in high school--and she could have gone to university for free, but her prick father forbade it. So, having only a high school diploma and being a woman, she struggled to get by and raise two kids. You really don't get it, and it's pretty freakin' obvious to everyone here. And I suspect that were you to actually read something, or take a class or something, you might actually learn something. No, you won't get the validation you get from you creepy youtube buds, but you'll get an education--which is priceless, or something like that--and you'll be less likely to end up looking like a fool.
You don't know me. And you have no clue about my argument, of course economic concern effect women, IT EFFECTS ALL OF US! That is my point why it must be priority number one, it UNIFIES all of us and does not divide us into groups whose issues need to be priorities over each other. Women will benefit more from economics first goverment than a women's first goverment because A) women need healthcare, jobs, education and debt releif just like everyone else and B) the latter can't even get elected, we in fact have the exact opposite of a pro-women goverment in power now thanks to you and your ilk thinking a women first agenda was electable and righteous over and economy first agenda. As for lupus, lupus, seriously? Who are the majority of homeless, who are the majority of suicide victims, who has a shorter lifespan, who are more likely to be murdered: men. Trump is what you get for pushing one identify group over others instead of trying to focus on the issue that unifies them all.
You have no argument. You make outlandish claims and support them with youtube videos or by saying "everyone knows this." Moreover, you have been asked repeatedly--by countless posters--for some sort of substantiation for said outlandish claims and you offer... youtube videos. I don't know you, but I can easily surmise that you don't read much: your writing is largely incomprehensible, you consistently use terminology incorrectly (would you like a list?) and you consistently misunderstand what other posters write in response to you, compelling them to reiterate and rephrase again and again--though even that proves futile. And do you not understand examples? Lupus would be but one of many diseases and health issues which are largely ignored, or for which research is grossly underfunded, almost entirely because they predominantly afflict women--as per the article linked directly above that. Incidentally, my mother also had a knee replacement done about 15 years back which has plagued her to this day. She's like 5'2" and 100 pounds and the freakin' synthetic knee they put in her was designed for a much larger and much taller person--why do you suppose that is? Edit: Who is pushing for this, erm, "women's first government?"
The Challenge, Unmet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for crash. Demonstrate your "women first" fallacy. The question arises↑ as to the difference between making a priority and answering the challenge. You have exactly nothing to say on the subject↑, yet continue pushing the fallacy that responding to issues is somehow making them a priority. No, seriously, your pretense of ignorance is part of your problem. A Republican says employers should be able to disrupt a woman's healthcare, she says no, Democrats agree with her; how is that "women first"? How is equal rights "women first"? Show us your liberalism, ElectricFetus: Write an actual liberal political argument supporting what you advocate. Or are you just going to tell people to sit back and watch YouTube, instead? You say health care; Republicans say exceptions, exclusions, and exemptions; you say, what, don't prioritize those? Okay, what does that mean? Don't address them? Because so far, it is impossible to tell the difference between addressing the issues put before us and prioritizing them unjustly as you would pretend. Of course, that's largely because you're trying to posture yourself as a liberal on a right-wing vocabulary while demonstrating precisely no comprehension of American liberalism, or even basic American concepts like equality and justice. As it is— —you have no clue what you're on about; you're just making shit up as you go. Seriously, the statement that "poorer women are MORE LIKELY TO BE RAPED and no one talks about it", for instance, is absurd on at least two levels: (1) Yes, people talk about it, (2) you have yet to explain how answering the challenge is inappropriate prioritization. Reconcile those two points, for instance. Meanwhile, talk hierarchies all you want, but you can't pretend below "class" doesn't affect the larger generalization of "class". Sadly, there might be negotiable ground in your platform if only you were capable of addressing basic functional contrasts derived from the disparity between your fake economic justice and clasist subterfuge. You make Hillman's↱ point for her: We live intersectional lives, and these issues must be addressed intersectionally. To separate class from gender, race, sexuality, and ability in fighting for economic justice is to create a fiction that economic injustice is only driven by one kind social injustice—the kind that able-bodied cishet white men experience. That you must spin fiction—("... and no one talks about it")—in order to double back against yourself only reminds that this is a troll job; you're so busy promoting right-wing narrative↗ in hope of inflicting suffering you can't be bothered to keep track of yourself. Your quest for vengeance↗ and obsession with breaking people↗ should either be taken seriously or not. If so, seek help; if not, quit trolling. Your argument has nothing to do with the real politics of our society, ElectricFetus, and everything to do with you and how you see yourself, which actually is why you have nothing to say. What your cheap troll job reflects is the underlying sense of disempowerment driving this discontent. And as with all such things, we cannot as a society deal with it until it discomfits white men; and as with all such things, the only acceptable solutions attend discomfited white men—anything else, the rhetoric goes, is unwelcome identity politic. Your lack of comprehension about liberal political argument is evident; the tales you spin in lieu of argument come straight out of a right-wing fever swamp. But you make a good spokesman for Appeasement insmuch as you demonstrate the futility of giving over to prejudice and bullying. A rising tide cannot lift sabotaged boats; your politic reflects a familiar advocacy on behalf of the saboteurs. As Traister noted, Democrats go through the question of sacrificing women at the altar of appeasement over and over and over again. And this, as Iceaura↑ reminds, is their reward for attending that sacrifice. Here is something you can't answer: What do we do about sincere beliefs in fiction? Nobody really knows how to accommodate certain bigoted fears. But think of it this way: The conservative argument can say that gays started the Gay Fray by wanting to see their kids. Queers, by contrast, argue conservatives set it off because there really wasn't much going on with the movement aside from trying to survive a plague at a time when Christianist groups freaked out over family court and payroll dispute resolutions that did not discriminate against homosexuals for being gay, and responded with ballot measures seeking to amend state constitutions in order to institute discrimination. All liberals did was say no. That made conservatives uncomfortable. Made a winning political majority feel persecuted. All anyone had to do was disagree with them. Do you understand that through the nineties it wasn't gays putting the issue at the fore, but conservatives? Hey, all Lawrence and Garner won in Texas was the right to not be arrested for being gay. The thirty-four subsequent marriage votes? Those are on Christianists and conservatives; the 2012 election? Three of those are on states that said to be done with the issue; one of those is on Christianists who got greedy, and thereby set their own downfall in motion. So, yeah. Twenty years worth of elections; that's what you call "the drop of a hat". How about forty years worth of elections? Again, "the drop of a hat". How many years of police taking it out on black people? The drop of a fear of a black hat, or something, maybe? Liberals might never have figured a solution, but neither can they admit the possibility of dealing with broad-scale antisocial behavioral disorder; that is to say, there is only so much one can communicate with those who refuse communication. But we've been 'round this mulberry bush far too many times, already: Conservative picks a fight; conservative loses fight; conservative complains about liberals picking a fight. Liberals didn't set up "the rape thing"↗; nobody had to rush human rights to the fore as a liberal identity politic, we already had Republicans demanding discussion of such issues. Remember, part of how that came about was Limbaugh trying to rally conservatives by slut-shaming women who use birth control, and Mitt Romney's inability to answer whether or not an employer should be allowed to disrupt a woman's health care, which in turn was a conservative advocacy. Over and over again this happens: Bully picks fight, someone stands up to bully, bully cries that someone picked a fight. As your would-be argument folds in on itself, remember that you're not new; most of us have been through this before, and that's why nobody believes your poorly-excuted poseur routine.
Also this: Wow. It's pretty hard to come up with a response to that. I pretty much spent most of the 90's waiting for the phone call informing me that my mother was dead. Fortunately, she managed to survive about 20 years of hell and has been largely in remission for the past decade; although she has been strongly discouraged from ever setting foot in a hospital again as she has NO immune system. But really... Aside from being remarkably ignorant on a variety of subjects, being borderline functionally illiterate, and being a comically presumptuous and entitled twit--likely a product of being born rich, though I lay off on that for a while as not all of them turn out like you--you are just a fucking piece of shit.
You really don't actually understand it, do you? What's the matter, youtube not providing you with enough information to allow you to keep up? The only person running a purity test here is you. Because what you have been doing has been pretty obvious. Your repeated slurs about women's, minority and LGBT issues, for example, while whining about how the Democrats make the rich pay. Which is what makes you the typical Bernie Bro. Actually, I would say you are more of a Republican, which kind of makes you a fraud. But you saw something in Bernie. After all, at first, Bernie was pushing a platform that a white male such as yourself could really grab on to. Let me guess, you were pissed off when he realised that he stood absolutely zero chance without attracting the female and minority vote when he belatedly swerved his campaign to try and address the fact that his economic reform was ignoring and leaving out those who suffer the absolute most from economic downturns? Must have really pissed you off that he dared to start paying attention to women's issues and campaigning on those issues even more, huh? That is your purity test. There comes a point in time where one has to think about whether they are doing the right thing, or simply in it to win it. You don't give a flying fuck about the right thing or doing the right thing. You only care about winning, at any cost. If it means ignoring the Democratic base and voters who make the backbone of your party, which include women, minorities and LGBT, then so be it. You think the ultimate goal is recapturing the white vote, particularly the white male vote. Hence your desire and your repeated assertion that the Democrats should be focusing more on their economic platform and economic reform and leaving the rest to follow. Hence why you post repeated videos trying to insult feminists, why you attempted to shame and mock a member of the LGBT on this very forum and why you keep pushing the 'rich will have to pay' line. Which not only shows a clear lack of understanding of economics and the distribution of wealth, but also shows a clear lack of education in history, education, sociology, the law on your part. What several people have been trying to get through to you, EF, is that if you have a push on economic reform without addressing women's issues, minority issues and LGBT issues, if you fail to address their rights, then you will not win. It is the exact reason why minority voters failed to turn out for Bernie Sanders and why Sanders had to scramble to try to garner their votes by finally addressing those issues and that of women and LGBT as well. But it was too late. I mean, did that part escape you? Or do you think fundamental human rights should simply take a back seat because you and your youtube tribe think that it needs to be about the economy first and foremost? What? You don't actually understand that having reforms on the economy without the ability to recognise who have the most to win/gain/lose in that discussion should be at that friggin table first and foremost? Bernie Sanders ran a campaign on the economy without even recognising who were the most affected by the economy. Why do you think minorities did not turn out for him, EF? And you want to do that again, on the grand scale? It is laughable. It is an absolute joke. And the more you post videos belittling women and their rights across the board, the more you mock LGBT and minorities and the fights for their fundamental human rights, the more and more you and your ilk will lose. Because the reason the Democrats lost is because of people like you. Own it. People with views such as yours, who are only in it to win it, went to Stein, in a childish huff and their youtube videos in tow, resulting in Trump winning. So own it. Stop blaming others for what you and your ilk, did. You don't even understand the breakdown of the demographics, do you? I mean, I can't even discuss the 'why' with you, when you don't even understand the how... You actually lost mostly the uneducated white women. Educated white women voted for Clinton at a higher rate than Trump. So pray tell, why are you trying to drag the party down to appeal to uneducated white people? And why are you so willing to dismiss minority women overall? You mean, economic issues are more important to uneducated white women. What about minority women? Educated women? So you don't think that access to health care, education, employment matters to other women? That's right, minority and educated women don't count for you, do they? Did you bother to read the rest of the article? Let me guess, from that response, the answer is a no..? You really should have read the rest of the article. White women without college educations have become an increasingly conservative voting bloc over the past 24 years, Dittmar said, noting that these are also women with more conservative views on gender, making them less likely to push back against a guy who was trying to assume a very traditionalistic view of masculinity. And this is what you want to burn the house down for, to appeal and compromise everything for these women? Of course you do. You're that type of guy, aren't you? Instead of being the party that attempts to lift these women up, provide them with access to education and health care, you think the Democrats should lower themselves down, to compromise, to garner support from these women and keep them in that submissive role. Do you actually believe that reproductive health is only about abortion? Good grief, for the love of all that is sacred, open a god damn book and put youtube away on your computer! As for rape, acquaintance rape wins regardless, be it for college girls, or uneducated women. Most women are raped by men they know. And strangely enough, it is to the voters who often downplay these forms of sexual assault, that you think the Democrats should be pandering to. Why? And really, "bourgeois college girls"? Don't you mean "bourgeoisie"? You really have a problem with educated women, don't you? Probably explains all the women hating videos you keep posting.
And that right there is why you will not win and why you will be forever tarnished as a sexist and misogynistic bigot. Failure and the refusal to even acknowledge those most affected by economic downturns and who will be most affected by economic returns and your repeated mocking insults towards those most affected by it is why you will not win and frankly, do not deserve to win. If the Democrats do as you are doing now, then the left in the US is dead and frankly, you will not deserve to win. And you think ignoring, mocking, insulting those affected the most by "class" is going to make you win? You could make "class" a priority as big as the sun, and it will not let you win if you completely and utterly fail to understand the issues affecting class and if you persist in mocking and insulting people who are most affected by it. Let's see, you have insulted minorities, LGBT and women. The only group you are demanding the Democrats appeal to are white.. Predominately white uneducated people. You seem to believe that the Democrats should be forgetting their priorities, and lowering themselves to even running pro-life candidates in the hope of winning. And whose votes would you be winning? The predominately white uneducated vote. In short, you think the Democrats should sell out and burn down the whole house, just to win. You're no better than Trump, who promises everything and anything just to win. Any candidate who does that, regardless of their party's affiliation, is a dangerous candidate. So why do you think the Democrats should be doing this? Just to win. Frankly, the stupidity of your argument does not even need to be highlighted. It glows like radioactive turd all on its very own. By me and my kind, do you mean a minority woman? And it's even worse for you, isn't it.. An educated minority woman. Sucks to be you at the moment, doesn't it? As I said, if you want to know how they won, look in the mirror. When angry entitled boys such as yourself threaten, browbeat and abuse people because their guy lost, and then threaten to take your votes elsewhere, who then partake in spreading vicious rumours about a candidate, then really, yeah, look in the mirror. You keep denying sexism played a role, and you have been acting like a sexist oaf about Clinton for how long now? I mean, your arguments in this and other threads just kind of prove the whole damn point. I don't believe you voted for Clinton. And frankly, it just makes you a bigger fraud. You don't believe in what the Democrats stand for. You completely lack any understanding of the issues that the Democrats have been trying to tackle and instead, have taken to dismissing and mocking them with insults.. You're not a Democrat and frankly if you were, you pose a threat to them. If I was a Democrat and I saw you spouting all of this rubbish, I would be questioning what the fuck was wrong with the party to result in the likes of you being attracted to it. You really did not understand those demographic studies, did you? This does not even make sense. When economic reform ignores those most affected by it, then those voters will not turn out and vote for candidates doing the ignoring. This is why Sanders lost the minority vote 7 to 1 in over 25 States. By the time he realised that in pushing economic reform he was completely ignoring minorities who are the most affected by it, it was too late. And yeah, stop relying on youtube for your argument. Start citing some actual articles. Youtube doesn't cut it.
It really does seem to be something to do with women. Parmalee recalls a thread on feminism in particular; I recall his performance in an abortion discussion; I honestly don't think he would be pitching this fit if it wasn't a woman on the Democratic ticket. A lot of what he has awry is common American political bullshit; for some reason, many people think the masses traditionally responding to superstition will suddenly—this will be the year!—start responding to enlightened and rational discourse. To wit, it is very hard imagining, with the "woman card" off the table, Mr. Sanders properly enduring traditional anti-communist American panic being pushed by an icon of American capitalism. The idea that we could have sent Sanders and picked up, with the ostensible socialist, a bunch of votes from people who just spent how much time blubbering about socialist takeovers of this, that, and the other, is interesting to say the least. We might as well expect that the white working class in the Rust Belt will re-unionize. Part of what Democrats wrangle with, historically speaking, is that the predecessors to the current "white working class" that turned this election bear a certain appearance of having inflicted a certain degree of self-harm, and traditional supremacism appears to play an influential role. One way to look at how Americans receive and adapt to equality is to consider an historical disparity. Imagine that I, as a male, finally acknowledge, okay, you're equal. Well, what does that mean? Do you remember Congressional Republicans doing the, "Obamacare is the law of the land", bit? The rhetorical sleight is nothing new; apply it to a woman's equality and human rights. So, you know, sure, at some point I acknowledged we were equal. And in my lifetime, you women have wanted new rights, like being in the workplace and saying no to sexual intercourse. And this is how we do it. That's the whole complaint against the Civil Rights movement, too. Equality was achieved with the end of the Civil War and the passage of Amendments XIII – XV, and everything else since has been a denigration of white men. That is to say, Obamacare was the law of the land, therefore Congress would not change it. Just like your equality as of the day whoever acknowledges it is equality, and changing it is something new. I know, I know. It sounds ridiculous. But that's really what it is. Stronger unions would have helped women and minorities, too. And that's part of the problem. Switching modes on the Drug War would have helped women and minorities, too. And that's part of the problem. Running down the list, if the right thing to do means empowerment becomes a little more equal, it makes the empowerment majority afraid. And that's how people end up burying themselves. There are, of course, plenty of other reasons. Christians in these United States, somehow came to fear the Apostles, so much so that we stamped a motto on our coin. (Yes, really, Mammon is sacred for the sake of Jesus' name, and American Christians did that.) Part of what drives retrospective wait unemployment in the Rust Belt is sexism itself, which in turn becomes a self-reinforcing cycle for the appearance of a glass escalator. Over and over again, we see this pattern. It is, to the one, human. To the other, though, it really does stand out as American traditional majority identities appear to fall into crisis. One of the fascinating historical riddles yet to be told is just how white males have managed to verge on endangerment; they still have political power, and they never were left out of the benefit schemes so many describe as favoring minorities. And as many of us are aware, there is some context of epistemic closure about this coalition of identity politics. The wagons are circled around traditionalist relics, bastions of supremacism rejecting rational comprehension of reality according to verifiable evidence. People have their own reasons. For some, it is an ultimate stake, such as the eternal soul. I do, however, freely confess that I simply do not understand how women become the threat to that perceived stake. That is, I can give you any number of psychoanalyses, depending on the circumstances, but I have no visceral grasp. Yet it is clear something about women really bugs the hell out of our neighbor. I can even remember his bit about ontology, and it isn't that we don't get the political two bits about convincing the opposition, but the demand to fulfill a fallacy—i.e., prove a negative—unto an argumentative scheme that does not abide logic, was telling. After all, nor was setting an impossible standard his threshold of a woman's humanity; it was, rather, simply the distraction, something—anything—to avoid the subject of a woman's humanity. The degree to which he erased women↑ in his earlier rant is, quite frankly, striking. It's not just educated women. Whatever his problem is, it it would seem to run squarely through women. And he's made his point clear; he intends vengeance against those who voted for the woman. Like my bit about doubling back against himself. I mean, sure, okay, so he doesn't actually see that he is complaining that nobody is doing what he complains about? Okay ... why not? And here we come to a question of ignorance natural or epistemic. This is almost as much about women as it is about himself. To that end, he is emblematic of the disempowerment many Americans feel, but in certain people's cases, it's a matter of saying welcome to the club to bawling traditionalists who want the damn place to themselves.
I'm not running for office (but I am already an elected chair for my county, was just re-elected last month) as for your slander: utterly useless. What use are those words now with trump in power? has it not dawned on you how useless such slander is? Your slanders could not stop that pig boar from becoming president even after his on-tape admission of garbing pussy without consent, what makes you think those words have any value anymore? I don't get what the problem here is, are you against taxing the rich to finance free healthcare, free education, debt relief, BIG, higher wages, for all? Would that not benefit what ever demographic it is you care about? Franklyn the left is already dead, we lost everything, by all means suggestion how we return, let me guess double down on yelling sexist misogynist over and over again, that will work right? How am I ignoring, mocking and insulting them? I'm not the one calling people hateful names here. I'm focused on their BIGGEST UNIFYING CONCERNS so I'm certainly not ignoring them either. Are you telling me it is an insult to minorities, gays and women, and the educated to think they want free healthcare, free education, debt relief, BIG, higher wages. I'm pretty sure this is a concern they share with ignorant uneducated white people (whom you want to ignore and mock and insult, what did that get us, or right: president Trump), whom also deserve free healthcare, free education, debt relief, BIG, higher wages. This UNIFYING concern would give us a coalition of voters to win back everything. You instead want us to focus on a minority of the population's specific issues and lose, again. Pretty sure the blue state pro-choice liberal democrats would still outnumber by several times the red-state barely pro-life democrats we would get. So it is not burning down a house, it is adding an addition. You on the other hand would rather someone else own that house and take from you everything you hold dear. How did prioritizing economic reform turn into promising everything and anything just to win? Well yes your strawman is a radioactive turd. Yes we need to win, but we need to do something that will drastically improve the economic outlook of the middle and lower classes, we missed our chance in 2009-2013 as a wave of democrats won because of the stunning ECONOMIC FAILURE of the republicans and yet we did very little to take advantage of that wave resulting in our slow decline, followed by you and your ilk making liberals a laughing stock of cry-bullies sjw regressives and powered a wave of alt-right reactionaries to power. No I meant cry-bully sjw regressives that powered a wave of alt-right reactionaries to power. Also I'm pleased with my self as your cry-bullying claims that I'm somekind of sexist misogynist simply re-affirms my belief that you and your ilk brought us president trump. As I said, if you want to know how they won, look in the mirror. Again I voted for Hillary in the general, also what rumors did I spread? That she had the FBI investigating her? That she had a decades long list of scandals and baggage that renders her unelectable and the most hated politician (well second most hate politician now)? No that is a FACT, proven by the FACT should could not even beat an ignorant moronic pussy grabbing pig boar to the presidency! Sure sexism played a role, and your solution is what? Racism played a role against Obama as well, yet he still won. If we are going to run a female candidate we need one that is principled and popular and has opinions that ride the present wave of top issues, like Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard, to overcome any sexism against them. Just as in 2008 we ran a squeaky clean black guy who promised vague "hope" and "change" (as you say a "dangerous candidate") to victory despite the racism against him. Don't believe me then. Why should I care? Well then start questioning! Oh by all means explain. How is giving free healthcare, free education, debt relief, wages increases, BIG... ignoring the "most affected"? So your saying I should blame them for president trump as well, sure. I would say he lost the black vote because Hillary had spent decades courting the black vote, and Bernie was an unheard of name to them. But if you want to make minorities issues first and foremost lets see where that gets us, oh it got us president trump. Youtube provides videos of real events showing real people spouting there unedited opinion, while some article is just some blogger regurgitating what they believe to you. Now polls and statistics would be better though. If you can't handle how the students of Yale's behavior, caught on tape, is a product of you and your ilks ideology and how that makes us liberals look like racists and sexist crazed authoritarian, might as well start denying that 2+2=4.
#selectivejustice | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click to throw up. This conservative talking point pretty much encapsulates the problem. What is an insult to women and minorities is yet another round of blithe promises predicated on appeasing the influences that would prevent the rising tide of economic justice from lifting their boats. Your desperate struggle to keep these two aspects mutually exclusive and opposed to one another isn't exactly subtle. And it isn't really convincing anyone.
Wow you must be beyond communist to find these conservative talking points. Appeasing what influences? Rich white men in dark smoke filled rooms, the Jews, the Illuminati, the repilions? If your saying the rich then we agree do we not: tax the rich boats down a little to raise EVERYONE else boats up? Though taking the rich's money is not appeasing them. If your saying we need to ignore or even punish poor uneducated white cis straight man simply for being ignorant white cis straight and male, well then you get president trump. Heck you have even lost the white cis straight female to! To put it to you pragmatically: the rich is a demographic small enough to win against, white cis straight people are not. Now here you will spit on me for wanting to appease the white straight cis people, because I dare to believe that they like everyone else deserve and want free healthcare, free education, debt relief, BIG, higher wages, etc... and I gladly swallow that spit and smile. Well then I will keep repeating myself, I got at least 4 years to repeat myself: we need to focus on taxing the rich to pay for social services for all, the use of identity politics has now failed to such an extent as to help elect trump. Except we didn't do that, and that why we lost the last election.
#gazebo | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click to pose. Yeah, you see how you changed "talking point" to "talking points"? You're not very good at this. The actual sentence in question— —is a sleight: The point is on record↑, and has been specifically reiterated↑ to you; we have exactly no answer from you, yet you insist on this argument, anyway. When Sanders repeatedly declared that "identity politics" were a problem, he exposed a dangerous weakness in progressive political thought that remains unaddressed. We live intersectional lives, and these issues must be addressed intersectionally. To separate class from gender, race, sexuality, and ability in fighting for economic justice is to create a fiction that economic injustice is only driven by one kind social injustice—the kind that able-bodied cishet white men experience. It's a dangerous fiction that at its heart reinforces patriarchal white supremacy, and it's becoming all the more dangerous as we fight against an administration and its attendant political movement that wants nothing more than to roll back as many social justice gains as possible. (Hillman↱) This is what you're ignoring every time↑ you bawl about↑ identity politics↑. And as long as you insist on an identity politic denouncing identity politics, you're never going to understand what you're doing wrong. To the other, nobody really believes you're trying to get it right, anyway. If you attend actual history, that might help, too. Again: Bully picks fight, someone stands up to bully, bully complains that someone picked a fight. And what you're backing the bullies. Why? Because the short-side math designed for just this occasion worked out for them. You're the only person I know who can make the popular vote majority actually matter to me. I can deal with the rules, but right now you're trying to convince an emerging social justice majority to flee in terror because the bullies pitched a really big fit. We need not wonder why; your hardline right-wing narrative makes your sympathies clear. The economic message doesn't mean the same if women aren't paid the same. But fixing that is "identity politics". Documentable behavioral prejudice disrupts their progress in the world, but fair assessment is just "identity politics". Maybe someone thinks it a good idea to force a woman to have her rapist's baby, but saying no is just "identity politics". Pichler and Golub, 2006↱: The right to make childbearing decisions has also enabled employment opportunities that were often unthinkable before Roe. The Supreme Court noted in 1992 that "the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives" ... Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe, called the decision "a step that had to be taken as we go down the road toward the full emancipation of women". What you're pitching a tantrum against↗ is integral to economic justice. The point has been made repeatedly; you refuse to acknowledge it. You want economic justice but don't seem to be able to cope with the implications. When people don't report crimes because the police are just that prejudicial, it isn't mere identity politics; these outcomes have living, and sometimes even mortal, implications. If authorities can destroy families and steal estates for the sake of religious aesthetics, it isn't simply identity politics; these outcomes have real, living effects. If her education is disrupted because of sexual abuse, and, hey, the rape-baby that her social worker forced her to have, it isn't just identity politics. Do you get it? There's a reason a woman will say she wishes she never reported her rape. There's a reason many people of color in cities across the U.S. prefer to never call the police. Answering these challenges isn't something you can exclude from your "economic justice". Why the hell do you have to make shit up? No, really, you need to explain, right fucking now, just how failing to limit justice explicitly and exclusively to the needs of white cishet males is punishing them. If you can't explain that, then quit making shit up just to distract the discussion. Because being evicted, or fired, for being gay? That's a pretty big economic disruption, and what the fuck do you mean "identity politics" when the Christians came for us? Answer. I dare you. I don't think you're capable. I don't think you're smart enough to answer that basic question: How is it identity politics to refuse a ballot measure proposing the installation of state-enforced prejudice and exclusion? And, seriously, when local authorities are literally stealing estates before anyone is dead? If Texas Republicans advance their conscience clause bill allowing state workers to force sexually abused minors to have babies for the sake of religious aesthetics, will it be mere identity politics to fight back? Do you know why they're called "identity politics"? Because an identity assertion is the counterpoint to what is otherwise obvious. That is to say, justice is justice, except it somehow threatens someone's white identity, or male identity, or heterosexual identity. See, we get that it doesn't matter to them if they can't explain how two queers marrying each other denigrates traditional cishet marriage. Where you give yourself away is pretty much at the outset. By your refusal to conduct yourself reasonably, or discuss these issues rationally, you've left everyone with the basic sketch afforded by your petulant outbursts against "identity politics", and especially women. You can't explain how ensuring equality equals punishing white cishet males. And, look, when cishet male is such an important identity complex that we must now find ways to reinforce masculine heterosexuality through homosexual dating and sexual behavior, uh ... yeah, y'know, I'm sorry, I don't care how uncomfortable it makes them, they can't erase gay people by calling us all heterosexual. That's just not how it works. Just like you can't erase women by complaining on behalf of the majority. Seriously, you can't even explain your deprioritization because you don't actually understand what you're on about. Which, in turn, is why— —you even need to screw up spitting and swallowing while making shit up in order to make yourself feel better. Honestly, dude: Do you actually intend that people should take you seriously? I mean, that's the thing: If the answer is no, just say so. ____________________ Notes: Hillman, Melissa. "Why Women Are So Angry With Bernie Sanders". The Huffington Post. 24 April 2017. HuffingtonPost.com. 1 May 2017. http://huff.to/2qd29KY Pichler, Susanne and Deborah Golub. "Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact". Katherine Dexter McCormick Library and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 2006. s3.amazonaws.com. 1 May 2017. http://bit.ly/2qtoh3k
