[mikema63]

All politics is identity politics.

The working class, the bourgeois, Sexuality, race, gender, etc. Are all groups of people who share similar interests for various economic and historical reason.

When the left rails against identity politics what they are really saying is that working class identity politics is the only identity we should actually care about.

Then you get things like FDR creating wonderful new programs with unprecedented support for the working class, but oops they were designed to fuck over black people.

The myth that by entirely focusing on working class politics somehow magically LGBT people and racial minorities and women will magically get equal rights is a ridiculous and pernicious form of nonsense.

Policies and politics to support LGBT people, racial minorities, and women matter. Not to you obviously, why would they? You don't benefit from them.

Posting some ridiculous article from salon doesn't change the fact that you are trying to tell me what is in my real interests like I'm too stupid to know my own experience and needs.

And oh look, your article was written by a white leftist talking about how minorities are blind to their own needs and are, as an entire group, failing to support their own real true actual leftist interests.

[Sivad]

All politics is identity politics.

The working class, the bourgeois, Sexuality, race, gender, etc. Are all groups of people who share similar interests for various economic and historical reason.

Except the vast majority are poor and working class. That's the common denominator for most of us.

When the left rails against identity politics what they are really saying is that working class identity politics is the only identity we should actually care about.

No, what we're saying is that social equality isn't possible without economic equality. Your program leaves most minority people powerless and exploited.

Policies and politics to support LGBT people, racial minorities, and women matter. Not to you obviously, why would they? You don't benefit from them.

What a joke. Liberal identity politics isn't for or about minority interests, liberal identity politics is only about easing the guilt of privileged managerial class white people. The political class within minority communities have sold out their people to get in on the neoliberal action and now function as sheepdogs for the establishment.

Posting some ridiculous article from salon doesn't change the fact that you are trying to tell me what is in my real interests like I'm too stupid to know my own experience and needs.

Well if you're a self-serving climber who doesn't mind selling out your community then the neoliberal establishment is definitely your ticket out, but if you do actually give a shit about your community and you're not just using your minority status as a leg up in the world then you should definitely stop defending trash like Hillary Clinton.

[mikema63]

Except the vast majority are poor and working class. That's the common denominator for most of us.

That only matters if people care more about their working class issues than their other issues, and the fact is that most don't.

When Polling white working class people they are against Obamacare but at the same time are for the provisions that are in the program when they aren't told that it's obama care. They are literally putting their white identity and privilege above their own interests as working class.

By the same token a black person who lives in an ghetto facing high levels of violence and police brutality are in an objectively worse position than the white working class. Faced with that violence every day of course they are more interested in not being afraid for their lives everytime they are pulled over than their more general working class issues.

Of course I am more interested in being able to openly be with my husband without being threatened by violence from bigots and from having the support of the government to prevent things like the HIV debacle in the 80s from happening again. The government was more than happy to ignore a pandemic because it mainly hurt people they didn't care about.

Why should I be more interested in a bump in wages when my community is faced with open violence and oppression? People I know and care about are denied housing, services, and face hatred and attacks from people just because of their sexuality. Kids get thrown out to the streets and become homeless because their own families hate LGBT people more than they love their own children.

Why on earth do you think minimum wage laws would be more important to us than that?

Particularly when so many white working class people are more than happy to sacrifice their own working class interests to insure that these situations continue?

Trump ran on white resentment. On mexican's being rapists. On fear mongering about refugees and immigrants. Trump ran on white nationalism and he won. White working class people en mass voted for a billionare real estate developer and continue to support him despite his every attempt to fuck them over.

No, what we're saying is that social equality isn't possible without economic equality. Your program leaves most minority people powerless and exploited.

Economic equality is what's impossible without social equality. Working class whites have always opposed and will continue to oppose working class supporting policies so long as it's perceived to help minorities. It's exactly the reason FDR left blacks out to dry. It's why people oppose Obamacare even in the states where the vast majority of those helped by it are white and working class. It's why the republicans have always used black recipients of welfare to scare white working class people to oppose any government support all while benefiting from it.

If you pass some grand economic reform without addressing racial issues then the police brutality and legacy of slavery, redlining, and continued racism will see to it that racial minorities in this country fail to benefit. Economic equality will never be possible so long as people are systematically oppressed and prevented from receiving the benefits of your magnanimous policies that ignore their actual needs and inequalities.

What a joke. Liberal identity politics isn't for or about minority interests, liberal identity politics is only about easing the guilt of privileged managerial class white people. The political class within minority communities have sold out their people to get in on the neoliberal action and now function as sheepdogs for the establishment.

BLM is not a movement of the "managerial class whites". The fight for our civil rights isn't some conspiracy against working class issues. My rights are not an attack on your interests.

Well if you're a self-serving climber who doesn't mind selling out your community then the neoliberal establishment is definitely your ticket out, but if you do actually give a shit about your community and you're not just using your minority status as a leg up in the world then you should definitely stop defending trash like Hillary Clinton.

If you have to write some fanciful narrative to invalidate my experience and explain away how I could possibly disagree with you then maybe you should consider whether or not you are honestly approaching the subject of minority issues or if you are dismissing them because it's easier and you only really care about your own benefit and aren't all that interested in the issues everyone else faces.

[Sivad]

If you pass some grand economic reform without addressing racial issues then the police brutality and legacy of slavery, redlining, and continued racism will see to it that racial minorities in this country fail to benefit.

That's a false dilemma fabricated by shiesty liberals to discredit progressives. The fact is progressives are far stronger on social justice and economic equality. It's a dishonest gutter tactic that upper class liberals use to protect their privilege. The truth is there is no excuse for supporting the liberal establishment over progressive reformers. Liberals are just elitists that don't want to give up their power and perks and that elitism is a form of bigotry that is every bit as reprehensible as racism or homophobia.

[foxdemon]

The fight for our civil rights isn't some conspiracy against working class issues. My rights are not an attack on your interests.

Actually, yes you are attacking wage earners with your rights narrative.

If you have to write some fanciful narrative to invalidate my experience and explain away how I could possibly disagree with you then maybe you should consider whether or not you are honestly approaching the subject of minority issues or if you are dismissing them because it's easier and you only really care about your own benefit and aren't all that interested in the issues everyone else faces.

But that is what you are doing to wage earners. You are trying to invalidate their political issues. @Sivad is correct in his claim that liberal identity politics is all about the political marginalisation of the workforce. Everything you’ve written in this thread is tribal rhetoric that constructs the wage earners as an outgroup, the “other”.

So you link wage earners with a few negative identity tags: “male”, “white”, and then go on to talk about injustice resulting from prejudice. The ‘other group’ is then presented as evil, cruel and deserving of exclusion from political influence. How convenient that must be for the wage payers.

There is the narrative but then there is also effects. Which should we believe? Liberal identity politics has the effect of excluding wage earners from political influence while shielding wage payers from critics. The result is concentration of power along with wealth in the hands of the few.


Anyway, this thread is about Hillary ‘Bomber’ Clinton. So why is she still seeking a high public profile? She got beat. Surely it is time for Democrats to start grooming a new generation of leaders? It is time for Hillary to bow out gracefully (though possibly it is too late for that. Maybe she should just shut up) and let new blood get a foot in the door.

[Sivad]

Anyway, this thread is about Hillary ‘Bomber’ Clinton. So why is she still seeking a high public profile? She got beat. Surely it is time for Democrats to start grooming a new generation of leaders? It is time for Hillary to bow out gracefully (though possibly it is too late for that. Maybe she should just shut up) and let new blood get a foot in the door.

The DNC is using Clinton to discredit progressives as spoilers and obstructionists because progressives are rejecting that next generation of corpocrat puppets the Dems are now rolling out. The DNC also needs to convince its rank and file that its tepid "centrism" is still viable so they need to lay their colossal electoral failure off onto progressives, Russia, Wikileaks, Comey and Clinton is a good vehicle for disseminating that bullshit.

[anna]

Anyway, this thread is about Hillary ‘Bomber’ Clinton. So why is she still seeking a high public profile? She got beat. Surely it is time for Democrats to start grooming a new generation of leaders? It is time for Hillary to bow out gracefully (though possibly it is too late for that. Maybe she should just shut up) and let new blood get a foot in the door.

This is still a free country, she's a private citizen and she can do what she wants. She can write a book if she wants. She can move in political circles if she wants. Why should she shut up just because she lost an election? Mostly I hear "she should just shut up" from alt-right misogynists, the same ones who can't let her go.

As for intra-Democratic party division, I hope they get their act together for 2018 and 2020. I don't know if this country will survive two Trump terms.

[foxdemon]

She should shut up because she is drawing attention away from possible new Democrat leaders. It isn’t good form to hog the lime light after a humiliating defeat.

As to your alt-right misogynists, or whoever else opposes your in group, Hillary ‘Bomber’ Clinton only serves to provide more ammunition for their rhetoric. Hillary is damaging your cause. You should be telling her to shut up.

[anna]

She should shut up because she is drawing attention away from possible new Democrat leaders.

If they're contenders, they won't need to worry about her drawing attention from them.

It isn’t good form to hog the lime light after a humiliating defeat.

She's not "hogging the limelight." Although it may seem that way to her stalkers, I guess.

As to your alt-right misogynists, or whoever else opposes your in group, Hillary ‘Bomber’ Clinton only serves to provide more ammunition for their rhetoric. Hillary is damaging your cause. You should be telling her to shut up.

They're not my alt-right misogynists. They might be yours, though.

[foxdemon]

If they're contenders, they won't need to worry about her drawing attention from them.

Yes they do. They need to be able to start building their profile with the public. That is compromised by loud mouth Hillary hogging the airwaves.

She's not "hogging the limelight." Although it may seem that way to her stalkers, I guess.

Yet she is seeking out media exposure, even though she lost the election. Do I need to say that slowly?

S-h-e l-o-s-t t-h-e e-l-e-c-t-i-o-n.

So when is she going to stop hogging the limelight, shut up and let the world move on?

They're not my alt-right misogynists. They might be yours, though.

No. They are yours. Part of your worldview, part of your reality. You don’t get the ying without the yang. Alt-right misogynists and liberal left misandrists are part of the same performance. Their beliefs make no sense in isolation. They belong to you.

[anna]

Yes they do. They need to be able to start building their profile with the public. That is compromised by loud mouth Hillary hogging the airwaves.

Sorry, as a member of a large democrat forum, I'm not seeing that sentiment at all.

What's your political ideology, if you don't mind my asking?

Yet she is seeking out media exposure, even though she lost the election.

So what? She's promoting her book, and she still has an active political life. That just kills you, doesn't it?

Do I need to say that slowly?

No, although I've noticed you seem to have a need to say it over and over.

S-h-e l-o-s-t t-h-e e-l-e-c-t-i-o-n.

So when is she going to stop hogging the limelight, shut up and let the world move on?

She's moved on. You apparently haven't.

No. They are yours. Part of your worldview, part of your reality. You don’t get the ying without the yang. Alt-right misogynists and liberal left misandrists are part of the same performance. Their beliefs make no sense in isolation. They belong to you.

You don't get the "ying" either, because it's yin. Yin and yang.

If you can't get that right, there's not much hope for the rest of your smoke signals.

[foxdemon]

So what? She's promoting her book, and she still has an active political life. That just kills you, doesn't it?

No, it’s Hillary’s bombs that kill people.

No, although I've noticed you seem to have a need to say it over and over.

She's moved on. You apparently haven't.

If she has moved on, then why is she still seeking media exposure?

She didn’t win. She lost. Hillary lost the election. L-O-S-T. Lost.

Now don’t you think it is time she got lost?

You don't get the "ying" either, because it's yin. Yin and yang.

If you can't get that right, there's not much hope for the rest of your smoke signals.

Yes that’s right. Yin and yang. Alt-right misogynists and liberal left misandrists. Looking back at your other posts, you mention ‘stalkers’. So are you sexualising alt-right misogynists? Do you think they desire you?

Democrats do seem to have issues with their sexuality. What with Weinstien, Bill Clinton and now rich girl’s fastasies of being stalked by scary alt-right misogynistic males. What a twisted party.

[anna]

No, it’s Hillary’s bombs that kill people.

So apparently you're not going to state your political ideology. Reading the rest of your post, I'm not surprised...

If she has moved on, then why is she still seeking media exposure?

Duh. Most authors promote their books. It kind of goes with the territory.

She didn’t win. She lost. Hillary lost the election. L-O-S-T. Lost.

Now don’t you think it is time she got lost?

You are suffering from Hillary Derangement Syndrome.

Yes that’s right. Yin and yang. Alt-right misogynists and liberal left misandrists. Looking back at your other posts, you mention ‘stalkers’. So are you sexualising alt-right misogynists? Do you think they desire you?

You brought sex into this, not me. Why am I not surprised?

Democrats do seem to have issues with their sexuality. What with Weinstien, Bill Clinton and now rich girl’s fastasies of being stalked by scary alt-right misogynistic males. What a twisted party.

Meanwhile, back in the Oval Office the TicTac-popping p****-grabber's planning his next Tweet-storm...

[foxdemon]

Duh. Most authors promote their books. It kind of goes with the territory.

So is Hillary still talking about Russian hackers and Wikileaks in order to promote her book? Is that what it is about?

You are suffering from Hillary Derangement Syndrome.

Gasp! I hope not. Wait, I am getting an overwhelming desire to drop bombs on people and blame all my failures in life on Russians hacks and sexism. Oh my god! I’ve got Hillary Derangement syndrome.

You brought sex into this, not me. Why am I not surprised?

No. You did. You mentioned alt-right misogynists and stalking. Then we add Bill and Harvey’s indiscretions into account and it becomes clear everything is sexual to Democrats. @colliric is right. Democrats are creepy.

Meanwhile, back in the Oval Office the TicTac-popping p****-grabber's planning his next Tweet-storm...

What? Still focused on sex?

[colliric]

If she's not hogging the limelight, why the fuck is she on Australian Television bitching about Julian Assange and the 2016 result?

Totally looks like a typical Clinton cash grab over her book.

Most authors tour "quietly", she's going on 4 Corners in Prime Time(Australia's Frontline type show)...

[Ter]

Most authors promote their books. It kind of goes with the territory

I don't believe she wrote that book.
Rich people like Hillary Clinton hire ghost writers and then get to put their name on the cover.
Hillary Clinton is a failed corrupted politician, not an author.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

@mikema63

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Hillmike. Identity politics fuels all that intersectional stuff about creating distinctions between people and consciously creating divisions. The working class focus of Marxism includes, by proxy, rights for women and other at-risk or oppressed groups. In China, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and even famously the Soviet-backed Afghan government made impressive strides for women's rights that outshined the capitalist world. Socialism has no rationale for oppressing women and LBGT individuals.

In contrast, it is fundamentally impossible for liberalism to ever resolve issues of equality, poverty, homelessness, food insecurity, etc because inequality and an impoverished yet powerless workforce is the basis of capitalism.

[anna]

I don't believe she wrote that book.
Rich people like Hillary Clinton hire ghost writers and then get to put their name on the cover.
Hillary Clinton is a failed corrupted politician, not an author.

Pretty sure she had one or more ghostwriters, no argument there.

However, I'll bet her ghostwriter won't end up calling her a sociopath.

Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All

[anna]

If she's not hogging the limelight, why the fuck is she on Australian Television bitching about Julian Assange and the 2016 result?

Totally looks like a typical Clinton cash grab over her book.

Most authors tour "quietly", she's going on 4 Corners in Prime Time(Australia's Frontline type show)...

What's it to you, really? She's a private citizen now.

You don't have to watch her. Exercise your right to change the channel.

[anna]

No. You did. You mentioned alt-right misogynists and stalking.

Which has nothing to do with desire. You brought that into it, and that's way more creepy than Hillary refusing to "shut up."

Then we add Bill and Harvey’s indiscretions into account and it becomes clear everything is sexual to Democrats.

... What? Still focused on sex?

Just reminding you that the creep in the White House isn't a Democrat. I'm not sure what he is, really, other than a tantrum-throwing narcissist who made no secret of how he views women and that was just fine with all the evangelicals, alt-righters and white nationalists who helped put him there.