Clarifying: "We don't need white people leading the democratic party"... (racist, Sanders)

[FJR1]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

read the link, what she was in-artfully trying to say is that the democratic Party should not have to be led by a white man for it to be seen as non threatening to white people(particularly white men).

Like I said. Leftists being leftists. The cult of kill whitey needs white people to genocide white people, but doesn't want to admit it and put them in the leadership positions to get elected to do it.

[The Dark Enlightenment]

Se said, "We don't need white people leading the Democratic Party right now. The Democratic Party is diverse and it should be reflected as so in our leadership and throughout the staff, at the highest levels..."

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

2nd Amendment advocates, Pro-Lifers, "working class voters", family values; All of these things are no lesss identify politics than gay or black.

Also she isnt a black supremacist, she was Bernie's spokeswomen, she is just a Bernie supporter and wants one of his allies in the DNC chair and not Howard Dean, who was a Clinton supporter and called Bernie a moron a hundred times over.

This is what ticks me off about Dems and why I think they have identity politics on the mind 24/7. They actually think that the list above are actually identity politics issues? They think so because they first stereotype these issues to only be a concern for middle American white people and thus when they mention the 2nd amendment that's just a dog whistle for whitey.


Such lunacy! When conservatives talk about these issue they talk about them in context. 2nd amendment is about being the right to bear arms as outlined in the constitution, right to life is about murder, working class politics is about ECONOMICS and having a say over elites, and family values is just about moral issues. ANYONE CAN HAVE THESE VIEWS.


It's a bunch of BS that those issues are identity politics. You guys just have identity politics on the brain so much that you twist these issues to mean what YOU think it means and not what the people advocating for TELL you it means.


You may not agree with it, but don't blow it off as identity politics for white people.

[The Dark Enlightenment]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I read the link, the video wouldnt load, are they different ??????

No. The only discrepancy is in your interpretation.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

I figured that is what she meant but the political climate right now is that rural white working class people tend to be neglected by the party in favor of urban metro residents and minorities. It just seems like a poor choice of words.

It was a poor choice, but it is an argument that has been going on for decades.

There are times when many feel that Democrats are afraid of having black or brown faces as the voice of the party, and only elect select white men or women in leadership roles.

Alabama in particular is a good example where the Black vice chair runs the party, and has said that no black person should ever run the party because white people would stop voting for Dems here.

[The Dark Enlightenment]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

I figured that is what she meant but the political climate right now is that rural white working class people tend to be neglected by the party in favor of urban metro residents and minorities. It just seems like a poor choice of words.

She articulated herself very well. There is no doubt about what she meant.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

She articulated herself very well. There is no doubt about what she meant.

I am not denying that is what she meant I just said that in this political climate when the Dems are soul searching and trying to bring white working class America back, it was a poor choice of words.

[Vondutch]

This Is Beautiful , almost as good as them naming keith Ellison ( The Muslim) head of dnc.

Oh this is going to get good lol

[radiolibre99]

I don't get how the Dems don't see this as pandering? I get diversity and it should be incorporated but they act like a phony infomercial that tries to push an agenda. They don't let anything just develop naturally over time. It's almost as if their whole strategy was thought up by a Madison Ave advertising agency.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

This is what ticks me off about Dems and why I think they have identity politics on the mind 24/7. They actually think that the list above are actually identity politics issues? They think so because they first stereotype these issues to only be a concern for middle American white people and thus when they mention the 2nd amendment that's just a dog whistle for whitey.


Such lunacy! When conservatives talk about these issue they talk about them in context. 2nd amendment is about being the right to bear arms as outlined in the constitution, right to life is about murder, working class politics is about ECONOMICS and having a say over elites, and family values is just about moral issues. ANYONE CAN HAVE THESE VIEWS.


It's a bunch of BS that those issues are identity politics. You guys just have identity politics on the brain so much that you twist these issues to mean what YOU think it means and not what the people advocating for TELL you it means.


You may not agree with it, but don't blow it off as identity politics for white people.

I will make this simple for you.You are defining identity politics as having to do with only race, gender, and sexuality. Im not. Im defining it by issues.

so yes, going out and talking to a group who's number one issue is the second amendment is 100% identity politics, going out and talking to a religious group about their religious identity and protecting it is 100% identity politics.

moral issues, race issues, religious issues, sexuality issues, constitutionality issues, are all issues that groups of people identify with.