Democrats value identity politics above all else. This is how you get people like Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren. Honorable mention goes out to Open Borders 'Beto' O'Rouke. Women's March in California canceled over concerns it would be 'overwhelmingly white' The post was met with a mix of responses, with some thanking the group for its decision and others expressing frustration and calling on organizers to change their minds. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ia-canceled-over-concerns-it-would-be-n953281 Hundreds of thousands march down Pennsylvania Avenue during the Women's March in Washington.Bryan Woolston / Reuters file Dec. 31, 2018 / 11:07 AM CST By Daniella Silva A California Women’s March was canceled because of concerns that its participants have been “overwhelmingly white,” the march’s organizers said. Organizers announced Friday that the Women’s March would not take place in Eureka, in Humboldt County, California, on Jan. 19 as previously planned due to issues of representation. “Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community,” a post on the march’s Facebook page read. “Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach.” The decision was made after conversations with local organizers and supporters of the march, according to the statement, which was posted by Facebook user Beth Ann Wylie. “Our goal is that planning will continue and we will be successful in creating an event that will build power and community engagement through connection between women that seek to improve the lives of all in our community,” the post said. The group may hold an event in March around International Women’s Day, according to the post. The Eureka group does not appear to be an official chapter of Women’s March California. The post was met with a mix of responses, with some thanking the group for its decision and others expressing frustration and calling on organizers to change their minds. U.S. Census Bureau data from July estimate that Humboldt County is more than 74 percent non-Hispanic white. The move comes after Women’s March Chicago said it would not be marking its third year with another march. The group said in November that because of the time, money and effort spent into an October March to the Polls event ahead of the midterm elections that it would not be hosting another march in January. The October march drew an estimated 100,000 people to Grant Park in Chicago, the group said in a statement on Facebook. Instead, the group said Saturday it was celebrating its third anniversary by calling on people to "spearhead an action in your community that helps people feel safe, included, respected and represented, while encouraging others to activate." Millions of men and women across the world have turned out for Women’s Marches over the last two years, but even from its inception there were questions about its racial representation and inclusiveness. As the national Women’s March organization prepares for its third round of annual rallies in Washington, D.C., and across the U.S. it has been rocked by divisions within the broader movement. The leadership of Women’s March, Inc. has been roiled in controversy over its ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and claims of anti-Semitism. The Chicago march said in a follow up post on its Facebook pagethat the decision not to hold back-to-back marches was made last spring and was not based “on the actions or activities of any other organization — including Women’s March Inc.” The group has previously highlighted that it has never been affiliated with Women’s March, Inc. Teresa Shook, one of the original founders of the national Women’s March, called for Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez, the national co-chairs of Women’s March, Inc., to step down. Shook said in a post on Facebook in November that the co-chairs “have steered the Movement away from its true course.” The group has said it rejects “anti-Semitism in all its forms.” “We want to say emphatically that we do not support or endorse statements made by Minister Louis Farrakhan about women, Jewish and LGBTQ communities,” the group said in a post in November. Daniella Silva Daniella Silva is a reporter for NBC News, specializing in immigration and inclusion issues.
From the article - The Eureka group does not appear to be an official chapter of Women’s March California. Just more fake news and Russian troll tactics to rile up the 'we want a wall' Nazis.
Wanting a wall or border security=Nazi to exGOPer. Everyone is a Russian troll to exGOPer. You opinions and insights are worthless now as every candidate you are interested in is about to be destroyed by the "Bernie Bros". You are a racist and elitist white male democrat. You are now irrelevant and your voice will be silenced in your own party! HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHA. Why the Bernie Movement Must Crush Beto O’Rourke By Jonathan Chait@jonathanchait Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders Photo: Getty Images The first skirmish of the 2020 Democratic primary, a wave of attacks on Beto O’Rourke by supporters of Bernie Sanders, took almost everybody by surprise. On the outside, it looks like one of those inscrutable, personality-driven online spats that characterize the Twitter era. But the feud is neither petty nor personal nor irrational. It’s the first shot in a war that may well continue for the next year and a half. I have opinions about the parties involved in this conflict that are not difficult to guess. But my aim in this article is not to persuade readers of the merits of my preferences, but instead to provide a descriptive account of an important conflict that I believe is being widely misunderstood. Indeed, I think the online warriors of the Bernie movement are getting too little credit, and their mainstream liberal antagonists would benefit from a better understanding of their motives and thinking. The Sanders partisans who are attacking O’Rourke — like Zaid Jilani, David Sirota, Branko Marcetic, Elizabeth Bruenig — are not representative of Sanders voters as a whole. This distinction is the key to deciphering the whole episode. Sanders attracts the intense support of a small left-wing intellectual vanguard who see American politics in fundamentally different terms than most Democrats do. The primary struggle in American politics as they see it is not between liberalism and conservatism, but between socialism and capitalism. Sanders labels himself as a socialist and frames his rhetoric in Marxian class terms, which sets him apart from other Democrats. (Even a progressive like Elizabeth Warren calls herself “a capitalist to my bones.”) Socialists — at least those who aren’t willing to settle for the incremental advances traditionally held out by liberal Democrats as their only option — see Sanders’s presidential candidacy as uniquely compelling. The struggle between Sanders and other Democrats strikes them as far more significant than the contest between the non-socialist Democrats and the Republicans. about equally. In 2016, Sanders voters actually had more conservative views on economic inequality and changes to Social Security and Medicare than Clinton voters did. Sanders built most of his support on personal contrasts rather than ideology. While Clinton was mired in scandals over fundraising, speaking fees, and the use of a personal email server, her opponent presented an earnest, scandal-free profile. Sanders dominated Clinton among young, white, and male voters. The rise of Beto O’Rourke poses an obvious threat. The Texas congressman has replicated aspects of Sanders’s appeal — his positivity and refusal to accept PAC money — while exceeding it in some ways. Sanders is charismatic in an unconventional way, the slovenly and cranky but somewhat lovable old uncle, while O’Rourke projects a classic handsome, toothy, Kennedy-esque charm that reliably makes Democrats swoon. Hard-core loyalists find the contrast irksome. “Reading Karl Marx is cool,” saidNomiki Konst, a Sanders loyalist and candidate for New York City public advocate, to NBC. “Doing a livestream while you’re doing your laundry is a gimmick.” The comment sums up the left’s well-grounded fear that Sanders’s hard-core ideological appeal can be easily disarmed with personal charisma. And while O’Rourke has yet to decide on a presidential campaign, and would have to overcome an enormous field if he does, the Sandernistas are hardly paranoid to discern the kind of groundswell that could quickly propel O’Rourke to the front of the pack. Former Obama strategist and current Pod Save America host Dan Pfeiffer wrote a piece urging O’Rourke to run (without endorsing him). O’Rourke reportedly met with Obama, who favored him with public praise. “What I liked most about his race was that it didn’t feel constantly poll-tested,” Obama said. “It felt as if he based his statements and his positions on what he believed.” What Obama is describing here is O’Rourke’s ability to speak naturally and with apparent conviction — one never knows if a politician is expressing genuine conviction or just performing it well — without taking hard-left policy stances. O’Rourke’s short career has allowed him to avoid being pinned down on every item in the party platform. He generally occupies the center of the Democratic Party, and often expresses broad sympathy for left-wing policy goals while suggesting he favors a more pragmatic alternative. On health care, he advocates “achieving universal health care coverage — whether it be through a single-payer system, a dual system, or otherwise — so that we can ensure everyone is able to see a provider when it will do the most good and will deliver health care in the most affordable, effective way possible.” One of the deeper strategic goals of the left is to equate progressive maximalism with authenticity, like Sanders did. They want candidates who take uncompromising left-wing positions to be seen as authentic, and candidates who adopt more moderate lines to be seen as calculating and phony. The socialist left will attack any non-Sanders candidate, but O’Rourke is especially dangerous to their project precisely because of his Obama-like personal appeal. The frequently invoked comparisons between O’Rourke and the 44th president explain both O’Rourke’s wide appeal within the party ranks and the mistrust he has inspired on the far left. Socialists generally regard Obama as a failure; Sanders often critiqued Obama implicitly, sometimes explicitly. O’Rourke’s burgeoning image as the next Obama is the very reason socialists reject him. “I think they are suspicious of Beto because he has taken oil and gas money, he’s becoming the darling of big donors, and Obama likes him,” says historian Michael Kazin. “Beto is a lot like Obama, true;” writes Breunig, “it’s perhaps time for left-leaning Democrats to realize that may not be a good thing.” Of course, given that 95 percent of Democrats approve of Obama, this message has fairly limited utility as a line of attack. The response to O’Rourke’s leftist critics is tellingly devoid of ideological content. “There are plenty of progressives who might run — from Beto and Bernie to Kamala and Booker and others,” says Jon Favreau, a former Obama speechwriter Pod Save America host. “And I think it’s more productive to focus our time and energy talking about why we support the candidates who inspire us.” Notice that Favreau is bracketing all the candidates he names as “progressives.” That is accurate, but it also elides the distinction — between the socialist candidate (Sanders) and liberal ones (everybody else) — that the Sanders left finds so crucial. Contrast Favreau’s big tentism with this rebuke of O’Rourke by Jilani: “He has become a uniting figure for Democrats, beloved by all and loathed by none. What kind of Democratic politician can be so adored? Maybe one who rarely, if ever, challenged the powerful.” Liberals like Favreau are aiming to unite the party. To a leftist like Jilani, O’Rourke’s ability to appeal across the breadth of the party is a reason to reject him. Turning the primary into a faction fight is not a pitfall to be avoided but the very goal. Baffled liberals, many still nursing wounds from 2016, see the passionate intensity of the Bernie movement as a personality cult, propelled by unthinking devotion to him (or spite at the party that they believe rigged the primary against him). It is anything but. The socialist left belongs to Sanders simply because there is no other presidential candidate who meets their exacting ideological criteria. They see O’Rourke as a threat to their project because, in important ways, he is. TAGS: POLITICS THE NATIONAL INTEREST BERNIE SANDERS BETO O'ROURKE MORE
Yes because you are obsessed with 'immigrants' and constantly lie about Democrats being 'open border'. If Dems were open border, why did Obama deport record number of Mexicans? Well informed as usual https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-uncovers-new-fake-accounts-ahead-of-midterm-elections/ It's not my opinion, these are facts, try to read the Senate report on Russian interference. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/
Couple of things we won't see. The next BLM march will not be canceled for being too black. You can be too white, but it's impossible to be too black. Next gay rights march will not be canceled for being too gay. You can be too straight, but not too gay. Women have a upcoming dilemma besides being too white They may find themselves in the confusing position of trying to decide just what constitutes being a woman. In todays world that isn't as clear as it used to be, you know,back when people had some sense of reality.
Republicans complaining about identity politics when their entire strategy since the 60's is appealing to white racists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy Southern strategy In American politics, the Southern Strategy refers to a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party.[4]
She didn't debunk anything https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/opinion/impossible-ridiculous-repugnant.html Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant A lot of people are upset over comments made on the radio by the former education secretary and guardian of all things virtuous, Bill Bennett. A Republican who served in the Reagan cabinet, Mr. Bennett told his listeners: "I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." After making the point that exterminating blacks would be a most effective crime-fighting tool, he quickly added, "That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down." When I first heard about Mr. Bennett's comments, I wondered why anyone was surprised. I've come to expect racial effrontery from big shots in the Republican Party. The G.O.P. has happily replaced the Democratic Party as a safe haven for bigotry, racially divisive tactics and strategies and outright anti-black policies. That someone who's been a stalwart of that outfit might muse publicly about the potential benefits of exterminating blacks is not surprising to me at all. Listen to the late Lee Atwater in a 1981 interview explaining the evolution of the G.O.P.'s Southern strategy: "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. "And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger."' Atwater, who would manage George H.W. Bush's successful run for the presidency in 1988 (the Willie Horton campaign) and then serve as national party chairman, was talking with Alexander P. Lamis, a political-science professor at Case Western Reserve University. Mr. Lamis quoted Atwater in the book "Southern Politics in the 1990's." The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.'s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks. The payoff has been huge. Just as the Democratic Party would have been crippled in the old days without the support of the segregationist South, today's Republicans would have only a fraction of their current political power without the near-solid support of voters who are hostile to blacks. When Democrats revolted against racism, the G.O.P. rallied to its banner. Ronald Reagan, the G.O.P.'s biggest hero, opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960's. And he began his general election campaign in 1980 with a powerfully symbolic appearance in Philadelphia, Miss., where three young civil rights workers were murdered in the summer of 1964. He drove the crowd wild when he declared: "I believe in states' rights." Bill Bennett's musings about the extermination of blacks in America (it would be "impossible, ridiculous morally reprehensible") is all of a piece with a Republican Party philosophy that is endlessly insulting to black people and overwhelmingly hostile to their interests.
1. Your statements had nothing to do with what ann coulter and others explained. The Republicans were wining some of Southern States since the 20s. 2. Bennets comments have nothing to do with a Southern Strategy. He was just pointing out that per Capita there is a lot of black crime on the books. 3. You have to put atwoods off the record comments in context. From you link... He said Reagan did not need a Southern Strategy and that it was not relevant and Southern Voters had no interest in the Voting Rights Act vote or any of that. "Atwater also argued that Reagan did not need to make racial appeals, suggesting that Reagan's issues transcended the racial prism of the "Southern Strategy": Atwater: But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I'll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.[14]" Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster. Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps? Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone.[11][12][13]