2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCan I have a list of Bernie's Pro POC legislation?
I am continuously told he has always been fighting for Black People for the last forty years, so is there a list of the Pro Black/POC legislations he has gotten through? Or written and put up for a vote? I'd like to see for myself what his track record is on fighting for our rights in government.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Vermont’s Black Leaders: We Were ‘Invisible’ to Bernie Sanders
By David Freedlander
He’s paying attention to the concerns of black America now, as a presidential candidate. Back when he represented Vermont? Not so much, local activists say.
Back in 2006, the Vermont Partnership for Fairness and Diversity, a Brattleboro area civil rights organization hosted a Candidate Night. The race for the open U.S. Senate seat between Bernie Sanders and Richard Tarrant, a Republican and one of the wealthiest people in the state, had grown increasingly acrimonious.
The audience of African-American activists and other Vermonters of color should have been a friendly one for the socialist congressman.
Instead, remembers Curtiss Reed, Jr., the executive director of the group, it became something of a showdown. Sanders “was just really dismissive of anything that had to do with race and racism, saying that they didn’t have anything to do with the issues of income inequality,” Reed told The Daily Beast.
“He just always kept coming back to income inequality as a response, as if talking about income inequality would somehow make issues of racism go away.
And since winning that race, Sanders’ approach toward Reed and his organization has been one of “benign neglect,” the activist added. “We are a major statewide organization. It would stand to reason that you would check in with your major constituents, but voters of color are simply not on his radar.”
Read more:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/vermont-s-black-leaders-we-were-invisible-to-bernie-sanders.html
bravenak
(34,648 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Red Knight
(704 posts)She's not held to the same standard.
She's your brand--I get it.
Bernie has nothing to apologize for--vote for him or don't.
Just don't act like it matters even a little about his civil rights record.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Red Knight
(704 posts)Sorry.
But you keep trying. You'll get some, not others--but you always manage to get a response.
It's not helping your candidate in the long run but go ahead.
Bernie doesn't have to apologize for anything--sorry.
Go with the corporate candidate. See how that works out.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
mariawr
(348 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Here is the list:
George II
(67,782 posts)....legislation that advanced prison for profit schemes. Neither Hillary Clinton nor her President husband ever did.
Now back on topic for me.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)....biggest fans, sold out to:
https://www.unilever.com/
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Ben & Jerry's To Unilever, With Attitude
Did Ben & Jerry's sell out, or is the Ben & Jerry's culture invading the corporate world? A scoop of each, perhaps.
Ending a four-month process that had some twists and turns, Ben & Jerry's Homemade, the quirky ice cream company that made social consciousness central to its strategy, said yesterday that it had agreed to be acquired by Unilever, the global giant that owns the Breyer's and Good Humor brands, for about $326 million in cash, or $43.60 a share.
The deal seems to pave the way for Ben & Jerry's to continue its maverick ways. The company will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilever, with a separate board that will include Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the founders of Ben & Jerry's.
''Shareholders will be rewarded,'' Ben & Jerry's said in a statement. ''Ben & Jerry's employees will be protected; the current social mission of Ben & Jerry's will be encouraged and well-funded, which will lead to improved performance in this area, and an opportunity has been offered for Ben & Jerry's to contribute to Unilever's social practices worldwide
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/13/business/ben-jerry-s-to-unilever-with-attitude.html
Artful smear deflected, but of course you knew that by George!!!!
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)It's like, and forgive me if I'm wrong, Bravenak wasn't actually asking a question that she wanted an answer to, but one that she and you wanted to post THIS article on.
If not, you have a shocking ability to be at the right place at the right time with the right article!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)head,look it up or follow the bookmark, copy, snip, paste, add the link, format for bold all within a minute. Amazing!!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)....there was a 2nd poster on the grassy knoll.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
mariawr
(348 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
Both you and I know the truth. They accuse us of "coordinating" when in reality I posted the exact same article earlier and just copy and pasted.
This place is hilarious.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They fail to realize that part. I read it as soon as you posted it. The CTs are lovely this time of year.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)How long do you think it would take?
1) read her post. It's a short one so it shouldn't take very long.
2) click my other tab where my post was open (1 second)
3) click edit and hit ctrl+a to select all (3 seconds)
4) hit ctrl+c to copy (1 second)
5) click the other tab ( 1 second)
6) click reply to her post and type my own title (5 seconds)
7) click to the body of the reply and hit ctrl+v (2 seconds)
8) click post (1 second)
Magic? Not so much.
But I am truly flattered that you think so highly of my ability to read short posts and paste articles that you think it just has to be coordinated.
BTW, when I clicked edit and ctrl+a, it copies all the formatring from my previous post so the bolding and article reference was done already.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511254542
That's my article from earlier. You'll notice the formatting and bolding is in the exact same format.
Too funny.
Krytan11c
(271 posts)Sometimes people are very obvious
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I had posted the article earlier today and had mu post open in another tab when I read Bravenak's post.
All I did was just copy and paste it. Easy peasy
This place is so funny.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I don't coordinate with anyone before posting.
Red Knight
(704 posts)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You forgot this part. 
“I* am surprised he has not tapped into me as an African-American person to speak about his record here,” Brown said. “This is an area he could capitalize more on. We are all so proud of him.”
Shela Linton, an African-American supporter of Sanders from Brattleboro, said the senator deserves credit for his outreach to the black community, especially considering that they are just under 2 percent of the state’s population.
*Patrick Brown, the executive director of the Greater Burlington Multicultural Resource Center
and to be fair, I'll even add this:
“He could have been a little more forceful around the race issue” as a senator, said Paij Wadley-Bailey, the director of the Vermont Anti-Racism Action Team and a longtime supporter of Sanders’s. “It is good that he is beginning it now but it would have been even better if he had made it more a part of his positions before.”
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Legislation specifically to address the racial disparities in america.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)A bill to end redlining? Job discrimination? Introduced anything on racial profiling? Those are pro poc. Bills to provide security to undocumented immigrants? My grandfather was deported back to espana, then to Italy, he was both, mom spanish, dad italian, no papers when he came. Anything that would have helped him? Equal housing bills?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)21 % of Veterans are POC and most people get old.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That seems awfully amorphous. What do you think is appropriate? And not asking about generalities, but what specifically do you think is appropriate?
ladjf
(17,320 posts)with affirmative action. In 1967 gender was added to the order. After that , other actions were either International initiatives or court orders from court proceedings.
What I'm getting at is there doesn't seem to have been many American Senators and Representatives writing affirmative action bills, which isn't good. But, your post seems to be singling out Sanders when it appears that there has been a general paucity of affirmative action legislation.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If he is best for blacks I want proof. People say he fought for us so hard and we need to respect and appreciate him, well, show me the money.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)I doubt if anything I might say would be of benefit to you.
As your question applies to Bernie, I see him as an honest person, dedicated to the em betterment of mankind and who does have a history of some participation in civil rights actions such as sit-in and parades mostly in the Chicago area. He was no Martin L. King. But, as politicians go, he was more civil rights minded than most. But, MLK is not with us anymore and will never be replaced.
We survivors will have to make do with what we have.
I've read a lot of your posts and feel that I have a pretty good idea of how your feel. My best wishes to you and your colleagues for a political outcome of this Presidential race that move briskly in the right direction for the Black Americans who have been treated very unfairly by Americans for as long as there has been an America.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I know there are no good answers. And it's partially our fault for not asking enough questions, for accepting a pittance or a promise.
I think from now on we have to fight for every scrap. Push them. Hillary can be pushed, she is not set in stone. Stubborn and unchanging scares me.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Here's a link for you that you can scroll through:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I have been told he is fighting for my rights. His fervent supporters should know. They can just tell me which bills to looks up, I just do not do the link to long list thing.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)However, I will take 15 minutes of my own time to look over that list for you. I might find something, I might not. I haven't seen that list before, and I don't know if it's the best place to look. But I'll try.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Keep in mind, I might have missed a few because I just skimmed through the titles and read any that hinted toward racial justice. It's possible I might have skipped over a couple of bills that addressed PoC issues because the title didn't jump out at me, so to speak.
1. Assuring Successful Students through Effective Teaching Act of 2011 - There's other versions of this bill scattered around the years.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1716/text
2. Secondary School Reentry Act of 2011
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1019/text
3. American Health Security Act of 2011 - This is his Single Payer plan from 2011. I'm including it here because let's face it, everybody wins with this.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s915/text
4. Foundations for Success Act of 2011
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s294/text
5. Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s3186/text
6. All Healthy Children Act of 2007 - This one doesn't single out PoC, but it likely would have had the greatest impact on them.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1564/text
7. Urban and Rural Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Act of 2003
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr1022/text
8. National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2001
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr2349/text
9. Food Stamp Overpayment Protection Act of 2001
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr2319/text
That's what I found going back to the year 2000. There were *many* bills that didn't explicitly mention race as being a driving factor behind the bill that would have had tremendous impacts on PoC communities. I didn't include those on the list. It definitely seems that while he focuses mostly on the economic aspect of society, he manages to intertwine that with social needs as well. This took a bit longer than 15 minutes, but it was fun and I learned a bit more about my candidate. Hope this helps.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Benefits to POCs are purely derivative - i.e., they just happen to benefit from them along with other people and the bills would likely have still been introduced whether people of color existed or not.
The OP asked for bills that specifically target POCs.
Think of it like you folks think about the sit-in that Bernie helped organized in the 1960s. He didn't organize a sit-in to improve housing for all residents of Chicago and take credit for the fact that some black people would benefit along with other residents. He organizes a sit-in for the express purpose of protecting the rights of black people.
So, along those lines, has he introduced any legislation that similarly primarily benefits POC?
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)A few of those bills specifically mention PoC as being disproportionately affected by the issues the bill was trying to address. I suppose that doesn't quite fit the criteria set by the OP, but it's pretty darn close. The rest of those bills likely would have benefited PoC more than whites.
ALBliberal
(2,339 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)For example, in your first example, Sanders' "Assuring Successful Students through Effective Teaching Act of 2011" does absolutely nothing to help minority students that wasn't already being done. Bernie's bill would have simply AMENDED the Elementary and Secondary Education Act section that already covered poor and minority students to ADD children with disabilities or limited English proficiency.
Original law: "Each State plan shall describe ... the specific steps the State educational agency will take to ensure that both schoolwide programs and targeted assistance schools provide instruction by highly qualified instructional staff as required by sections 1114(b)(1)(C) and 1115(c)(1)(E), including steps that the State educational agency will take to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers, and the measures that the State educational agency will use to evaluate and publicly report the progress of the State educational agency with respect to such steps; http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html
Bernie's bill strikes that language and replaces it with: "the specific steps the State educational agency will take to ensure that both schoolwide programs and targeted assistance schools provide instruction by highly qualified and effective instructional staff, as required by sections 1114(b)(1)(C) and 1115(c)(1)(E), including steps that the State educational agency will take ... (i)to ensure that poor or minority students, students who are limited English proficient, or students who are children with disabilities are not taught at higher rates than other students by teachers who are inexperienced, not highly qualified, out-of-field, or who have not yet demonstrated effectiveness as defined by section 9101(18)
As you can see, although minorities are mentioned in Bernie's bill, that was only because he repeated the language in the original law his bill would have amended; he simply would have disabled and limited English proficiency children join poor and minority children as part of the group benefitting from this section.
In other words, Sanders' bill does absolutely nothing to benefit people of color that didn't already exist in the original law.
The second bill you cite similarly does little for POC that was not already being done. The bill simply tweaks the existing ESEA law to make minor improvements in how State educational agencies and local educational agencies implement already existing secondary school reentry programs. It's a good bill and improves the ESEA around the margins, but it is largely technical. And while the preamble notes some compelling statistics about minority drop-out rates, this bill is in no way targeted to people of color.
So, a cursory reading of the first two bills you cite show that neither of these pieces of legislation primarily benefit people of color. I don't have time to study they other bills you cite, but I wouldn't be surprised if the result is the same. However, if you'd care to take the time to read the bills you linked to and explain how they directly benefit minorities, I'm certainly open to what you may come up with.
angrychair
(8,691 posts)I think it will be a shock to "students who are limited English proficient" that they are no longer considered to be "people of color" (fyi, PoC covers more than AA) as this is not talking about learning disabled people but people who are new to our country from Latin America, Asia and many other nations, most people of color.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Limited English proficiency students are not limited to people of color. This applies to anyone for whom English is not a first language - it also refers to people from white people from Latin America, as well as white people from all over Europe.
It cannot be rationally argued that introducing an amendment that, as part of the several other things it does, adds people with disabilities and people with limited English proficiency, some of whom are people of color, to an existing bill, counts as "pro POC" legislation. I guess it's better than trying to strike the pre-existing reference to "minorities," but this is certainly not what anyone means when they refer to "fighting for civil rights and people of color."
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)angrychair
(8,691 posts)You can name, off the top of your head, what specifically pro-POC legislation Hillary Clinton supported while a Senator from New York?
I mean, you support her, it's your standard, you must. Right?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)
i think i'd get a kick out of you IRL 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)but I don't have time to go through all of his bills. Maybe you can contact his campaign and ask them to put it together for you.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No worries
Not much there once you look at bill written
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)What would you want him to do, to satisfy this
concern? This is an earnest question.
And I ask partly because of your apparent choice to overlook the Clinton legacies for blacks. On which I would also welcome your pov.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Why should we trust that we will get a fair share when we never have before when stuff was 'for everyone white black all people!!!'. It never happens.
When there is not poc specific targeting, money gets pushed away from us and towards the 'majority'.
His college plan for instance. How can we be sure that black kids will get spots? With the way money is distributed in k-12, our kids are already shafted, so making college free makes it harder to get into if your school is Horace Mann or Dorsey High, those kids whose schools actually teach them will get in, making it unaffirmative action. How to fix that? He has no plan on paper to address the racial disparities. It only addresses the poverty connection. Even our middle class kids have issues cause textbooks are wriiten not for us, they are from a white pov. The history book are fulla shit, i used to get answers wrong cause I said lincoln did not FREE THE SLAVES! HE EMANCIPATED THOSE IN SLAVE STATES. But we had to 'free' ourselves. Follow the union. Run away. If your slave state never seceeded, you were not free. Nuances. None of that is allowed. Barely any blacks in our books. The classics are written by old dead men. None of us. Look at arrest rates of children n elementary. They treat our kids like trash. But somehow we will just hope them into free college when the competition will get harder because spaces are limited. Not even to get on the fact that he want governers to contribute 1/3. Yeah right. Too many holes. Not enough spackle.
So. The issues of RACIAL disparity are never actually addressed. Only the money, the povery, and a plan taken from campign zero. It is superficial.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Getting darker, not lighter. I aint giving a crap bout none of them that aint speaking on that. I got time. Least 35 years left. By the time I die this majority will no longer be more than a bigger minority. Shit WILL even up.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)here's him addressing criminal justice incl racial inequalities on the senate floor in 2015
i'm curious about your allegations of college admissions being racist, i read that blacks and latinos don't need the same test scores and grades for entrance in the top schools while asians and jews are penalized. can you provide some reading material to support your claims.
anyhow my understanding of this issue is that the problem is lack of equality in primary and secondary education. which is tied to property tax which is effectively an economic issue. would you address this please. i am trying to understand. thanks.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Rather than keeping funding equal or proportionate, we have been relegated to separate but equal. Like always. If white kids had to go to those schools you bet your bottom dollar the money would be spread out better. It is not economics, its pure race based division of funds.
Notice how food stamps get cut but farm money to rural areas gets raised? Why? Who lives rural? Who lives urban?
Now. He fails to account for the discrepancies in a way that provides SOLUTIONS to the race based portion. Solutions that the majority of US can ge behind. It sounds good to his fans. But it rings hollow to US. The fix is generally economics and no matter how much we scream and rant and rend our garments and gnash out teeth, we will be shut down and told, 'but that's economics!!!' Then why are rich black kids arrested at Department stores for using their own credit cards? Not economics.
Tired of hearing we cannot fix racism but we CAN HAVE a REVOLUTION because now it is not only us in economic straits. Now that others feel the pain we need to solve THAT NOW!!11!! And we must join!!11!! Because they know whats best for us. And talking racism is divisive. Call me when we have the 'we gonna fix racism revolution.' Until then count me out. Because until that part is accounted for none of the economic fixes will reach us fairly.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)and my understanding of the farm bills is that they're overwhelmingly a subsidy to monsanto, tyson: that is to say, corruption. i'll find links if you want to argue this point further.
food stamp cuts i'd argue are the result of an oligarchic form of government in which the poor have no political voice.
i dont' think anyone is saying it's all economics. but i think they're saying it's both. do you ever hear stories of asian teens being stalked from department stores? they're generally in a higher income bracket than AAs. likewise beyonce and jay-z are unlikely to be harrased by the cops because they're rich and famous (and they dress that way).
unfortunately these kids also look pretty firmly middle class: i think "rich" is a stretch.
a quote from the article (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Black-Teenager-Lawsuit-Barneys-Belt-NYPD-Purchase-Detain-Fake-Identification-228915061.html);
"Why me? I guess because I'm a young black man, and you know, people do a credit card scam so they probably thought that I was one of them," Christian said. "They probably think that black people don't have money like that."
did you read the article where he talks about tying public schools to federal funding tho. is that not a solution.
i understand the sanders campaign as less about about spreading the wealth but rather stopping corruption. it's becoming increasingly clear that no one can do anything to change the government without writing someone a check, and that includes racial justice. see: the private prison industry, which has been very much responsible for overincarceration in this country which i think even you will admit disproportionately effects minorities.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It is a stereotype and folks WILL MAKE EXCUSES FOR IT
Oprah was told she could not afford a handbag she wanted to view. Why? Not because she cannot actually afford it. Because racism. Thats not black folks fault. We did not create that. We just do the suffering while folks make the excuses as to why we cant fix racism. They dont actually come up with any type of plan to fix it unless it mean blacks have to do most of the work to fix a problem we did not create. They want to fix everything else and leave that in unfixibleland.
Come up with a plan for racism simultaneous to the plan for economic revolution and you can get 95 percent of black voters. Otherwise its just the same ol same ol.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)
i'm not condoning that kind of racial profiling, rather showing that it has its basis in economics. if blacks were the wealthiest group in the country and whites mostly lived in poverty, profiling would go the other way. again, i agree with you that's it's problematic. of course working class people are often treated the same way, the difference is you can do things to change your perceived class, while you can't change the color of your skin.
here's sanders' criminal justice platform. it's very long. happy reading.
i wanna point out what i see as a bit of hypocrisy on your side: you say that cutting food stamps is racist because it's mostly AAs who use them as they are disproportionately living in poverty, while an economic platform which strengthens the social safety net and makes education (ie, the way out of poverty) more affordable is also racist because it mostly benefits white people. which one is it?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We know the problem but you try to tell US what the REAL problem is because you know better than we who live that life.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)i am not saying the department store arrests are not racist. but they have their basis in economic reality which in turn has its base in racism=legacy of slavery.
we need to address both.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It doesn't matter if the roots are economic. It matters what we experience today and we know that it is our color not our poverty holding us back. Until that is fully understood nd acceoted there will be no progress. Money wont do jack but put some change in our pocjets. Wont stop last hired first fired. The black white pay gap wont get addressed. It will keep growing because RACISM causes the money to get funneled AWAY from us. Away fromour schools. Away from our neighborhoods. I can make money. But a Dylann Storm roof can end all that before you can say amen. Its racism.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)you'll see that white people have no problem treating people of their own race just abysmally. they just find other reasons to discriminate.
i'll say this: sexism has certainly defined my life. as has homophobia. but i know it's not everything. would i benefit, as a woman, from a female president? probably. almost definitely. but it's the lack of opportunity which is more frustrating. i can accept being discriminated against in hiring, promotions, pay if it means i have the opportunity to work in the right field. obviously, neither are ideal. and while it's not always obvious what is about sex and what is about class, **as i see it** class is more relevant.
i wonder how you became a one issue voter.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)This issue is just more important than most others. Like yours is the opportunity, mine is the barriers TO opportunity. I prefer the West or South, if I go east, NJ, NY or pennsylvania.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)i live in something of a backwards shithole. but i didn't grow up here so it was eyeopening to me to see how race and class can intersect in different cultures and geographical locations.
in the bathtub just now i had a halfthought about the court cases griggs v power company and ricci v destefano (if you're not aware they address "disparate impact" . SCOTUS isn't terribly democratic but i wondered if it reflected a nationwide consensus that racial justice was a problem which had been mostly solved and we could move on with pure meritocracy so much as a thing is possible. then i wondered if we were living in a new jim crow era; that discriminating upon race was specifically legislated against while republicans pass laws which aren't explicitly racist (voter ID? mandatory minimums for crack vs powder) with disparate impact.
it ties back into the rest of this discussion in which you have repeatedly asserted that there's a lot more work to do until we reach racial equality.
Lisa D
(1,532 posts) bravenak
(34,648 posts)If they hide it I find that just so wrong.
Lisa D
(1,532 posts)The alerter said you should do your own research. I'll post the jury results when they come in.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If I pass the jury test, it will be nice to see it.
Lisa D
(1,532 posts)On Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:43 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Can I have a list of Bernie's Pro POC legislation?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511259155
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Flamebait. The poster seems to lack the ability to use search engines to answer their own questions.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:21 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivolous alert.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post may be politically motivated, but it is reasonable.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Flamebait
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If flame bait was a reason to hide, half the OP's on this board would be eliminated. This alert stiles me as stalkerish.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)You can't really make this shit up. The jury system is a joke. 
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)About all you can say
one_voice
(20,043 posts) wildeyed
(11,243 posts)MEANIES posted something they didn't like and it HURT! So of course you must hide that thing!
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)bullshit. Have they never heard of hide thread? 
HELLO PEOPLE OF DU! If you don't like a thread, click on the little square box to the right of the thread title OR open the thread and click on the Trash Thread button at the bottom. The thread MAGICALLY disappears! You can ALSO add individual posters to your ignore list and it will be like they do not exist!
Try it next time instead of sending silly alerts!
This was a pubic service announcement.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)
Nanjeanne
(4,938 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)That you know deep down inside you are feeling the bern on this. Take your chaffed post and quit digging your hole deeper. It only makes your heroine Hillary look worse.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)On the truth.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)beedle
(1,235 posts)Or rather her mostly non-voting record.
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton/2/abortion#.VsUSO5QSyyB|
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Where was Hillary? I guess standing up for blacks voting rights wasn't all that important to her?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I never mentioned Hillary
thesquanderer
(11,985 posts)It's also votes (though you dismiss that in your posts #29 and #71).
It's also persuasion, as in the numerous speeches he has given on the floor... like the speech he gave on the crime bill, while Hillary was talking about "super predators." (i.e. see post #10 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511199177 )
Anyway, he has sponsored plenty of bills that were designed to making things easier for people with low incomes, and poverty does disproportionately affect the AA community, so those could arguably meet your criteria, though they don't exclusively help POC, and so you dismiss those in post #60. There are many more besides the ones that were pointed out to you there (like the youth jobs program he sponsored with John Conyers), but if you're not going to count them, then there's no point in listing them for you.
I wonder who you would hold out as a model, though. Is there ANY member of Congress who you would point out as a model figure for advancing the concerns of POC?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)From Vermont. Do you think he should favor one group of citizens over another? His job was to represent Vermont. All of Vermont.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Or conceding he isn't. I'm simply saying that his job was to represent people of Vermont, and that's it. Not sure if you are a Hillary fan, but what legislation did Hillary propose while senator of NY that only benefited POC?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I am told he has been fighting for my rights for fifty years so I asked what he did for my rights in particular
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)races in some gated communities.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)
icons are born.
It's laughable how deep into the bag y'all have to dig to try to prove that Sanders is the Great White Hope of civil rights. He's a good man who is supportive of civil rights. But he is not a leader on this issue, by any stretch of the imagination.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)I am willing to accept any he wrote even if he lacked enough co sponsors. It would show effort imo. Perhaps we will get a list.
George II
(67,782 posts)...he's averaging one piece of legislation passed every 8 years, 4 months.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)And little of what he has proposed in three years has any bi-partisan sponsorships. Last year, none at all.
George II
(67,782 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)SheenaR
(2,052 posts)Would you describe yourself as a single issue voter? I have read a lot of your posts. And I am curious. Do you support Hillary Clinton solely because you believe she is better for POC and that is all?
Not snark. Not anything. Seriously asking.
And if you allow me a second question, where in her years as a Senator, did she fight for POC? Besides being to the right on social and LGBT issues, did she do something specifically for POC to wow you and earn your support?
Thank you in advance. I was incredibly civil and I hope responders will be civil as well.
Thanks. Sheena
Glad I put the effort in.
Thanks for addressing both questions.
I look forward to your next OP on a different issue
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Didn't do much?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We gotta do for us
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Why are you more trusting of Hilary than Bernie to address this? Clinton policies were good for you?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He adds in his economic adjustments and goes straight to poverty. We are not all poor. What about the rest of us? She understands better.
Rather deal with the one who wont tell me that my real problem is money.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Or what the Clintons have done for POC?
Maybe I am ignorant of insights unavailable to most?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Women who look like me. That shws she understands how hard it is for black women. Those women give voice to OUR concerns in government. We need more promotion of blacks. She does that without being told to.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)i don't talk to many republicans, probably because i look too gay, but sometimes they tell me
beedle
(1,235 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bills written not votes cast
beedle
(1,235 posts)Pretty demanding for a person who wants other people to do your work for you.
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders?sponsorships=1#.VsUMB5QSyyA
bravenak
(34,648 posts)beedle
(1,235 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)beedle
(1,235 posts)None.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Hillary has done next to nothing but put people behind bars or put them out on the streets working with her husband.
Why you support her wold make a great deal more sense if you were in favor of war, an increase in incarcerating PoC and of course, ending all those horrible flag turnings.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)are looking for here but something else that can be used disingenuously.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)of your question rather than using bullshit semantics to pretend it does not.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)You are quite transparent and to think I once thought you were an intelligent poster, I need to learn to be a better judge of character.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)imaginary person who did everything right in your mind and Bernie.
IMO, all these threads that attempt to crap on Bernie without pointing out that Hillary's record is worse are highly misleading.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Your OP is about Bernie only because he is challenging Hillary in a primary. Hillary, not some imaginary perfect candidate. And we must choose between the two.
Guess what? Your OP does not control my reply. That's how message boards work. But, you knew that.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts) bravenak
(34,648 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Since you want to slam Bernie while ignoring Hillary's disastrous record.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)And you can try to not ignore Hillary's lack of anything helpful to poc and the things that were outright disastrous if u wish, but we all know and we cannot be fooled by her.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Maybe there is super secret legislation, idk
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)How has Bernie voted on the bills put forth or supported by the members of the CBC? Especially given his constituency.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)entire thread misleading.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But I believe you constructed it in a way to get the outcome you wanted. As a counter question to you. Why would Bernie, as a white man representing a white constituency write a bill like that? He wouldn't even have a frame of reference other than being Jewish.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Wouldn't it be kinda weird for Bernie to write a bill specifically pertaining to POC? I think so. Maybe it's a case of him being hyped up.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Black history memorial. Bills on recognizing the naacp. Little stuff. But something.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I just think that Hillary has know for a long time what her goals were and laid the necessary ground work. If you look at her team with Mills and the other minorities, Hillary obviously isn't racist. I think she is pandering and at the moment and saying everything the black community wants to hear and will drop us when needed. Let's not forget that when the CDC needed all the help she could in 2000. Bernie was the only one who showed up and Hillary was in the Senate at the time. That's just my opinion tho.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I actually expect failure. And to be dropped. But until then the issues I care about need some attention and if he is the best, he will respond to this type of pressure with action.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)He's also the only candidate to go to an open forum in the black community. Twice!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They can tell him what he does wrong
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Leadership is more than sitting in the Senate chamber and casting a vote when McConnell tells him to . . .
LexVegas
(6,053 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)angrychair
(8,691 posts)Despite my thinking you should do a little basic research on your own, I did a little looking:
S2054-Justice Not for Sale Act
S570-Comprehensive Dental Reform Act
S268-Rebuild America Act
S1782-American Health Security Act
S1522-Comprehensive Dental Reform Act of 2013
S2910 (111th Congress)-Increasing American Wages and Benefits Act of 2010
S294 (112th)-Foundations for Success Act of 2011
I could go on but I am not going to list every Bill he submitted for his 20+ year career.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But I was looking for pro poc legislation, not stuff for everybody, generic
Stuff fighting for OUR rights
No need to worry
I looked again
Not much there
angrychair
(8,691 posts)I physically went through those Bills and the text specifically written to address issues related to minority healthcare and education issues. While some are not exclusive to people of color or help other groups above and beyond people of color, I fail to see how that shows he is not considering and fighting for issues that matter a great deal to people of color.
You asked for Bills that were to benefit or improve the lives of people of color and I have given you a sample set of them to you. I'm not going to comb through 20+ years of Bills and amendments to win a point. My point has been made.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)What did he try to do to level the playing field for poc? It's fine if there is no answer
angrychair
(8,691 posts)How is legislation specifically to level the funding and educational opportunities in primary, secondary and college education for minorities not meet that standard?
How does creating equal access and opportunities to professional dental care not meet that standard?
How does desolving corporate prisons and addressing disportionate sentencing for people of color not meet that standard?
Give me a very specific example of legislation (Bill number, sponsor, year of Congress and don't give me something ridiculous like the Civil Rights Act, that was unique and foundationally altering of the legal system and civil rights in America) to compare and I will meet that standard.
grasswire
(50,130 posts).."bring poc up to your level"?
How would you know anything about the "level" of that poster?
Or are you speaking generally?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Can't be all in this together if one side has boats and the other side is barely swinming. The tide comes in we drown while others are just thrown off course. Affirmative action.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)There is an economic pyramid. And a racial pyramid.
Rich, white= top, top
Rich, black = top, bottom
Poor, white= bottom, top
Poor, black= bottom, bottom
I want the racial pyramid addressed.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)How is that accomplished?
Give me some suggestions of legislation that might help.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)End improper hiring practises
Stop undereducating our kids at K-12
Polluting communities of color
Writing history that disincludes us
Reparations and a damn apology for the crimes against our humanity
Racial profiling, not just in law enforcement
Broaden hate crimes laws
grasswire
(50,130 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)It hits the economic aspects.
The race aspects, though there is so much to talk about, he could not put it all in such a short article.
It is missing a few things. Women in particular are rarely mentioned. Even in black history even though we were on the front lines.
Hillary did a speech on race recently, yesterday or today? I just watched and this article hits on some of what she said, but she had more time to go deeper.
Anybody that knows me knows I expect failure from any candidate we choose. All others have failed. Except Kennedy, he died first, Obama is a realization of a hope. I see how others who are not black would be dissappinted in the hope they had not being realized. I feel for them but laugh too. When has the black race ever had it's hopes realized? We never have and will probably never will, we gotta do for us, we need the walls knocked down and they aint made from money. Or bankers except the racist redlining. Or oligarchs. Or billionaires. They made from Dylan Storm Roofs. And those like him.
We can make money if the barriers are gone. We dont want welfare. We want jobs, same pay as you for the same job, to not get hired last and fired first, clean water, good schools with plenty of staff and supplies. Fairness. The end of racism. Really. Nothing less will do. You do not have to beg people to not hate you for your skin color. Why should I? I think my fight is the real revolution.
Whoever we choose will fail on this. I lack any expectations.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Much is made of the fact that Bernie Sanders protested in the Civil Rights movement and organized a sit-in to desegregate student campus housing. THAT is an act targeted to primarily benefit people of color. Yes, it could be argued that white people benefitted, too, because they gained the value of diversity. But this protest was clearly aimed at helping POCs.
Asking for examples of legislation that Bernie sponsored that primarily benefitted people of color and getting back examples of legislation that benefitted large groups of people of which POC happened to be a small part would be tantamount to asking what Bernie did in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s only to be told that he organized a sit-in of the university cafeteria in order to force them to start serving pizza and claiming that, because black students ate in the cafeteria, too, this protest was a civil rights protest that benefitted people of color.
Does that help you better understand what information Bravenak is looking for?
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)what about a cafeteria that refused to serve watermelon, fried chicken, collard greens, and whatever other food black people stereotypically eat
white people eat fried chicken too. does the cafeteria's behavior have no racial ramifications because it also effects them? what about "disparate impact"
Armstead
(47,803 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Not pro everybody
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)If you mean all poc. I know that you think you do but much like you feel West has lost relevance in " your community", some may feel that you never had any and that you speak only for yourself just like the rest of us.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Just google it
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)'people angry at Cornel west'
'Cornel attacks obama'
I use variations
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)You do know how Google works , makes one wonder why you don't logically extend that thought towards your own query .
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)Really? LMAO
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Csainvestor
(388 posts)Just go to Bernies NAACP report card.
CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATIVE REPORT CARDS
Sanders scores 100% i don't know if you can score higher than 100% on the NAACP report card.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... right after I finish reading the transcripts to Hillary's Goldman Sachs speeches.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)is your stated objective here on DU (and mods and alerters, there's evidence in the Bernie Sanders group as proof)
So yeah, no
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts) 
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)will you stop? Just trying to see if there's a bottom to this pit.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Questions posed for propaganda purposes. You have no actual interest in any answer that doesn't already fit your preconceptions.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Weirdy enough, he voted against the welfare "reform" bill that gave so many people back their "dignity" by subsidizing giant corporations that pay non-living minimum wages to their workers. I guess he doesn't love PoC quite as much as Hillary does.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)More whites recieve benefits
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Ive never seen that breakdown before. Thanks.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Start here...
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html
You can google for more sources.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Do people really think more blacks are on welfare than whites? In my local office its MOSTLY white people.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I've always known this to be true. Then again, I'm a social worker, so...
It's amazing to me that some folks continue to have this perception.
This is part of the problem.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No wonder i keep hearing about Welfare Reform. Angrily. Like I'm on atap.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I never really thought much about the demographics of the program.
Response to bravenak (Reply #126)
mhatrw This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts).......So long, it's been good to know you.
Bernie supporters are not known for their tolerance of disagreement with their doctrine.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And had two suspensions, 
But here I am!!! Barely hanging in.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
jillan
(39,451 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I figured there were secret bills.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Agreed. Comments about her style are ridiculous and transparently sexist.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They make my page reload over and over
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)The Irvine law prof sounds like that noisy slice of DU that will invent any reason, now matter how inane, to hate on Hillary.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)You're welcome!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)When I fell on the floor laughing my ass off!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts) 
JudyM
(29,225 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)JudyM
(29,225 posts)us what hers are!!!
Unless, of course, you are holding to him to a different standard.
Are you actually looking to be educated, in other words, or are you just a flame bait bot?!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If you wanna be the one deciding what to ask, you should try staring an op
JudyM
(29,225 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)JudyM
(29,225 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)It's apparent from this thread that he hasn't been at the forefront of specific pro POC legislation. From what I've read, neither has Hillary. Why that's difficult for some to admit I don't know. Maybe they're a bit too emotionally invested to see it from another's perspective.
Personally I think this time around Hillary and her supporters are speaking about these issues in a more coherent and inclusive manner than Sanders supporters. Or at least, better than some of the so-called 'supporters' here, who seem overly defensive and downright hostile to good questions.
I think reasonable minds can disagree on which candidate will be better going forward. I have little doubt that either candidate would be better than a republican. But that's about it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Republicans are a mess. I feel like we are suppose to push these difficult questions. Hillary gets hers all the time, but it happens so much that her supporters just let it go and dont bother getting mad at each and every incident. More will come anyway. Politicians can take it.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)as always bravenak. Thanks for pushing these questions. You & others have made me more aware of them. You probably know I'll support the democratic nominee and I'm not too heavily in favor of one or the other in the primaries. It's fun being more aloof this time around. I was emotionally invested for President Obama and remain so for him.
I think I'm going to watch tonight's republican debate now 'cause it's a train wreck. My friend hasn't texted back about seeing Deadpool and I want to watch some freaky comedy.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I cannot believe I'm missing the shitshow!!!
Yeah, im voting for the nominee too, no matter what.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)So I'm listening to it now. It's a town hall format. Just one candidate at a time with Anderson Cooper. I think Trump is tomorrow, so that will be yuuuuuuge.
Right now Cruz is going on about singing 'Oh my darling Clementine' to his wife or some such bullshit.
I have it open on another tab. I had to allow cookies to get it working right.
Oh my gosh. Now Cruz is going on about a bunch of military stuff. Trump is right. This guy is a liar.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I hate his ooogly face ew. Ted Cruz you are gross.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)And boring to watch. But he really appeals to the far right. If he get their nomination I think Clinton would tear him to shreds and we'd win the presidency. Sanders I think would also tear him to shreds. But at this point I'm not confident he can win enough states in the general since he'd be painted as very far left.
Trump is more fun to watch than Cruz or any of the other republican candidates. He'll say anything. I have no idea how he'd do versus Hillary or Bernie.
Yeesh. Now Cruz is repeating the lie that a lame duck President shouldn't be able to get a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee. Problem is, he doesn't define lame duck. A lame duck President is one where the next President has already been elected. So really that only applies from November-January. He doesn't say that of course. Because he lies like crazy.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I only watched Cruz and then couldn't take any more. Watched Better Call Saul. Almost done with the first season. It's really good.
We'll have to watch Trump tomorrow. I love imitating him.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Let me complain. I cannot watch Saul. I cannot watch WALKING DEAD. I hate GCI cable. They are ignorant. Evil. Corporatist bloodsicking leeches. Oligarchs! Billionaires who suck us dry and steal our shows. I ordered netflix is it on there?
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Second season, I don't know when netflix will get it.
Yeah, it sucks that AMC isn't on all the cable companies. Goddamn oligarchs!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Oligarchs
Perogie
(687 posts)We get it. You just don't like him.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Perogie
(687 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Perogie
(687 posts)I'm fine with you not liking him. That's great for you. I wouldn't try to change your mind in a million years.
We get it. You don't like him.
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)But because of the way Congress works I don't think anyone's going to find much that specifically meets your requirements. At best there will be bills that are designed to disproportionately benefit certain demographic groups, without waving racial flags that right wing bigots like Limbaugh can blare about. So legislation for "at-risk youth," or equalizing sentencing for crack versus powder cocaine, or targeting certain geographic areas may benefit people of color while still appearing to be non-racial. I would expect that things like the NAACP score would take this into account, but that's not what you asked.
As for your OP question, the only one that I knew of off the top of my head was his cosponsoring the Violence Against Women Act, for its specific protection of justice for Native women.
A look at congress.gov reveals some other cosponsored bills introduced or referred to committee: the Smarter Sentencing Act (which includes language regarding racial profiling); End Racial Profiling Act; Hate Crimes Prevention Act; Save Oak Flat Act; Save Native Women Act.
Then there are some decorative resolutions like Apologizing for Enslavement and Racial Segregation, Juneteenth Independence Day, Rosa Parks Commemoration, etc.
Personally, I wish he would come right out with some bold, revolutionary civil rights proposal--as long as we're advocating political revolution, let's go for it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Moreover, co-sponsored bills don't tell us anything because co-sponsors almost never have anything to do with the shaping of the bill. Once a bill is drafted and ready to be introduced, the sponsors circulate it to other offices via a "Dear Colleague" letter asking their colleagues to "sign on." Senators and Members sign on to bills regularly - often several times a day. It's a way to show support but everyone knows that they're not the driver of the bill. And Senators and Members can continue to "sign on" as co-sponsors of a bill almost up to the final seconds before it is voted on.
Co-sponsorship is VERY different than sponsorship, which involves drafting, shaping and introducing a bill and being largely responsible for building support for it and getting it through to a vote.
Also, scorecards, such as the NAACP's, do not take sponsorships or other actions into account. They merely look at their voting record on the votes they have decided to "score."
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Excellent response.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)I'd like to see who and what anyone has passed in recent years.
Also, how does Sec. Clinton's list look?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Emancipation proclaimation
Reconstruction
Affirmative action
Vattel
(9,289 posts)because it wasn't intended only to help POC.
Not good enough MLK and LBJ!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Marginalized groups. I decide what I deem acceptable. Carry on.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)all citizens from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It is not specifically targeted at POC. So by your rules, it wouldn't count.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Groups are added.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)It applies equally to POC and non-POC.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Cause whites were oppressed? Needed a civil rights act to vote?
TheBluestEye
(97 posts)Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery.
This was, of course, life altering for African-Americans all over. It changed the game, so to speak.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Aint nobody gon do nothin we aint already damn near done with doin for ourselves. I know this and so do most. They'll show up at the tail end. And want a bunch of gratitude and credit and accolades. I am never impressed with any of them. Well, a few who bore a great sacrifice, but I lack the ability to be impressed.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)You asked for legislation. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)Reconstruction 1865 - 1980 (terrible job by Federal Gvt)
and Affirmative Action 1961 (Executive order by John Kennedy)
And now, where is the list of initiatives by Sen. Bernie Sanders?
The real point is the American Government has done a terrible job of civil rights and POC initiatives starting early in the 19th Century, when no laws against owning slaves was passed until after the Civil War had started over that very issue.
(France outlawed slavery in 1794, England in 1833) That delayed timing of the outlawing the slave trade in America started the cascading series of events that not only led to the Civil , with devastating loses of live and wealth, but also a horrible divide among American citizens over the issue, a division that is still boiling today. We are all still suffering from the stupidity and cowardice of the 19th politicians and citizens who allowed slavery to happen and to continue as a regular business practice long after it was obvious to most that the "original" political sin had been created.
What followed? The disastrous "Reconstruction Period" which only added to the losses up to that point. Nothing was proactive done for the newly freed slaves to help them transition from slave identities to fully privileges as American citizens. (A status that hasn't been completed yet.)
The Jim Crow laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were created by those sympathetic with slave ownership and as you undoubtedly know, were designed to deny people of color their rights as American citizens. The Republican Southern Strategy was precisely designed to create legislation and techniques to return to the Jim Crow laws that had been weakened by the Democrats civil rights initiatives starting with President Johnson.
I'm going through all of the history to remind anyone who is interested that the race problems in America began with the first slave was imported to the U.S. (Remember that many of the leaders who founded the Country were slave owners. But, in just 90 short years slave ownership went from being a normal business practice to something horrible (which it was) enough to go to war over. That was a quick turnaround of attitude.
If any politicians are going to be pressed on the need for more and better laws protecting the rights of POC, then ALL of them must be pressed into action. The current situation is a disgrace.
Americans must find some honest, intelligent and dedicated people to lead the Government. I personally can only think of two American politicians of the 20th Century who were definitely honest. (And I won't give my list here.) But, if I'm anywhere close to right about that, we are in a whole lot of trouble.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Let me re read it.
1: Yes! We have done a piss poor job and it's getting to the point that I am tired of that issue being sidelined or overshadowed
2: True!!! We have been held back by antebellum crap and attitudes and refuse to confront it head on. We try to sweep it under the rug and quiet the oppressed. We deem them 'problematic' if they are vocal about the unfairness. We minimize the pain to hide from the collective guilt. It was the past! Not my fault! But it still exists and will never be fixed until we decide that we need to confront the past.
3: we have never finished reconstruction, yes you are right
4: sad that jim crown just grew up
5: Thank you for this answe
ladjf
(17,320 posts)thoughts down to the minimum number of words. (Just noticed the Van Gough. Beautiful work of art.)
Thanks for reading my posts.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I love art, but paint horribly, I want to be more van gogh.
I try to read all posts on my ops if they are decent and real, you write well.
TheBluestEye
(97 posts)I do, however, know that he fought for Civil Rights as a young man here in Chicago. I also know that he has been a progressive Senator from a state where gun ownership and hunting is respected.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)in the nearly 50 years since he left Chicago and moved to all-white Vermont. His work in the movement was admirable, but he can't point to anything he's done since that involved political or personal risk or required him to go against his mostly all-white base.
There's nothing wrong with that and it doesn't make him a bigot or a bad person. But it also doesn't give him the basis to claim he's some great civil rights crusader, just because he went to the March on Washington or organized a sit-in in the mid-1960s.
My problem is not that I don't respect his work and commitment then, but having his record thrown around like it makes him the Great White Hope of Civil Rights is disrespectful to the people who really did put themselves on the line, not just during a few years in the 1960s, but for years and decades since.
Civil rights isn't a hobby and it's not something you do in your youth before moving on to other things. And while Sanders has always been supportive of civil rights, supporting things from the sidelines is very different than being in the ring fighting for it. And Sanders left the ring in the 1960s and, even though he's often cheered the fight from ringside, he has rarely stepped back in to the ring to do any actual fighting since. And despite this, people now want to give him the heavyweight champion belt that he has not earned.
TheBluestEye
(97 posts)I was under the impression that he fought for Civil Rights in Chicago and later got involved in political work. I think that his early Civil Rights activism was being discussed because Clinton supporters were acting like Hillary Clinton was the only democratic candidate to support Civil Rights. Many people did not know that Bernie had been an early supporter of Civil Rights.
You are right, Civil Rights isn't a hobby. The belief and the defense of Civil Rights can inform public service. Bernie moved on from political activism to political service, just like Barack Obama. I don't see what the problem is.
When did Bill and Hillary ever really step in the ring and fight? When Hillary was opposing gay marriage, Bernie was supporting gay marriage. Bernie didn't vote to send our young men and women soldiers, who are often minorities or born poor, to Iraq. I will gladly take Bernie's supposed 50 year ringside seat over Bill's three strikes you're out criminal justice reform and his severely flawed welfare reform any day.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)....questioning you ability to question.....but not a one that can answer your question...because there isn't a bill that Bernie wrote, introduced, promoted, and got passed for poc...not one.
Bernie has had 3 bills he wrote, that eventually passed into law. Two of them naming post offices.
Im thinking this very same question could be posed for our LGBT community with likely the same results. He votes, he co sponsors, but he never actually does the work to write, promote, get the co sponsors, get the backing and have a bill pass into law. All talk, no do.
I probably should start a new op, but can't be bothered with all the howling that this should be turned into something about Hillary, or that it's flame bait, or all the other near misses, attempting to by pass the actual question at hand.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)There is no answer because it does not exist. I'm more about action than talk talk talk. Anybody can promis me stuff, I look at what people get done.
Gothmog
(145,098 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)strong voices need to do their homework to avoid collosal FAILS.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Because he is a CHAMPION who Fights for my Rights! I want to see how hard he fought for me to achieve equality and parity. Why I should believe that he has MY back. That he understands MY ISSUES fully. That he really is a big FIGHTER who does the RIGHT THING no matter how unpopular. In 30 years there must be PLENTY!!!!! I'm sure of it.
jfern
(5,204 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Blacks were never going to own ourselves until we did. We need to fight again.
jfern
(5,204 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Carolina
(6,960 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Carolina
(6,960 posts)so much in there for POCs 
She is part of Bill Clinton's legacy (the two for one, the 8 years of 'experience'): NAFTA, Telecommunications Bill of 1996, Welfare Reform (not), Three Strikes, overturning Glass-Steagall, etc. She and Bill kept Alan Greenspan at the Fed, placed the then Mr. Goldman Sucks himself Robert Reuben as head of Treasury and hired as financial advisor that abominable Wall Streeter Larry Summers (who lost a $billion from Harvard's endowment!). Those three crashed the economy:
And we, the people (the little people, lots of POCs), reaped the whirlwind of that 1999 Act which ended Glass-Steagall and for which every repuke in the Senate voted AYE while every Dem -- save one -- voted NAY. Bill signed it into law anyway, paying no heed to the canary-in-the-mine Dems who said that this dastardly new law would lead to disaster 10 years hence. Sure enough it did, harming families throughout the land. And Wall Street, Hillary's BFF, continues to be such benefactors for POCs!
In the Senate, what did she DO? What legislation or amendments to legislation illustrate her initiative or activism on behalf of women and children. The aye votes for IWR, the Patriot Act and Bush's Bankruptcy bill sure were a big help to us all!
Then there was her abysmal management and nasty conduct during the 2008 primary campaign. She had the money, she had the name, she was entitled, she was "in it to win it" and so arrogant that she claimed it would be over by Super Tuesday. But when it wasn't and she was losing, she resorted to the gutter. She praised McCain and derided Obama as someone who only gave pretty speeches. And when the Party urged her to bow out gracefully, she said that she was going to stay in the race through the CA primary because "you never know... remember Bobby Kennedy..." Her insinuation (a veiled wish?) that Obama might be assassinated like RFK was beyond classless and tasteless. It was evil (google Keith Olbermann on that atrocity). And when she finally, gracelessly bowed out, she did so on condition that the Obama organization and DNC pay off her campaign debt. Some management skills, just like her Wall Street benefactors who f--- things up, then expect others to pay for the disaster created.
As SOS, she was also terrible. Honduras, Libya and Syria are a mess. But HRC, the consummate pro-MIC corporatist, never saw a war she didn't like. And last I checked, war is not good for women, children or men of any color!
This is HRC's history. Please tell me what is her signature accomplishment; what has she DONE for people? She has tons of baggage with reams of video footage showing her lies, contradictions, and ever changing positions... not to mention her testiness when challenged and the low road she takes in primary campaigns. She has DONE nothing that is positive or constructive for POCs. So, what is this record she always harkens back to in her me, me, me, mine, mine, mine debate responses and that her supporters parrot? She's in it for herself, she plays sexist gender politics, she lies about her alleged record, she changes her mind with the political winds, she panders, she pads her pockets, she has repeatedly shown poor judgment and she is a third way triangulator to her core.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Listened to Bill. She was always better than him. He knows it himself. He limited her. Now she can grow and govern. I hated her until This summer. Boy did i used to diatribe!!!
Then i met the revolution. And auntie hillary seemed, well, almost comforting, like oatmeal cookies. Are they the most jazzy snack? No! But they are delicious and have raisins and cinnamon, and dipped in milk, yum yum yum. The revolution is like girl scout cookies. You gotta do all this work, wait for those cookie dealers to visit, order them, and a month later a kid comes to yr door with a note saying they 'accidentally' ate YOUR cookies, so sorry.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)speaks volumes about how indefensible Hillary's record is. And by the way, she rode Bill's coat tails to power. He had the intellect (Georgetown Univ, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law), charisma, gift of gab and natural ability to connect with people. She was smart, too (Wellesley, Yale Law) like many, many woman from Seven Sister/Ivy League schools. After law school, she went to DC to work on the Nixon impeachment committee, but her stint there did not last long because, among other reasons, she did not pass the DC bar. She tells the story that she went to work for the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) founded by Marian Wright Edelman as evidence of her advocacy for children and that's true... 20 years ago. But recall that Marian’s husband, Peter Edelman who became Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, resigned in protest over the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act better known as Welfare Reform because of the dire effects it would have on the poor, especially POCs, women and children. Has anyone heard from the Edelmans yet in this 2016 cycle? While they may tacitly support HRC... since they both worked with RFK, I hope they do not demean or disgrace themselves by engaging in the ugly tones of the surrogate chorus.
Anyway, back to the narrative. After leaving DC, what did HRC do? She ran off to Arkansas! Yes, this dynamo of feminism whom so many women from my generation say could have done anything, been anything on her own… did not go back to her native Chicago, did not go back to New England (MA, CT) where she was educated. No, she ran off to Arkansas. She chased after Bill because she recognized his rising star. As I said above, he had the talent to go along with the intellect. He had held leadership positions nearly all his life: high school (Boy’s State) and college (class president for 2 years, etc.). He became Governor, chaired the National Governors’ Association and finally became POTUS. It was only through him that she was introduced to the nation and even then, it was rocky because of her abrasive remarks about baking cookies.
She would never have been able to carpet bag her way to the NY Senate seat had she not been FLOTUS. And BHO likely chose her for SOS, because he'd been inspired by Lincoln's team of rivals and wanted to keep her busy and away. In so doing, she couldn't be a quasi-backbencher sniping at him. Yet, in the end, as SOS, she was also terrible. Honduras, Libya and Syria are a mess. But HRC, the consummate pro-MIC corporatist, never saw a war she didn't like. And even attempted to sabotage his deal with Iran.
But you can keep on defending HRC. I recall my brethren defending Clarence Thomas, too. He used black people and raised their umbrage over his "high-tech lynching," but his BFF on the court was Scalia and he has sure been an advocate for POCs 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And I stay up here for my husband and he will move down with me when it's time.
And her cookie remarks are why I started liking her as a preteen as gender roles were becoming oppressive to me. I played flag football not ping pong or badminton.
She wasa good SOS.
I have no clue what Clarence Thomas has to do witn anything.
I couldn't care less about a stranger's judgements of my judgements or intentions.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)willfully blind
DrDan
(20,411 posts)not a sign of a leader
Good ideas, good man - honest, trustworthy - but not a leader
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Not an organizer of people or a builder of coalitions. Good Senator
fredamae
(4,458 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts) 