And there's nothing really divisive or controversial about them. There's a 'right' and a 'wrong' and only the troglodytes should be on the wrong side of them. The simple way for them not to 'divide' us is to demand that all of our candidates all are 100% on the 'right' side of them.

The WEDGE lies in the false
narratives that the "base"
does not care, is dismissive,
or otherwise takes concerned
parties for granted.

The "Left" who has championed
the disenfranchised populations
for decades has been "taken for granted"
by the Party establishment for far to long.

When Hillary supporters cry out...
but republicans, SCOTUS, etc WITHOUT
addressing the concerns of the "Left"
WE are being taken for granted.

Who else will the "Left" vote for
if not Hillary?

Enough of the "Left" is F----ing Retarded
from 3rd-Way triangulation.

Great post! You should cross post in GD-P so more people see it.

Thanks for being a voice of reason!

Ta Done!

while the 1 percent load it up to the bank

they use social issues to make natural economic allies look like enemies, because they have the 'wrong' thoughts on social issues - and BOTH parties do this when looking at the other side, and both party's members get sold out by and to, the elite

That is a quote from a book I read long ago and don't remember where...but I think it was a Russian novelist.
But it simplifies what Carlin was talking about and is absolutely true...and TPTB have been using it on us for decades...and so few have ever caught on to that game.

Divide and conquer

The phrase is attributed to Philip II, king of Macedon (382-336 BC),
describing his policy toward the Greek city-states.

In politics, divide and rule (also known as divide and conquer)
is referring to a strategy of gaining and maintaining power
based on the fact that many smaller opponents
are easier to manage than one larger one.

The strategy includes:
* breaking up power alliances into smaller chunks that are easier to subdue/manage
* preventing small power groups from linking up and becoming more powerful

Effective use of this technique allows those with limited power
to control those who collectively would have had a lot more influence.
Sources: http://latinphrases.info/divide-and-conquer/

ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890 Also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778005

Democrats I know IRL love Bernie and said they would vote for him as soon as I said he had announced informally back in May, or love Bernie, but fear the McGovern myth. In the latter case case I discuss the facts of that with them.

Actually, the myth is that both Mondale and McGovern were too liberal to win and this post contains links to a lot of DU posts that are relevant: http://election.democraticunderground.com/12779277. However, the people I know IRL know Mondale was not a liberal. In fact, a couple literally laughed audibly at the notion.

So, I use only the info on this thread with them. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778825 Several of them never heard of the DLC and all that goes along with that, so I throw that in. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673

Plenty of threads in the Populist and Warren Groups give additional info on Hillary and/or Bill Clinton.

As far as DU, if I think someone may be overlooking something, or y be unaware of something, I'll post it. Otherwise, it depends strictly on my mood at the moment. I don't see us changing any minds here. As far as the general public, Bernie will take care of it.

Media Literacy is a valuable tool.

and who have been talking to others are beginning to take a closer look at his group here and his audience demographics at events. Plenty of photos. I send them here, and they are changing their minds about what drives the BS campaign. The words, racist, privileged, blind, deaf.....are being used more and more by people who are finding out about his support base by visiting here and other venues/forums/blogs ect ect.. Keep fooling yourself. It will help the other candidates for sure....the BS group is changing minds and believe me it's not positive for BS. I will continue to help change minds, every day till the primaries. I promise myself to do that wherever I'm conversing, writing, blogging....it does work you know.....

What do you think I am fooling myself about?

and races that I know, after coming here and reading how POC are being marginalized, hidden and told basically to STFU with concerns about racial matters and the BS campaign are giving me and other feedback that is not good for the BS campaign. Du may be won, but with 6% AA support, that's likely, after the info from DU is disseminated by myself and others, to drop further. That's all I'm saying. Truly disappointed in a lot of his supporters marginalization and diminishing of the important of #Black Lives Matter to POC here. The treatment of Bravenak yesterday by BS supporters was the grain of sand that broke the camels back. They just can't keep doing stupid shit and expect to get a pass. And they are arrogant enough to feel they should because to those offenders, it's clear, POC who's lives are taken from them violently and with racist intent does not matter to them and they could give a damn less who knows it. That privileged arrogance at it starkest. That's all.

I have no interest in "winning DU," nor do I think it's possible. I did add that, if you look at another way, it's already won, but that was not my main point. My main point was that I don't think I can win DU.

BTW, someone posted in the Bernie Group that you had left. I am happy to see you decided to return.

The only place I read such dribble
is from those hammering the WEDGE.

Please link to any post explicitly stating
what you allege.

LINKS TO:
1) POC being marginalized
2) POC told basically to STFU

Thanks

turned around on who and what I'm responding to . My mistake... a few times......sorry

I should add, that my reference to "winning DU" was referencing a post by someone else who had used that term in connection with how many recs a thread gets and other typically message board things that don't cross my mind when I post because they are not important to me.

As for the rest, it is painful, but I don't know if I can impact it.

and people are starting to step over the line drawn in the sand by DNC and the centrists. WE will make our voices heard and make changes that will benefit ALL of this Party. Won't stop till I'm dead. Period. I have promised myself that. The events of the last couple of weeks outside this forum and inside has truly shown me how far we've come(????) and how far we have to go to be all inclusive regardless of................whatever.

If I did, I would.

IRL, everyone one I know is already for Sanders, except, as I said, the ones who think Hillary has a better chance of winning the general. I think Sanders has a much better chance and I tell them why.

I am not on black twitter. Anyway, I believe bravenak when she says the best thing Sanders supporters can do on black twitter is to stop defending him. On DU, I think anything I post about him outside the Bernie Group, where everyone is for him anyway, will do nothing or make things worse. I don't think anyone on DU has an open mind about candidates, even under the best of circumstances. I trashed GD the day I saw them announce it. I go in there only if I have to serve on a jury or I click on something in Latest Threads by mistake.

Also, I do feel that at least part of this is being fueled, on and off DU, by people who are not African American, but who want to divide the Democratic primary vote by race.

People who are switching candidates, who are they going to that's been better on race? Lincoln Chafee?

sanders candidacy as long as it is NOT a personal attack on him. Not HRC, not him, not o'malley. But everything else is fair game. Me, I will keep hammering away for inclusion of all opinions AND RACES, popular with the racists in the sanders group or not. They cannot tell me how to run my campaign in choosing who is going to be the candidate to best represent me in the GE. Just keep putting an opinion out there. As long as it's not personal, it's fair game. That's how I see it and will conduct myself.

My sexuality is my identity, so if you call sexuality a 'wedge issue' you have called me a wedge issue.
Dig it. I can't alter my sexuality to please your agenda. African Americans are African Americans no matter how that serves your objectives and your priorities. We can not change who we are. So if there is something amiss, that something lies in things which can be changed.

Minority people do not see our rights as a wedge. Consider that, proceed accordingly.

I'm am NOT proposing that "basic rights"
are inherently a "wedge issue".

We are on the same team.

The issue is when "others"
seek to exploit differences to
foment discord amongst us.

The right-wing, and various economic interests
are the ones who seek to exploit the differences.

THEY, seek to divide and conquer.
We need to recognize their tactics.

Triangulation is their way.
Socially progressive, Economically conservative.

You said:

My daughter and daughter-inlaw who are married (and who blessed me with two beautiful granddaughters) are Lesbians. Naturally there is great deal of attention paid by everyone in my family as to discriminating practices and policies locally & nationally and cultural attitudes and it matters politically.

But other policies matter a great deal as well. It happens they are both professional educators in the community and both held in high esteem/regard among their professional peers. They are also active in other realms within the community and internationally, specifically Holland.

I mention all that to say that their sexual orientation does not represent their entire life, or their entire person(s). They're involved daily with a very diverse community professionally and socially in their personal lives.

My entire family (beyond my daughters' family) actually represents so many different levels of socio-cultural "identities" the cliche of "melting pot" certainly applies. And yet politically, my entire family is all over the map. My daughter in law is a bit conservative but a registered Democrat,.. My daughter leans more left and is a Bernie supporter as can be deduced from her fb, but I'm the one considered a "radical Leftist" in the family.. (won't go into all the others in my family)

No one in the family engages on the level of Identity Politics, including PoC members in my family, which I guess is why I don't understand why other people say 'this is my identity', with regard to their Race, Gender, Sexual Preference/Orientation.

For instance, I'm an old Feminist but HRC, Dianne Feinstein, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann do not represent me or my interests. But Identity Politics would dictate otherwise. So I'm a bit baffled by it when I see and hear others discuss their political issues and concerns or choice of candidates on that level essentially to the exclusion (it seems to me) of other matters of concern. And I wonder if you wouldn't mind illuminating why that is the case.

I'm sorry this turned into such a long winded question. if you have the time to explain, maybe I'd learn something I hadn't considered before now.

become a single issue voter. Let me veer briefly from the so-called wedge issues.

Let's say, heaven forbid, that someone's child had a serious pre-existing medical condition that the family could not afford to take care of and one candidate was running on Medicare for all and another was running on ending Obamacare, Medicaid and Medicare. I would expect that parent to become a single issue voter really fast. In that parent's shoes, I would not be worried about foreign policy or interest rates on student loans or anything else.

In your case, your daughter is lesbian and you are a Democrat, so you probably did vote for the most pro GLBT candidate you could. I vote in Massachusetts, where Catholicism is a force, though much less than it was a few decades ago. My rep, a Catholic, though a fiercely pro-union Democrat used to be wobbly on choice and equal rights for members of the GLBT community. He has since changed his stand. And mercifully, I never had to vote for him before he changed because he doesn't get many primary challenges. But, if someone more socially liberal had a challenged him in a primary, I'm guessing you would have chosen the candidate best for your daughter no matter how good for unions my rep is.

If your daughter had been born a few decades earlier and had had the courage to come out to herself and then to you, you may have been a one issue voter as well. Especially if she were a guy. Lesbians got away with being "tomboys" or sports minded or whatever people told themselves about more masculine women then. Men who were more feminine did not get a pass, then, though, even if they were hetero.

BlueNorthwest is older than your daughter and came up in an era when NYC police would regularly go to gay bars and literally billy club people for nothing other than being in the bar--and the general public was more than fine with that. Police got cheered the same way Bostonians cheered them when they announced they had found Tsarnaev. No one would hire someone even suspected of being gay. And on and on. I totally understand his being a one issue voter.

If I thought Sanders were a racist or even indifferent to African Americans, I don't know who I would vote for in this primary. I see the other two candidates whom I might otherwise consider as more questionable on matters of race than Bernie, as well as on other matters. (Some older, prominent African Americans see war as a race issue, too.) It's not that race is unimportant to me, but that I see Sanders and his record very differently than some African Americans are seeing him and his record. I don't know what to do about that difference in perception. Maybe only African Americans who see him and his record differently can do something about that?

As far as people changing their candidatd because of how some DUers post or tweet, that I cannot understand. But I do understand being a single issue voter when your life and/or your child's life is at risk. And your entire community's lives.

And if only on this alone. I love you.
I despair to see us divided, thank you for trying to see us united.

I evaluate whether something is a "wedge issue" by giving it the economics test. In other words, is being for or against whatever is being proposed as a solution to the given wedge issue have any economic impact?

If the answer is "no" then almost always it is a "wage issue".

For example, the latest dustup with Planned Parenthood purportedly selling fetal tissue. This has a great gross out quotient but if they are constrained from selling fetal tissue will that improve anyone's life or allow anyone to get a job or pay their bills?

I can reel off a list of other wedge issues: prayer in schools, second amendment rights, display of the 10 Commandments in public buildings, the Confederate battle flag, "partial birth" abortion, bible study in public schools etcetera etcetera etcetera.

My only advice is to not take the bait. There is going to be a lot of chum in the water in the next year or so.

Those are great examples
of right-wing WEDGES

Remember all those religious bills, hunting bills, and a bunch of right wing bull cocky that brought their people to the polls? It still happens! As much as people are hurting for jobs placing something miniscule like a freedom of religion bill (coming to a ballot near you) will attract the religionist to vote against their own interest. My wife was once a victim of wedge issues and now she asks me what these laws (or candidates) actually mean (I make it a point to read the proposed legislation or bio).

Its a big time pain to have to tell people that even though candidate A is going to protect the clergy from marrying gays (wedge issue) he also wants to send your job to an HB-1 visa holder.

United, We Will Win

We rise together or we fall together

I encourage every Dem to read it, because it is how Hillary is going to defeat the GOP by pulling off the votes of the so called Soccer Mom who is scared by her own party's woman hating views and just wants to be kept safe. Dems should be reminding the so called soccer mom 24-7 that "her" party hates her. If the GOP keeps this up they will crash and burn like Goldwater. And you know what? This is not a "wedge" issue. Reproductive rights are a REAL issue.

Thanks Cosmic Kitten for reminding Democrats how they will win this one! Hammer the GOP on reproductive rights and equal pay for women and we will win!



http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2015/04/02/wedge-issues-take-center-stage-in-2016-race

And women's rights have economic consequences!



AFFORDABLE
PAID
EARNED
EQUAL PAY

neutralizing their expensive ploys to divide people. Good advice.

the opposition is identifying fissures
in the base and exploiting those differences?

All roads lead to Rome.

The minimization of the Economic domination
of the 99% and exploitation of social grievances
is their weapon of choice.

Bernie and the Populist movement is pushing hard
against the financial interests which threaten Democracy.

The Money Class, the Ownership Class, is fighting back
with the only tool they have, exploiting fear, prejudice, and greed.

and it isn't hard to see the 'methods' being used to try to stop anyone who is a threat to the Status Quo.

Then expose them constantly so people know how this 'game' is played. The more who see the sham that it is the better, the less effect their tactics will have and even backfire, as they are actually, on them.

We are a lot more informed now that we were a decade ago. So they have to work harder to try to divide people.

Partisanship is diminishing in the face of the real problems Americans are having across the board. Stuff that used to get lots of attention, we now realize were just distractions, are of so little interest today, eg 'Oh, did you HEAR what Ann C%$lter said today' etc. Who cares, no one, people have a lot more to worry about.

Trump is the latest distraction, with no chance of winning this election, but he takes up time that should be devoted to issues. The LAST thing they want us to talk about. Which is why we should INSIST on talking about issues and ignore the distractions.

Americans don't like negative attacks, but they (Americans) sometimes reward them (negative attacks).

Or words to that effect.

I tend to have the TV on, when I am only half listening and not even looking in its direction. So, I often am unaware of who is saying what.)

contingency that normally are marginalized in civil societies. But over the past couple of decades, thanks to the Right Wing Noise Machine, they are louder than they would be so it seems like there are more of them or we are getting to see and hear from that margin of society, more than we should.

I used to fall for the 'ooooh, Limbaugh said this or that' also. And wasted precious time trying to fight back. It did work, for a while, and OPs here would get tons of recs when they mentioned these morons.

But I've noticed that they don't get much traction anyone more. Which is a good thing. We were only helping them to gain importance. Now they are OLD and BORING and people tend to not bother with them anymore.

that to happen the more informed they are.

And today there is really no excuse not to be informed, as we could claim even a decade ago when all we had was the corporate media.

One who seeks to divide probes along the lines--the fissures, if you prefer--of:

racial and ethnic minorities v. everyone else For example, some of the poorest whites considered themselves superior to all people of color, while some of the poorest people of color considered themselves superior to "white trash." I'd like to believe that being referred to as "white trash" involved a combination of white skin color and bad behavior, but I am not sure about that.

women v. everyone else and/or everyone else v. women

religion(s) v. each other and everyone else and/or everyone else v. one religion or all religions or all religions of a certain kind, such as all Christians or all Muslims or all Jews, regardless of how much diversity, and even bitterness/hatred may exist within any one group

poverty/wealth

class/education/the "right" lineage/social standing/power--not necessarily money, though money may be a part of it.

A "lesser Rockefeller," for example, whose share of the Rockefeller trust may be only $12K a year or zero, but who is still "a Rockefeller." Daughters of the American Revolution. Ditto, across the pond, a "minor royal." In the US, Boston was a bastion, much more so than NYC. See, J.P. Marquand's The Late George Apley. Though without any family money, they can still turn up their noses at, say a Trump. (Think, the Earl of Spencer's eulogizing Diana as "British to the core," being perceived as a swipe at the German origins of the Queen's nuclear family. Yet, he is struggling to finance his estate, ala Downton Abbey, while the Queen and Prince Charles, not so much.) Joe Kennedy Sr. was the Trump equivalent of his earlier years, but, as he intended and worked toward unceasingly, the Kennedy's are now considered "American Royalty." (Remember, FDR appointed Joe Sr. US Ambassador to the Court of St. James). The importance of this particular fissure has lessened in the last century, in the US, anyway. Since at least the 1950s, there have even been attacks on "elites", Ivy League educated people, college educated people ("ivory tower academics&quot , etc. Money and power now trump. (pun not intended, except maybe by my unconscious.)

state or regional lines

job/profession lines.

And none of these categories need be totally discrete. Someone may be more kindly disposed to a rich white or a poor white, for example, than they are to all other whites.

Bottom line: "the other" The ones who do not look and sound like we do. The ones referred to in The Preppy Handbook as NOKD (not our kind, dear). The Neanderthals from that other area who just rolled up, looking for food, around the Neanderthals from this cave.