I know there's supposedly all kinds of translation and theological justification for changing the elements of the mass 13 years ago.I'm glad Sister Eileen isn't around to see this.
Not interested in arguing, but might be good for people to actually know what she said, why she said it, in context.
My girlfriend was a big Bernie supporter at the time. This is one of the few things I have ever heard her defend Hillary about.HENDERSON, Nev. — Hillary Clinton took her "single issue" critique of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) even further Saturday, telling an audience in the Las Vegas suburbs that she was "the only candidate who’ll take on every barrier to progress." In a call-and-response, new to her stump speech, Clinton rattled off social and political problems, and her audience loudly confirmed that they couldn't be solved simply by reforming the financial sector.
Democrats backing Clinton say she must sharpen her pitch to compete with Sanders
"Not everything is about an economic theory, right?" Clinton asked her audience of a few hundred activists, most of them wearing T-shirts from the unions that had promoted the rally. "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will, if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?"
"No!" shouted her audience.
"Would that end sexism?"
"Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community?"
"Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?"
"Would that solve our problem with voting rights, and Republicans who are trying to strip them away from people of color, the elderly, and the young?"
"Would that give us a real shot at ensuring our political system works better because we get rid of gerrymandering and redistricting and all of these gimmicks Republicans use to give themselves safe seats, so they can undo the progress we have made?"
Clinton in debate: 'I'm not a single-issue candidate'
The entire rally was crafted to push the "single issue" attack on Sanders, a sort of attempt to rewind the clock, and define the surging progressive candidate less as an idealist with bold solutions and more as a naif who isn't familiar enough with the causes of the rising left.
Trolling or not they profit & promote support white supremacy to imbeciles who yearn for yakubian spunk in their mouths. They put mad ppl including myself lives & social freedoms in danger on a day to day bases.Interesting what was said about Hannity. Knew a lot of these folks were fake though.
No doubt, but I try my best to tell comrades, especially comrades who are white, cismale, and younger/new to socialism that there have been and will be bad faith attempts by capitalists and imperialist to use woke language in a bad faith manner.As I said: Elite manners for fancy white people.
I appreciate Rusty for providing more context about that statement and yet, it’s still incredibly cynical and galling on Clinton’s part. If Angela Davis or Barbara Lee were running in that primary and offered a similar economic program as Bernie and had real credibility on race and gender justice, I’d take their critique seriously and heck I’d have supported them over Bernie.
First let me clarify, I don’t really begrudge people trying to secure a decent life for themselves through employment with an employer that does bad things. The exception is if you run for office because ostensibly, you’re representing a State or district that in most cases is made up mostly of people who are not prosecutors,, finance guys and corporate lawyers and yet our politicians are disproportionately drawn from those groups. But other than that, if you’re just trying to make a decent living, you don’t deserve scorn. Systems deserve scorn.I know it’s fun to hate on “capital”, but from my experience, a good 60 to 70 percent of the people who work on Wall Street tend to be sincerely focused on minimizing bias against women, PoC’s, and people identifying as non-cishet. These days neurodiversity gets attention as well.
I think it’s pretty clear from the evolving concept of “whiteness” that you can marginalize prejudice against various groups while still promoting the economic status quo. In the 80’s and 90’s, trading floors had very good representation from Italian and Jewish people from New Jersey and Long Island that wouldn’t have gotten their feet in the door of a white shoe firm a half-century before. And you can say the same thing now with women and Asians. Obviously, there’s still work to be done with women, African Americans, and US-born Latin Americans -especially in senior management roles, but I do think that Wall Street is doing a better job than, say, Silicon Valley or academia at both recruiting and discouraging workplace hostility. So if your goal is to provide a bit of financial security for yourself and your family and not to capture the means of production, Wall Street tends to be a pretty good place to do that.
You can dismiss the efforts as cynical ploys by the ”cabal of international bankers” to disrupt organized labor or even as insincere manners affected by the elite. But I think a far simpler explanation is that people who are educated in the supposed hotbeds of liberal elitism do tend to be exposed to (non-ecomnomic) diversity and generally shed themselves of ignorance rooted in stereotypes. Also, good help is hard to find and managers look out very closely for unhappy, high-performing people. Bias is a somewhat expensive indulgence.
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now