Which is the more socially progressive wing?

[bagelman]

I can safely say the Hillary wing of 2008 was a different beast entirely to the 2016 Hillary wing.

The Hillary wing of 2016 united the Obama wing to defeat the bros. It's glorious to witness true unity in the party, unlike the Bernie bros that keep reckoning by saying WE are the PROBLEM. The attacks on women and POC from the Chapo-Bernard crowd is shamefully and should be condemned for anyone who cares an inch about social justice.

The problem is that "social justice" as Clintonites define is:

A. Ideological justification to forgo rural areas and cities not trendy enough for rich boy latte liberals because racial diversity is seen as the only end, not a functional economic system for the 21st century

and therefore

B. Not what the Democratic party nor America needs to be fighting for within her own borders.

[bagelman]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

[bagelman]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

People of marginalized background can be discriminated regardless of income. Rich women and POC face more discrimination in their daily lives then poor white people.

This is making me laugh.

It really depends.

It does depend upon how discrimination is defined. Rich people internalize their privilege over time, seeming themselves -implicitly or explicitly- as high in the social hierarchy. As such they're more likely to notice petty acts of disrespect or "microaggressions" than normal people. They're used to be being privileged and fawned over. Poorer people don't notice because they've internalized their lower status.

So you could make the argument that rich people can feel more oppressed than the poor, because they're more apt to notice petty disrespect. The poor can't afford to worry about petty disrespect when they need the fortitude to brush off much worse. For example a poor person may have to grin and bear being sneered at or even openly insulted by other customers or the staff for using food stamps at a grocery store. A rich girl, meanwhile, will get offended and tweet about how the otherwise polite cashier falsely implied the soccer ball she's buying was for her kids/husband/whatever and not herself in an attempt to make small talk.

[bagelman]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

People of marginalized background can be discriminated regardless of income. Rich women and POC face more discrimination in their daily lives then poor white people.

This is making me laugh.

It really depends.

It does depend upon how discrimination is defined. Rich people internalize their privilege over time, seeming themselves -implicitly or explicitly- as high in the social hierarchy. As such they're more likely to notice petty acts of disrespect or "microaggressions" than normal people. They're used to be being privileged and fawned over. Poorer people don't notice because they've internalized their lower status.

So you could make the argument that rich people can feel more oppressed than the poor, because they're more apt to notice petty disrespect. The poor can't afford to worry about petty disrespect when they need the fortitude to brush off much worse. For example a poor person may have to grin and bear being sneered at or even openly insulted by other customers or the staff for using food stamps at a grocery store. A rich girl, meanwhile, will get offended and tweet about how the otherwise polite cashier falsely implied the soccer ball she's buying was for her kids/husband/whatever and not herself in an attempt to make small talk.

That's not the point. Upper middle class Muslims, for example, often face vicious bigotry daily in some parts of the country, whereas working class men may not. It is difficult to objectively quantify this.

I don't doubt that Muslims may face discrimination. But are they in a worse position, systematically, than people who live here or here? No. For every racist against them they have two social progressives on their side within their communities if they live in progressive areas. (and one if they don't)

An upper middle class Muslim or whatever can get enough food to eat every day. They can depend on clean water. They can afford luxuries. They can afford lawyers if they encounter official discrimination, which is unlikely. They can afford to go to good doctors, and they can afford to worry less about affording necessitates that would distract them from education and leisure. They can afford to go to the best schools and have an easier time affording loans.

Any systematic discrimination that theoretically exists against Muslim Americans is, in the case of the upper middle class or even the regular middle class, crushed by the huge structural advantages in favor of money.