2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRefusal to accept Clinton as the Nominee is Rooted in Misogyny and Racism
https://skepchick.org/2016/06/refusal-to-accept-clinton-as-the-nominee-is-rooted-in-misogyny-and-racism/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TeacherB87
(249 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)That this primary would be marred by angry cries of malignant conspiracies was implicit from the beginning when Sanders set out to expand his appeal to the far right and far left, not just from the middle who actually form the core of of his support. That's okay. As long as they calm down enough to vote in November, the nuisance factor is more than worth it.
It's reasonable to believe that most of the misogyny and racism come from Bernie's right-wing support, and from some of the famous "white male" bloc. After all, most of the former are practically defined by both.
But, I really believe that, as as we've seen over the past months, his far-left bloc mainly just cares that he wins no matter what, his victory the one shining goal to which all other considerations and moral issues are subjugated as irrelevant, and all who are not for him are obstacles and enemies to be removed. Any considerations of color and sex definitely secondary to the outrage of being impediments to The Movement.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Anyone not a part of the group that questions anything is completely disregarded as not even worth having a voice. This has been like reading The Crucible.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Extreme righteousness is a key characteristic of both the far left and far right, including the religious far right.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Had actually won.... But that was aside from the others, who would have been pissed to hear that. We had Stevie Wonder playing in the background and someone asked if he was still alive, so I said yes and he performed at Hillary's last benefit before she won California...... And then a couple people started talking about how Cali wasn't counted yet, blah lag blah. BTW none of them ever mentioned the people I saw on the Bernie ticket when I voted, not once. I'm the only idiot who brings up congress. I've been polite but I am over it.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)very openly and honestly to his "revolution." Is it such a surprise that many fed-up anti-establishment "populist" types from the right would turn to him after the tea-party movement was collapsing? These of course include people not just from the strong right but the far right, which has a great deal in common with the far left.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)jew or a light socialist. Right wing libertarians DESPISE the statism fundamentals that drives democratic socialism. If you are talking about run of mill tea party right, their ideology and culture detests Sanders' moderate democratic socialism as well.
As for far left, you are now talking about people who would fall under actual socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, and finally actual communists. Those are very common here in Sweden. I am a member of Vänsterpartiet (Left Party aka Socialists)and we have Riksdag (the parliament) representation, but there is no way any of those 3 types would support Sanders in any great number and there numbers are so so tiny in America regardless.
I also profoundly posit that Sanders is, in so many ways centre left and completely mainstream in comparison to your average Democrat from just 2 or 3 decades ago. Clinton would absolutely be a centre right moderate Republican in the 1980's. The USA political axis has slid so far to the right its mind boggling.
I never expect USA-fashioned legislation to pass like the actual Left in Sweden supports and passes, but I am only willing to go so close to the centre, and many of Hillarys core initiatives or corporatist potentialities are abhorrent to me. That said I am going to vote for her because Trump is a systemic threat and destabiliser on a multitude of levels. I am not happy about it, I detest the 2 party system, but there is little I can do other than risk mitigation.
Finally, I will address your ultra-right/ultra left similarities. By far that is simply a shared love of complete authoritarianism, and perhaps a similar command and controlled centralised economy, albeit derived from entire different underpinnings and justifications. NONE of that applies in any way, shape , or form to a democratic socialist. They are quite milquetoast in reality. I have lived in multiple countries under multiple democratic socialist governments, and basically its a hybrid capitalist system with wonder social benefits (universal health care, free university or very low cost, strong labour union penetration (60%, plus), etc.
Sorta like what Dems used to stand for or strive for, starting with the greatest US president since Lincoln, FDR, but long ago abandoned (in the 1990's especially with the rise of fucking neoliberalism and DLC 3rd way incursions) until Sanders came along. It's certainly not the tyrannical Stalinism that the entire unhinged right has smeared and wilfully lied about for 80, 90 years, unfortunately and heartbreakingly now aided by a corporately taken over Democratic leadership.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I think some don't like Hillary's policies. Too right wing?
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)The former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, who bragged about being able to see Russia from her backyard.
No comparison.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Sarah Palin is an idiot but the fact that you're getting your "news" from an SNL skit makes us look pretty bad and uninformed.
Please don't post this on a public forum
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)In another segment aired on September 30, Couric asked Palin about her taste in periodicals:
COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this—to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I've read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media, coming f—
COURIC: But like which ones specifically? I'm curious that you—
PALIN: Um, all of 'em, any of 'em that, um, have, have been in front of me over all these years. Um, I have a va—
COURIC: Can you name a few?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where, it's kind of suggested and it seems like, 'Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C. may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?' Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America
SNIP
COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign-policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land—boundary that we have with—Canada. It, it's funny that a comment like that was—kind of made to cari—I don't know. You know. Reporters—
COURIC: Mocked?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our— our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia—
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We— we do— it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where— where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is— from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to— to our state.
What a stupid comparison.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)Is based on ridiculousness and absurdity. It is a continuation of the campaign stupidity, where everything we disagreed with in the Clinton's history was called Misogyny.
And if you want to guarantee driving away Sanders people, then this is exactly the right course of action. Nothing better than to accuse people who are sincerely dissatisfied with neoliberalism as practiced by the Clinton's, of sexism, when it could NOT be further from the truth.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)
k8conant
(3,030 posts)
WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)to President Obama.
lostnfound
(16,162 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)They're in the "Weath Management" department.
Before UBS, they all worked together in Washington, where Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) shepherded financial deregulation of the banks through Congress and President Bill Clinton (D-USA) signed it into law, the repeal of New Deal protections that kept Wall Street from using the taxpayers for their tab at the casino. President Bush was there, too, making sure the Banksters got away in 2008.
Forensic economist and former Fed regulator William K. Black wrote it reminds him of what happened during the Savings and Loans Crisis of the late 80s and early 90s. At the time, that was the greatest heist in history.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)These same people who ask for a fairer election want to tip the election in favor of white male voters. They believe that Sanders’ voters, which are made up disproportionally of white men, should count for more than the votes of people who voted for Clinton. In a piece this week at The Daily Beast, Barret Holmes Pitner wrote about the white entitlement of Sanders supporters, saying that “the entitlement to believe that you should always win allowed them to overlook how the system in many ways has always been unjustly rigged in their favor because they’re white.” I couldn’t agree more. This is the same entitlement that allows the white, male Sanders voter to believe that his vote should count more than the votes of women and POC who he believes are voting only out of ignorance or identity politics. In his mind, only white men are “unbiased” when it comes to politics, so his vote should be considered more important. Hillary Clinton may have gotten more votes overall, but she lost the white male vote and that’s what really matters. Under that criteria, it makes sense that they would also believe that the superdelegates should override these votes at the convention and give the nomination to Sanders.
It’s time we face the fact that the ability of Sanders supporters to proclaim the whole system rigged because their candidate didn’t win is rooted in misogyny and racism and entitlement. Clinton won and she won legitimately. For all the privilege that white men have, having their votes weigh more isn’t one of them. They can’t win a presidential election on their own. If they could, Mitt Romney would have been our president for the last 3 years and Donald Trump will be our undisputed next president. White men may have oversized influence on US society but they represent only 35% of the electorate.
mcar
(42,278 posts)Those of us who live in the South; POC and women (I'm 2 of 3 as a white woman in Florida) - we don't count because Red States, low information, name recognition, woman card. 
So disrespectful, so wrong, so not liberal or progressive. And just sad.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I never expected that at all
mcar
(42,278 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)But that is "old" white man subconscious thinking. White male superiority was so ingrained in his generation, that they don't even notice. That is not to say, they are conscious of it and on the conscious level, work to be very "liberal" and "new age sensitive" but it sort of like being part of their dna. Each generation gets a little more aware and so they are the hope of the future.
I hope I don't get flamed for this, but it is just an observation.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Whimsey
(236 posts)As a northern woman living in a southern Baptist community - women stand with their men!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,766 posts)How many times have we heard those votes written as the Confederacy?
Red Knight
(704 posts)But it's certainly not to bring everyone together behind Hillary.
It's a ridiculous notion of course. Sure these same Bernie voters who voted for Obama are suddenly racist. Sure--if Elizabeth Warren had run they would have rejected her because she's female.
It's utter nonsense but keep fanning those flames.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Red Knight
(704 posts)I also read the title of your post--you know the part meant to evoke anger--and the excerpt you posted. You can't use the first part as an "out" for what was posted and the way it was posted. At this point I just have to question motive because it isn't the first post like this I've seen. There is no reason for it. Isn't it important to come together to beat Trump? How does this help?
Seriously, what could you hope to gain?
Hey--whatever.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
ruggerson
(17,483 posts)beautifully articulated.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I guess all those Democrats who complained about the Bush selection in 2000 were being sexist and racist because.....oh what the hell.
This is stupid........... Political opposition characterized as nothing but sexism and racism.
Shouldn't expect any better that that.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)you've really learned nothing.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)By disagreeing that concerns about the excessive influence about the application of Big Money and Big Power and concern about possible electoral irregularities are sexist and racist................. I guess that means I am a sexist and racist
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't even know why I bothered to post in this silly obnoxious totally wrongheaded thread.
I should know better.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Response to bravenak (Reply #252)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Response to bravenak (Reply #286)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to bravenak (Reply #289)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Response to bravenak (Reply #291)
Post removed
Glamrock
(11,787 posts)what if I'm a Sanders supporter and I have issues with Secretary Clinton, but am excited at the prospect of a Warren VP pick? Let's see, they're both in their sixties, blond, female, white. Maybe it has nothing to do with the gender card for most of us....
bravenak
(34,648 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)paper I just used to wipe my butt had patterns on it more thought provoking than that article. I
People are still going through the 5 stages of grief over Sanders defeat. Most are at only stage 2, some have gotten to acceptance. I have NOT seen many at stage 4, which is Bargaining.
Hillary supporters did the same thing in 2008.
Response to lancer78 (Reply #45)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
jillan
(39,451 posts)
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)Clinton on this very personal and yes political decision.
HRC may or may not pick Warren. Either way, I'm gonna vote for Hillary because i really really don't want to see a NAZI in the White House.
TheBlackAdder
(28,168 posts).
He's been doing the media circuit and being propped up to the point where he is being forced on us.
That is what signals red flags. Xavier Becerra is a better choice.
.
sheshe2
(83,663 posts)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)He thinks of himself as a bigshot, talks of private jetsetting etc rather than doing the good work of the people.
sheshe2
(83,663 posts)That helps a lot.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Before they hung up, though, Castro pitched Obama on Education secretary, if and when that opened. That’s the kind of thing he felt like he could do something with.
Castro remembers very well what Walter Mondale told Cisneros during his 1984 running mate interview: it’s hard to go from being mayor right onto a national ticket.
“He believes,” said one person who knows him, “in being on the right platform.”
Castro looked hard at the 2014 Texas governor’s race, always wanting to be convinced that it was the right move, at the right time. He passed again, waiting.
A year and a half after that first call from Obama, Castro got another. He took the weekend to think about it, but he already knew the answer was yes. Within weeks, he was at HUD calling in new staff and holdovers, asking them for their vision for the year ahead. If they started rattling off about policy, he’d wave them off.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/julian-castro-possible-vice-president-218119
To me it is pretty clear evidence that the man is a careerist and does not put a priority on public service through his jobs.
riversedge
(70,093 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,168 posts).
It's funny how Politico is a great site when you want it to be, and not when you don't.
There's a condition for that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110732031
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511980715
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110731959
.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Even cursory looks paints a different picture. He seems to be a popular and rising politician even though none of us knows if he will get the nod as VP. I think you can see his values if you read his speech to the DNC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Castro
San Antonio city council and mayor[edit]
Julian Castro and his twin brother Representative Joaquin Castro at the LBJ Presidential Library.
In 2001, Castro was elected to the San Antonio City Council, winning 61 percent of the vote against five challengers. At age 26 he was the youngest city councilman in San Antonio history, surpassing Henry Cisneros, who won his council seat in 1975 at age 27. Coincidentally, Cisneros was also later elected San Antonio's mayor then appointed secretary of HUD. Castro represented District 7, a precinct on the city’s west side with 115,000 residents. The population was 70 percent Hispanic and included a large number of senior citizens.[17] As a councilman from 2001 to 2005, he opposed a PGA-approved golf course and large-scale real estate development on the city’s outer rim.[18]
Castro ran for Mayor of San Antonio again in 2009, announcing his candidacy on November 5, 2008. Castro hired Christian Archer, who had run Hardberger's campaign in 2005, to run his own 2009 campaign.[13] Castro won the election on May 9, 2009 with 56.23% of the vote, his closest opponent being Trish DeBerry-Mejia.[21] He became the fifth Latino mayor in the history of San Antonio. He was the youngest mayor of a top-50 American city.[22] Castro easily won re-election in 2011 and 2013, receiving 82.9% of the vote in 2011[23] and 67% of the vote in 2013.[24]
In 2010 Castro created SA2020, a community-wide visioning effort. It generated a list of goals created by the people of San Antonio based on their collective vision for San Antonio in the year 2020. SA2020 then became a nonprofit organization tasked with turning that vision into a reality.[25] Castro also established Cafe College in 2010, offering college guidance to San Antonio-area students. In 2012 he led a voter referendum to expand pre-kindergarten education.[22] Castro persuaded two of the most prominent businessmen in San Antonio, Charles Butt and Joe Robles, to lead an effort to pass a $30 million sales tax to fund the pre-kindergarten education program.[13]
Castro gained national attention in 2012 when he was the first Hispanic to deliver the keynote address at a Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.[26][27] Following the 2012 elections, Castro declined the position of United States Secretary of Transportation, partly with an eye on running for Governor of Texas after 2017.[13] However, in 2014, Castro accepted President Barack Obama's offer of the position of United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.[13] Castro resigned as mayor effective July 22, 2014, so that he could take up his duties in Washington. The San Antonio City Council elected councilmember Ivy Taylor to replace him.[28]
You can get a hint of his positions here:
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/04/160574895/transcript-julian-castros-dnc-keynote-address
Transcript of San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro's keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, as prepared for delivery (more at link):
And that's the middle class—the engine of our economic growth. With hard work, everybody ought to be able to get there. And with hard work, everybody ought to be able to stay there—and go beyond. The dream of raising a family in a place where hard work is rewarded is not unique to Americans. It's a human dream, one that calls across oceans and borders. The dream is universal, but America makes it possible. And our investment in opportunity makes it a reality.
And it starts with education. Twenty years ago, Joaquin and I left home for college and then for law school. In those classrooms, we met some of the brightest folks in the world. But at the end of our days there, I couldn't help but to think back to my classmates at Thomas Jefferson High School in San Antonio. They had the same talent, the same brains, the same dreams as the folks we sat with at Stanford and Harvard. I realized the difference wasn't one of intelligence or drive. The difference was opportunity.
In my city of San Antonio, we get that. So we're working to ensure that more four-year-olds have access to pre-K. We opened Cafe College, where students get help with everything from test prep to financial aid paperwork. We know that you can't be pro-business unless you're pro-education. We know that pre-K and student loans aren't charity. They're a smart investment in a workforce that can fill and create the jobs of tomorrow. We're investing in our young minds today to be competitive in the global economy tomorrow.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Salesmanship more than a vision.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)my only real hope is that we reach down in to the Gen-Xers and that Hillary chooses a person of color and that includes Asians.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Usually they're excluded as being "too privileged."
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)immigrants about that, just to name one group.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sheshe2
(83,663 posts)Well done.
Glamrock
(11,787 posts)I would. Bernie and Trump are both white, in their 70's, balding, male. I prefer Bernie. Or comparing boxers might be another good example. They compare height, weight, arm length age. REVERSE SEXISM! I see it everywhere now! It's in baseball! Football! Basketball! It's everywhere! See how ridiculous that is?
Stop crying wolf. It hurts the cause. You have to learn to put things in context. For example, my post clearly demonstrates that there is little difference between the two on a physical basis. Consequently, racism (both are white) and sexism (both are female) can't apply to me as reasons not to like Hillary. Hair color and age were added
to highlight just how similar demographically they are. There's enough actual sexism in the world, you don't need to fabricate more.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts) 
athena
(4,187 posts)that someone would describe HRC and EW not as "two progressive female politicians" but as "both in their sixties, blond, female, white".
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And all references to the Tangerine GOP Monster should be eliminated.
And look at all the fun that has been made of Bernie's hair, by admirers and detractors alike.
Maybe no one should ever note that Obama has a very nice smile. And remarks about his ears (which he himself jokes about) are off limits.
And Obama recently referred to himself as all grizzled and and grey wrinkly now in a joking way. I guess he was being sexist too.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't much care anymore.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ahead.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)now just to be clear I'm a blond 60 year old woman who supports Sanders
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm a 64 year old male with dirty blonde, er, light brown, hair.
This is all so meaningful and really gets at the heart of gender equality doesn't it?
Response to azurnoir (Reply #149)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
annavictorious
(934 posts)would be sincere in what he says about himself, but his entitlement in assuming that his opinion represents "most" or is the norm tends to prove the very point of the article cited by the OP.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Whimsey
(236 posts)not disagreeing with her policies.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"Get in line or you're a racistmisogynist". We liberals predictably cower at accusations of bigotry, so it's pretty effective in that regard. It's also a great fallback if she loses, because it represents 1) an excuse that allows her supporters to avoid the uncomfortable self-examination when facing the reality that it wasn't a great idea to nominate the least-liked american politician and 2) the confirmation bias that america rejected her because glass ceiling n' stuff. Onward identity politics soldiers!
If she loses, it won't be because I didn't clap loudly enough, rather because there was nothing to applaud.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)If you're not trying to deny that Hillary's victory happened, obviously you're not who the article was talking about.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)post it until June 16 like the rest of us.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Often the writer does not even choose the title
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)for many older white men in particular, the misogyny is something they don't even recognize as happening.
Gotta think in terms of what generations some of these people are in.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Hekate
(90,565 posts)...anyone's ability to attain the kind of godlike objectivity we were supposedly being trained in. Proto-feminist that I was, I spotted things in literature that went right past the men in the seminar, and shocked them into denial when I said it (Joseph Conrad was a bastard to his wife; I saw the pattern while looking through a stack of books for something else).
But godlike objectivity in scholarship was what we were trying to attain in 1970, and that meant adopting the male gaze.
Some 25 years later when I went back to grad school, some attitudes had undergone an incredible change, due to the feminist women who had stuck it out in the scholarly world and had moved into the political world. It was great.
But in 2016, here we are, still talking about public life and public thought and whose voice actually counts. And so many men still think it's all about them and only their voice counts, because they have not been adequately and consistently challenged and made to think about it.
Every freaking generation is going to have to keep doing this, I sometimes think. Look at this nation's response to Barack Obama, who is one of the great men of our time... There's nothing post-racial about it. It will be the same with Hillary. Gods willing she will be elected safe and sound -- and the backlash will be awful. It already is.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)Is rooted in misogyny and racism.
I don't get it. I'm a working woman of a certain age and have never heard these claims as much as I have in the last year.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)to hurt our rights and has set us back decades.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)Would have in store for us.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)sheshe2
(83,663 posts)Please explain how she is setting us back decades. Please explain how she has done so much to hurt our rights! Details please...
Hillary Clinton Just Woman-Carded All Over Planned Parenthood, And It Was The Best
hillary20162
Trump-smasher.
Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, having made history OR WHATEVER, and a day after being endorsed by President Obama, Vice President Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, visited her BFF BEST PAL ‘BORTION BUDDIES at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, so they could talk about LADY STUFF and also how Hillary is actually, #sciencefact, way more better than Donald Trump on women’s issues.
After a rousing introduction from the amazing Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, Hillary came onstage, kicked ass, and took names. Here are some highlights, but as always, WATCH
THE VIDEO, YOU SILLY GEESE.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016160353
niyad
DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)I would be embarrassed to make such a stupid assertion.
Baitball Blogger
(46,684 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)ancianita
(35,950 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
qdouble
(891 posts)black voters gave her.
chascarrillo
(3,897 posts)uponit7771
(90,304 posts)
TwilightZone
(25,429 posts)And "winning South Carolina is as significant as Guam".
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)who supported her -- trying to overturn the vote of the pledged delegates at the convention -- is racist.
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)criticizing the people who vote for as low in formation black folk from the south is racist....
get a grip
think
(11,641 posts)With it. But you all can't admit the truth so keep making shit up....
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
I do like THINKers!
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)what they're really saying is that Sanders may not have had the most votes but he had the right kind of votes. This is a theme that has been running through the entire primary. Sanders supporters tell female Clinton supporters that they are only voting for Hillary because she’s a woman. They explain away the fact that black voters are voting for Clinton in droves as black voters just being ignorant when it comes to politics. It’s not surprising that now that Clinton has won the primary on the backs of woman and POC, those same people would loudly proclaim that Sanders is the true winner. They haven’t respected the votes of women and POC through the entire process, so why would they start now?"
This.
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)Absolutely.
And then comes the disenfranchisement stuff and so on... Really? That's just a cover-up all the way around.
I just sit back and shake my head. Denial is such an ugly thing, and all of us as citizens of this country suffer because of it.
Autumn
(44,986 posts)I strongly believe that the hatred towards Bernie is deeply rooted in Antisemitism, we have seen proof of that here, KOS and Twitter time and time again. Know what I mean?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Autumn
(44,986 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)And it is quite revealing how you say "angry white men" rather than "angry men" or "angry candidates". Telling indeed.
MattP
(3,304 posts)Autumn
(44,986 posts)I said nothing about Jewish people who support Hillary.
These are my posts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2177274
20. Not in my case she's likable enough, I don't want her near the White House
I strongly believe that the hatred towards Bernie is deeply rooted in Antisemitism, we have seen proof of that here, KOS and Twitter time and time again. Know what I mean?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2177478
74. I don't like angry men either, black or white. Interesting how you added race to it. nt
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Whimsey
(236 posts)And I am a lapsed Catholic. We all like to tout our religious roots, but not of us actually practice them.
Autumn
(44,986 posts)
gordianot
(15,234 posts)Literally, and it is not a pun.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)Whimsey
(236 posts)and my dad fought in WWII. Only his brother died in the war.
Bernie has never played the "Jewish" card and I cannot figure out why the rest of you are.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)Plus, some blogger wrote it.
What a complete load of bull......
ismnotwasm
(41,968 posts)Snip--------------
bravenak
(34,648 posts)babylonsister
(171,036 posts)I am a 60-year old white woman who is not racist nor misogynistic. Can't I just not like her, am tired of her, don't trust her?
Please don't label anyone. We're all entitled to our opinions.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)The article is about the supporters convinced that Clinton somehow stole the thing and Bernie really won or should have.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I don't think she stole the thing. Of course, Bernie should have won...he's the best candidate where Hillary is the worst, slightly behind Jim Webb, in terms of actually believing in Democratic principles and ideals.
Mostly though, I blame her supporters for supporting a terrible candidate that should have been laughed out the race.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If you are not saying she cheated or did not win legitimately, it has nothing to do with you.
babylonsister
(171,036 posts)I didn't read it because it didn't apply to me.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Whimsey
(236 posts)It has nothing to do with not liking her!
Does anyone on this site read?
Baitball Blogger
(46,684 posts) Chan790
(20,176 posts)That, much like the last 100 articles written with the same bent, is just one more attempt to smear anybody with legitimate criticisms of Clinton that should preclude her from the nomination as a bigot. It's tedious to the point that I'm going to advocate that anybody in the future posting such drivel deserves a DU banning...not that they'll get one.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,968 posts)I remember them well.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,968 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...Clinton would be the nominee until Obama officially became the nominee at the convention.
By the logic of this article, those Clinton supporters were racist and sexist since there aren't just people who hold out hope longer than others. According to this article, we should assume the worst about fellow Democratic voters.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Whimsey
(236 posts)Those Hillary holdouts did not deny the legitimacy of Obama's win.
This article is about Bernie supporters who deny the legitimacy of Clinton's win. And they are predominately young white men. Trump has the old white men on his side.
LexVegas
(6,031 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)Bernie supporters don’t deserve this shit but you knew that
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I sympathize with the denial phase that grips many of my fellow Sandernstas right now. We thought we saw a chance to run a socialist progressive for president. We thought we saw a chance to end the third way strategy our party has used for 30 plus years. We thought we saw many things. Now we are reluctant to let go of the dream. Most of us will accept it, just as we have accepted it for 30 years, and vote for Hillary, campaign for Hillary, and become disenchanted with President Hillary. We see it all coming, and we accept it, but we don't want to surrender to it just yet.
ismnotwasm
(41,968 posts)I think in Sanders populism there is an energized base that can be turned from negativity and misunderstanding of how policy changes work, to becoming very vocal and very active change agents, a very valuable part of the Democratic party. I don't think "wooing" should happen in a condescending manner, I think activists should be invited with open arms. I don't think one single dream should be let go. Most of the Sanders supporters want a better, more just world, just as most Hillary supporters do.
We have all learned a lot from this primary I think, I know I have. One of the things we learned is the world had moved on, or is moving on, and the era of the straight white male is coming to a close. Another is that people-- liberal people anyway-- ARE willing to share, are willing to pay into a socialist-type structure to ensure everyone has healthcare and education opportunities. We've learned there is overwhelming fear for our planet--and not just in the US.
We've learned, now we have to do.
anAustralianobserver
(633 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)They would love to have you at the Free Republic.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)Oh, that's right. I forgot that Bernie supporters have redefined up to mean down and black to mean white.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)I've found that the vast majority of Bernie supporters have no idea where Hillary stands on the issues. That's because they only read stuff written by other Bernie supporters, which cherry-pick a few things and take them out of context to make them seem evil.
Let me guess. You probably like Tulsi Gabbard, too. You do, don't you?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)stands. I am not at all sure you do though.
I don't know enough about Tulsi to have an opinion. I don't endorse easily.
athena
(4,187 posts)Once again, I'm not surprised. It usually only takes one or two posts before a Bernie supporter responds with insults, ridicule, and denigration.
Of course, all this reveals is a lack of logical arguments and an inability to discuss things in a civilized manner.
By the way, if you were really so on top of the issues, you would know something about Tulsi Gabbard that is extremely important and makes it very amusing that the "progressives" who support Bernie Sanders are so in love with her.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)think
(11,641 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)that I am a misogynist and a racist. Better get it out of your system while you have the chance.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sheshe2
(83,663 posts)I read every damn word.
Thanks bravenak.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I didn't want Ms. Clinton to be the nominee, but I long ago accepted that she would be, and I am ok with it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)Before I go on, let me put in a mandatory #notallberniebros statement. The vast majority of Bernie Sanders supporters accept the election results. Bernie Sanders, his campaign, and his supporters made a serious and formidable opponent to Clinton and although he came in second, by running he was able to pull Clinton to the left on a handful of important policy positions, will have a say in the democratic party’s new platform, and showed that candidates that run to the left have a viable position with a lot of popular support behind it, something that could encourage future leftish candidates.
This part is bull effing shit
Hillary's agenda and positions were laid out before he entered the race and have not change. There for he has not pulled her to the left. What has happened is that the time is ripe, the country has gotten smart and realized the republicans are full of crap. As a nation we see that their policies have failed us and Hillary being the brilliant woman she is, realizes she can finally be the populist progressive she has been since having her eyes open at Wellesley... and even more so at Yale. Brava (really spell check, you want me to change brava to bravo, fuck you) to her!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)The link provides an opinion with absolutely no proof of what is asserted.
Was any Sanders supporter (specifically white males) spoken to or questioned on their thought process.
Good god people, you can't just go around accusing people of being racist and misogynist because you don't like their voting decision.
I am a 66 year old white women. I am a strong Sanders supporter and I find this whole train of thought offensive and demeaning.
AND YES I READ THE ARTICLE.
The idea that if I don't accept Hillary and will not vote for her has nothing to do with being sexist or racist. I could easily say that this entire article is sexist for assuming a white male refusing to vote for Hillary is based on sexism.
How small minded and weak the article is. Your support of it says a great deal about you.
Whimsey
(236 posts)It says the denial of the legitimacy of the win in the primary by Hillary is sexist and misogyny. Do you deny Hillary won the primary? If no, it is not addressing your choice not to support her. If you assert her win was illegitimate, it would.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)Can a person believe the win was not legitimate for reasons other than sexism and misogyny?
Can a person, lets go there, a white male, think there was enough troubling issues at polling places and registration, that we should at least discuss other possibilities?
Why do we go immediately to racism and sexism?
It is demeaning, it is not valid, its hurtful and honestly makes me crazy.
Even if someone thinks the process is rigged, that in itself, does not mean that person formed this opinion out of sexism. Right or wrong, they should not be labeled without out even a conversation with that person.
It has become way to easy to label people we don't agree with. An easy and intellectually weak offering.
I am a life long democrat who voted twice for Obama, and have always voted the entire Democratic ticket, for my entire life. I am a white women. That said I have never liked the Clintons for many reasons. Does my opinions of the Clinton's make me racist or sexist? Does it mean I do not belong in the democratic party ? You tell me.
Whimsey
(236 posts)Just that you do not like the Clintons.
You present no argument for your position. It does not even reach the level of easy and intellectually weak.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)I was not making the argument that the election was rigged or illegitimate.
From my previous post :
Even if someone thinks the process is rigged, that in itself, does not mean that person formed this opinion out of sexism. Right or wrong, they should not be labeled without out even a conversation with that person.
It has become way to easy to label people we don't agree with. An easy and intellectually weak offering.
Whimsey
(236 posts)that does not make his opinion sexist or misogynist.
But the argument would have to be that every state where Hillary won rigged their election but all Sander's state wins were legitimate. I agree it could be stupidity or illogicalness that they reach that conclusion, but I personally do not think all white males are that stupid or illogical. To have so many adopt that position points at something other than stupidity or lack of logic. So if it is not misogyny or sexism what do you think it is? Mental illness? Mind contol? The Herd effect? Perhaps reading too much internet? Oh wait, that is the argument, isn't it.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)However, there are many reasons a person can think the system is rigged.
The lack of debates, the voting machines switching votes, the lack of adequate voting places, the rush to announce the winner in California (they are still counting 2 million votes), the super delegates, the lack of media coverage of Bernie from the very beginning. All are arguments that can be debated. Taking a position you don't agree with does not make you sexist or racist.
Perhaps a person comes the conclusion based on their own experience.
And yes, there are some who come to this conclusion based on race and sex, but white folks in america are all racist and sexist to some degree.
I simply don't think it is productive to apply the title to all who question the political system. There is a lot that needs to be fixed.
There are some black voters who think the process rigged, some older white women will vote for Bernie and not be sexist, just don't like Hillary's politics. There a plenty young voters who support Hillary and do not think the process rigged, they are white and of color, male and female.
There is no more a herd effect of white males than there is of white women for Bernie.
Who is to say.
Whimsey
(236 posts)Yes. someone can believe all of those things. But if they conclude every incident which did not work for their candidate was rigged against Bernie and in favor of Hillary and every incident that worked against Hillary was on the up and up it is more than just stupidity.
Look at Puerto Rico. Sanders campaign asked to reduce the polling place numbers because they did not have enough volunteers to cover the original number. Than lots of Sanders supporters were yelling Hillary conspiracy. This has been repeated over and over.
Every state has its own rules. It has been that way for years. As a voter you learn the rules of your state and do not even worry about the others. It is the candidate's job to know the rules of every state. Hillary lost in 2008 because she did not understand the delegate distribution method in every state and she therefore made sure she learned it for this year. But she never complained about a rigged system. Bernie's campaign was in the same place she was in eight years ago, and all they do is whine. And so do his supporters.
I do not think every supporter who decries Hillary did not win legitimately is sexist or misogynist. I think a lot of them are entitled millennials who are not used to getting their way. That is life. I've been voting for over 40 years and I have lost way more than I have won. That's life.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)There were so very many ways she insulted Barack and maybe it was not whining, but it was very disrespectful.
To your point, I don't think I missed it at all.
"But if they conclude every incident which did not work for their candidate was rigged against Bernie and in favor of Hillary and every incident that worked against Hillary was on the up and up it is more than just stupidity."
I am not sure where you are getting your foolish notion that "they" think "every" incident was rigged.
This tells me you are missing my point.
Here is my final on the subject - I have a millennial son who is for Bernie. He is nothing you describe, he is not used to geting his way, he is a college grad who worked his way through college, lives on his own and works very hard for very little. When you insult a group you are bound to hurt individuals.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
treestar
(82,383 posts)This black guy cannot possibly br qualified Likewise this woman could not have won. She must have cheated.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
TheFarseer
(9,317 posts)Are you out of your fucking mind? It's really the only question I can ask at this point.
jillan
(39,451 posts)
And it's allowed.
TheFarseer
(9,317 posts)Yeah, that makes sense.
Response to TheFarseer (Reply #105)
m-lekktor This message was self-deleted by its author.
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)TheFarseer
(9,317 posts)It's still beyond stupid. Just because some black people like her I have to hate her? I'm not researching what candidate black people like and going out of my way to hate that candidate. Does that make any sense to anyone?
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)TheFarseer
(9,317 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Response to bravenak (Original post)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Post removed
betsuni
(25,380 posts)The mistrust of Clinton. This morning I saw a news story about a fairly young middle class couple who were both teachers and so of course had trouble making ends meet. Well educated. When asked about the upcoming election, they said they can't trust Clinton to understand economic inequality and the middle class. Are they getting her mixed up with Mitt Romney? Do they think Trump would be better? It's as if they have no idea who she is.
I saw a discussion of whether or not John Kerry should be considered for VP and not one person brought up his Iraq resolution vote that was the same as Hillary's.
All of these things Fictional Hillary is supposed to do as president: start wars, abolish SS, ignore the middle class, etc. Now why would anyone do things that wouldn't get them reelected? Nobody would.
I remember when G.W. Bush was reelected, Republicans said, well, at least you know what you're getting with Bush. No, he ran for president the first time as a compassionate conservative and his administration was the opposite. With Hillary even though her record is there for all to see, somehow you can't ever know what you're getting.
And Sanders didn't push Clinton to the left. And no, it's not a surprise that many Americans are liberal (saw that mentioned on the Bill Maher show, as if more liberals have suddenly appeared during this primary). It's just that Republicans aren't in such firm control of the language anymore (like polls that asked about "Obamacare" got negative responses but positive when the ACA was simply explained) and in that Sanders has helped.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They created a ficticious Hillary to beat upon. I really dont think he moved her left at all. I don't see him as far enough left on social issues. It just depends on perspective.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Comes from misogyny.
She says she doesn't want to weaken social security, in fact she wants to strengthen it. People say she is going to get rid of social security. You say, "no she says she wants to strengthen it" and people say she's lying.
The same with minimum wage, and a lot of other things. She's very clear about how she feels about these issues.
There are lots of articles about this issue, but here are a couple:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/people-think-women-lie-because-thats-what-we-teach-children_b_5805532.html
http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2013-11-how-we-teach-our-kids-that-women-are-liars
betsuni
(25,380 posts)Many times in my life people have thought I'm making things up because when they don't believe me I get nervous and start waffling: (from Anais Nin's diary): "Why do I doubt her? Perhaps she is just very sensitive, and hypersensitive people are false when others doubt them; they waver. And one thinks they are insincere."
Wish I were more like Clinton or Warren.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)being accused of bigotry.
Unfortunately, you forgot that liberals also get REALLY PISSED OFF at being FALSELY accused of bigotry.
So congrats, you probably singlehandedly just cost your preferred candidate some more votes...
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They have an issue that I do not understand. Letting Trump have nuke codes is enough to get me to the polls to stop him. Regardless of who had won the primary, I would've voted for them in the general.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)It appears that you assume every voter will process all information just like you, and thus vote just like you.
You're failing to account for the fact that there are tens of MILLIONS of voters who don't think or act like you. So yes, your prideful, ignorant actions can have negative consequences for your preferred candidate.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And boy, was what you said to yourself the MOST APPROPRIATE self reply I have ever seen.
tralala
(239 posts)Do you agree that refusal to accept Clinton as the nominee is rooted in misogyny and racism?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Just like some of the opposition to Obama was based on race. But I do not agree that Bernie pushed her left. She has pretty much the same positions that she had before.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Or ones under federal criminal investigation.
I also like candidates I can trust.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You are a misogynistic racist? Really?
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You really need to start paying attention.
.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)it's an insult to actual victims of racism and sexism.
MFM008
(19,803 posts)are tired of eating crap in this society.
We have to celebrate the first woman nominee in almost 100 years there should have been one every few years,
we still have to eat republican shit about abortion and birth control.
Less pay and devaluation of older women, a rape culture, domestic violence,
I for one have had it.
Lunabell
(6,046 posts)Because it is based in bullshit. My refusal to accept Hillary Clinton as the nominee is based on her record. Her record of voting to send this country to an illegal war. Her acceptance of DOMA. Her not accepting gay marriage until 2013. Shall I go on?
cali
(114,904 posts)Of course a year ago, she was singing a different tune, castigating Clinton for her racist campaign against Obama and swearing she could never forgive her for that.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Glad she turned that around this time because it was not right how she let her surrogates run around acting out of pocket. Her respect for Obama and his accomplishments are what got black voters to give her a second chance. She said what she said and did what she did, it's done. Not going to beat on her for the rest of her life for things she already got told about time and time again. She knows. Is she ever going to be my ideological twin? Hell no. Nobody running, not even Jill Stein is to my left and I KNOW BETTER than to ever expect to get even one percent of my way. Ain't never happened before and aint fixin to neither.
PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)I thought you were going to turn over a new leaf. But I guess there are still Bernie supporters to piss off and you know, if you can't piss people off, then what's it all about?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Now I am back to it. Thank for your concern, you can now concentrate on your own posts from here on out.
PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)So I guess o can concentrate on anything I want.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I am going to post as I please.
cali
(114,904 posts)Hillary would be the nominee from before she even announced.
There are a plethora of reasons having nothing to do with misogyny let alone racism for not accepting her as the nominee.
It's so like you to attribute all objections to her as rooted in misogyny and racism.
And it's terribly wrong.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)See? Goes both ways for the children.
Sad state of affairs we find ourselves in.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)written by anybod else. What I do notice is that peopke have an all fired burning desire to shut down any conversation that they find does not follow their own personal worldview and seem to ascribe nasty motivations to anyone with a different pov than themselves. That sheltered pov seems very privileged, no one can discuss anything they do not approve of without being accused of all kinds of evil intentions. Really, my best advice is that people should trash thread and not behave in such an authoritarian manner.
Black posters will discuss race no matter who has a problem with it, and trying to shut down our conversations is wrong and needs to end.
cali
(114,904 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Vinca
(50,237 posts)Surely it must be hatred of white women. 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Medicare for all?
Public tuition?
All of these policies would disproportionately help women and POC, so maybe it is the other way around?
Or maybe you should calm down your rhetoric?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Some people care more about being treated human that fighting for what you think they should. 15 dollars an hour won't save me from a dirty cop, so I can focus on what I want to focus on and you can focus on those things you mentioned.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Jury results 4 to 3! Hopefully the administrators will take a closer look at this divisive post and hide it!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Noting is wrong with my post.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)I'm going to copy a bit here. I voted for Bernie, and I know you and the linked piece aren't saying that voting for Bernie = racist and/or misogynist. But I do agree that there is something weird about refusing to accept the results of this primary. It's very clear that she won, by any measure. I didn't vote for her, but I have to appreciate that most people did, and I understand that the person most people vote for in the primaries gets the nomination.
I'm pasting some of what you linked to here in the hope that people will read it:
Before I go on, let me put in a mandatory #notallberniebros statement. The vast majority of Bernie Sanders supporters accept the election results. Bernie Sanders, his campaign, and his supporters made a serious and formidable opponent to Clinton and although he came in second, by running he was able to pull Clinton to the left on a handful of important policy positions, will have a say in the democratic party’s new platform, and showed that candidates that run to the left have a viable position with a lot of popular support behind it, something that could encourage future leftish candidates. His supporters might be disappointed that he won’t be our next president, but most understand that Clinton won legitimately. The vast majority of Sanders supporters will likely be supporting Clinton in the fall. These are not the Sanders supporters that I am talking about in this piece.
There is a subset of Sanders supporters who do not accept that the primary is over. They believe that Hillary Clinton stole the election from Sanders. They believe the election was unfair or fraudulent. They want to try to convince superdelegates to switch their vote to Sanders in order to give him the nomination over the wishes of the voters.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that the democratic primary process is convoluted and at times inequitable. A fairer system would have delegates assigned closer to the proportion of votes they actually got. In some cases this would benefit Clinton but in others it would benefit Sanders. A fairer system would allow for open primaries with less restrictions on who is allowed to vote. This would likely benefit Sanders since many of his supporters are not registered democrats. A fairer system would get rid of all caucuses, since less people are able to participate in caucuses due to their time commitment and other factors. Making caucus states primary election states would likely benefit Clinton. The fact is, even if we made the process more fair, Clinton would have still won. There is no “fairer” election in which Sanders would have won.
When people say that Clinton stole the election or that Sanders is the true winner, what they are really saying is that Sanders may not have had the most votes but he had the right kind of votes. This is a theme that has been running through the entire primary. Sanders supporters tell female Clinton supporters that they are only voting for Hillary because she’s a woman. They explain away the fact that black voters are voting for Clinton in droves as black voters just being ignorant when it comes to politics. It’s not surprising that now that Clinton has won the primary on the backs of woman and POC, those same people would loudly proclaim that Sanders is the true winner. They haven’t respected the votes of women and POC through the entire process, so why would they start now?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Wealth and power will keep throwing shade, and they will get away with it because the sexism and misogyny are real--but those labels will also be applied in ways other than the valid.
If you won't support Clinton you may be sexist, but if you aren't fighting for a progressive agenda you are definitely a tool of the elite.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)This is not about supporting her but about saying she did not actually win. Refusing to accept that her win is valid. That her voters are just as important as others. We are the democratic party, not the progressive party or anything else. Our party contains peoplefrom across the spectrum who have goals in common, we are not here for purity of purpose.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Deciding what exactly we should unrig, and how, lie beyond.
stonecutter357
(12,694 posts)Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)Only not in the way you think it does.
Hillary's had ZERO sympathy for the Palestinians.
She has seemingly bigoted feelings toward one side of this conflict.
Simple Definition of a bigot
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Her gut reflexive action is to side 100% with one side of this conflict.
Her ears are sealed shut to anything new on it and she is stuck in the past incapable of evolution.
This is the one time I actually wish she would flip-flop.
I am not a Palestinian, but if I were a dual citizen or had family who were Palestinians, I would have a hard time voting for a person
whose attitude about them was that they were basically disposable and Mighty Israel is always 100% correct in 99.9% of their actions.
Who would you vote for between Trump or Clinton in this case?
Why did the National Party and the staunchest of Clinton supporting democrats and nutty Trumpians give them these two to choose from?
its like choosing how you want to be killed between a Tiger or a Shark.
I'm calling Clinton the Tiger and the only reason to choose a Tiger is because they kill you quicker and you aren't drowning at the same time.
This really makes one excited to vote (Sarcasm)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It is off subject of the posted link. I have no idea what Israel has to do with the op. I find this strange.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)There are other reasons and this is one of them.
These Shaming the people who have reasons to be unhappy with Hillary as a nominee threads are annoying to me.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)that you oppose her because of Israel or something like that? The piece starts out saying that they are speaking of only a small segment of the group, so why do you think this piece was talking about you?
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)Knew where it was drifting, thought it was crap.
I'm not attacking you.
I am attacking the Idea that the reasons for some individuals not backing Hillary is not simply defined in a blog.
There are layers to things.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It doesn't say that the reasons for some people not backing Hillary are misogyny and racism.
It only says that thinking Hillary didn't win the primaries, or thinking Bernie should be the nominee even though Hillary won the primaries, is based on misogyny and racism. Most people who support Hillary aren't throwing around wild conspiracy theories or saying that Bernie should be the nominee regardless of who got the most votes. That's a pretty small group of people.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)It's about not wanting more of the same.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Or something.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)support or indifference to her war mongering, is the worst form of bigotry there is.
Hillary and her supporters' indifference to the lives of the victims of those wars is so great that they go so far as to support mass murder.
Hillary's one side support for Israel against the Palestinians is strictly for bigoted and selfish reasons. Anyone that can't tell that the Israels are to blame for that conflict have some serious flaws in their thought processes. But Hillary openly supports Apartheid and mass murder against the Palestinians. This is how Hillary deals with third world brown people: imperial privilege and racism.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)War is selfishness in its extreme.
Now, I guess, war must be defended here on DU.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)when the recent wars, of which you speak, or imply, happened?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Bush couldn't have done it without the support from congress. Republicans were much worse the Democrats, but Hillary was just about the worst among Democrats and was no better than any Republican.
Hillary continues to threaten more war (the worst form of bigotry there is) which is a disaster for the future of this world.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were:
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
Dodd, Chris (D-CT)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)
Schumer, Chuck (D-NY)
Torricelli, Robert (D-N
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Hillary was very far from the only one, yet she keeps getting singled out as the sole cause of the war. I don't remember Kerry getting a similar level of attack when he ran for president.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)There's rarely a war she doesn't support.
There are several bad war mongers on that list. They shouldn't be let anywhere near the White House.
The biggest reason Bush was hated was for his war mongering. Why should we vote a war monger in as a Democrat? War is the worst evil there is.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)-She strongly supported the Iraq War. Anyone with any sense opposed that war.
-She supported the war against Afghanistan, like most people did, which has been a terrible and pointless war.
-She is an outspoken supporter of of Israel's wars.
-She was the major proponent in the Obama administration for our actions against Libya, a disaster:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/obama-clinton-libya-mistake
Working to increase hostilities:
-Trying to overthrow Assad (like overthrowing Qaddafi and Saddam turned out well: she is incapable of learning any lessons) and potentially starting a war with Russia:
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/hillary-clintons-insane-plan-for-a-no-fly-zone.html
CLINTON: I do not think it would come to that. We are already de-conflicting airspace. […] I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia […] The no-fly zone, I would hope, would be also shared by Russia. If they will begin to turn their military attention away from going after the adversaries of Assad toward ISIS and put the Assad future on the political and diplomatic track, where it belongs.
-Threatening genocide against Iran for a non-existent threat:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)most of what you post has to do with Obama's policies. As SoS she was required to support his policies.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Really. I just don't see why we can't discuss racism amd misogyny here in our electirate without attacking Israel, a nation who has no power over voters and their choices. I'm starting to see what people mean when they say everything gets blamed on Israel.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts) bravenak
(34,648 posts)Seems like you've been gone forever.
OKDem08
(1,340 posts)People are in opposition to her policies. Interesting strategy though, w/the scope of animosity toward HRC, diversion to a noble cause, equality, is viewed as a plausible way forward.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Many of us feel, I believe legitimately, that the party establishment designed certain features of the 2016 primary process with the goal of annointing Hillary as the nominee without a vigorous competition. Many of us believe that Bernie did not have an even playing field to compete on. Many of us who supported Dean felt the same way in 2004, and there were some who never accepted Kerry as the nominee for the same reason. So I don't see how the candidate's gender or the racial/ethnic/gender makeup of the candidate's supporters has anything to do with it.
I find this line of argument especially offensive because in 2008, Hillary herself tried on many occasions in the last few months of the primaries to delegitimatize Obama's success based on the age, race, or other characteristics of his voters. Remember when she said sometime toward the end of the primaries that despite being behind, she was staying in because "hard working white Americans" were voting for her? Or the time when Bill wrote off Obama's victory in South Carolina by pointing out that Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina in 1988 and didn't win the nomination? Throughout the 2008 primary season, the Clinton campaign repeatedly pushed a narrative that some primary voters mattered more than others.
To the best of my knowledge, Bernie and his campaign have never suggested that Clinton's victories should be discounted based on the composition of who voted for her. In contrast, I have seen that argument many times from Clinton supporters who write off Bernie's victories in mostly white states as somehow less legitimate or important than winning in more diverse states.
I've accepted that Hillary will be the nominee, but this article really pissed me off.
Deb
(3,742 posts)just how many life long Dems will be leaving the Democratic party. I can hardly can be expected to defend a chronically indefensible candidate. Hillary supporter's bullying is nothing compared to the beating we would get while drumming up support for her in more Conservative areas. Clinton doesn't need us, this is her walk in the park to lose.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Will pull the nation away from the left if we have to move to the center to bring in moderates
Rex
(65,616 posts)Some of it is coming from hyper-partisans that cannot stand to lose.
I would have voted for whoever won, no matter what. Trump is a danger.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Trump will ruin the nation. All the hard work Obama put in over 8 years would be undone and worse. Democratic voters usually think of the greater good. So when I read some kind of hyper-partisan screed, I have to question the intent.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Most of us can set aside our own biases to do what needs done. I hated Hillary for a long time, but I voted for her because I knew I was being kinda petty and had listened to anti Hillary nonsense for years. It was nice to let it go. I think it will be nice to see Bernie and Hillary tag team Trump. We need all hands on deck right now and I hope he can help us fight off this rightwing attack. I honestly would not put it past Trump to bring back all types of Jim Crows, james Crows and anything else to make america terrible again.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Might not be on gun control, but it is on social equality. Might not be on nominees, but it is on making sure Trump is defeated. Also, post here long enough and it becomes obvious who only posts negative threads and replies just to get the negative validation they crave so much.
I fear Trump, as I feared Cruz...part of me thinks they have no chance and all of me knows WE have no chance if either one make it into office.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)are the ones who are the main probems. None of our candidates would make bad picks or oppress any groups, so I can see many of them will not be with us for much longer. I honestly was more scared of Cruz. I knew he wanted to bring in a religiousity to the courts that would take a generation to die out. He seems like the type to start a civil war. Like the High Sparrow but creepier.
Rex
(65,616 posts)To think someone WORSE then Donald Trump...that is saying something! Yeah, a Cruz presidency would have brought about some kind of Christian Caliphate and my ass would have been one of the first 'deviants' to be taken out by his ever growing neos. I could see a Fourth Reich starting under a Cruz WH.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I bet Kirk Cameron was sad as hell when Cruz quit.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Their level of cray freaks me out. To desire world ending, just so YOU (fuck everyone else right?) can become complete or whatever...yikes...that level of narcissism amazes me.
It's like, take the red or blue pill already! Just leave the rest of us alone in peace. Too many people out there willing to end our existence, just so they can be with their All-Father.
I just want them all fucking raptured already so they can be happy and not bothering us.
Marr
(20,317 posts)If you honestly believe that this big a chunk of the Democratic base is racist/misogynistic, then Hillary Clinton cannot be elected. Neither could Obama, by the way-- but let's just put that aside for the moment.
Where are her votes going to come from, if Sander's broad support is lost to Clinton?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)She says that being willing to ignore the fact that Hillary has won the primary is based on racism and misogyny.
Those are two very different things.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Nonsense.
Again, she isn't talking about supporting Bernie, or opposing Hillary.
She's only talking about people who are willing to ignore the fact that more people voted for Hillary and that Hillary therefore won. That is a pretty small group of people.
Marr
(20,317 posts)She's counting on fair minded Libertarians and Republicans to fill the gap left by racist/misogynistic liberals.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Again, she's only talking about people who don't believe Hillary actually won. She is not talking about all Bernie supporters, or even all Bernie or Busters.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Any many of them may be crossovers who vote for libertarians or republicans or don't even vote. Most democrats accept that she won fair and square. It is a small subset of a subset that refuse to believe that she actually won.
Marr
(20,317 posts)to fill the gap left by all those racist/misogynistic liberals.
...
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)It's not like Sanders got 10% of the vote. He got a sizable portion of the primary vote, and was an actual threat. I refuse to believe that anyone who can turn on a computer could also believe that many of the voters in the Democratic primary were Republicans and Libertarians.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Even here many have stated they are INDEPENDENTS
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Claiming Bernie was popular with republicans.
In case someone thinks I'm making this up, these were a few threads that immediately popped up in a search, with no digging:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251529885
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251715777
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251850592
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251657540
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That he would pull in Trump voters. I believe he himself said he was going after Trump voters at one point in time. I opposed it on the ground that Trump voters are insane.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Many are race car drivers. Many are bank robbers.
"Many" doesn't mean much.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That was her opponent. Perhaps he was successful and that is why we see so manyCTs
gollygee
(22,336 posts)What percentage of people read the linked piece? Like, 5% maybe? Almost everyone thinks you're saying that anyone who opposes Hillary is racist and misogynist, when the piece very clearly states that is not the case. Very, very clearly. A quick scan could clear that up.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bad assumptions, wrong assumptions, left field attacks on everything from me, to the idea of blogs, to Israel for some reason, just. Idk. It's just kinda sad.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)here I thought my refusal to support SoS Clinton's try for Presidency was due to the idiotic move she made. Of having a private email server when she was SoS after being the attacked and investigated by every Conservative/Republican nutcase there is today!
Will I vote for her IF she is the candidate picked at the Democrats convention, yes. Do I hope she won't pull another stupid stunt like the email server - YES!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's about the conspiracy theories about her not being the real winner.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's getting more disgusting by the day
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and disgusting, but hey, nothing about the patriarchy in DEMANDING Clinton beg... convincingly.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
jonno99
(2,620 posts)would have gotten as far as she has.
IMHO...
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We have had make presidents tht OWNED PEOPLE just because they were black PEOPLE. So no. Many worse resumes than hers up to and including a president owning his OWN CHILDREN as slaves. I think people have no idea of what they speak.
bonemachine
(757 posts)I read the whole thing, to my detriment, but I was sorely tempted to stop at this 'statement of fact':
The fact is, even if we made the process more fair, Clinton would have still won. There is no “fairer” election in which Sanders would have won.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He won mostly caucuses and she won more of the primaries and open primaries. Caucuses are the least democratic style of choosing that we offer. If we had switched to all open primaries he might not have done even as well as he did. and the states she won had the higher populations, and though the south not being blue was accounted for in dekegate allocation, him allowing her to run the table caused such a defict as to be insurmountable.
bonemachine
(757 posts)The author doesn't really indicate what they would do to make it more fair, so it's impossible to judge the factuality of their statement.
Unarguably, with what we can all admit is an amazingly unlevel playing field, Sanders performed far above expectations.
If we really levelled that playing field, say, with publicly funded campaigns and open primaries it's not unreasonble to suggest that Sanders could have overcome Clinton's significant name recognition advantage.
Whimsey
(236 posts)It exists to elect democrats, not independents.
Bernie should have run as an independent and then he would have won and been on the presidential ballot as an independent.
And could have bypassed all the primary crap.
He is not a democrat and so the party did not unite around him, although a lot of independents, who are not democrats, did.
As can be seen from his supporters who refuse to support the democratic nominee, there is nothing in it for the democrats to make it easier for independents to vote in their primaries. Because those independent voters will not stay with the party anyways.
Both the democrats and republicans are suffering from this this year.
CA has non-party primaries, with the top two vote getters proceeding to the general regardless of their party, but not at the presidential level. That is a good way to go at the state level.
bonemachine
(757 posts)And you are welcome to them.
None of them, however, provide a hell of a lot of support for the contention that it would have been impossible for Bernie to win given a more level playing field.
I'm not saying it's guaranteed either way because, unlike the author of this blog, I know the foolishness of trying to support definitive assertions with pure opinion.
TwilightZone
(25,429 posts)And she won handily. Unless you subscribe to the various conspiracy theories that millions of votes were somehow stolen from Sanders, there is no combination of factors - outside of changing the election process to 57 open primaries, perhaps - where Sanders would have won.
Even there, Clinton won 13 out of 23 opens. There's no guarantee he would have won then, either.
bonemachine
(757 posts)Publicly funded campaigns would be another. Clinton may pay lip service to campaign finance reform, but that hasn't stopped her from taking full advantage of a system that we all know is fucking broken.
Arguably, you may be right, in the sense that a campaign system that would give us a Sanders victory would probably only exist in a world where we don't need to elect someone like Sanders anyways...
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)A pseudo authority on a subject they know nothing about. Her lack of research shows her stupidity.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good narrative that allows the unintelligent feel superior? (That's rhetorical)
bonemachine
(757 posts)If they were willing to simply say "I believe" instead of "The fact is"...
But no... I'm a misogynist because I don't like Clinton and that's a fact.
jalan48
(13,842 posts) w4rma
(31,700 posts)eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)
Cha
(296,878 posts)BS' fans believe it's fraudulent because BS says that.. but that's not true.. he's only looking after himself not what's true.
Good article, Brave.. thank you!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It really is getting old
Cha
(296,878 posts)to say you're dividing us by reporting the facts. That didn't work then and it's not working now. Sanders is the one who divided us.
BS lost using all these bogus excuses.. but he can't seem to get out of his rut and neither can his supporters.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The excuses just show who he really is on the inside.
Cha
(296,878 posts)a handle on the pulse of this nation.. he was wrong.
You don't go about running for the Democratic Nominee dissing this President's legacy, either.
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval Obama Approval 54% +2
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx?utm_source=twitterbutton&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sharing
Dr. Tom Martin Ph.D. ?@DrTomMartinPhD
PRESIDENT OBAMA ORDERED THIS! That's Friggin' AMAZING!
3:04 PM - 12 Jun 2016
379 379 Retweets 539 539 likes
https://theobamadiary.com/2016/06/12/lovewins/
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I hear black turnout for Hillary was higher than for Obama 08, to protect his legacy. We will show up in Nov refardless of how many busters sit at home being busters.
Cha
(296,878 posts)bottom of my !
Cha
(296,878 posts)we have ya'll! 
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)to bring about discord while linking to articles that do nothing more than seek to further an agenda of divisiveness.
Sometimes you just have to call them as you seen them!
Obama never promoted his historic win with "History Made" as the first Black nominee or even POTUS and he never fell back on that as excuse, and yes I had my differences with him in regarding to HC, turning a blind eye to war crimes and those on Wall St.
But he NEVER used his race as a reason to support his agenda. Personally and as a woman over 60 Clinton should follow in his footsteps and not play the gender card.
No I do not want a magnet for 10 bucks with her picture and the words "History Made!"
She would do well to follow Obama's footsteps as he did not feel the need to flaunt his race, nor should she flaunt her gender.
Policies and positions are what history will ultimately decide their fate, many, many years after we are gone.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It is not and never has been us that divided people up by color and oppressed th ones who did not look like us, so I have no idea why there is this new trend in 'progressive' circles to attack the black people who do decide to discuss this very important issue of race.
Now, you might see Obama not talking about it as the model of what you want from black folks, but to us, that is oppressive because racism happens and we are going to point it out. You should be on our side trying to eradicate racism, rather than attempting to use a black icon to shut down the discussion that you feel should not be had by people on this message board.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)including all the emails I receive daily from the campaign, to the somewhat more subdued and quiet ascendance of the Obama campaign.
IMHO you cannot eradicate racism or sexism by always pointing to a person's gender or skin color and that is what has been happening on DU.
Two years ago the old, white males were essentially told to sit down and shut up on DU. Now I am not an old white male, but I could see the beginning of a seed being planted and some took offense.
Did you speak up and condemn the offense or did you try and foment the racial divide?
Racial divides go in both directions, nobody should feel that their opinion is subordinate to another. That is the whole point, we cannot try and gain equality by stepping on another's back!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)need to come to grips with the fact that the world has changed. This nation is not getting any whiter, ever. More than half the babies born are not white and the demographics are changing even faster than earlier predicted. Now, that may make some who were used to being the standard upset because the needs of others are at times going to take presidence over their own needs and that has not been the way of this nation ever. But it is now. And from now on sharing power is the way and sometime we have to stfu to learn thing one that we are being taught.
People gained their own privileges over us by enslaving us, red lining, jim crowing and the practises of racial discrimination continue unabated to this day, and it will be discussed loudly and often until this nation and it's citizens actually expend the energy to fix these very serious problems, and those who do not experience them learn to be the student rather than the teacher. They don't know what they dont know about race because they do not suffer the efffects of the racism they so desperately want nobody to ever speak of.
They also do not know how to eradicate a damn thing because they never take one minute to listen to the actual victims of racism to learn about race and how racism affects their daily lives. They refuse to oearn because they see themselves as above those who are affected and think they are the ones that need to teach the actual suffers how to deal with a system that they themselves have never once been affected by personally.
They'd rather shut down discussion and be angry at the messenger than actually take the time to realize that they are paternalistically trying to teach a subject to someone who lives that subject everday.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)in the 1960's to protest segregation? To be arrested and not willing to give in, I could not have done that, could you?
Those were very different times, it took a certain kind of character to stand up then and through his long career of speaking for the oppressed when it was not popular.
Would you have chained yourself to another person of color in protest, suppose they were of another faith or nationally, would you do that today in support of Muslims? You can easily go to Mosque today and speak out, will you? I admit I am chicken, but will you enter into an unknown world of the oppressed and stand with them as some did in the 1960's for others?
You need to think about that VERY long and hard before a condemning a person and all that he has fought for, one needs to have some very deep and core beliefs of right and wrong to do so .... and then to continue the struggle for decades,.
All people should have rights, instead of fighting a war based upon some notion of skin color, religion or gender.
I am sorry for all the people who have struggled to gain equality, we need to do better, all of us!
But I believe that continuing to point out our differences is not conducive to the equality we seek, on the contrary it hinders our progress.
Hope you agree
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I can imagine being the person in those chains. Can you? Can you imagine yourself in those chains or even think and realize that you were brought here in those chains? That others can choose to be chained to you or leave you behind as they see fit, but you will remain in those chains unless you break them yourself? That you speaking out against the crimes against you causes you to be despised by a large portion of this nation that do not see through your eyes? They will attack the oppressed and belittle them and try to shame them into silence for what they say is the 'common good'? The common good can only survive if people like myself remain silent and speak the praises of those who call themselves our allies otherwise it is divisive? That my truth is divisive and must not be told?
Who does that help, really to hold old acts of valor over my head to wring out a bit of gratitude from my lips and shut me down because it seems I must owe this man something for chaining himself to somebody when my mama was a child?
We need to think long and hard before we start expectimg something grand for doing the right thing and expect the gratitude of an entire race of people and for us to rush into the streets screaming Mysha Mysha!
What exactly we owe I am not quite sure. I mean, we gave generation upon generations of our lives as slaves here in this nation for the 'common' good and simply because a person has or had good intentions we must slaver over them for all eternity? What other race of people owe so much for others simply doing what is right? Why must we thank people over and over and over and over for eternity just because they stood with us AS THEY SHOULD HAVE?
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Just outstanding!
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)was a pure divide and conquer tactic, and that has been accomplished pat yourselves on the back for that it worked but for my part your camp (Hillary) just so we're not mistaken has left me personally with something of a Sophie's Choice because according to what I've read here Hillary wants to improve the lives of my daughters who are female(obviously) and bi-racial but at the possible expense of my son who is white and whom we're told has had privilege all his life he must now be willing to surrender, never mind they were raised in the household by the same parent/parents
bravenak
(34,648 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)2 different things
bravenak
(34,648 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)from the Clintons and those they surround themselves with.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No thanks. That is the exact time we need not go back to.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)*A rejection of HRC is about rejection of:
Money in politics
1% boot-licking
Corruption
Warmongering
Racism
Record number of citzens languishing in prison
*intended as constructive criticism.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)The fact that some will not accept her victory is really sad
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Women can be sexist against other women.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)on a Democratic site so it MUST be misogyny and racism.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)on the basis that it is complete and utter bullshit. No need to read the link.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Awesome to know most people don't read
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)No, ratfucking would not be fairer.
