HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » It wasn't the emails...

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:17 PM

It wasn't the emails...

:large

128 replies, 17213 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 128 replies Author Time Post
Reply It wasn't the emails... (Original post)
kpete Oct 2017 OP
tblue37 Oct 2017 #1
MLAA Oct 2017 #2
dlk Oct 2017 #3
coolsandy Oct 2017 #24
True_Blue Oct 2017 #30
Alice11111 Oct 2017 #33
IronLionZion Oct 2017 #46
sheshe2 Oct 2017 #4
Different Drummer Oct 2017 #5
NBachers Oct 2017 #6
Madam Mossfern Oct 2017 #76
TexasBushwhacker Oct 2017 #85
Glorfindel Oct 2017 #7
bluepen Oct 2017 #8
whathehell Oct 2017 #9
progressoid Oct 2017 #10
pangaia Oct 2017 #11
Nitram Oct 2017 #86
pangaia Oct 2017 #95
KY_EnviroGuy Oct 2017 #12
progressoid Oct 2017 #90
pnwmom Oct 2017 #14
Omaha Steve Oct 2017 #17
pnwmom Oct 2017 #18
Omaha Steve Oct 2017 #20
Post removed Oct 2017 #21
pnwmom Oct 2017 #23
Omaha Steve Oct 2017 #26
pnwmom Oct 2017 #28
emulatorloo Oct 2017 #29
radical noodle Oct 2017 #82
k8conant Oct 2017 #126
LisaM Oct 2017 #96
Omaha Steve Oct 2017 #36
pnwmom Oct 2017 #37
Post removed Oct 2017 #38
pnwmom Oct 2017 #66
Omaha Steve Oct 2017 #68
pnwmom Oct 2017 #69
Omaha Steve Oct 2017 #81
pnwmom Oct 2017 #83
questionseverything Oct 2017 #100
AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #71
progressoid Oct 2017 #19
InAbLuEsTaTe Oct 2017 #34
mythology Oct 2017 #39
fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #88
ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #102
fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #105
emulatorloo Oct 2017 #31
HughBeaumont Oct 2017 #42
IronLionZion Oct 2017 #73
progressoid Oct 2017 #89
onit2day Oct 2017 #98
Eliot Rosewater Oct 2017 #101
Lil Missy Oct 2017 #120
progressoid Oct 2017 #123
FailureToCommunicate Oct 2017 #13
HopeAgain Oct 2017 #15
emulatorloo Oct 2017 #32
HughBeaumont Oct 2017 #41
HopeAgain Oct 2017 #45
HughBeaumont Oct 2017 #50
HopeAgain Oct 2017 #52
fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #94
HopeAgain Oct 2017 #106
fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #110
BainsBane Oct 2017 #115
BainsBane Oct 2017 #114
HopeAgain Oct 2017 #124
kpete Oct 2017 #44
HopeAgain Oct 2017 #47
kpete Oct 2017 #49
HopeAgain Oct 2017 #51
HughBeaumont Oct 2017 #57
HopeAgain Oct 2017 #60
fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #111
JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #93
BainsBane Oct 2017 #116
HopeAgain Oct 2017 #117
BainsBane Oct 2017 #118
UtahLib Oct 2017 #16
lunamagica Oct 2017 #22
Snake Plissken Oct 2017 #25
Willie Pep Oct 2017 #27
IronLionZion Oct 2017 #48
Tarheel_Dem Oct 2017 #35
jmg257 Oct 2017 #40
berni_mccoy Oct 2017 #43
Ninsianna Oct 2017 #107
BainsBane Oct 2017 #112
BainsBane Oct 2017 #108
Weekend Warrior Oct 2017 #53
PDittie Oct 2017 #54
StevieM Oct 2017 #55
BlancheSplanchnik Oct 2017 #56
Yavin4 Oct 2017 #58
StevieM Oct 2017 #72
Yavin4 Oct 2017 #74
StevieM Oct 2017 #79
liquid diamond Oct 2017 #59
JHan Oct 2017 #125
niyad Oct 2017 #61
Post removed Oct 2017 #62
NRaleighLiberal Oct 2017 #63
BainsBane Oct 2017 #109
IronLionZion Oct 2017 #65
JHan Oct 2017 #64
usaf-vet Oct 2017 #67
Eliot Rosewater Oct 2017 #70
DesertRat Oct 2017 #75
Arazi Oct 2017 #77
gademocrat7 Oct 2017 #78
jrthin Oct 2017 #80
HopeAgain Oct 2017 #84
Gothmog Oct 2017 #87
Lil Missy Oct 2017 #91
jimlup Oct 2017 #92
demigoddess Oct 2017 #97
Soph0571 Oct 2017 #99
gopiscrap Oct 2017 #127
Soph0571 Oct 2017 #128
zentrum Oct 2017 #103
ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #104
BainsBane Oct 2017 #113
ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #119
BainsBane Oct 2017 #121
ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #122

Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:19 PM

1. K&R for visibility. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:21 PM

2. Wow! So true. Thank you for sharing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 09:03 PM

3. Even in the Age of Trump, So Many Americans Don't Want a Woman President--She Might Mess Things Up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:32 AM

24. Or she might be successful like that black guy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coolsandy (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:57 AM

30. She would have been

And they couldn't bear the thought of 16 yrs without a white male POTUS. Americans might actually get use to having diversity in the WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coolsandy (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:11 AM

33. !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 09:45 AM

46. It's a slippery slope towards something

If she was successful and led us to peace and prosperity, then it might lead to even more women in positions of power and leadership. We can't have that now can we? tsk tsk....

So instead we are stuck with a mentally ill piece of shit who allows US citizens to die preventable deaths after natural disasters, destroys every institution in America, and is itching to go to war someone, anyone will do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 09:12 PM

4. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 09:14 PM

5. K&R. Got that right! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 09:18 PM

6. I endorse this sign, and the concept it promotes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NBachers (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 03:13 PM

76. The sign includes Sanders

I do not endorse it at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam Mossfern (Reply #76)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 03:56 PM

85. Yeah, if it didn't include Sanders I think it would be great n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 09:24 PM

7. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 09:43 PM

9. Wow..

Great stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:04 PM

10. Sanders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #10)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:16 PM

11. Yeah, my reaction too, but.. dare I say anything???

better not...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #11)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 04:11 PM

86. You just did!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nitram (Reply #86)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 05:55 PM

95. Umm,, you're right...

Ah well....

back to my Mount Gay bourbon...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #10)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:24 PM

12. How about Rupert Murdoch - for example?

10,000% more negative effect than Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KY_EnviroGuy (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 05:00 PM

90. Right. And Hannity and Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Ailes etc.

Those are some serious assholes that deserve all sorts of condemnation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #10)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:28 PM

14. The Russians used the Sanders campaign to divide Democrats.

And because Sanders continued to campaign all the way up to the convention, the party was not yet united and the door was open to Russia's timely interference.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/11/15952666/russia-dnc-hacks-timing

Russians timed and framed this well

Had the DNC emails come out earlier, they would, of course, have been an issue in the 2016 primary campaign. And while it’s conceivable that they would have helped Sanders win the nomination, it’s more likely that he still would have lost. Either way, they would have been part of the campaign, and the convention would have been an opportune moment to put the disagreement in the past.

By raising the issue after the primary was over but before the party had come together in a big show of unity, the emails were released at a perfect moment for making trouble.

And at the time they were released, WikiLeaks’ primary brand in the West was as a left-wing muckraking site — the kind of place to which Sanders supporters might turn for a critical glimpse at the political establishment. Russia’s state-owned English-language media simultaneously offered a steady diet of overheated takes about a rigged primary that were framed as left-wing attacks on Clinton.

Clinton’s campaign team, to their credit, had this plan nailed correctly at the time. They argued that the real story the media should be focused on was a coordinated Russian government effort to help Donald Trump win the election. Had the media seen it that way at the time, the revelations would of course have been covered differently. And, critically, had Sanders and his supporters seen it that way at the time, they likely would have reacted differently. But instead, the timing and framing were just right for Sanders backers to see the revelations as aligned with their own campaign against the political establishment.

SNIP

But it’s true that even as Trump performed historically badly with young voters, Clinton was hurt by relatively low turnout among under-30s and a relatively high level of defection to third-party candidates. To attribute all of her problems with mobilizing Trump-hating young people to the hack would, of course, be going too far. But it’s fair to say that she lost in large part due to a failure of the unity efforts with Sanders, efforts that were sabotaged by a very well-timed and very well-framed release of stolen DNC emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #14)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 11:26 PM

17. Then blame the DNC for not being neutral in the first place!!!

Last edited Fri Oct 13, 2017, 04:01 AM - Edit history (1)


And the emails would not exist!

Party is still split. Those that donated to Bernie (the DU had 2,108 donations totaling $77,149.00 plus former DUers took it over $100,000) will have a hard time trusting the DNC with $ in the future.

Remember Hillary kept running right through California?

OS

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-rfk-comment/

The remark in question was originally made to the editorial board of a newspaper in May 2008 in response to questions about why Clinton remained in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination seemingly past the point of having any real chance of winning it:

Hillary Clinton cited the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy during the 1968 presidential campaign to explain why she was remaining in the race despite long odds.

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” Clinton told the editorial board of a South Dakota newspaper. ” I don’t understand it,” Clinton added, alluding to the calls for her to quit.

Clinton made the statement after pointing out that her husband didn’t lock up the nomination until June of 1992, trying to point out that, by past history, it’s not late in the campaign.

But Barack Obama received Secret Service protection one year ago, the earliest ever in presidential history, after reports of threats.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “Sen. Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.”




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #17)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 11:30 PM

18. No. Why should the party have disavowed the woman who had been loyal to the party

for decades, in favor of an independent?

When the election was mathematically over in May, that's when the party should have unified. Hillary kept running in CA because Bernie kept running, even though the numbers of delegates already assigned made a win for him impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #18)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 11:34 PM

20. I was obviously talking about Hillary running through CA in 08!!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #20)


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:28 AM

23. Not obviously, since the emails in question were related to her 2016 run. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:43 AM

26. The video and article are BOTH 08


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:51 AM

28. Your post was framed with your reference to the DNC emails

and Bernie's 2015 letter -- both related to the 2016 campaign. (In which Hillary WAS forced to campaign in June.)

I had no idea where you were going with the snopes thing and the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:51 AM

29. Quit while you are ahead

I donated to Bernie, Edwards, Dean et cetera. Political contributions aren't refundable.

Bernie said he lost to Clinton fair and square. I personally don't want to hear any more Putin or Assange 'spin', lies and bullshit CT that contradicts what Bernie says.

Have a great night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 03:38 PM

82. You know very well that she was

much closer to beating Obama in California in 2008 than Bernie was to her in 2016. This idea that Bernie was somehow cheated out of the nomination is silly. She was far ahead of him and didn't need a single superdelegate to beat him.

And why did you bring this up anyway? The original post didn't mention him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radical noodle (Reply #82)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 06:51 PM

126. The OP certainly mentioned him nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 06:06 PM

96. Hillary dropped out in early June 2008. The convention was at the end of August.

That left two and a half FULL MONTHS for her to go out there and work for Obama, which she did.

The 2016 convention was on July 23rd. Sanders never officially withdrew, but he did not "endorse" Hillary, if you can call it that, until July 12th. 11 DAYS.

I don't see how people can compare these two things, and please don't accuse me of re-fighting the primary. I looked this up yesterday because I was curious about the timing of the two candidates dropping out in 2008 (not the 2016) primaries, and last year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 07:24 AM

36. I said neutral


Where did I say favor or disavow?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #36)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 07:31 AM

37. I disagree. The party had good reason to believe that she was poised on the edge of winning

by the time those emails were written. It was time for them to start focusing on the general and that's what they did. Bernie was just a distraction by May, except to him and his devotees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #37)


Response to Post removed (Reply #38)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:36 PM

66. No, we don't. The emails in question were written in late April and May, after Hillary's

nomination was assured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #66)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:57 PM

68. Ummm...number of debates compared to 08 etc?


You didn't answer the question. It is ok to break the DNC rules IF you are the right candidate by your standards?

OS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #68)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 02:09 PM

69. That just made sense. We had an insane number of debates in 2008. We had decided

long ago to cut that back.

And hearing Bernie repeat the same 1% critique for another dozen nationally televised debates wouldn't have made any difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #69)


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #81)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 03:50 PM

83. Yeah, right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #69)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 07:42 PM

100. deciding to cut back the number of debates is

a HUGE part of why we have what we have in the whitehouse


giving the freakin repubs a 3 month head start and hours of free tv time is a big part of why she lost

the average voter doesn't follow any of this as closely as most of us

they see presidential debate...figure this is who is running, this is who I have to pick from and start making choices,,,especially when trump sounded like a dem about half the time and there was a void of opposing ideas because the dnc "decided to cut back"


<<insert every cuss word you can think of>

do u still not get it?

debates= free airtime

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 02:38 PM

71. I like the delegate revisionist history.

I also like your leap from 'let's have a fair race' to 'Disavow'. Nice sleight of hand there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #17)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 11:32 PM

19. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #17)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 02:05 AM

34. I was truly shocked when Hillary made that remark about the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #14)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 07:59 AM

39. And yet a higher percentage of Sanders supporters in 2016

 

Voted for Clinton than Clinton supporters voted for Obama in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #39)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 04:56 PM

88. That was a race of a different color.

Whether we chose to see and acknowledge it is a separate matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #88)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 07:49 PM

102. Curious to know

 

How so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ClarendonDem (Reply #102)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 08:43 PM

105. Race and age.

A larger percentage of white voters in ’08 were more likely to vote for the white guy.

In 2016 the past 8-17 year olds, now 'new' voters, would be more accepting to vote for the white Dem woman, even though misogyny made the whole race rather icky. Mostly from 'mature adults.'

Again, whether we chose to see and acknowledge it is a separate matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:01 AM

31. Yeah Sanders does not belong there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 08:23 AM

42. It's really not fair to include him.

He did NOTHING wrong. We don't do coronations here. A strong primary helps the leading candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 02:44 PM

73. They didn't say which Sanders


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #73)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 04:57 PM

89. LoL. THAT makes more sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 07:15 PM

98. Funny.Sanders is the only name up there that campaigned

 

in every state and every major city for Clinton to get her elected. Who ever made the poster just demeaned it by putting
sanders name up there, making it untrue. We have another Sanders illiterate. Resentment without justification. Why didn't they put wall street up there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onit2day (Reply #98)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 07:48 PM

101. Sooooooooooo much damage done to her from all angles.

Sure the russians stole it, but just about everybody attacked her for years.

Just about everybody, well not democrats, but everybody else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onit2day (Reply #98)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 01:09 PM

120. too little, too late. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onit2day (Reply #98)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 01:58 PM

123. Yup. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:27 PM

13. Remove "Sanders" and it'd be right on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:30 PM

15. So we hate white males now?

Stereotype much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #15)


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #15)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 08:15 AM

41. Well, no Democratic candidate has won the white vote since 1964, sooooooo . . . .

Truth hurts.

I mean, who do you blame - the bad politicians they vote for, or them for putting these bad politicians in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #41)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 09:37 AM

45. I thought race/gender bias was a Republican thing.

Let's adopt bigotry and bias too and see how that works. Brilliant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #45)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 10:24 AM

50. Oh PLEASE, B. "Reverse Racism" is not a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #50)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 10:47 AM

52. so we want to win elections by attacking the largest demographic in the Country

Fucking brilliant...

By the way, reverse institutional racism may not be a thing, but anyone can be bigoted against anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #52)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 05:28 PM

94. I don't think you read the content in that link. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #94)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 09:37 PM

106. I don't think you understand what I am saying

If your saying hating people from a majority is okay, then have at it. I don't care what your demons are. But if you think attacking white males is the way to win elections then your going to be sorely disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #106)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 12:58 AM

110. Are you saying we should be good and lean to bigotry and racism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #52)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 01:34 AM

115. You're claiming it's racist to point out election results

that white men voted for Trump in large margins and continue to represent his base of support?

That demographic votes Republican, always. No Republican would be in power without the votes of white men, just like no Democrat would be in power without the votes of women. It's no more racist to point that out than it is to say that African Americans vote Democratic.

And no, you aren't oppressed because people dare to comment on election results.

Plenty of white male Democrats read stuff like that and don't take it personally. They know how various demographics vote in this country, and they don't need the truth suppressed to make them feel okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #45)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 01:27 AM

114. Talking about supposed racism toward white people

Is a Republican and White Supremacist thing.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #114)


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #15)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 09:32 AM

44. Hate?

I married one of the good ones

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Reply #44)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 09:47 AM

47. Think about it...

If I just said "I just married one of the good (anything but white males)" how would people react?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #47)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 10:20 AM

49. mr pete

is pretty white and a VERY good man

i am brown and our children are tannish


not really sure what reaction you are talking about

?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Reply #49)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 10:46 AM

51. If I said...

"My neighbor is one of the good black people"

How would that not have bigoted overtones? But saying my husband is one of the good white men implies the same thing -- that most of them aren't. right or wrong, many of the conservative white males I speak to feel that they are under attack. Why not learn to talk to them rather than reinforcing their fears?

Is there white privilege? Absolutely. But are we going to expand our voting base by hating on white men?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #51)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:07 PM

57. How is asking them to take a hard look at themselves equal to "hating" and "attacking"?

How are you supposed to learn anything or go forward if you're not willing to acknowledge your demographic has done and continues to do a lot of bad things? What people have done in the past and present is not a slight on them; it just is. These people need to get over themselves. White people have done and continue to do bad things - there is no left, right, black or white about that - it just IS.

I'm a white male and I don't see it as one BIT of a insult to revisit sins. It's an exercise to better shape your worldview and be sensitive to the troubles and problems of those around you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #57)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:31 PM

60. That poster will not help turn one single white man into a liberal

and you know it. It's more of the blame game. Trying to marginalize people who already believe they are being marginalized won't help convince them they are not. That will continue to be a losing strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #60)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 01:01 AM

111. You don't have to be a liberal to not be a bigot and racist. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #51)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 05:26 PM

93. Spot. On. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #47)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 01:43 AM

116. Those comments are offensive when directed against the marginalized

because they are marginalized, because of the history of slavery, Jim Crow, and other forms of racism. You apparently feel that is the same as the demographic that controls the vast majority of wealth and power on the planet. Obviously all white men are not wealthy and powerful, but they don't come from a historical legacy of slavery and racial oppression. That is why those comments are not typically deemed offensive.

It's astounding any of this has to be explained to you. It's not something people who have spent time around liberals or progressives would be unfamiliar with. I have trouble believing this is sincere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #116)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 09:14 AM

117. Don't want to win elections?

Maybe this is a reason the Democrats are doing so well. But thanks for the lecture on how I should feel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #117)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 11:55 AM

118. 1964

That's the last election that Democrats won the white male vote. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act ended that. The Democrats have won lots of elections in the meantime, but they have not yet been told to revert to the pre-civil rights ways until recently. There is a full press effort to move the party firmly to the right under the pretense that reorienting the party toward the most affluent people in America and away from the poor and the marginalized is somehow progressive.


And white men are not the largest demographic in America. On the most basic level, there are more women than men, so you're point is clearly false. I think what you meant to say is the most important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:31 PM

16. It's right on just the way it stands!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:25 AM

22. K&R! Nailed it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:40 AM

25. Even though that sign is 100% accurate, lets not forget that Trump won the White female vote too

Hillary got railroad by White men for sure, but White females needs to shoulder some of the blame too, if Hillary carried the White female vote by even a single vote in each of the swing states, she would be in the White House right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Plissken (Reply #25)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:48 AM

27. Yeah people forget that there are many conservative women out there.

And they aren't all "brainwashed" by their fathers and husbands. I don't know why some people seem to think it is impossible for women to be right-wing on their own just like men. Look at Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley just to name three that come to mind. Just as an anecdote, I heard plenty of vicious anti-Hillary stuff coming from women during the election.

But I do agree that Hillary has been the victim of smears for decades and the media, in their obsession with salacious gossip and making every election a horse race, went along with perpetuating many of these smears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Willie Pep (Reply #27)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 10:06 AM

48. Oh some of the white women's attacks were downright vicious

one of my favorites was how they can't respect any woman who would stay with a cheating husband. They would rather vote for a cheating, groping, abusive, orange toxic waste dump who had 5 kids with 3 different women than vote for Hillary.

But a good many of them like their white privilege and don't want to give up even one inch of it to advance women's rights. They had a clear choice between white power and woman power, and we know what they chose.

Older, married, or rural women probably care about different issues than younger, single, or urban women anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 04:31 AM

35. Spot! On!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 08:07 AM

40. Damn that Pence, oh and Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 09:07 AM

43. The inclusion of Sanders is why Hillary fans will never get anywhere with their arguments

about the fairness of the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #43)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 11:05 PM

107. You mean the GE? Which we know was unfair?

How does including Sanders and excluding women, including the woman who won the city and the county they set the conference in, reference the General Election?

Can you please explain your meaning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninsianna (Reply #107)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 01:24 AM

112. He's mad about the sign

in the OP. Apparently that's more important than Kremlin interference and the integrity of our electoral democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #43)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 11:45 PM

108. You don't care that Russians interfered in the election?

Because you aren't a "Hillary fan"? 67 million Americans voted for Clinton. They and everyone else who cares at all about democracy and national security cares about that interference. As for "not getting anywhere," Mueller is dealing with that. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but they have Manafort dead to rights. I understand that some Trump voters don't like to come to terms with the fact they were played by the Russians, or simply don't care that our electoral system is no longer ours because the result was the White Supremacist they so badly wanted to hold office, but the rest of the country does care. Meanwhile, you keep focused on Bernie. That election that you think was perfectly "fair," has resulted in Trump taking action today that will ensure low income Americans no longer have access to healthcare and that many will die. DACA recipients are being thrown out of the country, and Trump is poised to start a nuclear war that will kill millions--all due to Russian annihilation. But what bothers you is that someone made a stupid sign with Bernie's name on it, which in your mind justifies or obviates the Kremlin attack on our electoral system. Millions of lives vs. Bernie's career, and your priority is the latter.

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that there is a disconnect between your priority on one's politician's political prospects and your disregard for the integrity of electoral democracy. How exactly do you suppose Bernie could become president without elections not subject to Kremlin interference? And just what do you think he would rule over if Trump succeeds in starting a nuclear war with a country with the capacity to launch nukes that reach US soil?

Meanwhile, the poor and marginalized are suffering, but none of that matters because they are mere "Hillary fans." The 67 million Americans who voted for Clinton along with the additional Republicans and independents who care about the integrity of electoral democracy, "will never get anywhere" with their concern for electoral democracy "will get no where" because you saw a sign that takes Sanders's name in vain.

So you go ahead and remain focused on your petty animosities toward Clinton voters. The rest of us are going to try to keep this country from descending into fascism and the word from facing nuclear Armageddon. You've got smaller things to focus on, and far be it from me to try to convince you that democracy or human lives matter.

For the record, I would not have included Bernie on such a sign. I would have dedicated it to the white males who voted for Trump and decided this election. And of course that includes the fascist collaborators who chose to inflict suffering and death on others to satisfy their own narcissistic egos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 10:53 AM

53. K&R Perfect.

 

Some will literally claim they cannot see Russian interference, gerrymandering, etc., because of the inclusion of one name on that sign. That is the epitome of white privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 10:55 AM

54. Why is 'Sanders' on there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 11:18 AM

55. I disagree. The election was all about Comey and the corrupted FBI. HRC kicked Trump's ass

from one end of the country to the other. That's why she was about to win a big victory, even after Comey had already rigged it for the GOP a couple of times. Then he rigged it beyond hope with 11 days to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 11:21 AM

56. Dayum.

There it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:09 PM

58. Also, It was the White Females that didn't vote for her. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #58)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 02:40 PM

72. They would have had it not been for a totally corrupt FBI waging a war on our democracy.

Just like they would have had a big problem with Sanders or O'Malley, had they been the nominee, after the FBI got done with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #72)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 02:57 PM

74. That didn't stop African American, Latina, and Asian women from voting for her.

I think that it's easy to point the finger at Sanders, O'Malley, or Comey, but the big elephant in the room is why didn't a majority of White women vote for one of their own? This is a critical question that needs to be addressed instead of being glossed over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #74)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 03:27 PM

79. You misread my post. I didn't blame Sanders or O'Malley at all.

You should re-read what I wrote. I was saying that if Sanders or O'Malley had been the nominee then they would also have been targeted and destroyed by the corrupt FBI.

Minority voters are less susceptible to GOP swift boating and are more loyal to the Democratic Party. They were also more outraged--and scared--by Trump's blatant racism.

I don't think it is easy to blame Comey at all. Ever since the election the media has brutally shut down any attempt to suggest that the polling until 11 days before the election was right and that the election was turned on its head in the final 11 days by the Comey intervention. But the evidence is overwhelming that Comey's action had a dramatic effect on the race, just like it is incredibly clear how much damage he did with his July press conference.

Had there not been a corrupt FBI director like Comey HRC would have won by a wide margin. And if Sanders or O'Malley were our nominee we can be sure that they would have been swift boated. We don't know how successful the swift boating would have been.

People who use catch phrases like "take responsibility" or "it's too easy to point the finger" are simply using those sound bites to automatically shut down a conversation about what happened in 2016 that does not lambaste HRC as a candidate, either for her policy positions or her supposed level of competence.

HRC's critics are using the final election results to write the history books in a way that validates their pre-conceived notions. And also to affect the decisions made by future primary voters. If it's really true that no Democratic candidate can win unless they run on a Bernie Sanders-type agenda, then there is no choice but to vote for someone like that in the future.

It also seems like some Sanders supporters just want to keep piling it on. They want to remind us how absurd it was that Bernie was not the nominee and what a terrible mistake we made. In reality, we don't know whether Bernie would have won or not. And if Bernie was supposed to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, then he would have won the primary and been the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:17 PM

59. This should be a t-shirt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liquid diamond (Reply #59)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 05:01 PM

125. I'd buy it :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:12 PM

61. EXACTLY!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #62)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:26 PM

63. You missed the point...it is not all about you. If all white males did what you did, we'd be fine

but most did not. So - yes - it is a problem.

I am a 61 year old white male that has never voted for anyone who is not a Democrat. But I have friends (less than I used to these days) who did the opposite - and I completely agree that we have a significant issue as stated in the original post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #63)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 11:56 PM

109. the problem is for some

It's always about them. That's why they didn't vote for Clinton. They can't bear a government and a culture that doesn't focus exclusively on them.

(Note: I didn't see the removed post so it's not a comment about that person in particular but a general observation).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #62)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:32 PM

65. Welcome to DU!



You're already fed up in your first 10 minutes on this site?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:31 PM

64. some really predictable replies in his thread... anyway..

Here's your massive K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:41 PM

67. And now Trump has announced that his administration and the WH

WILL NOT adhere to the federal records keeping law.

I thought they were outraged because Hillary wasn't using a government server so records were archived.

And then there is the whole Jared and Ivanka private email server issue.

As well as Cabinet members using private email accounts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usaf-vet (Reply #67)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 02:18 PM

70. Pretty soon we are in a crisis that will only be resolved in ways that are not

the usual ways.

While trump and gop destroy the world, I would think everyone opposed to that would realize there is only one way and one party to deal with it.

I wish every non racist, non asshole would register to vote as a Democrat, we could then stop all of this, permanently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 03:12 PM

75. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 03:13 PM

77. Sanders was not responsible for Hillary's loss

But you knew that. Way to keep fanning the divisive flames

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 03:20 PM

78. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 03:30 PM

80. TRUTH!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 04:48 PM

87. Great Poster

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 05:21 PM

91. 100% correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 05:22 PM

92. Not going to agree with the implication of Bernie

other than that I'm in with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 06:46 PM

97. yes!!!

It was the white males!! and women who think like them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 07:21 PM

99. To the white anti feminist male.....

you know who you are....soooooo many
[link:|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soph0571 (Reply #99)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 10:42 PM

127. welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #127)

Sun Oct 15, 2017, 06:43 PM

128. thank you

i will do my best to be my progressive best here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 07:49 PM

103. I'm a white female

...and I thank Goddess every day for some white males: Jerry Brown, Bernie Sanders, Eric Schneiderman among others.

True feminism shows up in both genders. And some females---Noonan, Thatcher, Palin, Trump's female helpers---are as bad for women, and all people, as any RW man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 08:00 PM

104. There are many reasons HRC lost

 

Not just the white male vote. For instance, black voters made up a smaller percentage of the vote, and only 88% voted for HRC while 93% went for President Obama in 2012. HRC won 65% of the Latino vote, compared to 71% for President Obama. And HRC won 54% of the 18-29 vote, compared to 60% for President Obama. HRC won 37% of the white vote, compared to President Obama's 39%, but this was offset somewhat by the white vote making up a smaller percentage of voters, 70% v. 72% in 2012.

More here [link:http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-votes-african-americans-latinos-women-white-voters/index.html|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ClarendonDem (Reply #104)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 01:25 AM

113. Voter disenfrachisment

Orchestrated by white men--the GOP, the party of white men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #113)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 01:03 PM

119. Agreed

 

That also is a reason she lost. I really don't think that we can say identify "the" reason though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ClarendonDem (Reply #119)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 01:14 PM

121. I don't know if there is any one reason

It was a confluence of factors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #121)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 01:21 PM

122. Yep

 

That was the point I was trying to make, you just made it better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread