HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Refusal to accept Clinton...

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:27 PM

 

Refusal 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/

366 replies, 38918 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 366 replies Author Time Post
Reply Refusal to accept Clinton as the Nominee is Rooted in Misogyny and Racism (Original post)
bravenak Jun 2016 OP
TeacherB87 Jun 2016 #1
bravenak Jun 2016 #3
Hortensis Jun 2016 #230
bravenak Jun 2016 #251
Hortensis Jun 2016 #256
bettyellen Jun 2016 #296
AntiBank Jun 2016 #294
Hortensis Jun 2016 #298
AntiBank Jun 2016 #310
yeoman6987 Jun 2016 #79
pnwmom Jun 2016 #102
MadDAsHell Jun 2016 #134
pnwmom Jun 2016 #137
TeacherB87 Jun 2016 #197
liberalmike27 Jun 2016 #129
tecelote Jun 2016 #178
k8conant Jun 2016 #308
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #228
lostnfound Jun 2016 #185
Octafish Jun 2016 #200
bravenak Jun 2016 #2
mcar Jun 2016 #56
bravenak Jun 2016 #57
mcar Jun 2016 #58
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #96
bravenak Jun 2016 #97
Whimsey Jun 2016 #108
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2016 #241
Red Knight Jun 2016 #184
bravenak Jun 2016 #191
Red Knight Jun 2016 #218
bravenak Jun 2016 #223
ruggerson Jun 2016 #203
Armstead Jun 2016 #212
bettyellen Jun 2016 #219
Armstead Jun 2016 #220
bravenak Jun 2016 #226
Armstead Jun 2016 #243
bravenak Jun 2016 #249
Armstead Jun 2016 #250
bravenak Jun 2016 #252
Matt_R Jun 2016 #284
bravenak Jun 2016 #286
Matt_R Jun 2016 #288
bravenak Jun 2016 #289
Matt_R Jun 2016 #290
bravenak Jun 2016 #291
Post removed Jun 2016 #292
Glamrock Jun 2016 #4
bravenak Jun 2016 #7
lancer78 Jun 2016 #45
Matt_R Jun 2016 #285
jillan Jun 2016 #104
bravenak Jun 2016 #109
underthematrix Jun 2016 #12
TheBlackAdder Jun 2016 #26
sheshe2 Jun 2016 #55
JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #81
sheshe2 Jun 2016 #88
JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #95
riversedge Jun 2016 #168
TheBlackAdder Jun 2016 #193
Sancho Jun 2016 #181
Armstead Jun 2016 #214
jack_krass Jun 2016 #344
Florencenj2point0 Jun 2016 #107
MadDAsHell Jun 2016 #135
Florencenj2point0 Jun 2016 #187
msanthrope Jun 2016 #28
sheshe2 Jun 2016 #53
Glamrock Jun 2016 #90
msanthrope Jun 2016 #145
MoonRiver Jun 2016 #204
athena Jun 2016 #208
Armstead Jun 2016 #244
msanthrope Jun 2016 #245
Armstead Jun 2016 #246
azurnoir Jun 2016 #132
msanthrope Jun 2016 #144
azurnoir Jun 2016 #149
Armstead Jun 2016 #247
Matt_R Jun 2016 #287
annavictorious Jun 2016 #49
Whimsey Jun 2016 #110
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2016 #123
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #299
floriduck Jun 2016 #5
bravenak Jun 2016 #6
floriduck Jun 2016 #8
840high Jun 2016 #77
chwaliszewski Jun 2016 #86
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #9
bravenak Jun 2016 #24
DemonGoddess Jun 2016 #10
bravenak Jun 2016 #27
Hekate Jun 2016 #125
RazBerryBeret Jun 2016 #11
scscholar Jun 2016 #16
RazBerryBeret Jun 2016 #17
leftofcool Jun 2016 #61
sheshe2 Jun 2016 #66
DawgHouse Jun 2016 #82
840high Jun 2016 #78
tabasco Jun 2016 #13
Baitball Blogger Jun 2016 #44
Live and Learn Jun 2016 #59
ancianita Jun 2016 #242
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2016 #14
msanthrope Jun 2016 #33
qdouble Jun 2016 #41
chascarrillo Jun 2016 #201
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #205
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #47
pnwmom Jun 2016 #106
Florencenj2point0 Jun 2016 #113
think Jun 2016 #15
elleng Jun 2016 #18
840high Jun 2016 #80
sufrommich Jun 2016 #19
Quayblue Jun 2016 #25
Autumn Jun 2016 #20
leftofcool Jun 2016 #63
Autumn Jun 2016 #74
JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #83
MattP Jun 2016 #100
Autumn Jun 2016 #111
jack_krass Jun 2016 #346
Whimsey Jun 2016 #115
Autumn Jun 2016 #117
gordianot Jun 2016 #128
Zen Democrat Jun 2016 #231
Whimsey Jun 2016 #358
jack_krass Jun 2016 #347
jack_krass Jun 2016 #345
TheCowsCameHome Jun 2016 #21
ismnotwasm Jun 2016 #22
bravenak Jun 2016 #38
babylonsister Jun 2016 #23
ucrdem Jun 2016 #30
Chan790 Jun 2016 #37
bravenak Jun 2016 #32
babylonsister Jun 2016 #40
bravenak Jun 2016 #42
Whimsey Jun 2016 #112
LineReply .
Baitball Blogger Jun 2016 #29
Chan790 Jun 2016 #31
bravenak Jun 2016 #35
ismnotwasm Jun 2016 #48
bravenak Jun 2016 #50
ismnotwasm Jun 2016 #52
leftofcool Jun 2016 #64
Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #34
bravenak Jun 2016 #36
sufrommich Jun 2016 #43
Whimsey Jun 2016 #118
LexVegas Jun 2016 #39
Arazi Jun 2016 #46
HassleCat Jun 2016 #51
ismnotwasm Jun 2016 #62
anAustralianobserver Jun 2016 #54
Live and Learn Jun 2016 #60
leftofcool Jun 2016 #65
Live and Learn Jun 2016 #69
athena Jun 2016 #67
Live and Learn Jun 2016 #68
athena Jun 2016 #70
Live and Learn Jun 2016 #71
athena Jun 2016 #76
Live and Learn Jun 2016 #91
athena Jun 2016 #93
Live and Learn Jun 2016 #198
think Jun 2016 #75
jillan Jun 2016 #72
bravenak Jun 2016 #85
sheshe2 Jun 2016 #73
bigwillq Jun 2016 #84
bravenak Jun 2016 #87
Florencenj2point0 Jun 2016 #89
bravenak Jun 2016 #94
ciaobaby Jun 2016 #92
Whimsey Jun 2016 #121
ciaobaby Jun 2016 #124
Whimsey Jun 2016 #293
ciaobaby Jun 2016 #297
Whimsey Jun 2016 #316
ciaobaby Jun 2016 #355
Whimsey Jun 2016 #357
ciaobaby Jun 2016 #359
Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #122
treestar Jun 2016 #98
bravenak Jun 2016 #99
TheFarseer Jun 2016 #101
jillan Jun 2016 #103
TheFarseer Jun 2016 #105
m-lekktor Jun 2016 #114
Florencenj2point0 Jun 2016 #116
TheFarseer Jun 2016 #120
Florencenj2point0 Jun 2016 #188
VulgarPoet Jun 2016 #350
TheFarseer Jun 2016 #356
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #119
peace13 Jun 2016 #126
bravenak Jun 2016 #127
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #130
Post removed Jun 2016 #131
betsuni Jun 2016 #133
bravenak Jun 2016 #140
gollygee Jun 2016 #158
betsuni Jun 2016 #173
MadDAsHell Jun 2016 #136
bravenak Jun 2016 #143
MadDAsHell Jun 2016 #282
bravenak Jun 2016 #283
tralala Jun 2016 #138
bravenak Jun 2016 #141
tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #139
azurnoir Jun 2016 #142
AgingAmerican Jun 2016 #146
Surya Gayatri Jun 2016 #147
cui bono Jun 2016 #148
Betty Karlson Jun 2016 #150
MFM008 Jun 2016 #151
Lunabell Jun 2016 #152
cali Jun 2016 #156
bravenak Jun 2016 #274
PaulaFarrell Jun 2016 #153
bravenak Jun 2016 #164
PaulaFarrell Jun 2016 #216
bravenak Jun 2016 #221
cali Jun 2016 #154
Juicy_Bellows Jun 2016 #157
bravenak Jun 2016 #161
cali Jun 2016 #195
bravenak Jun 2016 #227
B Calm Jun 2016 #155
bravenak Jun 2016 #166
Vinca Jun 2016 #159
bravenak Jun 2016 #167
Ash_F Jun 2016 #160
bravenak Jun 2016 #162
B Calm Jun 2016 #163
bravenak Jun 2016 #165
B Calm Jun 2016 #169
bravenak Jun 2016 #171
gollygee Jun 2016 #170
bravenak Jun 2016 #172
Orsino Jun 2016 #174
bravenak Jun 2016 #175
Orsino Jun 2016 #177
stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #176
Sky Masterson Jun 2016 #179
bravenak Jun 2016 #183
Sky Masterson Jun 2016 #186
bravenak Jun 2016 #190
Sky Masterson Jun 2016 #192
gollygee Jun 2016 #281
KansDem Jun 2016 #180
Scuba Jun 2016 #182
PowerToThePeople Jun 2016 #189
Logical Jun 2016 #194
cpwm17 Jun 2016 #196
MoonRiver Jun 2016 #202
cpwm17 Jun 2016 #206
MoonRiver Jun 2016 #207
cpwm17 Jun 2016 #209
MoonRiver Jun 2016 #210
cpwm17 Jun 2016 #213
MoonRiver Jun 2016 #217
cpwm17 Jun 2016 #233
MoonRiver Jun 2016 #248
bravenak Jun 2016 #240
Starry Messenger Jun 2016 #199
workinclasszero Jun 2016 #211
MaggieD Jun 2016 #215
bravenak Jun 2016 #222
MaggieD Jun 2016 #224
bravenak Jun 2016 #225
OKDem08 Jun 2016 #229
democrattotheend Jun 2016 #232
Deb Jun 2016 #234
bravenak Jun 2016 #235
Rex Jun 2016 #236
bravenak Jun 2016 #237
Rex Jun 2016 #238
bravenak Jun 2016 #239
Rex Jun 2016 #269
bravenak Jun 2016 #271
Rex Jun 2016 #273
bravenak Jun 2016 #275
Rex Jun 2016 #279
bravenak Jun 2016 #280
Marr Jun 2016 #253
gollygee Jun 2016 #254
Marr Jun 2016 #257
gollygee Jun 2016 #259
Marr Jun 2016 #260
bravenak Jun 2016 #262
gollygee Jun 2016 #263
bravenak Jun 2016 #255
Marr Jun 2016 #258
bravenak Jun 2016 #261
Marr Jun 2016 #264
bravenak Jun 2016 #265
gollygee Jun 2016 #266
bravenak Jun 2016 #268
Marr Jun 2016 #267
bravenak Jun 2016 #270
gollygee Jun 2016 #276
bravenak Jun 2016 #278
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2016 #295
whistler162 Jun 2016 #272
bravenak Jun 2016 #277
seabeyond Jun 2016 #300
bravenak Jun 2016 #301
seabeyond Jun 2016 #302
bravenak Jun 2016 #303
seabeyond Jun 2016 #304
bravenak Jun 2016 #306
jonno99 Jun 2016 #305
bravenak Jun 2016 #307
bonemachine Jun 2016 #309
bravenak Jun 2016 #311
bonemachine Jun 2016 #313
Whimsey Jun 2016 #319
bonemachine Jun 2016 #322
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #312
bonemachine Jun 2016 #315
Exilednight Jun 2016 #314
bonemachine Jun 2016 #354
jalan48 Jun 2016 #317
w4rma Jun 2016 #318
eastwestdem Jun 2016 #320
Cha Jun 2016 #321
bravenak Jun 2016 #325
Cha Jun 2016 #328
bravenak Jun 2016 #329
Cha Jun 2016 #331
bravenak Jun 2016 #333
Cha Jun 2016 #334
bravenak Jun 2016 #335
Cha Jun 2016 #336
slipslidingaway Jun 2016 #323
bravenak Jun 2016 #324
slipslidingaway Jun 2016 #330
bravenak Jun 2016 #332
slipslidingaway Jun 2016 #337
bravenak Jun 2016 #339
Haveadream Jun 2016 #365
azurnoir Jun 2016 #338
bravenak Jun 2016 #340
azurnoir Jun 2016 #341
bravenak Jun 2016 #342
highprincipleswork Jun 2016 #326
bravenak Jun 2016 #327
jack_krass Jun 2016 #343
yodermon Jun 2016 #348
Gothmog Jun 2016 #349
Herman4747 Jun 2016 #351
Herman4747 Jun 2016 #352
bravenak Jun 2016 #361
NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #353
bravenak Jun 2016 #360
NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #362
bravenak Jun 2016 #363
Jakes Progress Jun 2016 #364
SunSeeker Jun 2016 #366

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:32 PM

1. Don't forget conspiracy theorism.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeacherB87 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:33 PM

3. Absolutely

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:12 PM

230. Absolutely and as basic than misogyny and racism.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #230)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:10 PM

251. It has a religiosity about it that I just can't understand

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #251)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:14 PM

256. Oh, yes. Areligious fanaticism. For sure.

Extreme righteousness is a key characteristic of both the far left and far right, including the religious far right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #251)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:24 PM

296. Bingo. I found that among my poker friends. One quietly admitted that HRC is not evil incarnate and

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #230)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:17 PM

294. appeal to the far right??? what planet are you on??

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiBank (Reply #294)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:11 PM

298. AntiBank, Sanders set out to draw from the right

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #298)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:36 PM

310. if you truly mean far hard right, you are delving into white nationalists who would NEVER support a

 

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeacherB87 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:03 PM

79. So was that the reason Sarah lost in 2008?

 

I think some don't like Hillary's policies. Too right wing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #79)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:56 PM

102. She is an idiot who could not even give the name of a newspaper she reads.

The former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, who bragged about being able to see Russia from her backyard.

No comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #102)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:55 AM

134. Uh, you're quoting SNL, not reality.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Reply #134)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:14 AM

137. That skit was based on a real interview with Katie Couric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_interviews_with_Katie_Couric

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #102)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:43 AM

197. Agreed

 

What a stupid comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #79)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:59 AM

129. This Post

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmike27 (Reply #129)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:57 AM

178. +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmike27 (Reply #129)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:27 PM

308. +27

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #79)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:40 PM

228. McCain was the top of that ticket and he lost

to President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeacherB87 (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:25 AM

185. Don't forget pacifism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeacherB87 (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:34 AM

200. ++ Good esp. considering how Bush and Bill work @ UBS

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:32 PM

2. Excerpt

 

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?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:38 PM

56. It's the "right kind of votes" thing that still gets me

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #56)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:41 PM

57. I found it highly insenstive

 

I never expected that at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #57)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:42 PM

58. Not from purported progressives

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #57)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:33 PM

96. I was offended too.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #96)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:34 PM

97. I agree, it is hard to quit them of this type of thinking

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #56)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:04 AM

108. Not a surprise to me

 

As a northern woman living in a southern Baptist community - women stand with their men!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #56)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:50 PM

241. No kidding

How many times have we heard those votes written as the Confederacy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:22 AM

184. I don't know what your REAL purpose is behind these 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Red Knight (Reply #184)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:37 AM

191. I can totally tell who did not even read the first paragraph

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #191)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:39 PM

218. Oh yes--I read it before I responded.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Red Knight (Reply #218)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:35 PM

223. The title was also not written by me

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:17 AM

203. thank you!

beautifully articulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:22 PM

212. blah,blah,blah...blah de fucking da

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #212)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:09 PM

219. We all saw your OP about HRC knowing her place...

 

you've really learned nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #219)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:09 PM

220. Guess not.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #212)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:38 PM

226. You did not even read it if thats what you got out of it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #226)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:54 PM

243. I did read it....But all that was really needed to know was the offensive headline

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #243)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:07 PM

249. There there, it will be okay

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #249)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:10 PM

250. I don't need your "there, there's" thank you.

 

I don't even know why I bothered to post in this silly obnoxious totally wrongheaded thread.

I should know better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #250)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:11 PM

252. Aww! It's gonna be fine, you'll see.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #252)


Response to Matt_R (Reply #284)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:46 PM

286. Are you the FBI?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #286)


Response to Matt_R (Reply #288)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:55 PM

289. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #289)


Response to Matt_R (Reply #290)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:01 PM

291. Still not scared

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #291)


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:33 PM

4. So,

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....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glamrock (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:34 PM

7. Try reading the article linked

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:15 PM

45. The piece of

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lancer78 (Reply #45)


Response to bravenak (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:59 PM

104. It's not an article - it's someone's blog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #104)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:04 AM

109. So?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glamrock (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:38 PM

12. I don't want Warren as the VP pick. I would prefer Sec Julian Castro. But I trust

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:55 PM

26. Castro is about ready as Rubio would be. Propped up more by the media and institution than anything.

.


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.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #26)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:37 PM

55. Please do not compare Castro to Rubio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #55)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:05 PM

81. Some of the things I have seen of Castro are disturbing...

He thinks of himself as a bigshot, talks of private jetsetting etc rather than doing the good work of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #81)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:17 PM

88. Would you link please?

That helps a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #88)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:30 PM

95. It was in the politico profile

When Obama did call with an offer a few months later, Castro had already figured out what it was—Transportation secretary—and that he didn’t want it, though he and his advisers had been intrigued by the kind of travel he could do with the private jet that came with the job. You can tell Obama’s a good lawyer, Castro told people after he got off the phone, from how he felt Castro out without ever actually saying what the call was about. Castro couldn’t see what he was going to get from spending a couple of years cutting ribbons on infrastructure projects and talking up the Highway Bill.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #95)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:09 AM

168. Ah-Politico--the RW mouthpiece!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #168)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:49 AM

193. Yet, you love citing scores of their articles when it fits your narrative.

.


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


.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #95)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:03 AM

181. This was a pretty poor source, and more innuendo than factual.

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.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid meets with Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Nominee Julián Castro on July 7, 2014
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):

America didn't become the land of opportunity by accident. My grandmother's generation and generations before always saw beyond the horizons of their own lives and their own circumstances. They believed that opportunity created today would lead to prosperity tomorrow. That's the country they envisioned, and that's the country they helped build. The roads and bridges they built, the schools and universities they created, the rights they fought for and won—these opened the doors to a decent job, a secure retirement, the chance for your children to do better than you did.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #181)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:32 PM

214. Positions? Just a lot of Centrist Happy talk and complaints about the GOP.

 

Salesmanship more than a vision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:14 AM

344. Sounds like he'd fit in perfectly with an HRC admin

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:03 AM

107. I agree

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Florencenj2point0 (Reply #107)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:58 AM

135. Impressed that a DUer has included Asians as people of color.

 

Usually they're excluded as being "too privileged."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Reply #135)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:32 AM

187. yes, as Viet Namese ...

immigrants about that, just to name one group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glamrock (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:58 PM

28. Would you ever compare two men in such a manner? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:34 PM

53. Ouch!

Well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:19 PM

90. Of course

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glamrock (Reply #90)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:10 AM

145. I am so glad you've explained how comparing women's hair color isn't sexist at all. Truly. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #145)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:23 AM

204. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #145)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:46 AM

208. I, too, found it very strange

that someone would describe HRC and EW not as "two progressive female politicians" but as "both in their sixties, blond, female, white".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #145)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:59 PM

244. I suppose anyone who makes fun of Trump's hair is being inappropriate

 

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #244)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:00 PM

245. Keep digging. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #245)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:01 PM

246. Thank you. I'll dig as much as I want.

 

I don't much care anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:12 AM

132. yes why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #132)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:08 AM

144. That you refer to women by their hair color is not something I would brag about, but you go right

 

ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #144)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:41 AM

149. you asked if anyone would refer to men in that manner I replied I didn't refer to any women

now just to be clear I'm a blond 60 year old woman who supports Sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #149)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:04 PM

247. OMG....You mentioned your hair color!

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #149)


Response to Glamrock (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:18 PM

49. I'm sure that the hypothetical Sanders supporter you reference

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glamrock (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:07 AM

110. The point was denying the legitimacy of her victory

 

not disagreeing with her policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glamrock (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:46 AM

123. The OP is the perfect, perfect rhetorical frame.

 

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glamrock (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:06 PM

299. The article isn't about people who don't support Hillary, it's about people who DENY THAT SHE WON.

If you're not trying to deny that Hillary's victory happened, obviously you're not who the article was talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:33 PM

5. I'll accept that you have a link but call the claim absolute bullshit. But you have every right to

 

post it until June 16 like the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:34 PM

6. It's not bullshit at all. I called this months agi

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:35 PM

8. Then I guess your call is bullshit too. Everyone makes mistakes at some point.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:02 PM

77. + a zillion

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:09 PM

86. + a zillion and one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:35 PM

9. Saying 'rooted' goes too far, but there is an element of that in the tone-deafness.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:54 PM

24. I think the titles always do that bombastic thing

 

Often the writer does not even choose the title

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:38 PM

10. you know

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemonGoddess (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:55 PM

27. Hard for them to see since it's not aimed at them

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemonGoddess (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:52 AM

125. Reminds me of my first pass at grad school, where I began to have my doubts about ...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:38 PM

11. Every F'ing thing about Clinton

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RazBerryBeret (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:43 PM

16. This. She's done so much...

 

to hurt our rights and has set us back decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:45 PM

17. Just think what her presidency

Would have in store for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:45 PM

61. Tick tock!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:50 PM

66. You are a woman?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:07 PM

82. How so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RazBerryBeret (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:03 PM

78. Same here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:39 PM

13. That is a very broad generalization, which indicates a lack of critical thinking.

 

I would be embarrassed to make such a stupid assertion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:08 PM

44. It is an amazing, gratuitous over-simplification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:42 PM

59. +10,000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:10 PM

242. +1,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:42 PM

14. Right, Criticizing Clinton is racist because she's white.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:59 PM

33. Criticizing PoC who vote for her as having "Stockholm Syndrome" certainly is. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:06 PM

41. the racist part is about dismissing the fact that she won largely because of the margins

black voters gave her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qdouble (Reply #41)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:51 AM

201. Presenting POCs as a unified homogenous block is racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chascarrillo (Reply #201)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:26 AM

205. Most != homogenous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:17 PM

47. No, saying stuff like "Hillary won the Confederacy" is.

And "winning South Carolina is as significant as Guam".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:01 AM

106. No. But denying the votes of the millions of largely black and latino voters

who supported her -- trying to overturn the vote of the pledged delegates at the convention -- is racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:17 AM

113. ummmmm no

criticizing the people who vote for as low in formation black folk from the south is racist....

get a grip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:43 PM

15. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, UBS, and millions in cash have much more to do

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:46 PM

18. Exactly.

I do like THINKers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:04 PM

80. .+1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:46 PM

19. "When people say that Clinton stole the election or that Sanders is the true winner,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #19)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:54 PM

25. "The right kind of votes"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:48 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:47 PM

63. Not in my case. I just don't like him period. But, I don't like angry white men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #63)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:00 PM

74. I don't like angry men either, black or white. Interesting how you added race to it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #63)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:07 PM

83. Perhaps not in your case, but it has been demonstrated on DU, Kos, etc.

And it is quite revealing how you say "angry white men" rather than "angry men" or "angry candidates". Telling indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:51 PM

100. You calling the overwhelming number of jews who support Hillary antisemites

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattP (Reply #100)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:07 AM

111. Don't know where you got that, you must have replied to the wrong person .

I said nothing about Jewish people who support Hillary.
These are my posts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2177274
Star Member Autumn (29,535 posts)
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

Autumn (29,535 posts)
74. I don't like angry men either, black or white. Interesting how you added race to it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #111)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:18 AM

346. It's Hill-logic. Get used to it...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:19 AM

115. Bernie is no more jewish than I am

 

And I am a lapsed Catholic. We all like to tout our religious roots, but not of us actually practice them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whimsey (Reply #115)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:21 AM

117. Nonsense. Bernie has not touted any religious roots. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whimsey (Reply #115)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:58 AM

128. Well seeing what happened to his father's family someone had their number.

Literally, and it is not a pun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whimsey (Reply #115)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:15 PM

231. Oh, did your grandparents die in the Holocaust?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #231)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 03:39 PM

358. NO my grandparents survived German occupation in WWI

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whimsey (Reply #115)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:19 AM

347. More hill-logic, being jewish means a race and culture

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:16 AM

345. Yep

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:48 PM

21. It's all true. It was on the internet.

Plus, some blogger wrote it.

What a complete load of bull......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:49 PM

22. This:

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.


Snip--------------

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:02 PM

38. Exactly

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:50 PM

23. Wrong.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:58 PM

30. The article isn't about Sanders supporters in general, just the holdouts

The article is about the supporters convinced that Clinton somehow stole the thing and Bernie really won or should have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #30)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:02 PM

37. As a holdout...

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:59 PM

32. It said at the beginning it was not about everyone, just a portion

 

If you are not saying she cheated or did not win legitimately, it has nothing to do with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #32)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:04 PM

40. Then maybe your OP title should reflect that.

I didn't read it because it didn't apply to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #40)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:08 PM

42. I copied the title verbatim

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:14 AM

112. This article is about Bernie supporters who deny she won the primary

 

It has nothing to do with not liking her!

Does anyone on this site read?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:58 PM

29. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:58 PM

31. No, it's not.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:00 PM

35. You obviously did not read it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #35)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:18 PM

48. Posts about gender and race bring out the old players

I remember them well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #48)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:20 PM

50. Feel like old times!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #50)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:33 PM

52. Sure does!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:48 PM

64. What you advocate is not going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:59 PM

34. In 2008, there were a small number of Clinton supporters who hoped

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric J in MN (Reply #34)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:01 PM

36. Maybe they were

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric J in MN (Reply #34)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:08 PM

43. Quite a few of those PUMAs were indeed racist.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric J in MN (Reply #34)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:24 AM

118. You are making a different point than the article.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:03 PM

39. Yes, it is. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:16 PM

46. Lol!! Keep going back to the well eh? SMDH

Bernie supporters don’t deserve this shit but you knew that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:31 PM

51. The denial phase.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HassleCat (Reply #51)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:47 PM

62. You know what I think?

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:35 PM

54. Yeah... no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:45 PM

60. I accept Clinton as the nominee. I just won't vote for her. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #60)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:48 PM

65. Bye bye!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #65)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:54 PM

69. See you. Where are you going? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #60)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:52 PM

67. Then DU is not the site for you.

They would love to have you at the Free Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #67)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:54 PM

68. I think you would probably be happier there. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #68)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:57 PM

70. Because I support the Democratic Party's presidential nominee?

Oh, that's right. I forgot that Bernie supporters have redefined up to mean down and black to mean white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #70)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:59 PM

71. I was thinking about the issues. But you are right, it doesn't really matter which site. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #71)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:02 PM

76. Clearly, you have not bothered to look at Hillary's positions on the issues.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #76)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:21 PM

91. It can be a bit difficult since she is constantly flipping but I assure you that I know where she

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #91)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:24 PM

93. Thanks for the insult.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #93)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:08 AM

198. The insulter is now insulted? Cute. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #70)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:01 PM

75. Al From laughs....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:00 PM

72. 5 more days. You have 5 more days to tell this mixed raced woman

that I am a misogynist and a racist. Better get it out of your system while you have the chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #72)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:09 PM

85. Was your name in this article?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:00 PM

73. That article nailed it.

I read every damn word.

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?


Thanks bravenak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:09 PM

84. I don't agree with that.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #84)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:10 PM

87. This is not about thise who accept that she won

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:17 PM

89. Before I even finish reading the article.....

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Florencenj2point0 (Reply #89)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:28 PM

94. I agree that he has not pulled her to the left

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:21 PM

92. This is total bullshit

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ciaobaby (Reply #92)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:32 AM

121. That's not what the article said

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whimsey (Reply #121)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:51 AM

124. My opinion aside

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ciaobaby (Reply #124)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:12 PM

293. Well you certainly haven't stated why you think the win was illegitimate

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whimsey (Reply #293)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:07 PM

297. let's try this again

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ciaobaby (Reply #297)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:36 PM

316. OK you made the argument that if a white male thought the process was rigged

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whimsey (Reply #316)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:05 PM

355. It is apparent you have already made up your mind

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ciaobaby (Reply #355)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 03:35 PM

357. You missed my point

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whimsey (Reply #357)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:10 PM

359. I don't think it is wise for you to compare what Hillary did in 2008.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ciaobaby (Reply #92)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:40 AM

122. +1 (NT)

NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:36 PM

98. Reminds me of birtherism

This black guy cannot possibly br qualified Likewise this woman could not have won. She must have cheated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #98)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:45 PM

99. Me too. This is terrible

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:53 PM

101. And racist?

Are you out of your fucking mind? It's really the only question I can ask at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheFarseer (Reply #101)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:58 PM

103. Here here!! She has been calling me a racist for a year (?) and I am a mixed race.



And it's allowed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #103)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:01 AM

105. Yeah , I'm white and I hate Hillary because she is white

Yeah, that makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheFarseer (Reply #105)


Response to TheFarseer (Reply #105)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:20 AM

116. comprehension much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Florencenj2point0 (Reply #116)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:29 AM

120. No, I get it

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheFarseer (Reply #120)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:34 AM

188. yes, it makes perfect sense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheFarseer (Reply #105)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:16 AM

350. They have a thing about projection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VulgarPoet (Reply #350)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 01:43 PM

356. Wow, does that person do anything Besides post on message boards?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:24 AM

119. I dont think so

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:54 AM

126. This is fucked up!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peace13 (Reply #126)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:57 AM

127. Everything is

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)


Response to bravenak (Original post)


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:36 AM

133. Absolutely there's unconscious misogyny.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #133)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:58 AM

140. I agree with you

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #133)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:54 AM

158. I think the assumption that she must be lying about EVERYTHING

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #158)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:38 AM

173. I will bookmark this for link evidence, thanks.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:02 AM

136. As another poster said, this article is genius propaganda knowing liberals are terrified of...

 

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Reply #136)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:05 AM

143. If people vote based on the ops I post?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Reply #136)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:15 PM

282. You're awfully prideful aren't you?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Reply #282)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:35 PM

283. You do realize that you are replying to your own self with this post, right?

 

And boy, was what you said to yourself the MOST APPROPRIATE self reply I have ever seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:17 AM

138. What's your opinion about the article you linked to?

Do you agree that refusal to accept Clinton as the nominee is rooted in misogyny and racism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tralala (Reply #138)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:00 AM

141. Some of it

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:36 AM

139. Nah...i just simply don't like corrupt candidates...

Or ones under federal criminal investigation.

I also like candidates I can trust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:01 AM

142. IMO a rather lazy catch all appeals to the emotions no critical thinking required

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:12 AM

146. So, if you don't believe Hillary won the nomination fair and square

 

You are a misogynistic racist? Really?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:33 AM

147. Massive K & R. Thanks for posting. So spot on.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:40 AM

148. No, it's rooted in cheating and corporate control of the message.

You really need to start paying attention.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:48 AM

150. That accusation has now been hurled so many times,

 

it's an insult to actual victims of racism and sexism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:54 AM

151. I think women

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:13 AM

152. Is this your opinion?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lunabell (Reply #152)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:32 AM

156. yes, that is the op's opinion. She's made it abundantly clear in many 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #156)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:45 PM

274. She did run a racist campaign in 08

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:13 AM

153. Still beating this drum?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PaulaFarrell (Reply #153)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:04 AM

164. This is the same type of op I posted before this primary started.

 

Now I am back to it. Thank for your concern, you can now concentrate on your own posts from here on out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #164)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:44 PM

216. sorry you can't post something and expect people not to read it

So I guess o can concentrate on anything I want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PaulaFarrell (Reply #216)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:32 PM

221. People posting in ths very thread did not bother to 'read' it. Just complain.

 

I am going to post as I please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:27 AM

154. what disgusting bull. And I say that as someone who accepted that

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #154)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:44 AM

157. Almost like you voted for the white woman, you anti-Semite!

See? Goes both ways for the children.

Sad state of affairs we find ourselves in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #154)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:00 AM

161. Funny how automatically you seem to think I wrote this or completely agree with anything

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #161)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:00 AM

195. Obvious is obvious And you are nothing if not obvious.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #195)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:39 PM

227. I never was a front

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:59 AM

155. The last time I checked, Hillary and Bernie are both Caucasian.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #155)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:05 AM

166. So what.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:58 AM

159. I suppose just not agreeing with the candidate's positions is out of the question.

Surely it must be hatred of white women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #159)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:08 AM

167. People should read the writing posted at the link

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:59 AM

160. You sure it doesn't have anything to do with a $15 minimum wage?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #160)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:02 AM

162. Not everything follows your idea of what people do or should want

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:02 AM

163. Another race baiting flame post from a Hillary supporter allowed to stand!

 

Jury results 4 to 3! Hopefully the administrators will take a closer look at this divisive post and hide it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #163)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:05 AM

165. How about you try to concentrate on your own posts?

 

Noting is wrong with my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #165)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:10 AM

169. Well of course you believe that, after all you did DURec your own OP.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #169)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:15 AM

171. Absolutely

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:15 AM

170. I don't think people are reading the linked opinion piece

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #170)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:16 AM

172. Thank you for posting that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:45 AM

174. Refusal to acknowledge inequality is rooted in wealth and power.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #174)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:52 AM

175. Not always the case

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #175)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:56 AM

177. Accepting that she won a rigged process is another necessary step in our evolution.

Deciding what exactly we should unrig, and how, lie beyond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:55 AM

176. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:58 AM

179. It most Definately IS rooted in Bigotry.


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)




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sky Masterson (Reply #179)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:21 AM

183. Why must you post your anti Hillary/Mighty Israel posts here?

 

It is off subject of the posted link. I have no idea what Israel has to do with the op. I find this strange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #183)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:29 AM

186. The post claimed that lack of support for hillary was bigotry

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sky Masterson (Reply #186)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:36 AM

190. So you just decided not to actually read the linked piece and instead let me know

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #190)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:45 AM

192. I read about two lines of it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sky Masterson (Reply #192)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:06 PM

281. It doesn't say that

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:00 AM

180. Nonsense...

It's about not wanting more of the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:15 AM

182. Yes, those refusers love her policies, love election irregularities, but hate her gender and race.

 

Or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:35 AM

189. Lies.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:57 AM

194. Why do some hillary supporters continue to try to stir up shit? Like this OP? Why????? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:09 AM

196. Hillary's war mongering, and her supporters

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #196)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:03 AM

202. 4 more days...NUFF SAID

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Reply #202)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:30 AM

206. Selfishness is the cause of all evil in this world.

 

War is selfishness in its extreme.

Now, I guess, war must be defended here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #206)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:38 AM

207. I certainly don't defend war. And who, exactly, was commander in chief

when the recent wars, of which you speak, or imply, happened?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Reply #207)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:08 PM

209. That would be Bush.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #209)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:17 PM

210. So, in case you didn't know, here is the list of DEMOCRATIC Senators who voted yay.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Reply #210)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:26 PM

213. Hillary, to this day, openly supports war.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #213)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:45 PM

217. Please post links to support those claims. Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Reply #217)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:50 PM

233. Here are some:

 

-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

Hillary Clinton has often found herself on the defensive when asked to name her accomplishments as secretary of state, and Barack Obama isn’t making things any easier. Asked during an interview Sunday to name the “worst mistake” of his presidency, Obama said it was failing to anticipate the fallout from toppling Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011—one of the policies cited by Clinton as one of her chief accomplishments when she headed the State Department.


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

RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I’d like to go back to that if I could. ISIS doesn’t have aircraft, Al Qaida doesn’t have aircraft. So would you shoot down a Syrian military aircraft or a Russian airplane?

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

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #233)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:04 PM

248. Well,

most of what you post has to do with Obama's policies. As SoS she was required to support his policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #196)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:50 PM

240. Have no idea why discussion of Hillary and US internal politics gets turned into anti Israel screed

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:27 AM

199. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:22 PM

211. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:42 PM

215. I agree

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #215)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:34 PM

222. So glad to see you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #222)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:35 PM

224. Nice to see you too

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #224)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:37 PM

225. Surprised too.........

 

Seems like you've been gone forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:54 PM

229. Or it could be that..

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:48 PM

232. This article is a crock of shit

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:30 PM

234. what the writer fails to understand-

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deb (Reply #234)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:32 PM

235. Not enough will leave and we will need to bring in moderates to make up for you guys who do leave

 

Will pull the nation away from the left if we have to move to the center to bring in moderates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:33 PM

236. Some of it is, some of it is just plain old stubbornness and pettiness.

 

Some of it is coming from hyper-partisans that cannot stand to lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #236)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:35 PM

237. Yep

 

I would have voted for whoever won, no matter what. Trump is a danger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #237)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:40 PM

238. Me too, I always planned on voting for the primary winner.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #238)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:47 PM

239. I am pretty positive that many of the 'dead enders' are not really on our side anyway

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #239)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:29 PM

269. Agreed and that applies to many topics, a lot of us overlap somewhere in our progressive ideology.

 

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #269)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:34 PM

271. The ones who don't fear a Trump presidency or a Trumpian Supreme Court

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #271)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:39 PM

273. OMG. Cruz scared the shit out of me!

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #273)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:48 PM

275. He reminded me of that Left Behind series

 

I bet Kirk Cameron was sad as hell when Cruz quit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #275)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:53 PM

279. Oh yeah, speaking of another wackadoodle the man himself - Kirk Cameron.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #279)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:04 PM

280. So true.

 

I just want them all fucking raptured already so they can be happy and not bothering us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:12 PM

253. If you believe that, then you must also believe she's unelectable.

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #253)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:13 PM

254. She doesn't say that opposing Hillary is based on racism and misogyny

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #254)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:16 PM

257. So it's a sort of low simmering racism/misogyny, that will evaporate after the convention?

 

Nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #257)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:18 PM

259. What?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #259)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:20 PM

260. Actually, Bravenak just clarified her own point, and it isn't the one you made.

 

She's counting on fair minded Libertarians and Republicans to fill the gap left by racist/misogynistic liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #260)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:21 PM

262. That is not what I said at all

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #260)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:22 PM

263. Regardless, it isn't a big group of people

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #253)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:13 PM

255. Not a big chunk

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #255)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:18 PM

258. You're counting on Libertarians and Republicans...

 

to fill the gap left by all those racist/misogynistic liberals.

...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #258)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:21 PM

261. I'm saying that many of the holdouts ARE libertarians and Republixans

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #261)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:23 PM

264. That's even more nonsensical.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #264)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:24 PM

265. Many of his voters were NOT DEMOCRATS

 

Even here many have stated they are INDEPENDENTS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #265)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:27 PM

266. I also saw threads started by people

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #266)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:29 PM

268. I saw that time and time again

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #265)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:28 PM

267. Many of Hillary's supporters are Independents, too.

 

Many are race car drivers. Many are bank robbers.

"Many" doesn't mean much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #267)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:30 PM

270. Hillary never tried to pull in Trump voters

 

That was her opponent. Perhaps he was successful and that is why we see so manyCTs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #270)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:49 PM

276. This is one of the more frustrating threads ever

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #276)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:51 PM

278. I think they just look at my name and the title and just make assumptions

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #253)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:18 PM

295. Exactly. If it's this bad among Sanders supporters, imagine what it's like among non-liberals. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:39 PM

272. Of course hope stupid of me......

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #272)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:49 PM

277. This is not about you then

 

It's about the conspiracy theories about her not being the real winner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:07 PM

300. OMG... I didn't record this, all these days. ;) . I believe. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #300)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:10 PM

301. Strange how they now want her to 'beg' thrm for their votes

 

It's getting more disgusting by the day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #301)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:13 PM

302. Beg Sanders. The winner get on her knees and .... BEG Sanders. Ya. Pretty damn disrespectful

 

and disgusting, but hey, nothing about the patriarchy in DEMANDING Clinton beg... convincingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #302)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:14 PM

303. They are so transparent

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #303)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:16 PM

304. Pretty transparent as they point elsewhere and insist we look away. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #304)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:22 PM

306. Oh yes. The only thing worse than sexism is talking about sexism

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:18 PM

305. No it's not. In fact, if HRC were a man with the same resume and the same PROBLEMS, he never

would have gotten as far as she has.

IMHO...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #305)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:23 PM

307. Bullshit

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 06:28 PM

309. Here's the line that I almost stopped at:

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonemachine (Reply #309)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:19 PM

311. It kinda is a fact

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #311)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:22 PM

313. the problem with the assertion is that

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonemachine (Reply #313)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:47 PM

319. Its a democratic party - not an independent party

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whimsey (Reply #319)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:01 AM

322. Those are your opinions

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonemachine (Reply #309)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:49 PM

312. Clinton won by any measurable metric.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #312)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:29 PM

315. open primaries would have been one leveler...

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:29 PM

314. Another blogger with an opinion masquerading around as

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #314)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:54 AM

354. That's the thing, too

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:37 PM

317. Oh yeah-that's it for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:38 PM

318. A nasty, factless, baiting editorial. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 11:57 PM

320. Yes, and denial of the above maladies. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:59 AM

321. Hillary got more Votes. And, a huge majority of those votes come from POC and Women

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.

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?

Good article, Brave.. thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #321)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:38 AM

325. I really cannot see why they are still trying the same tactics today

 

It really is getting old

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #325)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:48 AM

328. They don't want us to talk about this reality. either.. they're still trying

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #328)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:50 AM

329. He showed us which groups are worth his attention and which ones are not

 

The excuses just show who he really is on the inside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #329)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 03:22 AM

331. From the very beginning his approach was misguided.. if he thought he had

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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #331)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 03:30 AM

333. That is why he lost

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #333)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 03:38 AM

334. I know you will, brave, and I thank all of you from the

bottom of my !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #334)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 03:40 AM

335. Awww!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #335)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 03:55 AM

336. So Happy

we have ya'll!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:31 AM

323. Please stop dividing people by race, gender or whatever a narrow mind can possibly contrive ...

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.











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slipslidingaway (Reply #323)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:37 AM

324. Please stop acting like the cause of racial division is black people discusding racial issues

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #324)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 03:14 AM

330. Never said that, just comparing the "History Made" of Clinton campaign, which many are promoting ...

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slipslidingaway (Reply #330)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 03:26 AM

332. Maybe some segments of the population have had too much power over others for too long and

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #332)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:28 AM

337. Can you imagine a 20 year old, poor Jewish man chaining himself to a black person ...

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




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slipslidingaway (Reply #337)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:55 AM

339. Of course I can imagine it

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #339)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:39 PM

365. Thank you for this

Just outstanding!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #332)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:54 AM

338. They who? here's my take what has deveeloped this campaign as I've already stated

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #338)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:56 AM

340. You know what? Not everything is about you personally and I actually avoid getting into it with you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #340)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:58 AM

341. No it quite obviously wasn't about me personally but I outlined how I was affected personally

2 different things

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #341)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:58 AM

342. Very difficult to suss out your meanings

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:43 AM

326. Bull. It's rooted in a love of traditional FDR style Democratic values, which get little support

 

from the Clintons and those they surround themselves with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highprincipleswork (Reply #326)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:47 AM

327. FDR who left the military segregated and left blacks and domestics (women) out of social security?

 

No thanks. That is the exact time we need not go back to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:12 AM

343. Wrong again.... this is ban-bait, but Ill bite....

 

*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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:28 AM

348. Get ready for James Comey to be labeled the biggest sexist in the history of men. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:56 AM

349. Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate in the field

The fact that some will not accept her victory is really sad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:18 AM

351. So completely dumb as hell. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:28 AM

352. This lady begs to differ:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Herman4747 (Reply #352)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:17 PM

361. Why should I care what she has to say?

 

Women can be sexist against other women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:58 AM

353. Of course, it couldn't be her right-of-center politics that doesn't sell well

 

on a Democratic site so it MUST be misogyny and racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #353)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:16 PM

360. You could not possibly have read it if that's what you got from it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #360)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:42 PM

362. I reject the entire premise of the title

 

on the basis that it is complete and utter bullshit. No need to read the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #362)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:51 PM

363. Then you were just complaining based on title

 

Awesome to know most people don't read

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:58 PM

364. Don't forget simple gullibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Original post)

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:02 PM

366. I agree with the author except for her claim that open primaries would be "fairer."

No, ratfucking would not be fairer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread