2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton represents the future while Bernie Sanders is a relic of the past
Last edited Tue Apr 26, 2016, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)
For far too long, white men have been in charge of this country. It's time for a new generation to stand up and take our country into the future. Hillary Clinton is building a coalition of African Americans, Latinos, Asians, LGBT and women that will take the reigns of our country.
There is a reason why white men are supporting Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. They are scared of the future. A future that is multicolored and multifaceted. A future where minorities will have a voice to lead our country into the future.
Hillary Clinton represents the future of our Democratic Party and country. Bernie Sanders represents the last gasps of white men's struggle to hold onto power.
Edit- A lot of angry responses in my thread. You guys are proving my point. Lashing out against a changing world...
Edit 2- I sincerely apologize. I forgot to include LGBT within Hillary Clinton's coalition. I have included it in the original post.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)with the problems of a Depression better than FDR?
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)This is the 21st century. Change is happening no matter if you like it or not. Hillary Clinton is leading a coalition that represents the future of our party and country.
Svafa
(594 posts)when her supporters are all old?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to those that revere a Clinton Aristocracy. How many millions have to slide into poverty before you figure it out that Citibank and Goldman-Sachs are not the friends of the 99%.
forest444
(5,902 posts)She just represents Wall Street. And, of course, the Saudis.
Hekate
(90,773 posts)Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)Get off your high horse!
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)If the future of the Democratic Party is more third-way, neoliberal, warhawkishness, you can have it.
Bernie and millennials are the future.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Sparkly
(24,149 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Couldn't help but notice this thread's theme is lifted directly from that list. Odd. Or not.
"He was to be characterized as 'an old white male relic'..."
HDSam
(251 posts)if Hillary is the future.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)Corrupt crony bought politicians that will say and do anything to manipulate people for their own gain.
War mongering, dictator supporting, quid pro quo, pay to play, complete lack of respect for human life and human rights that is the reason I do not support Hillary and the rest of the crony oligarchs that have sold out the American people for greed
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... of populism in this year's primaries.
Trump and Sanders are flip sides of the same impulse.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)salinsky
(1,065 posts)Squinch
(50,992 posts)Svafa
(594 posts)Massive income inequality regardless of race/ethnicity and corruption in politics are what drive Sanders supporters.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... his supporters are overwhelmingly white, so the impulse is the same.
Svafa
(594 posts)Just because his supporters are largely white doesn't mean that his message doesn't resonate in minority communities. It may just mean that many people (certainly not all, as I know many Sanders supporters who don't fit the stereotype) may just prefer his opponent. The reasons for this can be (and have been) debated. But it's a ridiculous assumption to say that just because minorities haven't gravitated heavily toward Sanders, it must mean that the people who do support him all do so because they are somehow afraid of losing their white privilege. Please tell me, what in Sanders's platform gives you the impression that his candidacy is an appeal only to disenfranchised whites?
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... this is resonating with whites because the most recent economic downturn was the first time that they weren't significantly shielded from the pain by white privilege.
It doesn't have the same effect on minority communities because they've always been economically insecure and unequal.
It's not a knock on his message, he's just done a poor job of communicating it to a key demographic.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)Thanks for the midday chuckle.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)I weep for this world with her and her bloodlust for war gaining power.
I thought we learned that Neocons are terrible the last time.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)Fuck those white guys, right? Get rid of those useless bastards. Who needs 'em?
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)This one is a real keeper.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)The future means winning the people who make up the emerging electorate. It's a new day and some people need to learn to get out of the driver's seat.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)But she drives us towards more corporatism and all of its ramifications, which are destructive on a planetary scale. That sounds like hyperbole but it's literally true. So no, that isn't who I want in the driver's seat.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Uhm, wait, there was something else... Oh yeah, he's white too. And old.
And he doesn't like Goldman Sachs.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)A woman who's Foreign Policy hearkens back to the coup staging that SCUM like Henry Kissinger and others pulled.
As I believe MLK Jr. said "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.".
Treating Mossadegh the way we did fractured the Middle East and made it more unstable. Pushing Augusto Pinoche made Chile a hellhole for everyone that disagreed with him(Military dictators always KILL those who disagree). All of this IMF Econ. Hitman crap has substantially impoverished those of the world who were forced under that crap. I don't CARE if I can't afford as many things by enslaving other societies under loan shark level loans.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)clinton?????
New....not the past? who are you fucking kidding? not me.
artyteacher
(598 posts)So far there has only been one Clinton Presidency. Lets think about giving up on the Clintons after the second, like we did with the Bushes.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)privatized water and schools and social securiity (all for the benefit of wall street.
jzodda
(2,124 posts)So Bernies message is lost on some people because of his skin color? Am I reading this right? This post is laughable and I am a Clinton supporter.
The OP is the only relic of the past around here.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)But thanks for speaking up as a Clinton supporter, much appreciated that you chimed in here with a voice of sanity.
I've seen the sentiment the OP expresses stated elsewhere, and realize it's a driving force behind some people's support for Hillary. I somewhat sympathize, which is partly why I voted for Jill Stein last time (safe blue state so wasn't losing it for Obama) and why I supported Elizabeth Warren until Bernie got in.
But where a vehicle is driving is much more important than who is driving it, talking about public transportation of course.
jzodda
(2,124 posts)I was going to edit and add that Bernie represents a vehicle for change but you beat me too it.
If the day happens when new deal type ideas becomes old then we are all in trouble and the rich and powerful and entitled win. Bernie could be a talking dog for all I care. The message is what's important and that he's been saying these things for years. He's not new to this fight against income inequality either so he has street cred.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)That's more of the corporate wall street attitude there.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Why do you think so many PoC are supporting her?
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I think they're supporting her for a variety of reasons, probably top among them being that she markets well to them, and has excellent brand recognition.
I think Bernie understands privilege of all kinds at a far deeper level than Hillary ever will.
Thanks for the OP, it actually made me laugh, rare.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)until she talks food deserts and the menace of payday lenders, lack of childcare, lack of educational and employment opportunities AND her role in helping that situation fester, she is just a bunch of focus group tested talking points. Absoluitely no genuine substance. She's stuck in the 90s before people understood what the Clinton's are really about.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I've always thought that she has a very solid core.
The weathervane thing is just her changing the product's packaging.
Her solid core is someone who is very slightly liberal on social issues, but she's primarily a global corporatist with the neoliberal economic policies and neocon foreign policies that come with global corporatism.
The focus groups and talking points are about how to present to the people, but the front end and her core don't seem very closely connected to me. Which would explain her low numbers on things like trust and authenticity. She has genuine substance, IMHO, but that substance is more welcome in corporate boardrooms than in popular elections, so it isn't on display.
Squinch
(50,992 posts)platform and her past actions with respect to the poor and children. I think you will be surprised.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)She was invited to a forum with BLM and grassroots activists focused on poverty. The event was organized by activists and the questions were unscripted. Sanders and O'Malley both participated she did not. It shows exactly what she thinks of poor people.
In her defense, many of the people who were there were poor because incomes were lost when parents were taken out of their families. Since welfare was also essentially abolished, thanks to the Clinton pre reelection vile agenda that revealed exactly when poor people really mean to them I can comprehend why it wouldn't have been politically expedient for her to be challenged on it. It is the only thing I can interpret as anything that resembles shame for what she helped do to people. But it's not enough. She is all too happy to exploit poor people and they matter only as much as they can contribute to getting her elected.
If the Clinton foundation redirected their mission to reparations for mass incarceration and if she and Bill apologize for their role in welfare reform, and she supported unionization of fast food workers and walmart employees AND severed ties because of how they exploit poor people maybe I could begin to buy the idea that she is not as callous as her past suggests and wants to see people succeed (not just those who she believes "deserve" it - as she said to BLM activists who approached her after an event.
Squinch
(50,992 posts)We had a conversation in the recent past where you completely misinterpreted Hillary's statement regarding late term abortion. You bought the opposition story that she was limiting abortion rights, when in fact she was actually calling for an expansion of them.
Much of your information about her is false. It is information that has been planted by Republicans over decades.
I don't think you are open to knowing that, but I'm just planting that seed.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)A reinterpretation of her words is not convincing "I would be willing to compromise if a particular bill to which has been used to demonize women by creating a solution in search of a problem (random callous women having abortions in their 9th month). The accept that it is valid accepts RW demonization of women. She did it with "safe legal and rare," as well.
As for mass incarceration and welfare reform, she really did promote those bills and both really did destroy the lives of many people on many levels. Bill and Hillary both claimed those policies were successful.
Planted republican talking points? They loved that legislation and I am going by her own words when she promoted those policies.
It's fairly common to reinterpret the words of someone a person sees as their last hope or hero to suit an argument to justify their worst qualities. I have done that with Obama before I took a look around me and figured out that 3% unemployment with 19% makes the jobs stats meaningless to a lot of people with good reason. I have spent time with families who have been affected by mass incarceration and it is a fact that an income provider and potential role model was removed from families because of drug possession. Those families did not have access to assistancenor did they have opportunities or resources for child care.
If these things really did not happen and republicans did not happily cheer it on, show me.
Squinch
(50,992 posts)what she was suggesting was an extension of abortion rights, and she was saying she would be willing to consider a constitutional action if it included that extension.
As for "safe, legal and rare," I don't see that as a stigmatization. I think it's just common sense. There are umpteen ways to prevent pregnancies or prevent implantation. An abortion is a medical procedure and as such, it carries risks as do all medical procedures. I would prefer that the woman had full access to abortion, but also had unfettered access to the other methods that are cheaper and safer and that are being denied to women all over the country. So I guess I, too, would like abortions to be safe, legal and rare.
The crime bill did create problems, but I can tell you that in the Bronx it was welcomed as a very positive move at the time it was passed.
And as I say, I see you are not convincible.
So be it.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)"Safe, legal, and rare" suggests that it is a bad thing to have an abortion rather than a neutral procedure to handle a physical condition that someone does not want. She also has used the term "unborn person." NO truly prochoice person uses that term. I think she is to the degree that it can help her in this election, but she is still catering to anti-choicers. That kind of pandering represents a serious lack of integrity.
I hear a lot of excuses for the crime bill the excuse you used may work for a person who represented a problematic region, but the resulting problems and mass incarceration were foreseeable and piggybacked on Nixon's drug war which was specifically designed to oppress people of color.
She could convince me if she issued a sincere apology and plan for reparations for the damage the policy she endorsed and promoted did to so many families.
Squinch
(50,992 posts)over the mother in the third trimester. And plenty of states are trying to do this. When Hillary said she would support a constitutional action that protects the mother in the third trimester, she was saying we need to take this right away from the states, and the mother's health and choice should be the paramount consideration nationwide throughout the pregnancy.
What she was saying needs to be outlawed are the state laws that endanger the mother for the health of the fetus in the third trimester.
"safe, legal and rare" means "safe, legal and rare." Parse her terminology all you like. Her actions have always been to protect and expand abortion rights. That's why Planned Parenthood stands behind her so staunchly and against ALL enemies. They know an ally when they see one.
She's not going to issue a sincere apology to you for a bill that her husband enacted almost a decade before she was a Senator.
And by the way, did you vote for Joe Biden as VP? Because he WROTE that crime bill.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)She did worse. She enthusiatically promoted it and celebrated what would ruin lives as a success of Bill's administration. How one could justify that and give her a pass is beyond me and it indicates exactly how callous USAers really are.
Cecile Richards may support her, but employees and activists for Planned Parenthood (especially thiose who deal with the women who in another time would have been eligible for public assistance. She doesn't owe me an apology, she owes one to everyone who has been denied opportunities because of "welfare reform" and to every person who has been economically affected by the mass incarceration that masks an institution of slavery.
There were a lot of contributions to the crime bill one being Biden's VAWA. I did not support him for president in 2008, and would not have had he run this time.
Squinch
(50,992 posts)hers. You can justify his vote, but you can't justify her boosterism? Ridiculous.
I have no doubt that you voted for Biden for VP despite his having WRITTEN the bill you blame her for, that she didn't even vote for.
You have no basis for saying that Planned Parenthood employees don't support her.
She was not in office when welfare reform was passed.
She has always advocated for protection and expansion of abortion rights.
All your points are ridiculous. There is no reason to keep talking to you.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)He also spoke out against the stuff that as we see now proved to be disasterous and anyone who does believe she didn't know that a disproportionate number of people of color would be enslaved by it seriously underestimates her intelligence.
Actually I have a number of friends who work for planned parenthood, NOW members, and NARAL employees who don't suppport her.
Again, she promoted welfare reform afteer promoting a bill that took income providers out of homes and called it a success after it passed. Do I need to find the videos?
Squinch
(50,992 posts)things all he wants. HE VOTED FOR IT. You think Hillary is the devil because she supported it, though she was in no position to do anything about it, but you give him a pass for VOTING for it.
You say, "anyone who does believe she didn't know that a disproportionate number of people of color would be enslaved by it seriously underestimates her intelligence." Did Sanders not know that when HE VOTED FOR IT? Is he not as intelligent as she is?
From your posts, it sounds like the crime bill is your biggest beef against Clinton. BUT SANDERS VOTED FOR IT.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)And she certainly didn't have to lobby for it. She chose to. She voluntarily promoted both the crime bill and welfare reform.
As people has been pointed out, Sanders spoke out against mandatory minimums, building more prisons, 3 strikes and the other parts that have driven the prison industrial complex and they development of private prisons that practice slavery. He voted for it because it had the VAWA attached. An intentional strategy to get people with compassion and a sense of justice to vote for it. Unless they wanted to betray women, the best most in congress could do was to speak against the problematic portions of the bill. They were obligated by their jobs to weigh in she did voluntarily and labeled it a success for the administration.
And even with all the people who have gone to prison over marijuana she still doesn't see or doesn't care about the injustice embedded in that policy enough to support legalization.
Squinch
(50,992 posts)voted for it.
Sorry. That's irrational. In fact, every argument you have given on any of these issues has been either demonstrably wrong or just bizarre.
So I guess we'll part ways.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)No amount of reasoning will get through some people. Voting for a bill (and having an opportunity to change things he didn't like because he was in, you know, the House) is nowhere as bad as giving a speech. I love the double standard and the hoops they will go thru for Bernie. Completely unbelievable. You did good
Squinch
(50,992 posts)dchill
(38,517 posts)She depends on it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I'm dumber for having read this thread.
frylock
(34,825 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)People often vote against their own interests.
--imm
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Does not need to learn not to build relationships. Sanders has for years never learned how to work with others, afterbtwenty five years I don't expect big changes, in fact he does not even claim to want to change his ways. Many have posted Sanders does not change.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)and then she named some Post Offices!
Spot check of Hillary Clinton's Senate record fails to support bipartisanship claim
Clinton said, "Every piece of legislation, just about, that I ever introduced (in the U.S. Senate) had a Republican co-sponsor."
By our review of legislation introduced by Clinton, she isn't even close.
Her campaign says she meant to cast the statement differently, but we cannot rule based on what candidates intended to say. Clinton introduced a significant amount of legislation without Republican co-sponsors.
We rate this claim False.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Put his record up, nothing to brag about. Yes Sanders knows how to handle influence, the NRA loves him, only costc a $18,000 donation to defeat his opponent.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)"There are so few members with large numbers of substantive and successful amendments," he said. "Sanders and Traficant were exceptions to that rule."
In comparison, Hillary Clinton passed zero roll call amendments during her tenure as a senator from New York from 2001-09.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/
Why do keep saying the NRA loves him when they rate him D-?Sanders has a lifetime score of D-minus from the NRA, and while Clinton might have a lower score, Sanders is not far removed from Clinton's overall stance on gun control. However, Clintons 2016 viewpoint on the Second Amendment is different from hers of only eight years ago. Her evolution on guns mirrors her flip-flops on Iraq, the Keystone XL pipeline, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), gay marriage, and numerous other contentious issues.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/266412-before-attacking-sanders-on-guns-clinton-was-annie
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)Though she did vote for a lot of really bad things.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Sanders voting against the Brady Bill five times a good vote and we are having 80 Americans killed a day is a bad vote. It was terrible along with other issues pushed by NRA.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed, but figures from both the control and treatment states track virtually identically. "Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed," Cook said. "It made no discernable difference. There is no statistically significant effect."
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2003_spr/cook.htm
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)created the Charleston loophole, nine more people dead. Not good.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)One could use the same argument.
A lot of people don't consider Jews to be "white men". Not sure your argument holds up.
elljay
(1,178 posts)I am trying my best to not lose my temper at the insulting insinuations of racism that you have asserted but it is hard. You owe an apology to the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of minority voters who support Bernie, to women who support him, to gay people who support him and to everyone else who bases their votes on well-reasoned analysis of a candidate's positions. This gay, Jewish woman with a non-white child plans on voting for Bernie precisely because I am a proud progressive and, having compared his positions to Hillary's, finds hers lacking. How dare you suggest that I am opposed to diversity when my family lives it!
frylock
(34,825 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Bernie is just drawing them out from behind their fig leaves.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)This OP is lifted from another OP. Check out post #94 it has the link.
We are all just stereotypes to the Clinton campaign. To them we are just defined by the color of our skin and/or our genitals with no individual agendas or preferences. How convenient and insulting.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)yes, then you are correct.
I don't think that many will look forward to it.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Kakistocracy -- government by the worst -- is the closest.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)A corporate hack who's been constantly in the public eye for almost 25 fucking years, longer than many of today's voters have been alive, represents the future. Thanks for the laugh of the millennium.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Hillary's run is historic because she is a woman, but make no mistake -- she is the status quo candidate.
And to say Bernie represents the last gasps of white men's struggle to hold onto power is so far afield and out of touch with reality as to no even deserve a response.
Really lame OP.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)They were not all white men. Get a clue.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)He of the Hillbotbros.
Kall
(615 posts)Your thread deserves the angry responses it's getting, and it's sad that you can't see that.
The sad thing is that this same message is often delivered more broadly in the public sphere, just more subtly and less obnoxiously. After all, as we learned in New Hampshire, women who don't support Hillary Clinton have a special place in Hell.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Bettie
(16,120 posts)haven't you received the memo yet?
I too do not apparently exist.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Carni
(7,280 posts)This has to be satire.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Vinca
(50,302 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)very rich women.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)dubyadiprecession
(5,720 posts)So you could say Hillary is the future. She will be in our history books long after we're all gone and forgotten. Whereas BS will just be a footnote.
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)Don't worry, you're one of way too many - millions, even. It's a real problem, driven by the media.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)The policy Hillary has described so far is largely a mix of inadequate and backwards. I don't care what her anatomy is.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)I posted a thread seeking specific issues where she is "not liberal" and got nothin' (except lots of insults, rumors, and emotional diatribes).
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)The lack of performance of one tread in one discussion forum proves nothing at all.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Racism and sexism is defeated when we live in a world where a person's character, talents, and ability are measured and valued on their own merits regardless of race, gender, or orientation.
I do not evaluate whether or not someone is white or male when deciding if and when to support their policies.
Those who do use those as evaluations for qualifying individuals are racist and/or sexist.
So, interesting category you find yourself in there.
Whenever I hear someone trot out, "White men, argle bargle!" my immediate thought it. "Ok great. Now, move on and finish your sophomore year if possible."
I excuse this bit of stupid in college students, because they're just deconstructing and reconstructing their ideologies on class and race.
But when grown ass adults lay down this steaming load, I just shake my damn head. It's cute in 19 year-olds. It's sad and depressing when someone's pushing 40 or more.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)Corruption.
But thanks for yet another sexist racist post. You do your party proud.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)I like how you implicitly don't even consider President Obama a Black man.
polichick
(37,152 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Svafa
(594 posts)Esperanza
(13 posts)imagine2015
(2,054 posts)But if you think a woman, Hillary Clinton, can do a better job or representing corporate American and Wall Street than some Republican
man I believe you are 100% right!
It's not about her sex.
It's about her conservative policies.
So pitch that old worn out "talking point" somewhere else.
It just won't fly here.
We're not that stupid.
And most young women, young Black people, young Latinos and young white working class men are backing Bernie, not Hillary.
Why do you think that is?
Perhaps they just don't agree with the policies and positions of the former Senator from Wall Street.
It's all about the money for the Clintons.
uponit7771
(90,356 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
frylock
(34,825 posts)I want no part of it, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with reproductive organs.
beedle
(1,235 posts)... especially when it comes to the "LGBT" sic) community .... if the Hillary camp wants to claim the future, maybe they should first catch up to the present ... how about LGBTQ, or LGBTI or LGBTQI there 'Buck Rogers'.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm a while male -- even worse a late middle age white male.
I and most other white males I know who support Bernie are not afraid in the least of being displaced by women, POC's or LGBT people. On the contrary. We want to see everyone advance.
We're worried about EVERYONE being displaced and marginalized and screwed over by greedy and power mad corporations, banksters and new day aristocrats.
I WANT women, POC, etc. tyhat you claim we are afraid of to unify against the common oppressors, for the good of everyone who is not in that upper, upper tier.
Marr
(20,317 posts)"He was to be characterized as "an old white male relic..."
Wow...
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Their recent present is dismal and it has everything to do with her. Mass incarceration and welfare reform shoved disadvantaged people down lower. The Iraq war limited and eliminated opportunities for people who signed up and died or came home with larger struggles ahead of them for her either ignorant or political expedient vote for IWR. People see no potential positive future with her leading the country because they are living the damage she has already contributed to.
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)It seems strange that a specific ethnic group is "the past," and others are the future?
I find the Pandora box of making this entirely about ethnic power plays kind of dangerous.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)It's all garbage anyway.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)The owners of this country are absolutely giddy with the knowledge that you think politics is a battle between genders and races.
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)He's probably full of shit but so is Hillary.
Karma13612
(4,554 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)italiangirl
(60 posts)Last time I checked Hillary is the past and yesterday. Bernie Sanders is the future and tomorrow. Take that to the bank. I am 85 years old and I voted for the future and tomorrow. I voted for all the young people to have a better chance in life by getting an education tuition free. They are the future and they are tomorrow. You voted for yesterday and the more of the same old bull chit and for a continuation of corporate America outsourcing their mone in foreign countries instead of investing in the future of the young people in America. Shame on you
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and possibly the millenium. future of war, torture, TPP, corruption, dark money, dismantling of social security and Medicare.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)None of those coalition partners are likely to stay with those that share her economic and social values post-Hillary. Even if she wins, she's likely the last gasp of a dying wing of the party. I fully expect that a year from now, they're going to have a "what the fuck have we done?" hangover when they realize that Hillary is every bit as bad for women, LGBTQ, and racial minorities as we tried to show them she was.
Their interests outside of viewing Hillary personally as a champion of their interests strongly diverges from that of the DLC and the larger Clintonite wing of the party. She has coattails perhaps but no train on the future of the party.
Turin_C3PO
(14,031 posts)Yes, Clinton is doing better than Sanders among minorities. But I don't see how you can say we Sanders supporters are afraid that white males are losing power. The vast majority of people on this website are progressive, whether Sanders or Clinton fans. So please stop with this kind of insulting rhetoric.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Is the content of your character not more than the color of your skin?
Are you reducing yourself and everyone in the world down to their sex organs?
Sounds like not much of a future. In fact, it just sounds pretty much the past but just applying the same nonsensical criteria in different ways.
I hope there is more to everyone of us than what can be filled out on a census form but if that is your idea of a brave new world than you can keep that shit.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)If you have to resort to personal attacks, then clearly you have no rational response. This sort of nastiness does not belong on DU.
And if you're so concerned about how racism is supposedly hurting white men (as opposed to the people it's really hurting), then perhaps you should be on a "men's rights" forum rather than on DU.
runaway hero
(835 posts)and unreasonable.
runaway hero
(835 posts)still white. The repubs had two hispanic and a black person run this time. Are they the party of change?
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)And the divisive bullshit that has been this campaign is as ugly as it gets.
What one puts out comes back to them threefold. Good luck with that.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I totally agree with you OP.
I have always thought the Sanders movement was all about upper middle class white male privilege and the loss of that causing panic for the bros.
Broward
(1,976 posts)randr
(12,414 posts)Of how out of touch the Hill crowd is.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)Watching Morning Joe this am and listening to him talk about how he's going to use every negative thing Bernie said about Hillary against her, it struck me.
Hillary is the future of the democratic party and she deserves to be! I have never seen anyone in American politics receive more unfavorable treatment than Hillary and I am angry about it! It's like she's constantly under fire from the powers that be, coincidentally are always headed by old, white males.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Sanders and Trump are both interested in maintaining divisions.
inchhigh
(384 posts)I pray my children will forgive whatever corporation has been given the monopoly for providing that sort of thing.
Atman
(31,464 posts)G_j
(40,367 posts)you don't get it at all. You are simply dead wrong.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but she is paid to represent the robber barons of the new Gilded Age.
jfern
(5,204 posts)yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)O what a future it will be!
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)On issues you Reaganites have been a complete disaster and slow but sure it's becoming obvious to everybody.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)You're still electing a moneyed representative of the oligarch class. Hillary could be a blue-skinned hermaphrodite who identifies as an attack helicopter and it wouldn't matter. She's still repping the interests of the oppressors.
thucythucy
(8,086 posts)other than to stir shit.
Rather than take pot shots at each other, it's time to start pulling together. This would seem to me to be especially important to those who support Hillary, since, as the presumptive nominee, she's the one who will need to garner as much support as possible to win the GE.
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)Our future.
Good luck younger generation.
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)i hope you are young enough to enjoy the fruits of that poisoned tree....
she should do a fine job with all the Republicans she will deal with in Congress...you know, the ones that are in there thanks to the fine job the DNC has done locally in all the states the past 20+ years....
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)tripe you're spreading, right?
Yes, Secretary Clinton is building a coalition of important Democratic constituencies that she will no doubt carry into the general election. However, Senator Sanders builds upon that same coalition. The fact that Secretary Clinton has done a masterful job of coalescing one or more of these groups behind her primary run does not mean that Bernie isn't also appealing to the same groups. He just isn't more appealing than Secretary Clinton.
The sly spin of this fact into "Senator Sanders doesn't care about these groups" is unadulterated garbage.
Now, why don't you take a stab at discussing how Secretary Clinton is attracting white middle-right suburbanites who not only make up a majority of her supporters, but, by its own admission, are the target audience of DLC/Third Way/Clinton Wing politics?
Response to Uponthegears (Reply #161)
arikara This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to ProudToBeLiberal (Original post)
Post removed
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:46 PM - Edit history (1)
Nowhere is this phrase more appropriate.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Only snobby smartypantses overthink this stuff.
arikara
(5,562 posts)and its hard to top some of the idiotic stuff trolls have been posting lately.
Congratulations!
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)marmar
(77,088 posts).... this is among the daftest.
Hillary is a relic of the late 20th century Democratic Party. One that is, and needs to, go away.
MsFlorida
(488 posts)She's about as futuristic as a pet rock.