"No more dynasties"--for women, that is

[Rilgin]

209. So your point is to attack democrats.

Your point was that generation issues have never been applied to a male and only was brought up historically against Hillary. You seem now to have backed off this claim and dismiss this as you don't care about history (still ignoring the attacks on Jeb for dynasty in the same election as Hillary).

However the distressing point is you are attacking people "here" meaning democrats and because they are here democrats who would like a progressive world. You make up facts and history and ignore all contrary facts and history so you can focus on your one issue as a means to attack democrats to claim that race or gender issues are behind every single policy concern and you do that by attacking democrats. And to be fair, I am sure you could probably find in the thousands of posts and thousands of writers people who use any issue including the issue of this thread to cloak their real issues and just were against Clinton. However that is not very interesting. You are asserting more than that in this thread, you are asserting that all the 40+% of democrats who voted for other candidates than Hillary in the Primary and voted for Hillary despite their concerns and have concerns about nepotism are hypocrites only.

Just how does that unify our party against a world that contains lots of issues and which is run by Republicans at the moment unless democrats and progressives unify.

And on the single issue of this thread, nepotism and generational power, how does attacking democrats unify democrats against Trump who truly is appointing his unqualified male and female family members to important positions in government.