I dunno. Maybe I’m just not hanging out in the “right” corners of the internet, but while I can remember a great many thinly or not at all veiled misogynist attacks on Ms. Clinton going back many years, I’m not seeing any such attacks on, say, Tammy Duckworth, Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar. I mean, I’m sure I could find them if I looked hard enough, but I don’t think the current GOP stresses misogyny as a core value in the same way that it focuses on race, sexuality and religion. There’s a reason Trump got 41% of the female vote, as opposed to 8% of the black vote and 14% of the gay vote.
HRC was a uniquely terrible candidate for many reasons, some of her own making and some not. I would not want to see her failure used as a reason not to nominate other qualified women in the future.
Yes, Silver lining has repeatedly made that assertion in other threads and had it debunked. And yet he continues to do so. I know some words to describe that behavior, but in this forum the behavior itself is tolerated, while accurately describing the behavior is not, so I won’t use them.
Gosh, what a surprise that this poster has grossly misrepresented the content of his own link. If only there was some term to describe posters who repeatedly do this.
What she actually said was "“My job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt,”.
So yes, if you are so attached to white supremacy that you believe nobody else should be allowed to speak if there is a member of the master race in the room, you would probably not feel welcome in the modern Democratic Party. And I’m really OK with that.
Can’t speak to Duckworth or Klobuchar, but then they haven’t reached a leadership level yet, or gone against the moneyed interests, but re Warren, you could look up “Fauxcahontas” and the “Nevertheless, she persisted” incident.
Not explicitly, they don’t dare, but that’s a large part of what’s behind antichoice.
Wow, let me just add RealClearPolitics to the “dishonest shitbags not worth taking seriously” pile. That’s not what she said. That’s not a reasonable interpretation of what she said. It’s only not a lie in the same way “Obama: ‘You didn’t build that’” isn’t a lie.
The former Korean president was impeached on charges of corruption and abuse of power. She is from the Conservative party. She is the third Conservative president to be convicted of corruption, abuse of power and getting dynastically rich from their office. It doesn’t seem to be affecting the electability of Conservatives. But oddly enough it is affecting the electability of Liberal female politicians.
In every prior election, it was almost unheard of for a politician to endorse a Presidential candidate more than a year before the Iowa caucuses, and most held off until after the voters in least a few States had weighed in on the candidates. In 2016, Clinton had wrapped up the support of most influential Democrats long before actual primary voting started. Several high profile Democrats, including Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, and Gillebrand, endorsed her in 2013.
So, although the fault is more accurately laid with the entire Democratic establishment than with the DNC specifically, it is fair to say that Democratic elites collectively gambled on the unusual strategy of anointing a candidate long before verifying that said candidate could actually appeal to voters. Look at the list of the other four candidates – one obscure Congressman with zero name recognition and no budget, three people who were far outside of the Democratic mainstream politically and in two cases had spent the vast majority of their political careers as non-Democrats. IOW, nobody who in a normal year would have been considered a credible candidate, and nobody who had anything to lose by pissing off the Democratic establishment.
No mainstream, well-known candidate ran against Clinton, because the party establishment created an environment in which there was simply no access to endorsements or fundraising for anyone else. They tried to “unify” early in order to avoid a divisive primary battle, and all it got them was…a divisive primary battle plus an unpopular candidate.
I love Bernie Sanders and hope that his candidacy marks the birth of a robust democratic socialist movement in the US, but based on currently available data I can’t rule out the possibility that his success was solely due to this arrogant blunder on the part of the Dem elites, and that in a normal year with, say, Biden and a couple other big names in the mix, he would have been another Kucinich.
So Urban Redneck is factually wrong on the details, but on the big picture he is pretty much spot on here.
More like, they’re accustomed to thinking all pols lie (both sides do it, right? Especially the other guys), so you might as well go with the guy who’s telling lies you like - the reassuring type that put all the blame and all the responsibility for everything on somebody else, and promise you pie in the sky.
They’re, I think, unusual. When it all comes down, anybody that doesn’t like brown, isn’t going to like black. Anybody who doesn’t like Muslims, isn’t going to like Jews. It’s the height of irony, but bigots don’t discriminate.
I don’t think most of the country is bigoted. I do think there’s a lot of racial anxiety and resentment out there among all groups, and a lot of that motivates voting behavior. Whites didn’t become radicalized so much as they started voting like a minority group, at least at lower income levels. And what led to THAT is that poor whites are the only group no one cares about. Rich and upper middle class whites get what they want and aren’t threatened by immigration or affirmative action. Poor whites bear the brunt of those policies. Their kids don’t get to go to nice colleges if their test scores aren’t good. Their high school dropouts don’t get to work in warehouses where undocumented labor can just be hired for cheaper and the federal authorities will look the other way. Their parents are the ones who lost their factory jobs in part due to trade. And then they get told they are privileged.
So, basically your position is that, a couple generations ago, it was much easier for a stupid, lazy white person to live a comfortable life than for stupid, lazy people of other races. Now it’s only somewhat easier, and stupid, lazy white people are upset about that, and…what, the rest of us are supposed to act like they have some kind of legitimate grievance? Screw that.
Progressives offer policies that will actually improve the lives of poor white people: improved access to health care, job training and education, and good blue collar jobs created by infrastructure spending. If they’d rather stay sick, unskilled and broke in order to not have to admit that yes, white privilege is an actual thing, then that’s their own damn fault.