Clinton have issues with Bernie's religion!

I want to know.

Also remember the fact that they are frightened of going to hell if they don't vote for her. Most of her supporters are low information voters who do not understand that being a warmonger corporatist is not good for the country. So they end up voting for a Bush ally.

If not, you are effectively claiming that on average women and minorities are lower information voters than white males.

Please tell me that is not what you just typed.

this thread haven't you, not just my response?

of a female President! Thanks for the information.

1) Sexism. This was the biggest one we were supposed to push. We had to smear Bernie as misogynistic and out-of-touch with modern sensibilities. He was to be characterized as "an old white male relic that believed women enjoyed being gang raped". Anyone who tried to object to this characterization would be repeatedly slammed as sexist until they went away or people lost interest.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3rncq9/confession_of_hillary_shill_from/

We all know he's got a problem with diveristy. That's no news. Been discussed to death on this site. Tell me, can you guess why that might be? I'm wondering what you think?

And after you answer that, think about why women would tend to vote for a woman... My opinion would make a lot of people mad.

Bernie doing far better, 52/48, maybe even winning NYS Primary?

Those exit pools? Okay, but if we are going to use those exit polls we should be ready to investigate why the vote got flipped.

Voting for or against someone because of gender is sexist. Voting for or against someone because of race is racist.

I'm a white man who voted for a black man is 1968 GE for president. I'm a man who voted for a woman for president in 2012 GE.

I will probably vote for a woman in the 2016 GE....but not because she's a woman, but because she's a progressive.

Otherwise, I do wonder why anyone would be a member of a forum called "Democratic Underground" yet not vote for the Democrat in the GE.

From the TOS:

It says not to advocate for them on DU. So, unless you have some proof that the poster did just that, your post is meaningless.

And, I do intend to vote for Democrats in my state for congress.

I'm not advocating that anyone vote for any party, or candidate. I'm advocating that they, like me, will vote for the candidate they prefer.

In my state, we don't register by party. Anyone can affiliate with any party, or no part, at any time they choose.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson (D)

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. John Quincy Adams (D)

But until we do have ranked choice voting, failing to vote at the top of the ticket in thenGeneralbs failing to cancel a vote for the GOP.

Your choice is your own, but until that change is made, it may be a vote based upon principle but is still likely voting against your own self-interest -- unless you already feel your vote is useless because of not being in a battleground state.

If Hillary wins the nomination my state (Arkansas) might actually be at play, but despite that I still work to do what I can to get our nominee voted in. I might not really have been making a huge difference when I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 in the General, but I did what I could by phonebanking.

3rd party candidates typically have little to no impact. If you don't live in a battleground state (and the vast majority of people don't), a vote for Jill Stein isn't likely to have any impact on the results. I voted Green in '08 and '12 and will do so again in '16, not only as a form of protest but also because I'd like to see the Green Party candidate get a high enough percentage that the party can receive federal matching funds for future elections. Because that would make the political system healthier.

I live in a pretty solidly 'blue' state, so my not voting for Clinton isn't going to matter. In down-ticket races, I will no doubt vote for some Democrats.

Forget anything else in your background, only the color of your skin matters. You managed to hit multiple sickening racist tropes in the same OP and then decided that some name calling needed to be thrown in as well.

As a white male, I can tell you exactly why I voted for Bernie and do not like Hillary. I grew up poor. Not just a little poor, but homeless at times. We lived on food stamps and government food giveaways. I know to this day that I would have never survived if it hadn't been for the help our family received. Fast forward to now and the gap between those who have and those who don't have has grown extensively since my childhood and it has left more and more people in the same situation as our family, if not worse. Bernie supports the ideas and the policies that will help these people and allow them to succeed as I have been able to succeed. He supports the $15 minimum wage and he supports it now. He speaks to the economic justice this country requires to move us forward on many levels. Meanwhile, Hillary is the antithesis of this and will do nothing to help this group of people, in many cases even growing their ranks (see: TPP).

That's why I support Bernie Sanders. Why do you support Hillary? Because you love seeing murdered children in other countries?

Race issues are created by the majority, not the minority. Race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. matter because those in power (white men) insist on it. Look at history if you want proof.

I am not saying that all Bernie supporters support him for the wrong reasons. There are many good reasons to support him, and many good reasons to support Hillary. And, it's certainly valid to ask why PoC support Hillary in large numbers, and it's just as valid to ask why white men support Bernie in such large numbers. Perhaps you should ask what you might be missing?

I barely support Hillary over Bernie, but support her because she actually has a solid liberal record, is marginally stronger than Bernie on minority and women's rights (he has a few better better votes, but she has a better record of accomplishment), and I think having a woman president would be a dramatically positive event for little girls, just as the election of Obama was so positive for young blacks.

Model, they care too much about our environment and as such have a hard time understanding why someone would be promoting fracking. She has a lot more negatives , but this seems to be the one that they feel most passionate about.

Based on what?

Over ten million voter, so far disagree...

And of course, there's this:

Most Admired Woman in World, Record 20th Time Gallup, December 2015

http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans again name Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama the woman and man living anywhere in the world they admire most. Both win by wide margins over the next-closest finishers.


And then there's this international poll...

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are-the-most-admired-people-in-the-world--xJ9bGsWhje


Bill Gates and Angelina Jolie are the most admired man and woman in the world in 2015, according a new poll, with Barack Obama, Xi Jinping, Malala Yousafzai and Hillary Clinton polling closely behind them.



Despite what folks like you are posting all over social media, the world knows her worth!



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107106898

to post how little you think of anyone with an opinion different than yours?

Whoa, hope the rest of your day gets better...try reading some LOLcats ~ that always cheers me up...

Peace

Bill Gates is famous for talking other billionaires into donating at least half their wealth to charitable causes rather than leaving it to their children

Try this -http://www.forbes.com/sites/devinthorpe/2012/09/05/the-real-reason-bill-gates-the-world-will-remember-bill-gates-hint-its-not-windows-8/#4f25f0c74f49

There's more to be done in this world than legalizing pot, IMO ~

My reading list is quite expansive. It covers everything from Aristophanes to Zelazny.

i know he's become part of the solution ~

But he doesn't, what....pass your purity test?

Good luck with that, dude ~

That's funny. But I don't hang out with those that seek power for power's sake.

Your 'sinners and saints' was a little off topic in our back and forth.

Where are you going with this? Are you conceding the point that Bill Gates has done remarkable philanthropic work? That he's created something significant in getting billionaires to use their money - giving it rather than storing it or saving it for their children?

((Do you get much opportunity to hang out with "power for powers sake people" or is that just a claim of what you would do, given the chance? That's just my curiosity...no matter though. It's the Internet after all. Who knows what's real or not, right?))

You brought out "purity test"-that was my response to that.

I know enough about power trips, having seen and experienced it. There are things I've experienced that still haunt my dreams almost 50 years later.
When I see someone willing to say or do just about anything to get what they want they're no friend of mine.

Gates does not pass your purity test and as such his goods works are to be dismissed. How limiting an ideal you have there.

And power is bad. Got it.

You do get that elected leaders are by virtue of the republic in which we live, powerful people. One needs elected power to lead, to enact laws, to influence change.

So I guess you're not against power per se, you're just against anyone but Sanders having it?

Do you think if Sanders had managed to win the nomination and then the presidency, do you think he would find the role of the most powerful position on the planet to be a burden, perhaps disavow and dismantle the "power for power's sake" perks that come with it? Maybe start by gettting rid of the White House chef and make his own lunch? Or end the costly practice, pomp and circumstance of state dinners (talk about power speaking to power, eh?) maybe have, I dunno - pizza nights instead. I mean, that's a gesture of the people, right?

Do you think he'd find the mantle of having to travel on Air Force One to be burdensome and ostentatious or do you think he'd get a little bit of a rush from the power of it all?

Think he'd skype the state of the Union? It would save time and money. No, I'd bet he would have enjoyed all the cheering and the clapping, the power of holding all those powerful people's attention, simply because he held more power than them by virtue of the title he wanted, badly.

He certainly seems to be enjoying the power of his current gig. I mean, I can't take a bunch of my family members to Rome for an overnight on someone else's dime. I don't know anybody who can pull that off...

'Course now that was a hell of a power trip, amirite?

You got me!

billionaires and especially Gates operate their "philanthropy." It's hardly altruistic. I'm not surprised Clinton supporters would admire Gates' philanthropy. The Clinton Foundation operates the same way.

of the Gates Foundation's work in education or long time health workers in Africa think about Gate's work on malaria. The money always flows back to Gates' friends and cronies - just like the Clinton Foundation.

I read Brock is paying $20/hr. Interesting. I thought Hillary thinks $12/hr is sufficient.

yeah, all I need to do is remember that Hillary has got this.

but your delusions are going to saddle this country with precisely the wrong person to address our most pressing problems.

For example, chemical giant Monsanto has partnered with the Gates Foundation, which reportedly works to suppress local seed exchanges and environmentally sustainable agricultural practices through its global agricultural charity work. Fraud-prone drug giant GlaxoSmithKline
is a partner in the Foundation's work to leverage its own relatively fractional contribution to vaccination efforts, so that it centrally controls enormous world funds for purchase, pricing, and delivery of vaccines for world public health. And in its U.S. education reform charity work, the Gates Foundation has increasingly shifted its funding to promote market domination by its British corporate education services partner, Pearson Education.

The Gates Foundation, and Gates personally, also own stock and reap profits from many of these same partner corporations. In addition, the Foundation owns a profit-generating portfolio of stocks which would seem to work against the Foundation's declared missions, such as the Latin American Coca-Cola FEMSA distributorship and five multinational oil giants operating in Nigeria. These corporate investments, now moved to a blind trust whose trustees are Bill and Melinda Gates, are collaterally supported by the Foundation's tax-free lobbying and advocacy activities.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html

Despises her for that?

The mistakes from our generation. My 20 year old is trying to address this now as I am.

she is going meet a lot of people in life that disagree with her - kids need to learn at an early age not to personalize disagreement but instead to look for common ground. We are all in this together.

kids are our future. While our generation keeps on making the same mistakes over and over and expect a different outcome, they will force that change.

"grown" up ones can't. And by the way, she also doesn't think Trump is that much better...she has several Mexican friends and feels the need to stand up for them as well.

you have to hate someone before you can despise them. It is your responsibility to teach your children that they can oppose someone without hatred. There is too much hatred in the world.

Individual who has been in trouble all of her live, while making excuses and blaming others for her failures. Please start taking a good look in the mirror before you come and tell me what to do!

I know it is falling on deaf ears - it would appear that apple didn't fall far from the tree based on the tenor of your replies. But I have to try.

I have said my piece and won't bother you anymore. Peace out.

I will hone their skills so they can see them coming a mile away. I believe this to be an important live lesson as I do not want them to be abused by nobody!

Does she know his position on fracking?

Since a lot of Sanders's message is about wage stagnation, it makes sense that it would resonate better with the demographics it applies to than the demographics it doesn't.

What's Clinton going to do for him?

... since white men have had to compete in a more equal playing field that have not been automatically handed the plum jobs, so they are angry. The enlightened ones are supporting Sanders, the unenlightened ones are supporting Trump. Perhaps that also in a way explains the distrust that many minorities have for Sanders -- that in some ways he is appealing to the self-interest of white men.

I mean, we've got people explicitly praising the economy of the 1950s... not exactly an easy sell to minorities.

...is not the way to bring about a much needed "political revolution." See post #15.

death rates of white people. There's definitely some frustration out there specific to white people.

It's interesting because in absolute terms, economically white people are better off than minorities, but there's something about human psychology that doesn't just judge things in absolute terms. Like if you move from a small house to a medium house, you feel good about it, but if you move from a big house to the same medium house, you feel bad about it.

It's hard to feel happy, fulfilled and successful when your father could support the family (on 33% more income) while you cannot.

...to deny that racial justice and economic justice are 2 distinct entities. They're probably more likely to either deny or underestimate white (male) privilege.

The Sanders campaign is and always has been a message campaign, and the message isn't wrong, per se. In fact, he's mostly right when it comes to matters of political corruption and the plutocratic nature of US government. Some of his supporters, though, have gone off into grand conspiracy land. And some of his supporters have suggested that a Trump presidency would be preferable to a Clinton presidency, which not only strikes me as insane but also insulting to persons of color, given Trump's bigotry.

But the truth in Bernie's message aside, there will be no comprehensive "political revolution" without persons of color at the forefront. And, though it may seem counterintuitive, millennials (who comprise a large block of Sanders' supporters) are among the most ignorant when it comes to matters of race and the history of race relations in the US. 2 articles on that topic:

1) "Millennials Are More Racist Than They Think"

2) "Is the Millennial Generation's Racial Tolerance Overstated?"

And thanks for the links.

That anyone can be pro-war and claim to be a feminist at the same time, is fucking absurd.

Thank your grand-mamas later. Leslie Stahl on Maher this week: "She's the biggest hawk of all of them."

men supporting Bernie because he is a guy.

So since you agree it's wrong - quit supporting Hillary because she's female and start supporting candidates on their record.

I'm supporting Bernie because of his record, not because of his gender. Hillary's record in inverted from Bernies. Her current campaign lies that she stands for all Bernie does and "always did" falls to pieces when you google her history. Bernie's holds up. That's why I'm supporting him.

... Just as white rights groups say that whites should have advocate for their rights just like blacks do, you are making the same point about white men. White men don't really need a lot of advocacy since it's built into the system. Women and minorities don't have that advantage. Didn't mean to suggest that every white guy who supports Bernie has some issues, just that the disparity to me suggests that Bernie is getting a good amount of support from white men who may not be supporting him for the right reasons.

As far as Hillary goes, if you look at the objective record, not the distorted one created by here left and right political foes, she has a pretty good record, certainly more activist than Bernie (who merely voted right), but not always as progressive.

of his convictions, whereas others for some reason are running from the Trump monster and think for some reason that Hillary of all people can save them.

She can't. Bernie can. And he is saying and doing the right things so much that Hillary has borrowed practically all his platform.

Now, if she would stick with it, I might even be happy to support and vote for her. I don't trust that she will, and I am very disappointed in the rest of you that you probably won't care when she "pivots back towards the ever rightward leaning illusionary center". Even when and if she loses a good proportion of people who are attracted to the Progressive ideas that have gotten them this far.

Why oh why do people cling onto such false ideas as "the mythical center". We constantly underestimate how Progressive the views and beliefs and ideals of the American people are.

and it usually shocks people.

Not only did Nixon do better with women, he also did better with college-educated voters (by a lot), and independents (also by a lot).

Have 'daddy' issues? Or are sexist? Your premise is many things, but logical is not one of them.

Her approval here among White Women is shit.
They are either unimpressed with her or just don't like her.
The women in the Latino and AM communities support her but that is it.
Many would vote for Bernie but Not Hillary. The Latino and AM communities would vote Bernie if he wins the nod.

I am glad I amazed you

How is it possible he lost?

carpetbagger.

Never voted for Sec. Clinton in the primaries and never will!

The ones I know are mostly veterans.

Divide the nation by gender and race (ethnicity), and exploit differences and set them against each otehr. Make it all about what gender and race you are -- and downplay the commonalities people have in terms of economic and political power.

Because she is a woman, sell the message that you're a sexist Berniebro if you don't support her.

Because she is known among AA's and Sanders is not known, spread the meme that Bernie "has a problem" with AA's. Do likewise with Latinos.

Stifle the common interests all those "demographics share", and emphasize the divisions.

Bernie's coalition consists of demographics who are doing radically worse than their counterparts were doing 40 years ago -- and they're voting for the radical.

Hillary's coalition consists of demographics who, year by year, have been doing incrementally better than their counterparts were doing 40 years ago -- and they're voting for the incrementalist.

I doubt it's quite that simple, but I do think that's a lot of it.

they're splitbetween demographics that are in both categories, and thus, their votes are split.

(It's important to note that this is the first generation in a while where 18-29 voters are economically insecure as a group as its own)

due to institutionalized racism and sexism.

The Sanders demographic has lost SOME (certainly not all) of it's unearned advantages, and they think they are being persecuted.

I won't even say welcome to the world the rest of us have lived in forever, because white men are still unfairly advantaged. They are just less advantaged than they have always been. And they can't stand it.

In this sense, Sanders's appeal to the put-upon white man is not radical. It comes from Sanders's refusal to believe that social issues are not the same as economic issues which benefits these men while ignoring the challenges everyone else faces. And in that sense it is not radical at all. It is a complete throwback to an earlier, much more unfair, time.

I certainly agree that what much of the Bernie demographic has experienced (myself included) has been a loss of relative privilege rather than persecution. But I think our support is motivated by a desire to (1) yes, have that privilege restored and (2) have it extended to all people. The progressive in me wants that to be possible; the historian in me has doubts.

economic issues matter, and that all boats rise on a rising tide, works against the interests of women and people of color.

In the last 40 years, they've lost ground by almost every metric; health, education, income, etc.

men have lost ground because opportunities have opened up for women and people of color and now men must compete for those opportunities.

They still don't have to deal with what the rest of us have to deal with, but they do have to deal with more.

Your example: medium wage. Men do earn much less than they used to. They still, overall, make more than women and people of color in the same jobs.

And a sense of humor is a helpful thing -- if you can distinguish satire from real life.

and white men, generally, aren't as concerned about the topics of racism and sexism as they are about economics - because they're not as affected by racism and sexism as POC and women are.

Sid

But it needs a candidate that is better at working with people, and compromising while disagreeing amicably, and it needs to understand that different marginalized groups experience class differently in a way that a politician must address.

Do the math.

you may as well come out and say it explicitly

I'm sure with enough name-calling all the white men will see the light and become Hillary converts

especially in NYS since they made it next to impossible for the 'bitter sexist' white male independents to vote at all.

I blame the Democratic party for cultivating this 'sexism' we are seeing from Democrats.