with the problems of a Depression better than FDR?

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.

when her supporters are all old?

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%.

She just represents Wall Street. And, of course, the Saudis.

Get off your high horse!

If the future of the Democratic Party is more third-way, neoliberal, warhawkishness, you can have it.

Bernie and millennials are the future.

if Hillary is the future.

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

... of populism in this year's primaries.

Trump and Sanders are flip sides of the same impulse.

Massive income inequality regardless of race/ethnicity and corruption in politics are what drive Sanders supporters.

... his supporters are overwhelmingly white, so the impulse is the same.

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?

... 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.

Thanks for the midday chuckle.

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.

Fuck those white guys, right? Get rid of those useless bastards. Who needs 'em?

This one is a real keeper.

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.

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.

Uhm, wait, there was something else... Oh yeah, he's white too. And old.

And he doesn't like Goldman Sachs.

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.

clinton?????

New....not the past? who are you fucking kidding? not me.

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.

privatized water and schools and social securiity (all for the benefit of wall street.

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.

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.

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.

That's more of the corporate wall street attitude there.

Why do you think so many PoC are supporting her?

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.

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.

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.

platform and her past actions with respect to the poor and children. I think you will be surprised.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

She depends on it.

I'm dumber for having read this thread.

People often vote against their own interests.

--imm

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.

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.

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.

"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, Clinton’s 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

Though she did vote for a lot of really bad things.

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.

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

created the Charleston loophole, nine more people dead. Not good.

One could use the same argument.


A lot of people don't consider Jews to be "white men". Not sure your argument holds up.

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!

Bernie is just drawing them out from behind their fig leaves.

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.

yes, then you are correct.

I don't think that many will look forward to it.

Kakistocracy -- government by the worst -- is the closest.

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.

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.

They were not all white men. Get a clue.

He of the Hillbotbros.

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.

haven't you received the memo yet?

I too do not apparently exist.

This has to be satire.

very rich women.

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.

Don't worry, you're one of way too many - millions, even. It's a real problem, driven by the media.

The policy Hillary has described so far is largely a mix of inadequate and backwards. I don't care what her anatomy is.

I posted a thread seeking specific issues where she is "not liberal" and got nothin' (except lots of insults, rumors, and emotional diatribes).

The lack of performance of one tread in one discussion forum proves nothing at all.

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.

Corruption.
But thanks for yet another sexist racist post. You do your party proud.

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.