They have not rejected diversity, as much as people are forced to leave rural areas if they want a good paying job.
THERE YOU GO AGAIN defending social conservatives MR PROGRESSIVE. No. the fact is that those rural areas HAVE rejected diversity. Ask any minority what their experience has been in rural white America. You won't get a pleasant answer.
The mass migration from rural areas to urban areas happens in pursuit of jobs, and then we wonder why people that are left to rot get anxious and angry about their prospects.
Except its ALSO that these white rural areas refuse to allow diversity to enter their areas.
Access to transportation, banking, telecommunications, information, training, etc. are all KEY to address the isolation of those people,
Can't do that because if Dems tried to do that, these rural white areas would reject it as "the elite forcing their way of life upon us".
but Democrats were too busy bailing out wall street, big auto, big pharma, the rest of the healthcare sector, for-profit colleges and student loan lenders, etc. etc,. etc.
Notice that so far you have DEFENDED social conservatives while attacking liberals MR PROGRESSIVE.
I also like the part where you pretend democrats HAVENT invested in infrastructure when the fact is THEY HAVE. Or did you forget about the stimulus package and all the public transportation that democrats like to fund.
to notice that more than half of the country is now struggling paycheck to paycheck. It cost them multiple elections since 2008 for being tone deaf and out of touch. Saying "yeah but robots..." does nothing to address the anxieties of Americans.
It's not about saying "yeah but robots". It's about the fact that these rural white voters would rather blame their job loss on minorities and immigrants than on the actual reasons they lost their jobs.
The evidence is all around you on who the old tired status quo party wants to support or not. Thankfully we at least have Ellison and Bernie there to keep them in check.
The difference is that at the end of the day, Ellison and Bernie want Jon Ossof to win where as a fake progressive like you wants Handel to win.
Also, going "the evidence is all around you" is a bullshit response that conspiracy theorists love to use.
So what did you think about the court transcript?
I think it doesn't matter because the court case isn't even in the phase of determining whether or not to outright dismiss the case. Or did you forget how court cases work?
The media and the Hillary campaign wanted to keep it that way. Is that how you would run a democracy ran on principles?
THERE YOU GO AGAIN with your conspiracy theories. Do you have any PROOF that the media all colluded with Hillary to keep Bernie from winning?
Yeah it's hard to find shit to flung at a statesman who has been pretty persistent in his life in politics against corruption and injustice, and who is actually bringing out passion in voters. Of course, leave it to the Clinton-friendly Washington Post to pull a smear campaign on command for their homegirl. Can't forget this wonderful journalistic nugget:
Washington Post Runs 16 Anti-Sanders Ads in 16 hours
THERE YOU GO AGAIN with your conspiracy theories about the media. You have no evidence of the media colluding with the Clintons.
And I just LOVE how you like to pretend that there was nothing to hold against Bernie. Shall we go down the list?
- Bernie attacked planned parenthood
- Bernie wrote a rape-fantasy fiction
- Bernie praised Fidel fucking Castro
- Sierra Blanca
- Bernie tried to block same-sex marriage in his state back in 2006
Just off the top of my head.
Want to guess how many of those would be complicit with the Hillary campaign to both prop up Donald Trump as her desired "Pied Piper" candidate,
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PIED PIPER STARTEGY IS. The pied piper strategy is where you try to get the moderates running to be forced to take more extreme positions. It worked in 2012 against Mitt Romney.
and to placate the anti-corporate adversary of the anointed queen? How many would you guess did it to have access to the future mandame President? If you had been paying attention, you would be baffled by how concerted the effort was... for example, can't forget the objective treatment around the debates in the primaries:
Lol of course your fucking "evidence" is a NON-SCIENTIFIC POLL. By your own dumb logic, Trump did AMAZING during the debates.
True... this is part of the description of her book in Amazon:
Warren grew up in Oklahoma, and shes never forgotten how difficult it was for her mother and father to hold on at the ragged edge of the middle class. An educational system that offered opportunities for all made it possible for her to achieve her dream of going to college, becoming a teacher, and, later, attending law school. But now, for many, these kinds of opportunities are gone, and a government that once looked out for working families is instead captive to the rich and powerful. Seventy-five years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal ushered in an age of widespread prosperity; in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan reversed course and sold the country on the disastrous fiction called trickle-down economics. Now, with the election of Donald Trump--a con artist who promised to drain the swamp of special interests and then surrounded himself with billionaires and lobbyists--the middle class is being pushed ever closer to collapse.
Notice the part where she isn't blaming shit on the democrats like YOU DO.
Would you join the fight? or do you not want to rock the boat that would upset our big donors a bit too much?
Buddy, I'm am 100% certain that I have done more actual "fighting" than you. I spent 550 hours working for the democratic campaign in a swing state. What the hell have you ever done for progressive causes?
Young minorities were pro-Bernie in the majority.
But it was not a huge majority. it was something like 53-47. Which is much different compared to say younger white primary voters.
As many mnay others have pointed out before, the Clinton vs Bernie difference came mostly down to AGE. Older out-of-touch voters
I'm sorry, did you just refer to older voters as OUT OF TOUCH. I thought you were defending these older rural voters as "real America that is left behind by the elites" before.
Can you at least TRY to be consistent?
who are still stuck in the red scare 1960's mostly went for Clinton. Most people under 45, with the most to lose over the next 30 years, went for Bernie.
wrong again. It was also a gender split and a race split. Look at what happened in the southern states. That was ENTIRELY because Bernie was tone deaf to black democrats in the south.
Not everything at all, but if you are not aware that he dabbles into the politics of entire nations in order to make a buck, you are out of touch. Ukraine is a prime example, and Hillary surely kisses the hand of Soros for a lot of her foreign policies (you can read it yourself in the emails... Soros got want Soros wanted out of Clinton on Albania, for example). How are you surprised that politicians pull favors for their biggest financial backers?
Again, there you go claiming that GEORGE SOROS is the one behind all of Clinton's foreign policy.
Read the article. In it, Obama directly implies that people like Clinton belong in the "do stupid shit caucus" after her gung-ho position about Syria and no-fly zones. She's a Henry Kissinger stooge and warmonger, no matter how much you try to deny it. She says he is her mentor herself. Are you ok with Henry Kissinger? ... so much for being a pro-humanity liberal...
Oh I LOVE this bullshit about Hillary being a warmonger. She's not a "war-monger". She is pro-interventionist. Would a WAR MONGER have pushed for the Iran Nuclear Deal?
It's only for the Clintons who were pushing this blatantly racist crime aspect of the bill. Clinton was taking money from the private prison cartel up until she got caught doing so by 2016. Are you cool with the private prison lobby being cushy with the Clintons? just politics as usual right? definitely cool to hand them the presidency right?
Except Bernie supported the 94 crime bill even BEFORE it had the assault weapons ban:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-chuck-todd-debate-crime-bill-vote-a/
Which means that his reason for supporting the bill was bullshit.
Congrats? we STILL lost voters because they were looking at 17-30% hikes on their insurance. Can you blame them?
Those hikes were going to happen no matter what. But there you go again acting like a republican by trying to frame the ACA as the worst thing ever.
It happens when our damn leaders and media push for it.
THERE YOU GO AGAIN with the dumb conspiracy theories in the face of facts that contradict your own assumptions.
Democrats bought and paid for by big insurance and big pharma could give three shits about reducing the profits for their campaign donation benefactors.
Is that why Dems created a healthcare reform bill that greatly regulated what insurance companies can do?
These anti-real American assholes who have been captured by special interests... who put the interests of their corporate sponsors aherad of those of their constituents... these are the asshole Democrats that need to step aside. Are you arguing that we should leave them in place, and let them work their magic?
First off every time you use the dumb phrase "real America" you further prove that you are NOT a progressive.
And if the democrats were to step aside, that would cause the conservative republicans to gain 100% control. Then again you probably WANT that considering how you post.
If you REALLY wanted to see a more progressive party rise, then you would know it would first require the more Conservative party (aka the GOP) to fall.
It means fuck all to have "access" to health insurance (a word Republicans are counting on to dupe Americans) if you can't afford it. There was no leadership on the Democrat side pushing to reign in corporate greed of the health care sector. The ACA was a Christmas gift to corporations.
I'm not talking about access in the republican meaning. I'm talking about the fact that the ACA has caused more Americans to have their healthcare covered.
