Big Lies of Our Time in the United States

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
Reality check:
drummerboy:
I can't figure out what the highlighted passage even means. And the last statement is meaningless. Of course Americans will think this - it's the only world they have experience in - and the most famous example of a something approaching a socialist system was the USSR - decidedly less free then the U.S.

But it doesn't mean they think the two are inextricably linked. The only reason the word socialist is more accepted now in the U.S. is because the population of people who grew up with the USSR is dying.
paulsurovell:
This is a strawman argument.
It's a matter of definition, and a matter of the degree to which social (collective) needs are assured through social insurance and government intervention in the private sector, as well as the proportion of the economy that's in the public sector.
By these standards, most of Western Europe is largely socialist.
drummerboy:

 I honestly do not understand your post. What's a strawman?
paulsurovell:
Citing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man argument.

 But he didn't. He said it's the most famous example, not the only example. FFS, paulsurovell get a grip.

 It was the only example he cited in his argument. Therefore a straw man argument.

 At least be honest about this one. 

Another honest view on why the USSR should not be upheld as the only example of socialism:

https://chomsky.info/1986____/

When the world’s two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and moulded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. [ . . . ]

As for the world’s second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the ‘socialist’ dungeon.

The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.

sac said:
So here we are, still rehashing 2016.  No wonder the GOP is tromping all over us.

 Heaven forbid we talk about the past in the hopes of learning something.

paulsurovell said:   
Another honest view on why the USSR should not be upheld as the only example of socialism:

https://chomsky.info/1986____/

When the world’s two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and moulded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. [ . . . ]

As for the world’s second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the ‘socialist’ dungeon.

The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.

 That's great. You are still being dishonest.

paulsurovell said:   

Another honest view on why the USSR should not be upheld as the only example of socialism:

https://chomsky.info/1986____/

When the world’s two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and moulded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. [ . . . ]

As for the world’s second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the ‘socialist’ dungeon.

The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.

 

 paul,

All you are doing is explaining why the view was so prevalent for us children of the cold war that USSR=socialism - hence proving my original contention.

So, thanks for doing the legwork!

Klinker said:
Perhaps a larger lesson is that the DNC should try to represent all Democrats and not just the entitled members of a dynasty that should have ended back on January 20, 2001.

 Consider that you haven't realized that they do, but you're focused just on a small Democratic demographic.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:   
Another honest view on why the USSR should not be upheld as the only example of socialism:

https://chomsky.info/1986____/

When the world’s two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and moulded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. [ . . . ]

As for the world’s second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the ‘socialist’ dungeon.

The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.

 That's great. You are still being dishonest.

 This has to stop, because this argument technique is getting tiresome:

1.  Claim someone made an argument that the person didn't actually make.

2.  Use your verbal skills to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt and with geometric logic to take apart the argument that nobody actually made.

3.  Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.

(Bonus points for anyone who gets the movie quote reference in the above comment.)

Exactly right Captain.

nohero said:

 This has to stop, because this argument technique is getting tiresome:
1.  Claim someone made an argument that the person didn't actually make.
2.  Use your verbal skills to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt and with geometric logic to take apart the argument that nobody actually made.
3.  Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.
(Bonus points for anyone who gets the movie quote reference in the above comment.)

 Fox News

nohero said:

Klinker said:
Perhaps a larger lesson is that the DNC should try to represent all Democrats and not just the entitled members of a dynasty that should have ended back on January 20, 2001.

 Consider that you haven't realized that they do, but you're focused just on a small Democratic demographic.

 How do they do that?  Almost all of them voted to increase the military budget by more than Russia's entire military budget?  None of them voting in favor asked, "How can we afford that?"  

nan said:

nohero said:

Klinker said:
Perhaps a larger lesson is that the DNC should try to represent all Democrats and not just the entitled members of a dynasty that should have ended back on January 20, 2001.

 Consider that you haven't realized that they do, but you're focused just on a small Democratic demographic.

 How do they do that?  Almost all of them voted to increase the military budget by more than Russia's entire military budget?  None of them voting in favor asked, "How can we afford that?"  

 If you stuck to one topic, it would be easier to respond to your posts.

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

Klinker said:
Perhaps a larger lesson is that the DNC should try to represent all Democrats and not just the entitled members of a dynasty that should have ended back on January 20, 2001.

 Consider that you haven't realized that they do, but you're focused just on a small Democratic demographic.

 How do they do that?  Almost all of them voted to increase the military budget by more than Russia's entire military budget?  None of them voting in favor asked, "How can we afford that?"  

 If you stuck to one topic, it would be easier to respond to your posts.

 How do the Democrats try to represent all Democrats?  They lost because they ignored a bunch of them in 2016.  They don't seem to have a platform much different than the Republican platform (except for women's rights), and we know the Republicans don't care about working people.  They may say they are in favor of working people, but when they vote to increase the military by a HUGE amount, they are allowing needed resources to be used elsewhere.  So, what they say is not backed up by what they do.

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

Klinker said:
Perhaps a larger lesson is that the DNC should try to represent all Democrats and not just the entitled members of a dynasty that should have ended back on January 20, 2001.

 Consider that you haven't realized that they do, but you're focused just on a small Democratic demographic.

 How do they do that?  Almost all of them voted to increase the military budget by more than Russia's entire military budget?  None of them voting in favor asked, "How can we afford that?"  

 If you stuck to one topic, it would be easier to respond to your posts.

 How do the Democrats try to represent all Democrats?  They lost because they ignored a bunch of them in 2016.  They don't seem to have a platform much different than the Republican platform (except for women's rights), and we know the Republicans don't care about working people.  They may say they are in favor of working people, but when they vote to increase the military by a HUGE amount, they are allowing needed resources to be used elsewhere.  So, what they say is not backed up by what they do.

 Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.

There.  I said it.  It's true.  Deal with it.

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

Klinker said:
Perhaps a larger lesson is that the DNC should try to represent all Democrats and not just the entitled members of a dynasty that should have ended back on January 20, 2001.

 Consider that you haven't realized that they do, but you're focused just on a small Democratic demographic.

 How do they do that?  Almost all of them voted to increase the military budget by more than Russia's entire military budget?  None of them voting in favor asked, "How can we afford that?"  

 If you stuck to one topic, it would be easier to respond to your posts.

 How do the Democrats try to represent all Democrats?  They lost because they ignored a bunch of them in 2016.  They don't seem to have a platform much different than the Republican platform (except for women's rights), and we know the Republicans don't care about working people.  They may say they are in favor of working people, but when they vote to increase the military by a HUGE amount, they are allowing needed resources to be used elsewhere.  So, what they say is not backed up by what they do.

 Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There.  I said it.  It's true.  Deal with it.

 Insane.  And what do you base that on?  

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

Klinker said:
Perhaps a larger lesson is that the DNC should try to represent all Democrats and not just the entitled members of a dynasty that should have ended back on January 20, 2001.

 Consider that you haven't realized that they do, but you're focused just on a small Democratic demographic.

 How do they do that?  Almost all of them voted to increase the military budget by more than Russia's entire military budget?  None of them voting in favor asked, "How can we afford that?"  

 If you stuck to one topic, it would be easier to respond to your posts.

 How do the Democrats try to represent all Democrats?  They lost because they ignored a bunch of them in 2016.  They don't seem to have a platform much different than the Republican platform (except for women's rights), and we know the Republicans don't care about working people.  They may say they are in favor of working people, but when they vote to increase the military by a HUGE amount, they are allowing needed resources to be used elsewhere.  So, what they say is not backed up by what they do.

 Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There.  I said it.  It's true.  Deal with it.

 Insane.  And what do you base that on?  

 Everything.  He didn't like the Southern states which didn't go for him.  Guess who the Democratic demographic is in those states.

Q.E.D.

Here is Nina Turner, big Bernie Supporter.  According to nohero that means she has no use for anyone that is not white and she is just being exploited by him.

https://www.ninaturner.org/

Nina Turner

She’s committed to advocating for progressive ideals and values, a vocation she views as bigger than political affiliation. Most recently a national surrogate for Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) during the turbulent 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, Nina Turner is an insightful advocate and agent for social change. Today, she serves as president of Our Revolution, an organization that Sanders created to revitalize American democracy, empower progressive leaders and elevate political consciousness.

When she served in the Ohio Senate, Turner was known as a fierce advocate, garnering recognition and praise from elected leaders across the political spectrum. She maintained an uncanny ability to both unify opposing viewpoints and challenge political leaders to live up to their highest selves. Her political experience as an elected member of the Cleveland City Council and a strategic leader of the Ohio Democratic Party afford her a unique understanding of government processes and how to overcome partisan perspectives. Outside of the political arena, Turner has decades of experience as a college professor and motivational speaker. She routinely travels across the country to inspire action and instill hope in crowds of more than 20,000.

nohero said:

 Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There.  I said it.  It's true.  Deal with it.

No, it's not true, it's a lie.

Hillary supporters are more racist than Bernie supporters.

Here are the facts:

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2016/07/01/belatedly-what-sanders-supporters-say-about-race/

drummerboy said:

sac said:
So here we are, still rehashing 2016.  No wonder the GOP is tromping all over us.

 Heaven forbid we talk about the past in the hopes of learning something.

 Of course we should learn from the past, but what's been going on in this realm for the last 18 months or so is WAY past constructive analysis and doesn't really seem to be getting us anywhere.  What may be getting us somewhere are all of the new people (especially many women) who are running for office.  But I still see a lot of Dems picking up on one or two (out of many) positions of candidates that they don't like and trying to shoot them down or backing a candidate who has little or no chance of winning in the general and primarying out a strong candidate. There will never be a perfect candidate, but "perfect is the enemy of the good" and we are definitely practicing that way too much in recent months!

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

Klinker said:
Perhaps a larger lesson is that the DNC should try to represent all Democrats and not just the entitled members of a dynasty that should have ended back on January 20, 2001.

 Consider that you haven't realized that they do, but you're focused just on a small Democratic demographic.

 How do they do that?  Almost all of them voted to increase the military budget by more than Russia's entire military budget?  None of them voting in favor asked, "How can we afford that?"  

 If you stuck to one topic, it would be easier to respond to your posts.

 How do the Democrats try to represent all Democrats?  They lost because they ignored a bunch of them in 2016.  They don't seem to have a platform much different than the Republican platform (except for women's rights), and we know the Republicans don't care about working people.  They may say they are in favor of working people, but when they vote to increase the military by a HUGE amount, they are allowing needed resources to be used elsewhere.  So, what they say is not backed up by what they do.

 Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There.  I said it.  It's true.  Deal with it.

 Insane.  And what do you base that on?  

 Everything.  He didn't like the Southern states which didn't go for him.  Guess who the Democratic demographic is in those states.
Q.E.D.

Thank you for posting this.     

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

 Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There.  I said it.  It's true.  Deal with it.

No, it's not true, it's a lie.

Hillary supporters are more racist than Bernie supporters.
Here are the facts:

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2016/07/01/belatedly-what-sanders-supporters-say-about-race/

 Oh, no, not that bull caca again.  

Next thing is you're going to be ranting that the Democrats are the racists because the KKK was full of Democrats in early part of the 20th Century.

“I do believe Bernie Sanders struggled then and clearly now with black voters overall,” said Ray McKinnon, a black pastor from Charlotte, North Carolina, who is a member Democratic National Committee and former Sanders delegate in 2016. “The guy’s from Vermont, it’s not like he has a massive [black] constituency. He failed to connect on a visceral sense.”

That point was hammered home for McKinnon during Sanders’s recent talk in Jackson, Mississippi, with that city’s 35-year-old Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba. The talk sparked a backlash because of comments the senator made about Barack Obama, calling him a “charismatic individual” and “extraordinary candidate.”

The reaction from some in the black community was swift — and furious, over what some felt was Sanders dismissing Obama’s historic legacy as the nation’s first African-American president. In 2016, many thought Clinton’s success was that she simply hugged Obama’s legacy tighter than Sanders, who had some criticisms of Obama, did.

“Bernie 2020 died 4/4/18,” former South Carolina state Rep. Bakari Sellers tweeted following the event. Actor Jeffrey Wright torched Sanders, saying the senator was acting ignorantly."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/20/17251798/bernie-sanders-black-voters-south

It’s time to end the myth that black voters don’t like Bernie Sanders

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/12/its-time-to-end-the-myth-that-black-voters-dont-like-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.33477f6b92c7

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

 Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There.  I said it.  It's true.  Deal with it.

No, it's not true, it's a lie.

Hillary supporters are more racist than Bernie supporters.
Here are the facts:

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2016/07/01/belatedly-what-sanders-supporters-say-about-race/

 Oh, no, not that bull caca again.  
Next thing is you're going to be ranting that the Democrats are the racists because the KKK was full of Democrats in early part of the 20th Century.

Sorry, you can't run away from the facts.  Well, I guess that's what you're doing.

cramer said:

“I do believe Bernie Sanders struggled then and clearly now with black voters overall,” said Ray McKinnon, a black pastor from Charlotte, North Carolina, who is a member Democratic National Committee and former Sanders delegate in 2016. “The guy’s from Vermont, it’s not like he has a massive [black] constituency. He failed to connect on a visceral sense.”
That point was hammered home for McKinnon during Sanders’s recent talk in Jackson, Mississippi, with that city’s 35-year-old Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba. The talk sparked a backlash because of comments the senator made about Barack Obama, calling him a “charismatic individual” and “extraordinary candidate.”
The reaction from some in the black community was swift — and furious, over what some felt was Sanders dismissing Obama’s historic legacy as the nation’s first African-American president. In 2016, many thought Clinton’s success was that she simply hugged Obama’s legacy tighter than Sanders, who had some criticisms of Obama, did.
“Bernie 2020 died 4/4/18,” former South Carolina state Rep. Bakari Sellers tweeted following the event. Actor Jeffrey Wright torched Sanders, saying the senator was acting ignorantly."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/20/17251798/bernie-sanders-black-voters-south

Here's a reality check on this article. Among other things it cites a poll showing Sanders with 66% approval among Hispanics, 77% among African Americans:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/what-really-happened-when-bernie-sanders-went-to-mississippi.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s3&utm_campaign=sharebutton-b

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

 Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There.  I said it.  It's true.  Deal with it.

No, it's not true, it's a lie.

Hillary supporters are more racist than Bernie supporters.
Here are the facts:

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2016/07/01/belatedly-what-sanders-supporters-say-about-race/

 Oh, no, not that bull caca again.  
Next thing is you're going to be ranting that the Democrats are the racists because the KKK was full of Democrats in early part of the 20th Century.

Sorry, you can't run away from the facts.  Well, I guess that's what you're doing.

 I guess Republicans are just fine then because they were the party of Lincoln 150 years ago.

tjohn said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

 Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There.  I said it.  It's true.  Deal with it.

No, it's not true, it's a lie.

Hillary supporters are more racist than Bernie supporters.
Here are the facts:

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2016/07/01/belatedly-what-sanders-supporters-say-about-race/

 Oh, no, not that bull caca again.  
Next thing is you're going to be ranting that the Democrats are the racists because the KKK was full of Democrats in early part of the 20th Century.

Sorry, you can't run away from the facts.  Well, I guess that's what you're doing.

 I guess Republicans are just fine then because they were the party of Lincoln 150 years ago.

 They were also the Party of Eisenhower for whom this nation owes thanks on so many levels.

Also the Party of Gerald Ford who really was a decent person.  He started the healing process very much needed after the Nixon Watergate debacle.

Very little in this world is strictly black and white.

author said:

 They were also the Party of Eisenhower for whom this nation owes thanks on so many levels.
Also the Party of Gerald Ford who really was a decent person.  He started the healing process very much needed after the Nixon Watergate debacle.
Very little in this world is strictly black and white.

 Correct, but Eisenhower did very little to advance civil rights or respond to the backlash after Brown v. Bd. of ED. He called his appointment of Earl Warren a mistake. And he abandoned the Geneva Accords in essence starting our involvement in Vietnam. And he picked Nixon as his VP.

Gerry Ford started a campaign to impeach Justice Douglas.

Yes, very little in the world is strictly black and white.

nan said:

 How do the Democrats try to represent all Democrats?  They lost because they ignored a bunch of them in 2016.  They don't seem to have a platform much different than the Republican platform (except for women's rights), and we know the Republicans don't care about working people.  They may say they are in favor of working people, but when they vote to increase the military by a HUGE amount, they are allowing needed resources to be used elsewhere.  So, what they say is not backed up by what they do.

 And yet you and sbenois and noHero all voted for the nominee. So which Dems did they ignore? And who can garner the vote of you, Klinker, sbenois and nohero in 2020?

And BTW, the Republican nominee did not even get the vote of the 2012 Republican nominee and insulted the 2008 Republican nominee and denigrated the last two Republican Presidents.

First, he represents one of the Whitest States in America

Second, as a classic socialist he tends to emphasize class over race.

Third, when confronted by the Black Lives Matter folks he turned the podium over to them

nohero said:

 Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There.  I said it.  It's true.  Deal with it.

 Its like you distilled bull crap and used it in a cocktail. 

Black voters did tend to support HRC but a lot of that had to do with endorsements and the shenanigans of the Clintons post 2008.  In the end though, voters of all stripes routinely vote against their own interests.  Look at the way poor whites supported Trump who is now screwing them like a porn star with a fresh boob job.  Does that mean that the Dems are prejudiced against poor people?

LOST said:

author said:

 They were also the Party of Eisenhower for whom this nation owes thanks on so many levels.
Also the Party of Gerald Ford who really was a decent person.  He started the healing process very much needed after the Nixon Watergate debacle.
Very little in this world is strictly black and white.

 Correct, but Eisenhower did very little to advance civil rights or respond to the backlash after Brown v. Bd. of ED. He called his appointment of Earl Warren a mistake. And he abandoned the Geneva Accords in essence starting our involvement in Vietnam. And he picked Nixon as his VP.
Gerry Ford started a campaign to impeach Justice Douglas.
Yes, very little in the world is strictly black and white.

 Eisenhower was a product of his times.  What white leaders were active in the Civil Rights struggles

in the early 50's?  A decade later even the Kennedy brothers were reluctant to rock the boat till the Freedom Riders were so viciously attacked and Schwerner ,Chaney and Goodman were killed in Mississippi.  Nixon as VP..........he  was a rather innocuous Congressman who still appealed to the Red baiting element.

The Geneva accords.  When I was drafted an officer sat down with me to explain the righteous cause

of the US presence in Vietnam.  I explained to him that this presence was in direct violation of the Geneva Accords...now it is easy to spot when someone has no idea of your subject matter.

He gave me a chit for the cafeteria across the street and a bus ticket home

Geneva accords again........if elections had been held in 1956 to restore Vietnam to its former state,  there

is no question Ho Chi Minh would have won.  Unacceptable to an America that interfered in elections at will.  I don't think Eisenhower could have imagined the agony that would follow.

tjohn said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

 Ms. Nan, I have been very careful to not mention the elephant in the room, which is that the Berniecrats have no use for anybody who is not white (unless they can exploit them for their own purposes.
There.  I said it.  It's true.  Deal with it.

No, it's not true, it's a lie.

Hillary supporters are more racist than Bernie supporters.
Here are the facts:

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2016/07/01/belatedly-what-sanders-supporters-say-about-race/

 Oh, no, not that bull caca again.  
Next thing is you're going to be ranting that the Democrats are the racists because the KKK was full of Democrats in early part of the 20th Century.

Sorry, you can't run away from the facts.  Well, I guess that's what you're doing.

 I guess Republicans are just fine then because they were the party of Lincoln 150 years ago.

No, the poll shows the supporters of Republican candidates (Cruz, Kasich and Trump) were even worse racists than the Hillary supporters (who were more racist than Bernie's supporters)