Sandernistas and White Entitlement

[Virginiá]

These guys could not understand this struggle. They wanted immediate success and gratification, and they were not used to things not going their way. The issues and the lives of others had become irrelevant. All they wanted was for me to agree that they had been unjustly cheated, and that “Killary” and the DNC had rigged everything against them. I could not agree, so I had to walk away.

I like this paragraph, but I dunno whether or not there is any truth to it. Bernie's campaign kind of set the mood for this, imo. His campaign was centered around a system being rigged, and it's not really that surprising that a lot of people see his defeat as a result of cheating when he has spent the past year going on about rigged economies / campaign finance rules. I still think he could have vigorously spoke out against this foolishness the second it started, but he tacitly endorsed it by letting it go largely unaddressed, as it seemed to benefit him by riling up supporters. Maybe they worked harder if they thought it was being stolen? I'd hope they have a damn good reason though, as letting these kinds of lies and conspiracies proliferate is bad for our elections and party morale

I'm loving Hagrid's (a white man) big insights into the lives of 'people of colour' and the challenges that they face.

He isn't wrong..

[Virginiá]

ok so killary "understand minorities" and will have 80-100% of their votes, but she didnt do nothing to appeal white voters. you need majority to win, and she doesnt even have 20% support among whites

Huh? If she only had 20% of the white vote (or less), she would be losing in a landslide of historic proportions. The polls would reflect that. And due to nearly unanimous non-white support, Democrats don't need a majority of the white vote to win. They have been getting by just fine with the standard 39% - 43% for over a generation, and even more before then (at least outside of presidential races)

Trump isn't exactly beloved by white people either, and he won't be winning them by Reagan 84' numbers.

[Virginiá]

Clinton was the candidate who believed in selective entitlement. Free healthcare but only for the destitute, free college but only for the destitute. If you make $2000 bucks a month though, you are on your own.  Hillary figures you can somehow afford to pay hundreds of dollars in co-pays and deductibles, 10s of thousands of dollars in tuition off the median national income. And if you can't, that's cool, you're probably White, "let them eat privilege", you can just sit back and think about how you're slightly less likely to be asked to show your receipt when leaving WalMart, that thought will provide you with warmth and shelter somehow.

Is that actually the case with her policies though? For example, on college she has repeatedly described it as debt-free college via numerous methods. Tuition-free community college (so you could swing that to make the first 2 years of your degree free), the ability to use grants for living expenses, increased pell grant funding, making sure colleges do not inflate tuition needlessly, as they have been doing for years now, and finally to allow refinancing. I'm sure there are a lot of other beneficial details, but I don't see how this singles out people making over $2k. All her plan does is ask for reasonable contributions from family (if possible) and that the student work at least 10 hours a week, which is again, very reasonable. It's possible it is slightly less helpful, but we won't know until it's actually submitted to Congress. To say they are 'on their own' seems like hyperbole.

So what are you basing your assertion on?