There isn't an easy, kind, or right way to open this conversation with people that have stood up for the rights of people worldwide as well as on the home front for decades. Any and every starting point seems wrong.
Since there is no good starting point, let's go to the honest one. The current political climate be damned.
How are 25% of American voters, the percentage that voted for Hillary, now a protesting majority? What's the makeup of that 25%? Do all of them care about women's, human, or civil rights?
These questions aren't as difficult to answer as the truth will be to hear, especially for progressives. I'm going to show why the best-qualified candidate Bernie Sanders never stood a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected to the US presidency. To get there, look at the simple math, which shows that if Sanders had got the nomination, we might be looking at President Romney today.
In early June 2016, I started writing about real voting blocs that have the size to shape national politics. The simple math works like this. Out of 231,556,622 eligible voters, 25.6% voted for Clinton, and 25.5% voted for Trump. This is the final voter percentage tallies.
Out of the eligible voter pool, if we take 13% (low conservative reckoning) for the combined emigre bloc vote, their contribution is 30,102,360 bloc votes. Not shown at the CEEC link are the Middle Eastern, South and Central American, Russian, or the Asian portions of the emigre bloc.
These articles show the background of the groups and how they work together en-bloc. I wrote them back then for today.
Out of Hillary Clinton's total count of 65,844,610 votes, the emigre bloc made up 45% because 92,622,648 Americans didn't cast their ballot. Keep that last figure in mind for later.
In real terms, 13% became 45% because of low voter turnout. The emigre bloc percentage is based on total eligible voters (231,556,622) and the bloc number didn't change. When the real vote total was known, it could be measured against the bloc. The value of the votes in the bloc skyrocketed with low turnout.
The reason Bernie Sanders did not have a snowball's chance in hell is the combined emigre bloc vote. Bernie should have been a shoo-in for them. His father is Galician. Galicia is the still-disputed land between Poland and Ukraine, including the regional capital of Lviv. He claims Polish ancestry, and that is the true nationality, border or no border. Both emigre groups claim to support Polish and Ukrainian people. He was the natural candidate for them except for one thing.
Until the fall of the Soviet Union, these groups were known as the anti-communist emigres. They are the children of groups that manned Hitler's SS. The problem with Sanders is he calls himself a socialist. He was not electable as long as this type of bloc vote exists. If Sanders got the nod to run in the general election, a deal would have been cut for a new Republican candidate at the convention. If you look back, things started to shape up that way.
The only thing a nationalist hates worse than an enemy outside his country, is the enemy within. For an anti-communist and nationalist, there is no greater enemy than a socialist. Progressive's have already forgotten how Sanders was derailed. Most progressives don't realise that, very directly, it WAS the emigre community that did it.
Even after seeing Propornot, progressive, libertarian, and conservative publications are spewing the memes created by these same people that put them on lists to be hacked, isolated, and eventually shut down. It began when journalists started questioning the Syria narrative and support for ISIS.
Did the "Berners" make any change to the Democratic party? "It is very concerning that Bernie Sanders is so intent on taking over a party that he's not even a member of that he'd insult the beloved vice president -- and really the president -- about a failed status-quo approach," said Texas Democratic chairman Gilberto Hinojosa." Was Sanders ever a viable candidate for the Democratic Party? Was he ever treated like one?