2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPrivilege is what allows some Bernie supporters to say they will never back HRC
NEVER TRUMP
Privilege is what allows Sanders supporters to say theyll never vote for Clinton
Melissa Hillman March 22, 2016
The latest installment of The Internet Explodes with Hatred for Hillary Clinton happened earlier this month. The Democratic presidential candidate, whose own record on AIDS research and funding is better than any other candidate, mistakenly said that former US first lady Nancy Reagan was a key supporter of AIDS research. Reagan was, in reality, horrible about AIDS in every possible way. Clinton immediately apologized, then apologized again, at length. Yet were still seeing a wagonload of Ill never vote for her claims from progressives, as if her words about Reagan trumpand Im using that verb deliberatelyher actual record on AIDS research and funding. Why?
Clintons stellar record on AIDS is ignored while people indignantly attack her for making an inaccurate statement. I like Bernie Sanders. I really do feel the Bern. But I see Democrats brush aside things that he and other male politicians have done while raining fire on Hillary for the exact same thingor something much less.
This happens all the time. Clinton is flamed for being a career politician and an insider when Sanders has been in political office much longer than she has. (Clinton was first elected to political office in 2000; Sanders was elected to his first office in 1981 and his first national office in 1991.) People flame Clinton for speaking in favor of the omnibus crime bill in the 1990s when she was first lady, a position with no political power. But Sanders, as a member of Congress, actually had the power to enact it into law, voting in favor of it despite the fact that many of his colleagues did not.
http://qz.com/644985/privilege-is-what-allows-sanders-supporters-to-say-theyll-never-vote-for-clinton/
daleanime
(17,796 posts)we all should have, but I guess not.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)I think it is ethics and morals that distinguish us Bernie supporters.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)See what happens when you knee-jerk? You get things wrong.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Than I apologise. my remarks go to whoever wrote that subject line.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)But you didn't bother with that so.....you didn't know.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)and so I didn't go further. My apologies. I consider my vote my right and not a privilege. I will read your post when I have a moment. Thanks.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)I will vote FOR a candidate for the first time in my whole life.
840high
(17,196 posts)shadowandblossom
(718 posts)with many exceptions, like yourself. Who no, clearly are not privileged. But many young college students from middle class families are.
mercuryblues
(14,491 posts)FOR Obama twice.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)She was on the front lines when blood mining was done in Arkansas and not a peep out of her condemning the practice that led to AIDS contaminating the blood supply for accident victims and hemophiliacs.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)You know nothing about my life and what troubles I face. I find this post incredibly insulting and demeaning. Any time you want to talk about privilege and why my vote will not go to her, I'll be happy to enlighten you. My choice comes from a place of pain and having a wolf in sheep's clothing pretend they're fighting for me while stabbing me in the back.
astrophuss42
(290 posts)Exactly this.
SamKnause
(13,043 posts)I am right there with you !!!!!!!!
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)They're one small step away from giving up and saying "Only sexist, racist assholes would prefer someone other than Hillary!"
Amen!! You took the words out of my mouth.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... the people with only half a nose to begin with can't afford that
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Boomer woman who stayed home to raise my son rather than take that second career.
Besides, she flip flops a lot...who knows what she really believes...other than she's going to be the first woman president...whatever it takes.
Yes, insulted and demeaning, to be sure.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Bill Clinton pardon controversy (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy
senz
(11,945 posts)blunt but TRUE.
Thank you.
desmiller
(747 posts)and consider this OP trashed and berned!!!!
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Wow, strange definition you have.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)priv·i·lege
ˈnoun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
"education is a right, not a privilege"
synonyms: advantage, benefit; More
verbformal
1.
grant a privilege or privileges to.
"English inheritance law privileged the eldest son
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Got a problem with it?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)dchill
(38,324 posts)Nice!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)a privilege many Americans don't have.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)B) nominating Clinton is a higher likelihood of a Trump presidency than nominating Sanders. If peep are so worried about Trump, they wouldn't be supporting her. Looks to me like more fear-mongering to try and sell the Republican-Lite candidate.
hack89
(39,171 posts)voters will have to choose between Hillary and Trump. And they will choose the person best for them, warts and all. So when I hear any talk about not voting for Hillary, it is clear they think that Trump will be ok for them personally.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)And as he said, if people were SERIOUS about not getting a Trump presidency, they'd go with their BEST candidate to beat him.
But you aren't really thinking about that at all. All you are doing is using that meme as a talking point, not a serious idea. If you were serious, you'd be a Bernie Bro.
hack89
(39,171 posts)so lets start thinking about what we all have to do to get a Dem in the White House.
Because it appears that the great majority of Democrats think she is a better choice than Bernie. And you need to start accepting that.
BTW - those same polls show Hillary beating Trump too.
revbones
(3,660 posts)that because "the great majority of Democrats think she is a better choice than Bernie" that the remaining people should just suck it up?
I'm not seeing the reason why they would. I mean your invitation to them is pretty sweet and all, but why would they just forego their principles because more people are able to?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)The great majority of Democrats believe a lot of things that as a person with a BA in political theory I know to be factually untrue and beyond debate as to their factual nature; let's not hold how people believe or feel above objective realities.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)I like to think others vote for what's best for the community, the next seven generations, and the planet.
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)Thanks.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Yup.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's a bankrupt strategy.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)That is dreaming, like when someone wants something so bad they can't see anything else.
She only gets a majority of voters among DEMOCRATS which make up only 30% of the voters. She does LOUSEY among Independents and Republicans, the other 70%. And, in case you didn't know this, that other 70% gets to vote in the General Election.
Bernie does GREAT among that other 70% and does just fine among Democrats.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I suspect she will do just fine against Trump. Of course it would be easier if you decided to help out when she becomes the nominee. But you make the choice that benefits you best.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)Under Clinton, I expect TPP to be passed after some perfunctory superficial tweeks are put in. Remember Ms. Clinton has backed the TPP a lot before she "read it". She then proclaimed it to be lacking is several ways. She never said she opposed the ideas in the TPP, just the wording.
The next President has fast track authority for several years. TPP and TTIP are done deals under Ms.Clinton.
So, my daughter will have her manufacturing job outsourced to Vietnam.
My atmosphere will not get protections of a carbon tax.
My fresh water will be privatized.
My family's healthcare will continue to be federally mandated privately owned for profit insurance with an outrageous deductible, for which I will be means tested every year.
My future son in law will find himself deployed to the ME again and again, at least until he gets something shot off.
Under tRump; I'll live in a fascist oligarchy, not all that much different from the one I live in now.
Either way, the likelihood of rest of the world finally getting the message that we can't stop ourselves in military superabundance or random invasions to facilitate business interests masked as regime change; and band together to help us stop ourselves become greater every saber rattle.
I do not believe either tRump or Ms. Clinton can lead our country anywhere good.
hack89
(39,171 posts)all you can do is decide which president, however flawed, will be the best for you.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Your assumptions are wrong. "Life" is a complex system of nested micro, meso, and macro relationships dynamically changing over time, nested in an equally complex and diverse physical environment. My choices come from different values than you apparently...not simply self interest, but community interest, interest in the next 7 generations, interest in global health, and interest in the values of democracy. With all of these considerations, you are in no position to claim your simple-minded logic trumps complex thinking. Your life may be simple. Mine is not.
hack89
(39,171 posts)My thinking is simplistic.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)and based on faulty assumptions. I cannot deduce from one event whether or not your thinking is simplistic. I would tend to think that you are capable of more. I would speculate that you tend to work backwards from your conclusion and build the best argument you can. In this case, you do not have much to work with, ergo the specious sophistry backed up with snarky eye rolling.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)but I'm voting for Sanders to avoid a Trump presidency. Hillary will do fantastically well in a Trump presidency too or a Clinton presidency...but that's because they're birds of a feather.
There's one party, we aren't in it...and Hillary supporters are the dupes in the room because she is in that party along with Trump and all those oligarchs she pals around with and works against our interests to work in their interests.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)like the fundraisers where attendees can donate $27,000 to have their photos taken, and get a ticket to host a reception and become members of a candidates finance committee. That's Fucking Privilege.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/02/22/hillary-clinton-la-fundraisers/
closeupready
(29,503 posts)kjones
(1,053 posts)Not to mention Hillary is sharing a lot of the money she pulls in down ticket.
Is Bernie?
kjones
(1,053 posts)Sounds to me like you've got nothing. Well...I'm sure there's
an something "original" to use in the smilies. Seems to be a go
to.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)why should WE bother?
Autumn
(44,762 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Bernie--
9 contributions totaling $226,521 to Democratic Party committees
http://www.followthemoney.org/show-me?f-core=1&pt-pt=1&d-eid=8206022
Hillary--
8 contributions totaling $6,425 to candidates and committees
http://www.followthemoney.org/show-me?f-core=1&d-eid=569313
TrueDemVA
(250 posts)You are presenting facts. I don't think that's what we want here. HA HA HA!
GO BERNIE!!!
spooky3
(34,303 posts)About half of his "contributions" were to the "Dem Senate Victory Fund." That's not "downticket", given that he is a Senator and $100K of those were donated in 2012, well before he began his campaign for president. He was and is likely to be a beneficiary of those contributions. Even the $25K he donated in 2014 could have benefited him.
The other half was given to the Vermont Democratic Party in 2012. None for years since then. So the only "downticket" candidates he has helped are those in Vermont, in 2012. Nothing for the other 49 states.
The site lists no contributions after 2014. Maybe it's just out of date. Or, maybe he has given nothing in 2015 or 2016 to help downticket campaigns.
And how much has Sanders RAISED that goes directly to benefit true downticket candidates? Clinton has raised a lot of money that does not go first to her, but goes directly to others, so those would not be listed at your linked site here as a contribution. That is one of the reasons (though you may consider it craven, though if you do, you must also consider raising for yourself and then "contributing" it to orgs, especially those that benefit you, as equally craven) why she has so many endorsements from superdelegates.
In any case, those are the facts.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)Is there a better site to show where she has given money to specific candidates.
Through /grassworksselect via /sandersforpresident, I believe, this was started to support 25 candidates running on a progressive agenda.
Tim Canova is especially interesting because he is running against Congresswoman and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He was denied access to the DNC voter registry and only recently allowed access.
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/couregeousendorsers
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)The writer believes too many HRC press releases.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Clinton broke promises and underfunded. Fortunately, Bush did much better, creating PEPFAR, for example. Yes, I despise Bush. But touting Clinton's AIDS record makes no sense.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,483 posts)Lets think practically about the election in November.
If Donald Trump gets elected, how many vulnerable people will be hurt, how many programs cut, how bad will the the economy get under conservative policies? How much damage will be done if Trump, an open racist and misogynist, is empowered to command our military, veto bills, and nominate people to the Supreme Court, impacting life in the US for decades to come?
k8conant
(3,030 posts)Oh, wait. I don't hate HRC. I just don't want to vote for her.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Without the slightest consideration of what might be better for the country, or what their fellow voters have already decided.
I'd agree that Sanders would make a better President in principle. But that opinion is not shared by the greater number of voters for Clinton so I don't have a problem with taking others' considerations in mind when I cast my ballot.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)And 2+2=5. How clear that point is to all who believe that Ignorance is Strength. Keep on keepin' on, Team Wall Street.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)One can certainly disagree with Sanders, or believe that Clinton would be a better GE candidate.....But to disparage the motives of the majority of Sanders supporters in a way that is totally the opposite of reality...That's just bogus.
randome
(34,845 posts)But there are many more Sanders supporters here claiming they won't vote for Clinton because only their personal principles are in play.
Clinton supporters, by and large, don't have a problem voting for Sanders if he wins the nomination.
I just think it's important to keep in mind that she will have won the nomination because more Democrats voted for her.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But having also experienced the Democrats in and out of power, I also agree with those who beieve it's necessary to make a stand and fight back against the constant abuse of the Democrat's role as the only electoral alternative for anyone to the left if Mitch McConnell.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)candidate, without the slightest consideration of what might be better for the country . . . ??????
Clinton does NOT have the greater number of voters. She is well known AMONG DEMOCRATS. Bernie isn't doing much worse among Democrats. But they are only 30% of the voters.
Bernie does MUCH better, double digits better with the other 70% of the people who can vote.
And 70 is a much bigger number than 30. Accept it. Stop insisting on getting your own way and start considering what is better for the country.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)It's time for this crap to stop. eom
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I think the opposite is true. Not supporting Hillary means, to many people that they literally have nothing to lose and nothing to gain (except maybe a large military enlistment call for their kids- although they'd rather see them go to college) if she is elected, so why give her their vote?
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)The term "privilege" doesn't even appear in the original article, which is a cautionary screed directed toward anyone who might sit out the election.
Nothing new here, "vote in November for Hillary or you'll get Trump", or something.
It neglects to point out that Sanders is doing pretty well, that he actually may be the safer bet to beat Trump.
So, I don't see anything about privilege worth discussing, just more inter-candidate baiting and drama.
IMHO
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)"It neglects to point out that Sanders is doing pretty well, that he actually may be the safer bet to beat Trump.
So, I don't see anything about privilege worth discussing, just more inter-candidate baiting and drama. "
I guess if they can't debate on the issues, that is all they have.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)No.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)I am out and about, busy so I can't write a long response but basically this:
The status quo works for the privileged. The people with more to lose want to keep things as they are. The people with less to lose should, logically, want actual change.
This OP is compketely backwards.
jonestonesusa
(880 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)She had no clue so she just assumed. After all, how could such a great upstanding person like Nancy Reagan be an anti-gay fuckhead? Pretty easily. To not know this just shows great ignorance to a very obvious position.
It's not this ignorance that makes me leery of voting for her though, it's a bunch of other things.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)Expected us to be the pig ignorant ones.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)PoliticalPothead
(220 posts)to believe that voting for her will actually help the underprivileged.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Blew them right out of the water!!!
coyote
(1,561 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)A 45 second "inaccurate", "mistake"?
I don't have any quarrel with Hillary's record on AIDS/HIV but I think it was attempt to inject it as a "SEE ME!" statement when she praised Nancy and Ron.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)SamKnause
(13,043 posts)White, female, disabled, and living in poverty.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)In other words... A bullshit opinion.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this is what they/we are talking about. That Sanders supporters can talk to us about moral compass yet leave lives at stake because they did not get the candidate they want, is exactly why we choose a different candidate.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)I'm not privileged. I'm unemployed 55 and taking care of my elderly mother. Hillary is a crook. I won't vote for her. It's PRINCIPLE not privilege. If this is the best the DNC can give us, then they deserve to see her lose. This is her LAST chance and I would love nothing more than to see her chances shot down by Bernie.
basselope
(2,565 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Hillary's poor proposals don't cut it and will ensure the planet fails.
So yeah, not privilege, just concern for all of us and our future.
They say if Bernie isn't the nominee they'll vote for Jill Stein since Trump and Hillary will cause virtually the same damage so why not vote their conscience?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)It shows that you either don't care about fracking, SS cuts, for-profit healthcare, even more bloated pentagon budgets, capital punishment, for-profit mass incarceration, more domestic spying, poverty-level minimum wages, TTP, TTIP, more H1B visas, and less Wall Street regulation, or those issues don't affect you. In either case you are privileged indeed.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)when they should be backing the most electable candidate.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But getting down to brass tacks, here, does anyone actually believe that these jargon-laden tumblresque manifestos are actually convincing anyone of anything?
"ohmigod, I was totally going to sit out the general if Hillary is nominated until I was reminded to check my privilege, aha! i see the light!"
No. No one is swayed by this stuff. It is navel-gazing, virtue signalling and choir-preaching, nothing more.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)This line is the best
Privilege is being paid a quarter of a million dollars for a single speech.
Thank you for that!!!!!!
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Someone call Hillman a whambulance.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)settle for table scraps and it's pretty fucking offensive for you to suggest otherwise.
This hairball Bernie-privilege thing keeps coming back.
I answered it myself a couple weeks ago; for me its a matter of perspective, not privilege.
Rebkeh answered it again today: "Nonsense, utter bunk."
frylock
(34,825 posts)Hatchling
(2,323 posts)Every time Clinton mistakenly says something in ignorance or deceptiveness I shudder to think that some day she may mistakenly say such a thing to someone in a diplomatic situation who won't taken I misspoke as an excuse.
She misspeaks all too frequently and I won't vote for someone so disingenuous or ignorant or deceptive (in the primaries).
Avalux
(35,015 posts)I'd really like to know. Don't forget the blood from Arkansas prisoners.
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=3732
dana_b
(11,546 posts)He is giving speeches to thousands of people, working class, middle class, poor, and even some well off for FREE! She is running around to eat dinner with big donors who spend $!00,000+ for the privilege of eating with her.
Now WHO exactly represents those of privilege??
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)unlike those in the countries that will suffer from current or future wars that Hillary supports.
For those victims of war, I guess it's out of sight, out of mind.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2016, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)
PhD in Theater.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)She is MORE than a career politician.....yes indeed.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and who is just play-acting...
senz
(11,945 posts)the Third Way fake dems will be gone.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)who will support whoever the Dem nominee is.... I guess I'm a rare breed since everyone else is itching to leave DU if their candidate loses...
senz
(11,945 posts)would be to infiltrate the Dem Party at all levels and bring it back to its FDR roots -- the party of the people.
However, it would be a mistake to confuse DU with the Democratic Party. They are separate things.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Whatever happened to simply joining, participating and fucking VOTING?
Folks would impress the hell out of me if they could just do that...
senz
(11,945 posts)Most of us are members of the Democratic Party and vote in every election, but if we want to influence the direction of the party, we need to become local party leaders and state party leaders and actually affect the direction it takes.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)"infiltrate" is just the wrong word, then...
senz
(11,945 posts)I do have a problem with that, Blue_Tires. I think in images, not words, so it's often a process of translation and sometimes I get it wrong. It's a pain in the butt and makes communication slow and difficult, but I'm stuck with it.
Broward
(1,976 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)to defend the status quo and privilege. I find many of her supporters screaming privilege seem to be most unaware of their own.
senz
(11,945 posts)Her entire life, all of her choices, are about maintaining and enhancing her own white privilege and that of her peer group.
She is nothing but.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)jpb33
(141 posts)More ridiculous nonsense screaming about sexism. It cannot be that HRC is just a bad candidate, but people don't like her because they are all sexist. It is not that she voted for the Iraq war, had a private server at her home while SOS, made millions upon millions giving speeches to bankers, supporting coups of democratically elected presidents in other countries, supporting outsourcing of jobs, supports death penalty, made a mess of Libya, wants to continue and ratchet up the drug war, does not want to decrim weed, she is n Wall Streets pocket (I would write more, but my hands are getting tired). No, no it is none of these reasons, the only possible reason is because everyone is sexist!
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)I'm not privileged. I am fucking tired of not being represented by the Democratic Party since at least 1992. She does not represent me.
amborin
(16,631 posts)RandySF
(57,659 posts)DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)The rest of us need someone who will help us get out of this hole.
Feel The Bern!
Meteor Man
(385 posts)It's all that white privilege that makes Bernie so popular on Skid Row.
Yep. And great job throwing the gender bashing micro-aggression in there. That should really change a lotta minds!
Impedimentus
(898 posts)and thank you again.
FEEL THE BERN - 2016
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Demonstrated daily.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)If you don't have anything to lose you aren't going to lose anything.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'll let you know as other wants and needs pop into my head. In the meantime, I think I'll just go ahead and vote in the privileged way I see fit.