We politely extol the virtues that we see in Hillary, we are screamed at that she is a war monger and anti-choice and a racist and sexist.
We reasonably explain that those are unfair characterizations of her, and we are screamed at for “defending her reprehensible actions”.
We try create an understanding to those who do not like her that she is better than the alternative, and we are screamed at becuase democracy is not working out the way they want it to.
If you look around, even in this thread, you will see quite a number of people taking that abuse, and staying polite and understanding and reasonable, and being screamed at in return about how horrible she is, and how horrible we are for supporting her.
Then, when finally someone gets upset about grown adults throwing a temper tantrum and is not patient and understanding in the face of such hostility, they are pointed at, screaming, “See! They weren’t polite enough, so I won’t vote for her.”
That’s an absurd characterization of what happened. No one on the anti-Hillary side has “screamed” anything, and people from the pro-hillary side were abrasive from the beginning.
The sad irony is the Bernie supporters who chided people of color to vote their interests (and were told how patronizing that was) are now being chided to vote their interests (and finding out how patronizing it is).
I heard quite a bit of screaming by bernie supporters at the convention. I hear there was farting too (though I didn’t actually hear that).
If you are talking about this thread(or even forum), well, obviously, no one has screamed, they typed with much gusto.
Do you deny that she has been called sexist, shrill (like a harpy), racist, anti-choice, and a warhawk? Do you feel that all of those statements were made with all due politeness, understanding, and reason?
Where is this “beginning” you say that started it, where the pro-hillary people were abrasive? Before the primary, during the primary, after the primary was pretty much over, during the convention, or after? Were all hillary supporters abrasive, or just the loudest? Were they abrasive because they were saying things you did not want to hear?
If we can find out “who started it” then we can ask them to stop.
This is no longer a discussion about the actual merits of voting for Clinton or not; it’s a discussion about how we perceive voters who aren’t like us. There is no productive outcome in that thread of discussion. I can’t divine perceptions, and people can’t divine mine.
“I don’t know the leadership of the Green Party, but I respect what they’re trying to do,” Sanders said, at a breakfast sponsored by Bloomberg Politics. “They’re focusing on very, very important issues. But I think right now — what is it, three, four months before an election — you’re going to end up having a choice. Either Hillary Clinton is going to become president, or Donald Trump.”
Even if that’s true, so what? According to posters in this thread, Donald Trump is such a disaster that people have a moral obligation to vote for Hillary against him. If that’s the case, don’t posters also have a moral obligation to encourage people to vote for Hillary, instead of alienating potential voters who might vote third party or stay home? So what if it’s hard or hurts your pride not to flame people, doesn’t the great moral imperative take precedence over those? And if it doesn’t, how is something that’s not strong enough to require that you be polite so strong that it requires everyone else to vote like you want? It’s not consistent.
I don’t see that. Point me to a post number where that happened - note carefully that if you’re going to say that a reply is ‘abusive’ or ‘screamed’, the post it’s replying to needs to be ‘polite and understanding and reasonable’ or it doesn’t support your claim.
If Clinton was honest and well-meaning, I could see a moral case for voting for her. Such a moral case does not exist, and in fact, Bernie Sanders spent months arguing that there was a moral case for NOT voting for Clinton.
The case for Clinton is 100% pragmatic. She’s good at what she does, Trump is not. Clinton will lie to us incessantly and do her job well. Trump will lie to us incessantly, insult random people, and likely fail at his job. Advantage: Clinton.
Clinton operates in terms of realpolitik. I would concur that Hillary Clinton has a tendency to spin and outright lie, and I think she’s a disaster in news interviews. This is why people don’t like or trust her, and she’s got nobody to blame but herself for that.
Even so, at the end of the day, provided that there is a clear and compelling reason not to vote for someone, I look at the person who is most likely going to bring my values and interests (which I believe are also consistent with the greater good) into effect. I don’t necessarily expect my political leaders to be 100 percent honest. The United States of America has functioned with leaders who hide things from the general public for various reasons. I don’t necessarily like it, but I accept it provided that the lies are not destructive to our long term interests, or that they’re not lying about things that really and truly matter (i.e. lies that get large numbers of people killed, particularly Americans). I know some will point to Benghazi but I’m not going there – that’s been done and redone to the point of absurdity.
It is not consistent because you are dealing with a number of people. Each of which has different motivations, beliefs and levels of anxiety or anger about the upcoming election. To expect each and every one to behave exactly the same is not reasonable. Have I flamed you? Have I flamed other bernie supporters? Has everyone in this thread flamed you or other bernie supporters, or are there some who have been trying to have a civil conversation all along?
Do I need to police every one of the millions of hillary supporters before you and I can have a civil discourse? Is that a reasonable expectation? I can try, but I have to say that I don’t know that it is possible.
I see “she voted for Iraq, fuck her!”. I see, “she picked a running mate who once voted for a bill that would require parental consent for abortion, so she is as anti-choice as you get”. I see, “the anointed one” used disparagingly toward her.
I could skim through the thread (or the other thread like this one [I can’t keep them apart anymore]) and find many more examples of invective thrown at her and her supporters. Are you saying that this does not exist? I know many of the invectives were in reply to my posts, where I was trying to be very careful to be polite, understanding and reasonable. If you show me any posts I have made that are abrasive, I will apologize and do my best to not re offend.
I am doing my best to have a civil conversation here, would you like to join me?