2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI feel like many supporters of both candidates aren't really listening.
Many Clinton supporters call real issues of wealth, economic security and basic rights "puppies and rainbows" and use right-wing framing in order to condescend to people who are struggling economically and feel like the current system is letting them down (even suggesting that they're not working hard enough or are lazy, which is pure GOP-style framing)
Many Sanders supporters act in a very paternalistic and condescending manner wrt social justice issues, get visibly angry when oppressed groups express doubts or criticisms about his message, and are more comfortable with telling these groups what they should want instead of asking what these groups want.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)The OP could be worth chewing over, under those circumstances...
closeupready
(29,503 posts)where issues get discussed. Instead, it is a message board used as a soapbox by people who probably spend too much time on internet message boards, and who have absolutely no intention of letting anyone change their minds.
villager
(26,001 posts)Did I get that right? More exclamation points, perhaps?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)MattP
(3,304 posts)Dem2
(8,166 posts)I agree wholeheartedly.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I see LOTS of condescending from Clinton supporters . . very little, if any, real discussion of issues. I see almost none of the condescending you mention from the Bernie supporters.
In your take on Bernie supporters, I think you're glossing over the reality. What is see quite a bit of "posturing" from various groups when people disagree with them.
For example: We have all noted at some time or other, that there are what are referred to as "low information voters" in the south who keep voting in Republicans who are consistently working against these people's own interests. From our perspective, we see Republican governors disenfranchising voters and cutting the social safety net . . . doing direct damage to the people who keep voting them in. Why should anyone be expected to "asking what these groups want" before I can have my perspective? How is that even reasonable? I see something from a different perspective and you think I should be asking someone else how they want me to see it???? That is nuts.
What I have noticed is that some people in the group you disagree with, seem to be claiming that you are lecturing them or 'splaining to them because you don't see it their way. No one is TELLING anyone else anything, but stating their own perspective. It seems totally unreasonable to have to ask some voter how they want me to speak about what I see. I am explaining MY perspective and I don't feel it is reasonable to be expected to ask someone else what MY perspective should be.
And THAT is what has been happening.
You are trying too hard to get to some equivalency.
If you want to actually make this point, I'd say to go through the posts and replies and tally up a count of how many times you actually find some Hillary supporter giving their 3 word response of "that old point" or some such thing. And how many times you see some Bernie supporter getting all heated up about TELLING someone from "oppressed group" what they should want. I don't think you'll find it. I have not seen people telling people what they should think. I have seen people disagreeing with someone but not telling them what they should think. Go ahead and count them and bring back your data.
I think you will find that you just made this false equivalency up.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Yuugal
(2,281 posts)is worth more than any social issue to me. What good are rights when you starve?
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)for arbitrary reasons. (Hillary's Group).
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)NOBODY supporting Clinton, being Democrats, would say that. Admit it, you made that up. OR you can provide links to a post.
That's total bullshit.