MrsGrizzley #fundie

MrsGrizzley #fundie patheos.com

[on Democrats who do not support Hillary Clinton]

It's misogyny, plain and simple. For a LOT of them, though I don't know how many, it all comes down to the 30 or 40 Year War against Hillary Clinton because she's a Woman in Politics and they'll vote for a man, ANY man, before they'll vote for a "damn woman who wouldn't even take her husband's name like a proper wife" and who, in some very painful ways, blame her for his philandering.

THAT is really why they're suddenly supporting Trump. It's not about the politics, it's about keeping a Woman out of the White House as the one in charge.

44 comments

old comment by Cloning Blues

This isn't a hundred percent accurate, but it's hardly fundamentalist. In fact, one could make a good argument that the posters in the comments railing about how Sanders was cheated are every bit as fundamentalist, if not more so, than the OP (regardless of what the DNC did or did not do, him winning was never really in the cards, and saying he'd automatically beat Trump is not true).

There are people who oppose Clinton for little reason beyond her gender. They exist and moreover, they're very loud--it's not hard to see how the OP got the impression they are more numerous than they hopefully are. There also has been a thirty year war to make her look bad--unless people in this thread are going to say they think that all the garbage Newt Gingrich's Congress threw at her was true and unbiased.

old comment by StoneSpiral

@ Cloning Blues Except for the part where it was recently discovered that all the collusion, voter suppression and suppression of Sanders in the media lost him enough delegates that exit polling said he should have had that it lost him the primary.

Sanders *was* cheated, and anyone who supports this kind of blatant disregard for the democratic process ought to be ashamed of themselves. Having a vagina in office isn't worth the price of stepping on our rights. And that's all people who support Hillary want, a vagina in office, because her politics are Republican lite at best and slavish devotion to corporations at worst.

No one wins here.

old comment by Cloning Blues

@Nemo

I don't disagree that the DNC has some issues. I just don't think, given the level of incompetency displayed in the leaked emails etc that they could have actually rigged anything with any sort of success.

What I can't stand are people like Stone Spiral who simultaneously say "there's no sexism among the Sanders supporters" and then say "Clinton's supporters just want a vagina in the White House." That's an inherently sexist statement that denies that there might be any other reason for people to have voted for her, be it because they actually like her policies, thought Sanders couldn't win, fear Trump, etc, etc. It's certainly not disputing the OP's point, and it's an attitude that I'm sorry to see here on FSTDT.

People are free to dislike Clinton all they want. But they shouldn't be writing off her supporters as only backing her because of her gender. That's a line Trump himself has used, and one I suspect Sanders would be very sad to here coming from his supposed fans.

old comment by Cloning Blues

@Nemo

I think there's a strand of sexism, mostly of the unconscious variety among certain elements of the Sanders fanbase. They're the kind of guys who say they favour women's rights, but never let a girl get a word in edgewise in a conversation. Who critique Clinton for being "loud" and "shouting" and "angry", while seeing those exact same traits as positives in Sanders (who frankly can't give a speech without shouting). Who use terms like "corporate whore" unironically. Or who try, as Stone Spiral did, to write off all her supporters as only backing her because of her gender. They're not open sexists, the way that your typical Republican is, but they're certainly influenced by sexism.

I don't think they're a large part of his fanbase, but they're certainly a loud and obnoxious part of his fanbase--and with the primaries over, and most of his supporters shifting to Clinton, they're making up an increasingly large percentage of the leftover diehards.

@Time To Turn

Is there a typo in your post? Because I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

@Pyro

Back in the day, Clinton took flak from some Republicans for keeping "Rodham" in her name and not dropping it entirely.

old comment by cdcdrr

@Cloning Blues
Whether or not the DNC could have affected the nomination has little bearing on the collusion between Clinton and Schultz, or the underhanded tricks they planned to pull in their e-mails. When somebody cheats, the outcome becomes irrelevant. All that matters is they broke the rules, and there is some damning proof Clinton and the DNC did not act in good faith. This only adds fuel on the fire for those who think Clinton is corrupt and as bad as a standard republican president.

As for Bernie's endorsement of Hillary, it doesn't prove much of anything. Bernie knows that wanting to shake up politics by electing Trump is cutting off your nose to spite your face. We don't know how much he thinks Clinton's platform is a wet tissue, or how much he'd wish he could endorse Jill Stein, or how sure he is Hillary did not earn the nomination fairly. He just seems to know that no matter how right his cause, further Democratic infighting at this point only benefits Trump. If Clinton won't change anything, it's better to wait four years and hold her feet to the fire on her campaign promises than give the initiative to a doofus who is guaranteed to go the opposite direction of what he wants.

Also, Clinton's platform isn't progressive. On economics she'd lose to a boorish, showboating America First'er republican. No, not Donald Trump. Teddy Roosevelt. You know, a real fucking president.

old comment by Cloning Blues

@cdcdrr

And what tricks are those? Everyone loves to site the staffer who suggested attacking Sanders over his faith...but Clinton never attacked him over his faith. In fact most of the stupidity within the DNC emails seems to have remained confined to the DNC itself, with the Clinton campaign retaining a fairly resolute position of "stop helping me" and refusing to go as low as the DNC suggested.

Sanders' endorsement of Clinton was pretty damn full-throated. Sure we "don't know what he's thinking" but we don't know what anyone's thinking ever. Thinking like this is how we get idiots who think that "Trump doesn't actually mean all the fascist stuff he says". I also highly doubt Sanders wishes to endorse Jill Stein. Last I checked he's not an anti-vaxxer nutjob.

As for her platform not being progressive...you do realize that Sanders got almost everything he wanted into the platform, right? Stricter regulations for banks, reducing student debt, almost all the things that Sanders got his fans riled up about are now in the platform. To say the platform is not progressive is to either a) not read it, or b) assume she's not going to pass any of it because she's lying. In which case politics is maybe not for you.

As for citing Roosevelt...please tell me you're not one of those people who attacks Clinton as "a warmonger". Because if you are, yet you embrace the smiling face of American imperialism personified...there's some issues there.

old comment by Kanna

I'm afraid that may be the problem with many of the Bernie backers. Misogyny, unspoken and unacknowledged, and since it is so deep in their minds, it cannot be countered with reason. The Trump republicans, however, wear their hatred of women on their sleeves as a badge of honor.

@Stone Spiral
You say no one wins, and in your own eyes that's true. But there is losing and then there is "losing yuuuuge", and that matters to many, many people. Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices for the next twenty years, for example. Trashing every even-slightly-progressive legislation, for another. There goes Obamacare. There goes the atmosphere, and we're going to drill in the national parks. There go all rights for women. With Trump on top and a bunch of republicans in congress, there goes education, to be sold off to the highest bidder. There goes any diplomatic relationship with our foreign friends, and allies, and enemies.

There's no reason we have to lose that big, and unless you have a serious hatred of this world, there's no reason to nurse your hurt feelings and plot revenge against your fellow man. Step up and do your duty like an adult. Vote for Clinton.

old comment by cdcdrr

@Cloning Blues
but Clinton never attacked him over his faith. In fact most of the stupidity within the DNC emails seems to have remained confined to the DNC itself, with the Clinton campaign retaining a fairly resolute position of "stop helping me" and refusing to go as low as the DNC suggested.

You blame everything on just the DNC, but the DNC is shaped by the people in it. And there are few people inside it as influential as Hillary Clinton. Let's not kid ourself by saying they do it against her wishes, she's important enough to them that she could make them stop doing whatever she doesn't approve of. Because she and her husband pulled the party of out a twelve year funk that kept them out of the White House through all of the 80's. You can't convince me her bosom buddy Schultz was behaving like a maverick her, so was in league with the Clinton campaign.

As for her platform not being progressive...you do realize that Sanders got almost everything he wanted into the platform, right?

The democrats threw their progressive wing a few bones to keep them pacified, yes. But it is no use when they don't trust your candidate. Clinton has a history of flip flopping that Obama and Sanders don't have, and that's why they both give her such a hard time. Young voters who have paid attention have a bad opinion of her based on what they can dig up on her. If they believe she is a liar, incorporating a few talking points is not going to convince them, because she first has to prove she's good for it.

Actually, no. That is the one major issue on which I don't know if I'd trust Bernie Sanders. Not that Hillary has a perfect record, she voted for the Iraq war, which was completely unnecessary and a huge mistake. But the attacks on her record as foreign minister are nothing but conservative slander. I just don't like naive paleoconservatives, almost as much as I dislike overconfident neocon hawks who think they're the realists.

old comment by

Clinton is a lot like Obama; the difference I see is that Obama might have stood a chance of winning if he weren't black. Clinton is unlikable. She's had many controversies around her, some legitimate, some not. The only thing that makes her stand out from say, Martin O'Malley, is that she's a woman. While the same was true of Obama, he had almost no controversy surrounding him and was a likeable guy.

My point in all this? You can't vote for someone based on sex or race, you have to look at them as an individual and at their policies. I don't like Clinton, and just getting a woman in office for no merits other than her sex is stupid and helps nothing. To say that anyone who wouldn't vote for Clinton is a sexist is really just fundamentalism going the other way than normal. That doesn't make it right.

Still, better than trump.

old comment by Cloning Blues

To every person in this thread who has said "the only reason to vote for Clinton would be because of her gender" or any variant thereof, you realize you are not helping your case, right? You're making it look like the OP has a point.

Again, the sexist Sanders' supporters exist. They weren't a majority of his supporters, or even a large minority, but they existed and were very active online. My Facebook feed got filled with Sanders trolls who insisted "better Trump than Clinton", attacked her as "a corporate whore" and otherwise used a lot of sexist language. If the OP has had a similar experience, it's hardly surprising that she thinks all opposition to Clinton is rooted in sexism, and those of you making sexist comments are not making it better.

@cdcdrr

"Incorporating a few talking points". Sanders got literally eighty percent of what he wanted in the platform. That's not a few talking points. That is, to all intents and purposes, the platform.

As for the belief that she's a liar or a "flip flopper"--the woman has been in politics for thirty years. By definition she's going to have changed policies over that period of time. That's just a reality of being a public figure for that long.

For the love of god, I will never understand the people who get mad at politicians for changing their viewpoints based on what the electorate wants. That's the whole point of a politician--to implement the reforms that we, as the public, want.

@1966520

Saying the only reason people would have to vote for her is her gender is in and of itself an inherently sexist statement. You're not refuting the OP, you're helping her.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@ Stone Spiral

And that's all people who support Hillary want, a vagina in office

How does this differ from the OP's comment? If hers is fundie, yours is no more, no less.

Meanwhile, please tell me what's so Republican about Hillary's support for Planned Parenthood. Tell me why Trayvon Martin's mother would think that a Republican candidate would do just as well. We know just what many of Sanders-or-bust people feel about the views of Southern African Americans, as witnessed by their protestations that the votes of the descendants of slaves didn't really "count" because their ballots were cast in former slave states bore eloquent testimony to their attitudes. Given the number of actual votes cast in real primaries, the view that Hillary supporters count for three-fifths of a person would seem about right.

As for being the same as a Republican, why vote for the someone who say they want to work with Republicans when you can have a "revolution," as set out in laser-like focus in that New York Post interview, and guarantee White House and Congressional stalemate for four years, followed by a GOP landslide..

As there's no difference, I'll think of you when the Trump Supreme Court - with one certain vacancy and another likely one coming up - overturn Roe v Wade, institute "constitutional carry," abolish the Voting Rights Act (though, I get the feeling that that wouldn't bother Bernie-or-Bust people that much) and reinterpret the 1st and 14th Amendments.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Norman

Donald Fart prevented their choice from being nominated.

If he should be elected, I reckon that the Repubicans are suddenly going to become very co-operative with the Democrats on Capitol Hill, thus President Fart - for all his one-term administration - will find himself being a lame duck: from day one.

It's a known fact that the GOP hates Wiggy's guts.

Farty-boy will be known as a president even more irrelevant than Gerald Ford.

@#1966520

"Clinton is a lot like Obama; the difference I see is that Obama might have stood a chance of winning if he weren't black. Clinton is unlikable. She's had many controversies around her, some legitimate, some not. The only thing that makes her stand out from say, Martin O'Malley, is that she's a woman."

As if that ever stopped Maggie Thatcher (*spit*). And she was elected a couple of times again in the 1980s, even though so many had good reason to loathe & detest her.

The nickname for her 'Milk Snatcher' came to be for a reason.

MrsGrizzley #fundie patheos.com

44 comments

Confused?