Bernie Sanders or bust? That's a stance based on privilege

[NCTraveler]

As it becomes ever more likely that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, a host of people have announced that they either won’t vote for Clinton, or won’t vote at all, if Bernie Sanders isn’t the candidate on the ballot. I believe there’s a self-righteousness about this that only people with a certain level of privilege can afford to have.

But like the people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 in protest of Al Gore, Bernie-or-nobody voters are making a decision with implications that go far beyond their narrow frame of reference.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/democratic-vote-hillary-clinton-election-2016-bernie-sanders

So true and much of the discussion going back and forth this primary season really backs it up.

[lunamagica]

1. Of course it is. Only people who won't be affected by a Trump or Cruz presidency can afford to

have the luxury of nor voting Dem (or voting Trump).

[grossproffit]

4. Trump is very dangerous. He reminds me of Martin Sheen's character in The Dead Zone

I find him scarier than Cruz and that's saying a lot.

[angrychair]

21. Yep "luxury"

No real choice at all.
Both HRC and tRump are under federal investigation.
Both are willing to address the ME in a way that will drag us into a larger regional if not world war (no fly zones(HRC) and no fly zones and killing innocent civilians(tRump).
HRC supports SuperPACs and unlimited campaign funding (it is what she and the DNC are doing right now, DNC even went against a rule put in place by PBO)
She is neutral to lean support on TPP.
Until she was ramping up to run for president she only supported civil unions at most.
As recently as February she was still taking thousands of dollars from for-profit prison corporations.

So, with either, I still get more war, big moneystill in politics, big defense spending, bad trade deals and at screwed up SSI. So explain to me how I am getting something different? No fluff and fantasy, give me concrete

[Hortensis]

27. Only Bernie's right wingers and a few extremists will abandon

the cause of progressivism. For all the noise about this potential betrayal, we know from polls of Bernie supporters that it simply is not a significant problem.

Or to put it another way: Good riddance!

[angrychair]

31. HRC is a "moderate centrist"

Her words, not mine. She is only a progressive on a debate stage with Sanders.

[Hortensis]

37. Overall, Hillary is a strong social liberal, a moderate

economic liberal, and perhaps she may be a moderate centrist on a handful of issues affected by her Methodist religion. I know that in the past she has supported using taxpayer dollars to subsidize church schools, something I very strong disapprove of.

You know, you always could have decided you wanted to know the truth about Hillary Clinton. But you refused to. Don't forget to take your hostile propaganda with you if you're one of those who will be leaving.

[Lizzie Poppet]

71. "moderate economic liberal?"

Stopped reading right there, to be honest. That's simply surreal...

[Hortensis]

87. Yes, remember, even strong liberals are seldom as far left

economically as those of the far left with Bernie. Although Bernie has what most of us feel are mostly good aspirations, he and his relatively small number of far-left followers want more now than most feel we can achieve any time soon.

Of course, although it is true that most of Bernie's followers are, in fact, strong liberals who aspire for big change right now but are comfortable with Hillary as an alternative, and not far-lefters, they are nevertheless outnumbered by the rest of us.

In any case, that's why it seems strange to you. You imagine that Hillary and her liberal supporters are more like conservatives and you are...sort of where liberals are. But that's not the case.

[Lizzie Poppet]

92. It's more a matter of me not using the hugely RW-skewed current US spectrum to define things.

I'd argue I'm using a more globally-representative spectrum, but I doubt we have much disagreement about where candidates stand relative to each other. The rest is just labeling.

I certainly don't disagree that there are plenty of Democrats and other liberal(ish) folk who consider Bernie's economic ideas "too far." But because I prioritize issues relating to economic justice above all others, I don't consider such folk to be my political allies...or what I describe as "strong liberals." YMMV, as would that of anyone using a different political spectrum.

[Hortensis]

93. Why ignore our culture to go "global" when it is not applicable?

From my readings on this subject, I believe you are probably mistaken in assuming that if you were northern European your views would be fairly mainstream. There is ALWAYS more to strive for, big change that needs to be accomplished, and you are a striver. I believe you would be rejecting the mainstream and pushing relatively "radical" changes there also.

Of course, I could be very wrong, but we now know that our political orientations come from our basic genetic hard wiring acted on by environmental factors. We can take the person out of the environment to another, but his inborn personality characteristics go with him.

And, yes, I do believe you when you say that you reject "plenty of Democrats and other liberal(ish) folk who consider Bernie's economic ideas "too far"as "political allies...or what I describe as "strong liberals."

That is actually a major weakness of groups on the far left and far right. In a representative democracy, they are almost always too small in numbers to accomplish their goals without forming alliances, and their rejection of those who do not share their ideology does not allow the compromise alliances require.

Believe me, this intrinsic dysfunction was a major, major factor in my deciding I could not throw in with Bernie. We must win this election, and we must have positive, progressive change.

[Lizzie Poppet]

96. In large part because I want to work to un-skew our political spectrum.

But yes, my take on "left-to-right" is almost certainly a bit Euro-centric. It would never apply to, say, Saudi Arabia.

[redstateblues]

105. Hillary was rated one of the most liberal Senators

In Congress. This meme that she is a Republican is false

[grossproffit]

45. Yep.

[lunamagica]

38. They are not the same, and you know it

Is Hillary waging a war against Muslims in America?

Is she promoting hatred towards anyone who is not white?

Will she abolish Obamacare?

Has Trump promised immigration reform with a path to citizenship?

The implication that Trump and Hillary are the same is absurd.

Your post proved my point. If your life was at stake with a Trump presidency (for example, if you were Muslim), you would do anything in your power to keep Trump away from the presidency.

Millions of Hispanics are becoming citizens to vote against Trump. That's because their lives are at stake if he wins the presidency.

Yet, all of this don't affect others, who yes, can afford the luxury of having a president Trump, because it won't directly affect them

[angrychair]

47. Yep they can become citizens

And vote for HRC just in time to be drafted for WWIII with her Syrian no fly zone shooting down Russian jets.
Given that she calls them one of the greatest threats, that is no surprise.
I'm for anybody that is not under criminal investigation by the FBI and will not drag us into WWIII. Of the three mentioned, none of them give me that.

Only Sanders gives you everything you mentioned plus the bonus of no world ending death and destruction.

[lunamagica]

52. GMAB. You ask me to give you concrete, I give it to you and this is your answer?

Is that your definition of "concrete".

Pathetic

[angrychair]

65. What?

Does she or does she not advocate for a Syrian no fly zone?

Has not PBO and the pentagon both stated that a no fly zone creates serious risk to escalating the conflict and put us in direct conflict with Russia?

Did she state during the debates that Russia and Iran were two of our greatest potential threats or not?

Does Sanders support a path to citizenship?

Does Sanders support the fair and equal rights for all, regardless of faith or country of origin?

I already know the answers to these questions, do you?

[lunamagica]

74. The point of the OP was if it came to Clinton and Trump, not voting for Clinton

shows privilege.

Every Clinton supporter I know will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee.

It's Sanders supporters who threaten to sit out the GE if they don't get their way. That would help Trump to get elected.

The fact that those Sander's supporters (Thankfully, I think it's a loud minority) can live with a Trump presidency shows their privilege.

[angrychair]

98. Luxury

To avoid the questions I asked. They go to your point specifically.
I would never, in a million years, gun to my head, vote for tRump.

That being said, luxury is perspective.
Not advocating for conflict and campaign finance reform are very big issues. So is the Dream act and pathway to citizenship and so is treating those of ME decent as human beings. I get that. It is not lost on me how a tRump or Cruz are different than HRC. I have serious trust issues she means it based on past statements. I am not alone in that. I also am disappointed that many, especially on this site, have all but said they will not hold her to her word or question her actions if different from her statements or policy. The focus is putting her in office with no concern at or questions once she is there.
I have made some conditional statements but, I am, of my own admission, conflicted.
I also don't think that, given the history of the opposition party having an advantage after the other party has had 8 years in power, her being underwater in her favorable/unfavorable ratings for months, national polling being poor against Cruz and not great against tRump, it a hard case to make that she is the "ideal" as opposed to "what is being pushed" kind of thing. There is always an assurance she can overcome factors. Factors that already don't exist with Sanders.

[drmeow]

109. You forgot the women of childbearing age

who can kiss their reproductive health and choice goodbye if there is another Republican in the White House. Women's lives are at stake - probably not to the same degree as Hispanics and Muslims but without someone to bring the Supreme Court back from its extreme right position women are f**ked!

I'm a Bernie supporter but you can bet your sweet ass I'll be voting for whoever is the Democratic nominee come November - the stakes are just too damn high.

[DeGreg]

85. True! A vote that just like not voting at all...

full disclosure: Re-posted comment, follows.
____

I find it interesting how the phrase The Establishment has become quite the meme this time around. The word has always been there, but this election has revealed it's true meaning.

There is only one party and the presidential election is an illusion of choice. And, if you vote for The Establishment Party (doesn't matter which flavor, R or D)––what do YOU get? The same shit with a different grin.


The Establishment is America's one party system that has guaranteed the status quo whether a Republican or a Democrat wins the presidency.
The Establishment Party has wiped out the middle class on purpose.
The Establishment is the party that held down or reduced wages over the last 30+ years.
The Establishment is the party that guarantees the military-industrial complex (the business of killing etc.,) is the National Business. The Establishment is the party that pushed for corporations to be declared people with Citizens United.
The Establishment Party has turned our congress into a governing body full of money grabbers who spend all their time making laws and "governing" on behalf of corporations, rather than taking the citizens interests to heart.
The Establishment Party Inc., is the party that sold out American jobs and industry to wherever they could find labor as close to slaves as is possible, in order to squeeze more pennies into their pockets.

Which candidates appear to be NOT be in The Establishment Party? Duh, that's a no brainer.

Well, I've come out to vote this time because Bernie Sanders actually appears to be offering THE POSSIBILITY of changing shit from the way it has always been, from the status quo. I think Bernie offers a real choice for the first time (and you could say the same thing for Trump, if you're wondering why that might be happening over there). All you have to do is look at how freaked out both Rs and Ds are over Trumps and Sanders, respectively; and perhaps this election offers a REAL CHOICE FOR A CHANGE. The Establishment Party is freaking out, and that's because their hold the status quo would be challenged should Bernie or The Donald win.

SO EXCUSE ME (thx Mr. Martin) if I refuse to vote for Hillary should Bernie not complete his run successfully, but she is The Establishment Party candidate and voting for her––even if she wins––will be just like not voting at all. She's a suckers bet.

Here's the final thing: If you want The Establishment Party to win and keep everything the same, then vote Hillary––but own it, say it out loud, "I'm with The Establishment Party, I'm voting for Hillary because I want things to pretty much stay the same as it ever was." Don't pretend she's anything other than who she is, a member of The Establishment Party Inc.,

[Lizzie Poppet]

64. Every non-swing-state voter has the same "luxury."

I can vote for Vermin Supreme in November if I feel like it. My vote matters not in the least.

Thanks a whole fucking bunch, Electoral College.

[Lorien]

75. WHO told Drumpf that he should run lunamagia?

Oh yeah, THESE people. Birds of a feather!



Sorry, but we're not falling for their game. Sorry to hear that you've been hosed by them though.

[NCTraveler]

103. I don't get your point.

Trump is tearing the Republican Party to shreds and will give us a much better chance in the primary. Hope you are still giving Clinton credit then.

[Starry Messenger]

2. k&r

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. Clinton is the candidate of privileged people

You don't understand the Clinton policies have destroyed our communities.

They aren't a realistic choice.

Clinton is the candidate of privileged people who don't fear having to compete with workers in Asia making 50 cents an hour.

Clinton is the candidate for privileged people who don't have to drive by rusted out factories and mills that used to employ thousands of people and now sit empty thanks to Clinton trade policies.

NAFTA, trade with China, and the WTO. She supported all that crap. It is a class war and Hillary is on the wrong side. She doesn't care about me, and I don't care about her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511436455

[Svafa]

18. +1

[Armstead]

5. Nooooooooo. You don;lt have to be "privileged" to have principles and beliefs

Nor does it require privilege to honestly believes that there is little difference in the actual policies and impact of which elitist political "team" happens to occupy the White House.

I personally don't share that view, but I can certainly understand how many people would feel that way.

And this primary seems to be exposing how conservative the Democratic Party is really becoming, and how intertwined with the real privileged elites and oligarchs.

[Mufaddal]

14. Somebody quick--go tell Winona LaDuke how privileged she is

[Sivart]

6. This is such crap.

My vote is mine. I don't owe it to anyone for anything. I don't owe it to any political party and I don't owe it to any person or people who are less fortunate than I am.

If YOUR candidate cannot seal the deal with the voters, then that is all that it is.

Everyone's vote is their own. No one should feel pressured to vote for someone they are not in favor of for any reason.

Shame on Democrats on this site for starting this crap.

[NCTraveler]

8. "Shame on Democrats on this site for starting this crap. " nt.

[VulgarPoet]

20. +1.

[NCTraveler]

22. .

That one was pretty obvious.

[VulgarPoet]

25. I've tried advocating for at least a modicum of cross-camp support but

clearly that message has fallen on deaf ears. I'm sick of the personal attacks, to be completely honest with you. I'd rather stick to issues where necessary.

[NCTraveler]

29. I have started posting more pro-Clinton articles than anti-Sanders.

One slips through the crack here and there. I will say I don't recall ever calling any member here a name of any kind. With the amount of posts I have it has probably happened, but I don't recall it.

[VulgarPoet]

30. All we can do is try, right? nt

[PeaceNikki]

28. "Shame on Democrats on this site for... " for what?

Using a site called the "DemocraticUnderground" to push other members to... support Democrats?

[Sivart]

56. For pretending....

For pretending that by voting for candidate "A" you are really or ultimately voting for candidate "B"

An example - A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

A vote for Nader is just a vote for Nader. We vote FOR candidates on ballots. By voting FOR one candidate, you are implying by your vote that your are against the other candidates at that time.

So, a vote for Nader was in actuality a vote AGAINST both Bush and Gore.

But some people on this site like to pretend that votes for nader were magically made into votes that were pro bush and anti gore.

But they weren't.

In addition, both Sanders and Clinton are running as Democrats.....so what was your point about this being a democratic site?

[PeaceNikki]

58. Vote for Democrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[Sivart]

72. Is the primary over?

aren't we still in the Primary? Dem versus Dem?

I am failing to see your point?

It is not a violation of the spirit of the rules of this site to advocate for the primary candidate of your choosing.

[PeaceNikki]

81. It's adorable how you're trying to be coy. This OP is about the Bernie or Bust movement.

And this OP is discussing the ridiculousness of that.

[Sivart]

90. what is ridiculous?

what exactly is ridiculous?

So, you're back to the Nader scenario?

This OP is about applying the Nader scenario to the current primary.

Fuck the Nader scenario. If Hillary needs my vote, she needs to earn it. That wasn't a problem for Bernie, and if Hillary really put her mind to it, she could do it, too. Unfortunately I have no money to offer her, so I don't think she is too concerned about me. Hence, you don't need to be either.

Is that against the rules of this site? Is that being coy? Fuck the nader scenario. Its a simpleton's excuse.

[PeaceNikki]

91. What is ridiculous is people on this site advocating that movement.

It's a violation of TOS here, in fact. People have been banned for it and I suspect more will be as well.

This is a site meant to build up Democrats.

[Sivart]

94. Ha!!

First of all, feel free to recommend me for banning.

Secondly, then why are you not railing against the OP for starting a topic that is against the TOS? I did not start the post. i was merely responding to it.

Thirdly, are you suggesting that by being a member of this site, other members have the right to tell me who to vote for, or how to my vote?

[dogman]

7. Or moral conviction.

Your vote is your own, to do with as you choose. While I can hold my nose, there are those who must follow their conscience. I respect that.

[NurseJackie]

9. Try to ignore them. They'll go away eventually.

[NCTraveler]

10. Your gif has me mezmorized. lol. nt.

[NaturalHigh]

11. No, it's a stance based on Constitutional RIGHTS.

Everyone's vote is his or her own, and no party has the right to demand it.

That said, I'm voting for the democratic nominee, having voted for Clinton in the primary.

[Cleita]

12. You should listen to what people say.

Learn this very well. If Hillary wins the primary, Trump or whoever is the Repub will be elected President.

[NowSam]

13. I won't cast a vote based on fear.

If the best argument to vote Hilary is that she isn't Trump than that is a fundementally flawed candidate.

Since we do have checks and balances in place with other branches of government than I need a better reason to vote for her and frankly I find her to be part and parcel of a totally corrupt broken system. instead I vote for real change in and an end to the corruption by voting Bernie.

Sorry, if we get Trump, Cruz, or Clinton we get perpetual war, perpetual poverty, perpetual corruption.

[Kittycat]

88. Exactly! Falling in line is how we ended up with Reagan Democrats &

Two terms of GWB.

I'm quite done voting against what made our party great. Bring back leaders like FDR. Those that think we need to be like the republicans to beat them, can just deal with the fall out. They own the media, they own the corporations, they control everything that controls our lives, but they don't control me, and my vote isn't for sale.

So frack that!

[NowSam]

97. Well said.

The time is long overdue to right this ship.

[7wo7rees]

15. As they like to say in Texas, "Bless your heart".

Not based on privilege at all.

Coming from the campaign when you could not blame Nader, then it was Perot.

He campaigned hard against NAFTA! He warned us all.

[NCTraveler]

17. Thank you very much for your warm Texas regards. nt.

[VulgarPoet]

23. Snickering at the Texas quote.

I know what that means.

[Jefferson23]

16. lol

No candidate has the privilege of anyone's vote. If Clinton is that distrusted and
brings forth enough contempt from voters, then that is the response they are giving the
Democratic Party.

If she can't win against Cruz or Trump that is on her, same applies to Bernie if he is not
able to surpass her wins in the primary race.

She is your preferred candidate, I suggest you own it.

[Go Vols]

19. from your link

If Donald Trump wins the presidency over Hillary Clinton, it’s not the fault of people like me who won’t vote for Republicans. It’s the fault of the Democratic Party for nominating a Republican.

[litlbilly]

26. My thoughts exactly:)

[Svafa]

40. Perfectly stated.

[vintx]

63. Yep.

[Lizzie Poppet]

67. Dead perfect!

I'll tell any political party, "Screw your branding; it's irrelevant to me. Give me a candidate that's for what I'm for or get lost."

[Lorien]

79. BINGO! nt

[Major Hogwash]

24. 1%ers vs the rest of us.

That is not much of a privilege.

[BainsBane]

44. That's not even true in regard to class alone

To pretend people making $200-$400k a year are not privileged is absurd. That's not even counting the majority of Americans who aren't white and male, and subject to this sort of thing: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017336519
voter disenfranchisement, and laws regarding racism, all ignored by your post, as though no one else even matters.

The 99% construction enables the upper-middle class to pretend they are exploited. They are not. There is as much if not more difference between the lower 10 percent and the upper 89-99% as between the upper-middle class and the wealthy. I've lived at the bottom of that spectrum and near the 50 percent mark, and the difference is tremendous. Whether one has food or housing makes a far bigger difference than if they have four or six bathrooms.


The Bernie or Bush argument also shows that policy is completely irrelevant, and they don't even care about seeing Citizens United overturned. For those who go so far as to argue that Trump is better, they demonstrate in now uncertain terms that the one thing they care about is maintaining and regaining privilege.

[merrily]

32. The shenanigans to try to make sure Sanders loses the Dem nom are based on what?

BLM approved his racial justice platform months ago. He does better against Republicans in head to head match ups than Hillary. So, why the zeal to make sure he loses the nom? The DNC, the Party and the Clintons are the ones shooting the Party and the general in the collective foot. Where is the outcry about that?

[vintx]

66. Good questions

Those shenanigans are why it's Bernie or Bust for me.

And no, I'm not privileged (far from it) but we (ASA country) can't afford to keep enabling this charade.

[dchill]

33. Sanders could win the Presidential election.

Clinton won't. Now who are the privileged ones?

[cwydro]

53. No way can he win the GE.

There's simply no way.

If Bernie supporters choose not to vote in the GE, well, that's your choice.

But that's a damn shame in the longer view - vis a vis the Supreme Court, etc.

I know that I will vote for Bernie without hesitation should he win the nomination. Not even a doubt in my mind.

[dchill]

84. Millions disagree.

[cwydro]

86. Well, if those millions get out and vote...

he'll have a chance.

Not looking real hopeful now however.

For me, it's a win-win because I like both candidates.

[CoffeeCat]

34. They're trying to make those who don't like Clinton feel guilty

and fearmonger them into the voting booth.

They do not realize that they have much, much bigger issues.

Those voters are gone forever. That cake is baked.

Instead of trying to manipulate grown adults into behaving as you wish--why not deal with the fact that you've alienated a good 20 percent of the Democratic party who will not be there on voting day AND Clinton is not polling poorly with Independents.

These types are two steps behind. If they truly believe that HRC is such a spectactular candidate then they damn well better start lobbying Republicans and Independents--otherwise it will be their gamble that put Trump or Cruz in the White House.

[mmonk]

35. Or lack thereof.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. One more time

Gore WON the election in 2000. The SCOTUS overruled the voters and appointed Bush.

Also, if memory serves, Nader got 97,000 votes, but Vichy Dems voting for Bush number over 200,000+. So, ten times as many registered Democrats voted for Bush than all of Nader voters combined.

[HerbChestnut]

39. Yet another condescending thread by Hillary supporters trying to round up Bernie supporters.

This is getting old. When your only strategy to get Bernie supporters to support your candidate is by talking down to them you've already lost the fight.

[LonePirate]

41. Gotta love the irony here.

Bernie supporters who refuse to vote for HRC in the GE will allow a Repub to win. Each and every Repub will enact exactly 0% of Bernie's agenda and they will move the country in the opposite direction. HRC may not move things as far left as Bernie but there will be some movement. Plus there are chances, some even high, that things Bernie wants will be achieved.

The Bernie or Bust people have clearly not examined the ramifications of their views.

[PeaceNikki]

42. Yup.

[LeFleur1]

110. They Don't Care.

Their care is not for the country, their goal is to elect their chosen one and the hell with everything else. They are purists. If things can't be as they deem they should be, they'll just sit back and allow the country to go to hell. The problem with that is many of them will hit bottom with it. They cannot see that Hillary and Bernie have much the same agenda except Hillary will be able to get some of hers through and Bernie will be able to get none of his through because he won't give an inch. He's been in DC a really long time. Why hasn't he pushed through some of the things he intends to push through if elected? He'd rather let the auto industry completely disintegrate that give anything at all to the banks. Sometimes it's better when a house is burning to save the room the sleeping kids are in than to just stand back and let it burn because you can't save it all.

[PeaceNikki]

111. Well said. Thank you.

[panader0]

43. Privilege, thy name is Hillary Clinton.

[Cheese Sandwich]

46. Supporting NAFTA, Walmart and the WTO is a stance based on privelge

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511436455

[PeaceNikki]

50. Tossing aside women's rights, immigration, climate change and LGBT rights

in order to stand on your moral ground is asinine and selfish.

Support whoever you want in the primary, work your ass off for them. But when the GE comes around. Be fucking reasonable.

[Cheese Sandwich]

55. Tossing aside whole cities letting them rust into dust in order to stand on your moral high ground.

You be reasonable.

We're drinking contaminated water, it's not just Flint. America has been destroyed by these so-called "free trade" policies.

Some Clinton supporters apparently don't care if we live or die.

[PeaceNikki]

61. You are really moving goalposts and I have no idea what road you think you're going down.

The Bernie or Bust movement is bullshit. It's narrow-minded, selfish, arrogant, egotistical and will accomplish nothing good.

[Cheese Sandwich]

69. Well, when you support policies that lead to whole cities being poisoned,

that lead to whole areas of the country looking like a nuclear bomb got dropped on us, you make your choice, I'll make mine.

Hillary Clinton doesn't care if I live or die. That's what NAFTA is. That's what Chinese trade deals for Walmart do.

It's a war. It's not a game. This country is destroyed. What is it gonna take to get the message through.

[cwydro]

48. k and r.

[MaggieD]

49. In many cases just supporting Bernie is based on privilege, IMO

As I told the one friend of mine who is a Bernie supporter - it's easy to be idealistic if you are not the one that is going to suffer when absolutely nothing gets done and no progress gets made because of Mr. No Compromise, too pure, too black and white, Bernie Sanders.

And of course she won't suffer. She's wealthy. She doesn't have to work, gets to spend quality time with the kids instead. Takes fabulous vacations with the whole family. Has a Benz and a Lexus. It's easy to be idealistic when the "my way or the highway" attitude doesn't impact her.

That's privilege.

[yodermon]

51. "a host of people".. is a "host" enough to throw the election to Trump?

If so, is it better to insult, bash, threaten, and guilt-trip them into voting? And then blame them when that strategy FAILS and they stay home?

Or is it better find a way to woo them over to vote for Hillary?

Is it worth losing the election just so you can have your pre-defined scapegoat to hippie-punch?

[cwydro]

54. Privilege?

Or petulance?

[PeaceNikki]

62. Not mutually exclusive.

[cwydro]

68. True dat.

[forjusticethunders]

57. I'm black, moderately disabled, young, I sure as hell can't afford a Trump/Cruz presidency

I will support Hillary versus that shit, accelerationism is a dumb strategy which is far more likely to make change harder, not easier.

However I also cannot afford more of the same shit that we've had for the past 40 years, which is what Hillary is likely offering. That's not privilege, that's just being tired of having to choose between getting screwed more or less painfully.

[whatchamacallit]

59. Ye olde 'Exercising your constitutional right is selfish' dogshit

Just one more lame guilt trip to get you to maintain the status quo.

[NaturalHigh]

70. +1

[Gwhittey]

73. privileged? You are dam right I am privileged

I spent better part of my young Adult Life serving and involved in a War over in Persian Gulf and Somalia. I could of been in college drinking and have a lot more fun I am sure. I should be able to chose and say how I want to vote with out some idiot on the forums saying I am privileged if I don't vote for Candidate who is privileged because she made 150 million dollars in 10 years taking money from people that Ruined the World Economy. Am I more privileged than other people voting? Not at all only privilege I am is that I was born in American and I am free to vote who I want with out bowing to a Party that is cheating a lying just to win a election.

[Svafa]

76. Supporting the status quo is a stance based on privilege. nt

[amborin]

77. NOPE; it's about being ethical and doing what is morally and ethically right

[Lorien]

78. Voting bomb the crap out of Iran, Frack the planet to death, and kill the working classes

with the TPP is not a "luxury" that we want or can afford either. Stop with the arrogant nonsense propaganda. Hillary is a horrible candidate who can't possibly win in the general election no matter what. If you care about beating her good friend Drumpf, you would be backing Bernie right now.

[ibegurpard]

80. whatever you need to tell yourself

[MineralMan]

82. Personally I think it's a stance based on ignorance and

arrogance. Ignorance because it fails to recognize the cost of having Republicans in control of all three branches of federal government. Arrogance because people who say things like that appear not to care about anyone but themselves.

"Bernie or Bust!" is a self-destructive slogan promulgated by people who are simply not thinking clearly about what it means.

[ThePhilosopher04]

83. No, it's a stance based on RIGHT, not privilege.

Bernie is the only progressive option in the race. Clinton and Trump are right wingers who will further destroy the country.

[Bread and Circus]

89. This is a "When did you stop beating your wife?" frame

[Jefferson23]

95. Looks like a defense for a candidate who they don't trust can deliver.

Pretty early in the game to get that defense mechanism up and very funny too.

She has had every advantage yet they're concerned. lol

[mhatrw]

99. It's a stance based on principle.

A large number of Americans don't vote because they don't think the establishment Demopublicans listed on their ballots are worth voting for.

[Mnpaul]

100. and attempting to shame them

will not help. Crap like this drives people away in droves.

[NowSam]

101. The narrative of the day evidently

But it is not my privilege. It is my right and I will exercise it in accordance with my own beliefs. I won't be bullied or guilted into voting for the lesser of two evils. The lesser of 2 evils just won't cut it for me this time.

[Bjornsdotter]

102. Why should I vote for someone

....who doesn't believe in the same things I do? I prefer to vote for the candidate that is closest to my personal beliefs.

[BillZBubb]

104. What a load of bullshit. You Hillary fantatics never seem to find a new low to insult people.

Everyone has a right to vote or not vote as they see fit. That is not a privilege.

[Jarqui]

106. I don't know what I'll do.

I'd never support the GOP candidate. Never.

I do not know what Hillary stands for because she lies and flip-flops so much.

I think someone from Hillary's group will get criminally charged for this email business which could change a lot of things.

What I do know is I'm not going to worry about it for a while as I continue to support Bernie.

[bigtree]

107. k&r

[Mike__M]

108. I chose to reply as a separate post

Here