Being apathetic towards a bigot getting elected = White privilege?

[qdouble]

When reading this politico article, the biggest part that stuck out to me was this section:

Minority voters have been watching in horror as millions of Republican voters choose Trump either because of, or despite, his open bigotry. The Sanders supporters who toy with the idea of shunning Clinton in November and allowing Trump to become president to force a revolution that Sanders couldn’t deliver are playing with fire. To minority voters, Trump’s candidacy feels like an existential threat.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948#ixzz4BAxZFizo

When I see Bernie or Busters giddily play around with the possibility of Trump getting elected, I'm stuck with the sense that it has to be (outside of the trolls) a mostly white-liberal movement. There certainly can't be a lot of Hispanic liberals who think the choice between Hillary or Trump is inconsequential... nor could I it be something that most Muslims would shrug at. Even though Trump hasn't done a lot of direct attacks on blacks, I can't see a lot blacks signing up for that movement either.

This isn't to say that are no minorities that are BoB, but I'm thinking this group is probably dominated by white males who have little to lose of Trump gets elected. A demographic breakdown of this group in future polling should be very revealing.

[think]

1. What about being apathetic about political and corporate corruption? Shame on you

for trying to make this about race.

Hillary took millions from the very corporations that profit from government corruption.

So maybe try and be realistic in understanding why many have no desire to vote for a corrupt neocon corporate tool rather than acting like it's white privilege.

It's the corruption ...

[auntpurl]

2. But it IS about race for people who are POC!

Because worrying about corporate corruption is secondary to worrying about getting deported, worrying about being targeted and assaulted, worrying about actually dying. Why is this so hard to understand?

[think]

6. Bill encouraged Trump to run. Please don't try to make excuses for this. Good grief...

[moriah]

122. You sure about that?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3187192/Bill-Clinton-denies-encouraging-Donald-Trump-run-White-House-against-Hillary-says-property-tycoon-phoned-time-time-finally-spoke-Bill.html

[840high]

157. I don't believe Bill.

[moriah]

170. But you believe Trump?

[840high]

185. Why is Trump always brought

into conversation by Clinton supporters. Jeez.

[moriah]

189. Because this was specifically Bill's word vs Donald Trump's?

Please tell me you are/were being sarcastic? I really wanna believe that....

[Matt_in_STL]

36. So, because I am not a POC, I can't have my own concerns?

That fact that you don't feel corporate corruption and the purchase of our government by corporations isn't directly contributing to death highlights a huge problem in our country. Those who don't take in the whole picture see it simply as about money and wage inequality. Those who can see the big picture realize that the relationships between government and corporation are keeping us from passing true and meaningful legislation on climate change. That the drive for corporate profits continues to result in sending troops to unnecessary wars and unnecessary death. And these are just the tip of it.

And, as a sidenote, we have had 8 years of a POC President. If the President has such power to make these wholesale changes, why didn't he? Why are we deporting more people than at any time in our history? Why hasn't he done more to address the issues in society, short of giving a few speeches and producing a Justice Department report on the police department of one suburb of one US city?

I don't want Trump to win but don't determine for me what concerns I should and should not have because I don't have the right pigmentation in my skin for your needs.

[qdouble]

55. It isn't about those issues being non important...

supporting Bernie over Hillary is a perfectly reasonable position. However, for POC, allowing someone who poses a threat to their very existence simply because of who they are trumps sitting back and not caring if a bigot gets elected. Nobody says that you can't have your own concerns, but someone who flirts with deporting millions of people and demonizing an entire religion is not someone to be flirted with.

No one is demanding that you care about the same thing others care about....but that you can be apathetic towards things that are an existential threat to minorities is a clear example of privilege.

[auntpurl]

56. Well said.

[Matt_in_STL]

61. It has nothing to do with privilege as much as it does about having principles

And the fact that, after the past 8 years with probably the best advocate we could have for POC in the Presidency, nothing was accomplished and things have, in my mind, become even worse for POC over the past 8 years, seems to elude everyone. I don't think either candidate is particularly concerned with POC and as we have seen, even the President with the closest relation to the issue chose to punt the ball.

Hillary cares about POC up to, and including the time they mark her name. You won't hear another thing about POC from her other than platitudes which has been par for the course. Meanwhile, we have seen the types of things she does support and the issues that are truly close to her heart and some of those issues will result in more death, directly or indirectly, for all of us - not just POC. I haven't determined where my vote goes, other than not to Trump, but I will not vote out of fear. When Hillary wants to talk issues and policy, straightforward and not in a wordsmithed way she can back out of later, I am here to listen. But as long as this campaign continues to be a Twitter fight of "Yo Momma" jokes and who can make the most insulting ad, I'll be confident in casting my vote elsewhere.

[qdouble]

68. White democrats are more likely to have a less positive view of the future than POC and also

acknowledge less of the progress that occurred during Obama's term.

From the article:

That Obama was able to become president and get stuff done is an enormous source of not only pride, but hope. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that more than half of young black and Latinos believe their lives will be better than their parents, compared with less than a third of young white people. On many measures, black people have seen much worse days—the black unemployment rate neared 17 percent at the height of the Great Recession and is less than half that now—even as they continue fighting decades-long struggles. Things aren’t perfect, but the progress that has occurred during the Obama era isn’t something they want ignored or downplayed. Given that reality, why would they believe in the need for a revolution?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948#ixzz4BBIfOm22

[Matt_in_STL]

77. The unemployment rate is not a great example.

The unemployment rate for everyone went up during the Great Recession, obviously. White unemployment peaked in 2009 at 9.3%. Meanwhile, Black unemployment peaked in 2011 (3 years into the Obama term) at 16.7%. At the current rates, White unemployment has been cut in half (50.5%) while Black unemployment has improved at a slightly lower rate (46.1%). That shows that it wasn't anything specifically done for POC by the President but was part and parcel of the return from the Great Recession. Prior to the recession, Black unemployment was around 8% and is now 9% while white unemployment has returned to near pre-recession levels.

Current numbers: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm

An article from last year detailing the divide in recovery: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/jobs-numbers-racial-gap-recovery/400685/

[qdouble]

81. I think you're mistaking what the article was implying.

It wasn't saying that Obama's policies were made to specifically help Blacks, it's saying that blacks have seen worse times than now and are less likely to have an apocalyptic view of the future or present. It's why Trump's "Make America Great Again" is a dog whistle. For Blacks, America has never been great. There is no "good old days" to refer to. The message of America being in some drastic decline is a message that resonates with whites more than POC.

[Matt_in_STL]

83. They have seen worse times, and by the numbers, it was during this presidency

I completely agree America isn't great for Blacks - that is not an argument you will get from me. But, to state that one candidate is going to do more for them than another is a sketchy argument, considering the first Black president could do nothing more than slowly bring them along for the ride from the peak of the recession and at a slower rate than things improved for whites.

Yes, Trump sets a horrible example and is an awful person, but I'm not voting for him, and a vote not cast for Hillary is not a vote for Trump, no matter how anyone tries to spin it. She needs to be a better candidate and speak pointedly about her policies and make us trust her. And, if POC concerns are how you solely base your vote, then I would expect you would want her to be clear on those policies as well.

[qdouble]

91. To say say...

"They have seen worse times, and by the numbers, it was during this presidency" is a bit ridiculous to me quite honestly. We've seen worse times during Obama's presidency than in the civil rights era or in the 80's? This is why I say a lot of Bernie supporters are blind to the fact that this goes way beyond just economic data.

It isn't about spin... a Trump presidency is absolutely unacceptable for liberal minorities. Claiming some moral high ground by not voting against him simply means that you don't view a white nationalist being the head of the nation to be a big threat to you... which is white privilege.

[Matt_in_STL]

93. I admit I limited my discussion to the Great Recession timeframe

As that is what we had discussed above. And yes, of course if you go back in history there have been much worse times. But if looking at the current numbers and what the President did for POC, the numbers just don't bear out that he did anything better for them than anyone else, and they aren't any better off than they were before the recession (actually worse if you consider the unemployment rate).

[qdouble]

97. I don't think most people expected Obama to specifically make a lot of legislation just for

minorities. I also think him being a minority put him in a tricky situation on that end, as the right would have turned it into an us vs them thing. It's still not fully relevant to the ramifications of electing a white nationalist though.

[auntpurl]

58. Of course you can have your own concerns.

And I can have my own opinion that is the height of selfishness to leave POC, women, the disabled, and LGBT to fend for themselves under a Trump presidency. Anyone who doesn't do everything in his/her power to stop that happening is unbelievably self-absorbed. IN MY OPINION.

My first thought when I read your reply was "You don't get it." But I bet you're thinking the same thing about me. So let's leave it.

[Matt_in_STL]

65. You assume they will be any better under Hillary.

Name one thing in all her years of experience that Hillary has done for POC. She was a Senator, so what bills did she put in specifically to help POC? Or, while she was FLOTUS, what did she do or support for POC?

You make the mistake of assuming she will do anything for POC when she has done zero for them in the past when she has had a chance. Meanwhile, she has done things that have sent those POC off to war, in a military where they are represented at a higher percentage than they make up in the general population, all to serve the corporate masters.

[auntpurl]

66. Uh, even if you're right, ZERO is better than actively hunting them FFS! nt

[Matt_in_STL]

69. Do you honestly think Trump would actively hunt POC and that anyone will let him?

Assuming you are considering Hispanics as POC, we have deported more under President Obama than any other president in history. Obviously the hunt has already been on if that is the case.

As much power as you ascribe to the presidency in the cause of sowing fear, why did President Obama do nothing to further the causes of POC in his 8 years in office? He gave some incredible speeches but that seems to be the end of it, outside of the Ferguson report.

[qdouble]

72. We have to take Trump at his word. We obviously can't predict exactly what he'll do because he's

unstable. However, to even flirt with the possibility of having a person be president who speaks of banning an entire religion and who promises to create various humanitarian crises reeks of privilege and a lack of concern for those who will be seriously burned by it.

Even if Trump doesn't follow through on the nonsense, do you know how much his election would embolden other White Nationalists who may have been in the closet? What kind of example would his presidency set?

[Matt_in_STL]

82. Again, I think Trump is an absolute trainwreck (and not convinced he'll be the candidate).

If Hillary can't beat him that says more about her than anything. If you can't come out with policies and build a trust to where people feel they can cast a principled vote for you and you lose to everyone's crazy, racist uncle you have a huge problem. I want to hear policy and I want her to provide a reason to trust her, not this sketchy wordsmithing so she can stab us in the back later. If she wants to spend her time throwing Twitter insults like a teenager trying to one-up a friend, go for it. That won't earn my vote.

[qdouble]

85. I understand your position and why you may not like Hillary...

but at the of November's election, in all likelihood, either Hillary or Trump will be president. If you don't feel it will make a big difference which one gets elected simply because Clinton doesn't speak towards the issues you care about... it shows a lack of concern for the impact of a White Nationalist becoming president. To me, that is the primary reason that Trumps presidency is unacceptable and why I'd vote early regardless of which democrat won.

That his bigotry seems to be a relatively unimportant issue to Bernie or Busters, or at least, not an important enough issue for them to vote against him, is what implies privilege.

[Matt_in_STL]

87. Again, a non-vote for Hillary is not a vote for Trump

And sure, bigotry is quite important, but it is one of a thousand issues to contemplate. Like I said, Hillary could discuss the issues and pointedly discuss her policies in a way she can't hedge on later and I would listen. Otherwise, she can continue the childish pissing match with Trump and we will get nowhere.

[qdouble]

94. That you think having someone who Bernie says has a "platform of bigotry" to be one of

"a thousand issues to contemplate" is privilege. Not sure why that is escaping you. Someone who is threatening to ban an entire religion is not something to contemplate....someone who stokes the fires of racial hatred, is not an issue to contemplate. Someone who flirts with the idea of punishing women who have an abortion is nothing to contemplate. Those are HELL NO! issues for minorities.

Those issues are not existential to you. I understand and I'm not saying you're a bad person because of it. I'm just saying that you have the privilege to not worry about things that are absolutely terrifying to many minorities.

[Matt_in_STL]

101. And I have things that are terrifying to me

Such as my military age child being sent off to fight one of the many trademarked corporate wars we will continue to expand upon, for one. The friends and family I currently have in the military serving multiple tours in danger zones. The issue of our higher suicide rates, especially among our troops. You see, with my military background and that of my family and friends, should I consider non-military citizens "privileged" because they don't worry about those things?

My brother was railroaded by the police last year. They hounded him and hunted him until he found he had no other way out and killed himself. He had a good life, good job, great family, and the police state pushed him to do something so drastic he couldn't take it back. He wasn't a POC but I'd love to hear what Hillary plans on doing about the overzealous police, and not just in relation to POC.

We all have things that are terrifying to us that might not terrify others. While I completely empathize with POC and it is a big issue for me, it isn't the only issue I have to focus on and I want answers before someone earns my vote. Twitter burns are not something I vote on.

[qdouble]

103. So you're acknowledging that a white nationalist becoming president isn't terrifying to you?

Someone who will turn the clocks back on race relations and civility is acceptable?

Your issues are important as well... but I don't see how Trump would provide more help towards them.

I mean, if you don't want to vote against Trump because his bigoted stances aren't a threat to you, then that is fine. I simply don't know why you don't want to acknowledge that it comes from a privileged position where you don't have to worry about things that are terrifying to POC.

[Matt_in_STL]

105. I'm not saying that at all, but again, it isn't the only issue I am voting on.

I have many issues I am considering in casting my vote. I am 100% not going to vote for Trump, so that's not at issue. However, I firmly believe my vote should be earned through your positions on policy and trust. I will not vote for Trump and would be open to voting for Hillary if she would pointedly give us her stances and policies. I vote for someone, not against someone.

[qdouble]

109. I think you've made it pretty clear where you stand and I'm not hating on you...

I just feel that Bernie supporters who think like you will mostly be white males because you are not directly threatened by white bigotry. It's understandable and I'm demonizing you for it. Most people vote for their own interests.

[840high]

158. Trump can't do anything on his own. He does

not scare me. The problem is I cannot take Hillary at her word.

[auntpurl]

75. It's not just Trump himself, or the presidency

If the United States of America elects a white supremacist to be President, that lets every racist prick with a loaded weapon off the chain, emboldens them to act, engenders an atmosphere of hatred and retribution.

[qdouble]

99. Exactly. The biggest problem with Trump winning on that platform is not that congress will let him

do all the crazy shit he said. It's that you are basically giving the green light for people to run on that platform. If a white nationalist can win the White House... you'll start seeing people running for Governor, Senate, the House, etc with openly bigoted platforms. A Trump presidency is playing with fire.

[auntpurl]

132. It's already started happening.

Kentucky Rep's racist campaign ad below. Trump's minions emerge:

[qdouble]

70. You're missing the argument entirely. I haven't posited that Hillary is the best possible choice for

people of color. The argument is that if you are apathetic towards a white nationalist who would essentially be regressive and has made statements that pose a serious threat to minorities... that is an example of privilege. There's a difference between the average politician that may not achieve much and one that flirts with the KKK.

[CorkySt.Clair]

228. Exactly

[qdouble]

7. It is about race if you think those are the only issues that matter.

For white voters, the only issues that matter is the economy, corruption, etc... For minority voters, Trump threatens to deport their families, to block people of their religion from entering the country, to embolden white supremacists and white nationalists across the country, etc.

If you think the choice between an unapologetic bigot and a normal politician is inconsequential, then that shows extreme privilege.

[think]

16. The Clintons hung out with that bigot. They went to his wedding. They golfed with him

[LWolf]

191. That's bullshit.

Economic and social justice are not the same, but they are linked in some ways.

Both fucking matter.

I'm a white voter. I know they both matter. Don't try to spin me.

I think neo-liberals are slow frog boiling, and I think white supremacy is ugly and immediate.

The problem is that the frogs are already dying, so they are both now immediate. I wanted a president that would address BOTH. I'm not going to get that. I'm going to get more horrific, immediate ugliness, or more mass, slow, painful die-off.

Don't try to tell me that those refusing to choose between slower and immediate death and injustice is "privilege." I'm white, but I have black family, and I have trans family, and I love them and stand with them. Interestingly, none of them support Trump, but neither do they support Clinton.

[qdouble]

192. A bigot being elected is an immediate danger to minorities

No amount of spin you wish to put on it changes that fact. An anecdote about knowing a few black people who won't vote for Clinton doesn't make Bernie or Bust any less of a white male movement or the threat to people of color any less real.

[LWolf]

198. And a neo-liberal being elected is a long-term danger.

No amount of spin you wish to put on it changes that fact. And my family members are not just people I "know," thanks.

A few white males don't make a movement, either, and that's a fact.

[qdouble]

199. Trump is a bigger immediate and long-term danger than Hillary, the man is unhinged.

[LWolf]

200. Yes and no.

Bigger immediate, but not bigger long-term.

[qdouble]

209. Yes, surely him filling the court with right-wingers won't be a bigger long term detriment

[msanthrope]

8. That's nice. seriously, I know people afraid to walk down

their own streets. Wall Street is not their problem.

[think]

12. Wall Street greed cost millions of Americans their jobs and their homes. Doesn't that matter?

Seriously?

[msanthrope]

17. Sure....but losing your life, and losing your home? Which do you think is the priority? nt

[think]

19. Thanks for giving us such a wonderful candidate that that's the kind of response you must

give. Yeesh..

[msanthrope]

22. Welcome to reality. Luckily, both 44 and 45 care about both. Trump, not fuck-all. nt

[dbackjon]

188. My husband grew up in one of the poorest barrios in Tucson

Local banks didn't lend to people in the barrio.
There were not jobs exported to Mexico - because there were only jobs in the Mines, or in service industries.



So your concerns about Wall Street Greed mean nothing to them. What they do care about is not being profiled, not being called rapists (even those that were in the Tucson area before Arizona became a state).

[NCTraveler]

14. Trump has made it about race.

Shame on you for deflecting from that fact and putting it on a DUer.

[think]

30. Who's the one encouraged this monster to run? Who went to his wedding? Who goes golfing

With Trump?


You really need a reality check...

[NCTraveler]

42. Not even a solid lecture.

Your desperate need to dismiss and deflect from his racism, in concert with you feeble attempt to blame it on the Clintons and a DUer, is a statement about you.

[think]

47. Bullshit! Trump is a racist and Bill still chose to call him up and encourage him to run

Quit playing stupid games.

[NCTraveler]

51. No stupid games or bullshit here.

Trump is the perfect nominee for their party.

Racist, mysogonistic, xenophobic, bigot, etc.

He isn't that way because of the Clintons or a DUer as you are so desperately trying to say. It's because he is an extremely sick man and represents core conservative values.

The op is spot on. Being apathetic at this point is overwhelmingly based in privilege.

Neither the Clintons nor the op are apathetic when it comes to their thought on stopping this sick man.

[840high]

156. .that^

[msanthrope]

3. People insulated by privilege from the consequences of apathy often do

not appreciate how their "principled" stance affects others.

[apnu]

4. +1!

[think]

10. Priviledge is having your former president husband encourage assholes like Trump to run.

[msanthrope]

15. I think you fail to appreciate the genius of Bill Clinton. Trump is like any other Republican...

like Harry Reid said, there isn't much daylight between Trump and the Party leadership. So I'm gratified that the Republicans have finally run a candidate unafraid to express how they really are. That's not a great thing for the farthest Left, however.

Because no one...no matter how pure....has an excuse for apathy.

[Armstead]

71. People have never had an excuse for apathy about the GOP

That's not the goddamn point.

It's not just about opposing Trump -- or whatever other destructive jerk the GOP might have chosen to run.

It's also about offering a clear alternative to the systemic corruption and policies that destroy the quality of life for whites, POC and every demographic that is not among the elites.

That means clearly liberal message and policies, which the Democratic Party once provided. Not so much anymore. Now its liberal only on issues that do not affect the fundamental issues of Wealth and Power that are part and parcel of the overall problems for minorities as well as whites.

[msanthrope]

125. Yeah, well, unless people get involved in the down ballot races... None of that changes.

What I have found nearly to a person about Bernie supporters is that they fail to grasp that the essential battles are not over the presidency.. if you want to do something about the wealth and power then you have to start with the house and the scotus that's why I'm for Clinton... She's got an actual plan for the down ballot

[Armstead]

127. You can't ascribe that to particular candidates

It's a mischaracterization (and a common meme) to say all Sanders supporters and "progressives" are more naive and ignorant and uninvolved about such things, than Clinton supporters.

Both are cross sections of the public, and include people with varying degrees of participation, including newcomers and people who have been active.

Sure, Sanders has a lot of young supporters or some who have not participated in political activity before.

Same can be said of Clinton supporters. Where were THEY during midterms when Dems get stomped?

[qdouble]

24. this is pretty much off-topic

[think]

35. No. This is right on topic. Priviledge allows one to golf with a bigot & act like it's no big deal.

Trump was bigot before this election started. It's not like he just became one last week.

[Blue_Adept]

73. I hope you don't work with anyone who might be a bigot

Since you'd have to stick to your principles and quit the place because otherwise how can you act like it's no big deal?

[qdouble]

76. I'm self employed, but of course I'd consider leaving a company if I had to work with an openly

bigoted person. Not sure where you're going with that one.

[think]

80. "A BRIEF HISTORY OF DONALD TRUMP AND BILL CLINTON’S FRIENDSHIP"

A BRIEF HISTORY OF DONALD TRUMP AND BILL CLINTON’S FRIENDSHIP

BY MICHELE GORMAN ON 5/27/16 AT 1:39 PM

~Snip~

“I like him. And I love playing golf with him,” Clinton said in a May 2012 interview with CNN, according to transcripts. He spoke highly of Trump, despite the real estate tycoon’s prominent role in the so-called “birther” movement, wherein he spent months publicly questioning President Barack Obama’s original birth certificate. Trump, speaking to Fox News earlier that same year, said he thought Clinton was “a really good guy.”

Read more:
http://www.newsweek.com/history-donald-trump-bill-clinton-friendship-464360

Hello?

[Blue_Adept]

84. Politics makes strange bedfellows

An old saying and a truth. You befriend people you hate to get shit done.

Or, you know, politics.

Frankly, politics has been hell since the 2000's because of the purity push that got in because of the chaos of the 90's Republican style after they lost Reagan and Bush Sr.

There was that time that shit would get done because the pols would actually hang out, socialize, engage with each other outside of the chambers of power. Where they'd humanize each other. But now, it's purity tests that keeps that from happening (primary them if they even TALK to a dem!) and that puts us into this hyper partisanship bullshit.

Of course, you get plenty of people around these parts that would never even be friends with a conservative, so they likely can't understand how politics is supposed to work. Which is why things are as strained and broken as they are now.

[think]

92. So Bernie supporters who don't vote for Hillary are guilty of white privilege but Bill golfing with

Trump is getting stuff done.

Wow. That's rich.....

For what it's worth I may vote for Hillary but her supporters aren't making it any easier with the hypocritical threads like these....

[Blue_Adept]

95. I said zero about white privilege

So kindly don't insert dialogue for me where I made none. I was talking about how shit gets done in politics and why shit doesn't get done anymore because of the purism that is involved now. The end of earmarks was a huge blow to the kind of necessary horse trading to get things done. And that required pols actually engaging with each other in social settings and events and the like.

And I couldn't give two fucks what other Bernie supporters do or don't do. I voted for him and I'll do what I want to do post-primary.

[think]

98. Sorry. You're in a thread about Bernie supporters being accused of white privilege. Perhaps you

missed that part.

[Autumn]

206. When the fuck was Trump a politician getting shit done? Other than hanging with Bill and Hill

and donating to their foundation and shit like that I wasn't aware T rump was working on politics. Did I sleep through the time he was getting shit done while hanging around with Bill? Please gimme a link to all that shit the two of them got done while socializing outside of the chambers of power and I'll study up on it.

[Blue_Adept]

212. I was talking in a far more general sense of how politics used to work

and why it doesn't work now.

But please, keep yelling at me, it makes me want to engage with you even more.

[Autumn]

216. I don't yell. But one thing for sure, when it come's to T rump I'm gonna be a fucking purist

Working with fuckers like that to get things done. get's fucked up thing done. The way things used to work was normal people with differences ran for office. Normal people leaves out T rump.

[Blue_Adept]

219. when you reply to someone with half a dozen fuck this and fuck that

when said person had nothing like that in their post, you're essentially shouting and yelling at them.

It's like I'm having a simple conversation and all of a sudden you come in yelling fuckers fucked up fuck this.

That's how you're perceived.

[Autumn]

220. I don't care how you perceive me but re read your post, I responded to what you said.

Don't like my language, fucking put me on ignore.

[uponit7771]

117. +1

[840high]

159. Just look at how happy

they are together.

[qdouble]

13. Trump doesn't pose an existential threat to them, so they could afford to let a bigot win just

so they can claim moral purity. Of course, minorities don't have that luxury. We've had to learn to compromise along time ago. We're familiar with struggle and know progress can be a slow process.

For the privileged, incremental progress is something to be scorned, but for minorities, any progress is more acceptable then marching backwards.

[msanthrope]

20. Well.....what I find amusing, and disgusting, is the scorn of incremental progress

by those who contributed not fuck-all to the process.

Sure, rail that progress is slow from the top of the food chain.....that's rich.

[uponit7771]

115. +1

[jzodda]

5. On our side its all about anger which will lessen

Especially after Bernie drops out.

Over time many of those folks will come on over like in 2008 when HRC dropped out. By election day 2008 only 17% of HRC supporters did not support Obama according to ABC tracking polls/exit polls.

Once the comparison is between just HRC and Trump I think the choice will become much more clear for most folks.

And in my view, as an aside, I believe racism trumps corporate greed every time.

[randome]

9. BOB-ing for tragedy. Hateful, self-destructive anvils around our ankles.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[peace13]

11. Part of the problem is that it appears most minorities shunned Bernie Sander's.

They listened to the talking points instead of looking at the actual candidate. Don't kid yourself. EVERYONE has something to loser by Trump simply being in the race, let alone the winner! His arrogance extends to anyone who is not Donald.

No one on the left is giddy about Trump. Funny how people will blame others for the problems they created.

[qdouble]

18. Bernie made the main focus of his campaign the economy and corruption...

however, I'd consider those to be second-tier issues to minorities. For black people in particular, the economy has never been fair. Women have been getting paid less then men for the same job for forever. Equal rights and someone who they view as being a champion for them is more important than the economy. Beyond that, they are more skeptical of platitudes and more apt to compromise.

This isn't to say that minorities dislike Bernie... it's more so that his message resonated with white male liberals more than it did with minorities.

[peace13]

34. Equal pay and jobs, OK.

I guess health care is not an issue and education not a factor? I would have thought his $15 an hour minimum wage, something Hill does not support ($12), would have covered some if the job issue.

[qdouble]

48. This goes back to black voters being more pragmatic than whites in regards to politics...

From the article:

“That refusal to accept the necessity of compromise in a winner-take-all two-party system (and an electorate in which conservatives still outnumber liberals) is characteristic of a certain idealistic style of left-wing politics. Its conception of voting as an act of performative virtue has largely confined itself to white left-wing politics, because it is at odds with the political tradition of a community that has always viewed political compromise as a practical necessity. The expectation that a politician should agree with you on everything is the ultimate expression of privilege.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948#ixzz4BBBkV500

It's not that black voters don't think $15 minimum wage would be a good thing, they just have lower expectations of what would be achievable and are more inclined to believe that Clinton's proposals are more realistic.

Also, Hillary being linked to two presidents that black voters have a favorable opinion of already, Bill and Obama, gave her an edge from the jump.

[peace13]

57. Forgetting of course about Bill filling the prisons with Black youngsters...

..and Hill selling them as demonic beings. There is something that does not connect here.

[uponit7771]

118. +1, "...For black people in particular, the economy has never been fair.."

[Ash_F]

21. Clinton's actions have hurt POC. Watch these videos

Trump is terrible, and I don't know what he would do with power, but this is the wrong angle from which to champion Clinton.

She had the power, and we saw what she did.

I am a POC and pay close attention to what people do to us.

[msanthrope]

25. You should post this is the AA group. nt

[Ash_F]

26. I am sure those videos are there somewhere.

[msanthrope]

38. You should definitely start a new thread. These are important, right? nt

[Ash_F]

40. How about you not tell me what to do?

[msanthrope]

45. Touchy about your truth, aren't we? nt

[Ash_F]

46. No, I just don't like the way you approached me.

If you have issue with the videos, then I am willing to listen.

[msanthrope]

50. Oh....I'm not bothering to watch them. nt

[Ash_F]

53. Really? I saw the first one on DU years before Clinton announced.

And it doesn't even mention her.

The other one is just a news report about an action held by Haitians.

[msanthrope]

67. No. I assume that PoC who voted for Clinton knew what they were doing. Apparently

you think that is not the case.

[Ash_F]

147. People can vote their conscious

Clinton's actions have hurt POC.

[qdouble]

151. I think a lot of those arguments against the Clintons are spurious...i.e. faulting them for things

that were backed by blacks and other progressive at the time... as well as unintended consequences.

Without getting too far off topic, that is in a different hemisphere than people making intentionally discriminatory laws and people who are intentionally seeking to garner the support and promote the ideals of white nationalism. One can be viewed as a failing, the other is intentional sabotage.

[peace13]

39. This is rich!

Put it somewhere that you can't see it. Hillary will not only be your woman president but the leader of a global army. You best take responsibility for what she does out there. Gender does not dictate compassion or right mindedness!

[msanthrope]

43. What do you mean, can't see it? I read the AA forum everyday. Don't you? nt

[peace13]

52. I expect that all topics of importance can be posted where the largest number of users ....

....can find them. that is what I expect. I see those videos addressing Human problems. Problems that we are all responsible for.

[qdouble]

29. It's off topic. Foreign policy is a messy arena... whether or not you think Clinton is responsible

for anything that had a negative effect on blacks, I don't think anyone thinks that she intentionally creates policy to disenfranchise blacks. Trump on the other hand pushes white nationalism as a way to bolster support from bigots.

I'm more so speaking about people not caring about an openly bigoted person becoming president, I'm not saying that Clinton has done more for POC than Bernie...it's not relevant to the discussion.

[Ash_F]

33. I am just saying this argument rings hollow to me, knowing what I know.

That's not a Trump endorsement.

[peace13]

62. No the only thing relevant....

...is the PERCEPTION that she has done or will do more for POC. The fact is....they aren't gonna get squat from her.

[840high]

160. .+1

[davidn3600]

23. I'm apathetic on the entire general election

It's my belief this country is fucked either way. It's either we suffer a fast and quick decline with Trump or a slow bleed to death by Hillary.

I just honestly don't see a way we can pull out of this dive. The corruption runs too deep.

[AntiBank]

27. I would turn it around. The vast majority of people who support

a neoliberal 3rd way position holding candidate do so because they are somewhat or fully immune from the outcomes of such positions DUE TO WHITE PRIVILEDGE.

TPP and other shit trade policies affects POC the hardest.
Lack of universal health care affects POC the hardest.
Lack of tutionless tertiary public education affects POC the hardest.
Support for private prisons affects POC the hardest.
Support for endless empiric war protection affects POC the hardest.
Non support for ending the criminalisation of marijuana affects POC the hardest.
Lack of truly reigning in predatory mega banks and payday loan scum affects POC the hardest.

So I reject your initial reverse dog whistle attempt.

[qdouble]

31. Your rebuttal is off-topic. I've made no arguments about whether or not Clinton is better than

Bernie when it comes to issues concerning minorities. The topic is about people not caring about a bigot becoming president because of their own privilege. For whatever fault you think Clinton has policy wise, I don't think anyone can accuse her of trying to benefit from promoting white nationalism.

[AntiBank]

49. my rebuttal is completely germane. You are trying to throw racially overtoned shade on

basically anyone who either

A Vigorously supports/supported Sanders....that IS your inference.

or

B Is so utter disgusted with Clinton's positions that they wont support her nor them.

You argument is zero sum and basically trying to scapegoat progressives for Trump being a fucking racist pig and a true con man, a non-thinking vulgarian, short fingered or not.

Blame the true culprits, the broken political system that is almost wholly corporatist owned and controlled, and the centre-right wingers in pseudo moderate left sheep's clothing.

White privilege allows the voters who support candidates who keep this hurtful (again, especially to POC) shambolic system to keep on a spinnin'.

[qdouble]

64. I'm only taking issue with Bernie or Busters, not Bernie supporters, so please don't take

the topic as being a slam against Bernie or the majority of his supporters. The argument isn't zero sum. The argument is progressive who flirt with the idea of letting trump win if their ideal candidate doesn't get elected most includes a disproportionate amount of white males who don't view Trump as a serious threat to their families or way of life.

From the article: "...despite what looks like intractable problems to white Democrats, minority voters are more optimistic about the future than their white counterparts." White liberals are also more apt to dismiss any progress made during Obama's term than POC. Much of this centers around white males feeling that they are shrinking in society, while society is becoming more and more equal for women and minorities. Privilege masks just how bad things were for everyone else.

[AntiBank]

74. My main problem (not with you after your explanation, thanks for that) is that so so

many Clinton supporters think ANY support for Bernie makes us right wingers (LOLO; I am an actual Socialist, a member of Vänsterpartiet here in Sweden http://www.vansterpartiet.se/ ) and Trump Trolls or some fucked up version of stupid spoilt rich white kids out for a skylar, a pint, and bit of the ol' argy bargy.

It's maddening I tell you. I am 1000% issue oriented, NOT into some bloody cult of Bernie. If a transexual, disabled, 1 metre tall POC was pushing a Sanders type agenda and was a viable primary performer, well, then, they get AntiBank's support.

[qdouble]

78. Because there are trolls out there, sometimes it's hard to tell if a person is a genuine Bernie

supporter or a troll. It's not that the views are anywhere similar in most cases, it's just that repubs have been specializing in hating the Clintons for over two decades, so sometimes Sanders supporters unintentionally come off like right-wingers when talking about Hillary.

[AntiBank]

86. for me at least it is so easy to spot the difference, they never offer constructive, well thought

policies, and they always attack in simplistic ways. I should add that I am an American citizen by birth and also a registered Democrat for decades. My first vote for POTUS was for Mondale against that fucker Raygun.

I have been extremely critical of Obama (I voted twice for him regardless), but he won me over with the Iran deal last year.

[gollygee]

28. I definitely think the BOB movement is about privilege

The more privilege insulates you from the potential effects of a Trump presidency, the more OK you are with BOB. If you're worried about yourself and your family and your community surviving a Trump presidency, you will do whatever it takes to keep Trump out of the White House. If you don't have to worry about survival, BOB is an option for you.

[qdouble]

37. +1

That's my thoughts exactly. People who are willing burn the house down if Bernie doesn't win, obviously think they will survive the fire. Others might not be so lucky, hence the demographics of that group are heavily skewed to white males. As a disclaimer I'm not saying BoBers don't include some minorities.

[gollygee]

44. Beautifully put

And I'm going to put that as my signature:

"People who are willing to burn the house down if Bernie doesn't win, obviously think they will survive the fire."

[auntpurl]

79. Very well put.

[uponit7771]

120. +1

[baldguy]

32. It's not just that they're apathetic - they don't even seem to acknowledge it exists.

They believe racism & bigotry is the product of economic inequality, rather than the cause of it.

[qdouble]

41. Indeed. For a black person who has a lower chance of getting a job or loan simply because of the

color of their skin, it's hard to convince them that their principle concern should be Goldman Sachs. This seems to be lost on many BoBers.

[JCanete]

90. What? Oh wow. Look, racism existed before economies but not before tribalism evolved out of

scarcity. You're just wrong to say that its such a one way street. Fixing the economics alleviates some of the anxieties people are facing, and makes them reachable. You don't think people are more willing to scapegoat immigrants and poor communities for the ills of the world when they are getting overworked and overstressed? You don't think trying to galvanize middle class white people and minorities and the impoverished together towards a common cause, rather than allowing them to be divided into fighting over the scraps would have any impact on sucking away the combustible fumes that feed all this distrust and animosity?

You don't think that making sure that people can afford to feed their children and have a roof over their heads will give them a leg up to enter a society that has kept them at arms length by hamstringing their capacity at every step of the way, from malnutrition to toxic environments, to underfunded schools, not to mention all that bandwidth depletion over expenses, being exploited at work and threats of eviction ...

why keep fighting over the symptoms, when pulling back the curtain on the engine that keeps feeding them is something that could actually unite people, and convince them to advocate for not just their own self-interests, but for the interests of underserved communities and immigrants, because we actually are all in this together!

[qdouble]

96. The state of the economy and the state of racism aren't really directly connected in any meaningful

way. Through America's greatest expansions it was horribly racist. We all want the economy to improve, but to act like we just need to fix the economy and then everything else will fix itself is nonsense. It's why Bernie constantly attacking WallStreet didn't garner him any increased support among minorities.

[JCanete]

106. okay, that wasn't what my post said. I didn't say the state of economy affected racism. I said

fear of loss and uncertainty did, and one of my points was that that state of mind doesn't make people more rational or willing to question the foundations of their deepest held assumptions.

Bernie hasn't in his life-time just attacked Wall Street, nor did he do so on the campaign. He also talked about College tuition and minimum wage, and police violence and racial injustice. He actually offered up policies that would positively impact black and poor communities, and I challenge you to name any from Clinton.

He just wasn't heard by a huge voter constituency, in part because of the preemptive characterization of his campaign by the media and the DNC as appealing only to white people. Yes, they used the results of the first couple races to make that "case", but they were really helping to seed that reality.

Anyway, I've made that point better, and I can direct you to it or reiterate it here if that becomes a sticking point, but I just want to point out that everything I said in the original post was addressing the ways in which focusing on the economy, particularly from the bottom, and targetting the top .01% as our common adversary(not enemy), wasn't an act of ignoring the other causes or entrenchment of racism, it was an act that could have helped eroded it through common cause, and in that common cause, fostered an environment where people wouldn't feel the need to get their backs up when the issues of racial inequality were addressed, because those issues wouldn't be seen as a direct economic threat.

[qdouble]

110. I mean, I get where you are going and I don't necessarily disagree with you...

I was more so saying that focusing on the economy isn't enough for minorities to back you as their issues are beyond economic. So it's a factor, but not an all encompassing thing.

Regardless, I don't think Bernie is weak on race and would have been happy to cast my vote for him in November if he would have made it through.

I have no issue with Sanders supporters, my issue is with Bernie or Busters who only focus on the economy while playing coy with the idea of letting a bigot rise to the highest office in the land just because Bernie didn't win.

[JCanete]

171. Thanks for the conversation! I'll grant that not all posts about Bernie or Bust were in good faith

Some just seemed to come from a place of hurt feelings. Others maybe out of attempting to undercut Clinton's perceived viability.

I have a very detailed reason for why I'm on the fence about voting for Hilary in the fall, and one that doesn't come from a place of casual indifference to short term suffering of minorities in particular under a crazy person like Trump, but comes from a place of blaming both parties that we even got to this point.

My trepidation comes from thinking about the long term devastation that continuing on this path will cause, with both parties heightening the contradictions of the voter bases, pitting us against each other even while they continue to actively collude to suck us dry. It feels like good cop bad cop, and the same people keep winning either way. Meanwhile, the more we tighten our belts, the more crazy people like trump have an audience to spew hatred to, and minorities always get squeezed the most. Our economic policies, helped along by democrats, have been harmful to us all, but particularly to people of color.

So no, I don't personally think that my decision will be decided out of a blind-spot brought on by white privilege. I understand that there will be real suffering under a Trump Presidency. But I am tired of a world where a Trump can gain so much credibility with American voters. I don't want there to be a new Trump every 4 to 12 years, in large part because our party only engages in kabuki theater and doesn't do anything to undermine the influence of the very interests that benefit so richly from divide and conquer politics.

Anyway, I didn't mean to lay that all on you. It's not exactly a sound-byte worthy position, so it just kept going. Long story short, come election time I'll probably pull the lever for Hillary, but I am still not sure that's the right action.

[qdouble]

173. I can understand the feeling of being left to pick between two shitty candidates. However, I think

it makes a heck of a lot more sense to push the party left while the party is gaining momentum and control, than it is have the party be destroyed and then make a comeback. The amount of damage that can be done during a Trump presidency is way worse of a starting point then basically having Obama 3.0 and then pushing for a more progressive candidate to take the torch after.

In 2020/2024, do you want to start from a position where bigots have been energized, the courts are filled with right wing judges, many progressive legislation has been repealed etc... vs working from a position where at least some small progress has taken place?

In programming for example, often times when people come across changes they want to make, there will be an argument about whether you should upgrade or start from scratch. Programmers often want to start from a clean slate because they always underestimate the amount of time it takes to start from the beginning. What they thought would be a two week project can spiral to take a year.

Likewise, I think progressives seem to think that we can just burn the house down and start over and be where they want to go in a few years. However, starting from scratch and letting Trump's agenda go through could set us back for a generation. Don't underestimate the time it takes to start from scratch or dismiss all the progress that has already taken place.

[gordianot]

221. As far as my vote goes I am voting for the hope of a decent judiciary.

Trump is an evolving mess that knows no end except at some time way too late by a military coup or lamp post if he wins.

[uponit7771]

121. +1

[Surya Gayatri]

54. ^^^This!^^^

This isn't to say that are no minorities that are BoB, but I'm thinking this group is probably dominated by white males who have little to lose of Trump gets elected.

[coco77]

59. Oh well..

Hillary is a female she will save the day!

[Jester Messiah]

60. Maybe you could have... listened?

You could have worked with the Bernites. Maybe you wouldn't have got the candidate your heart truly desired, but you would at least not have had to seriously worry about Trump getting in. Instead, we now have this situation.

So yeah, you can moan about white privilege, but at the end of the day that's probably going to lose you more votes than you can guilt anybody into giving you.

[qdouble]

100. Thanks for the completely off-topic post. Obviously, Clinton voters think she will beat Trump.

It's irrelevant to the topic of being apathetic towards a bigot becoming president being a clear example of white privilege.

[Protalker]

63. 3 out of 4 Republicans don't see Trump on judge racist

Living in a bubble allows folks to see life through one view point. How can you see struggle in others if money is the only measure for success? As Democrats I think we have people more in mind than just self.

[uponit7771]

123. +1

[NaturalHigh]

88. Oh no, not this shit again.

[HooptieWagon]

89. If Hillary can't beat Trump, then she shouldn't be nominated.

Her weaknesses aren't Ssnders problem. People should have used their heads voting for her and attacking Sanders supporters.

[qdouble]

102. Hillary voters think she'll be Trump, so your post is irrelevant.

The topic is about people being apathetic towards the possibility of a white nationalist becoming president because they wouldn't be hurt by it because of privilege.

[Vogon_Glory]

104. You haven't been to Texas, have you?

You haven't been to Texas, have you? With the exception of laudable Texas Hispanic politicians, activists, and voters, all too many Texas Hispanics have proven heartbreakingly unable to connect the dots and realize that by NOT voting in elections, they allow dog-whistle Republicans and outright bigots to get elected.

And don't feed me that "gerrymandering" horse-$#!+ excuse. That MAY be true for state Reps and state senators, BUT IT IS NOT TRUE FOR STATEWIDE RACES! We had a Republican lieutenant governor run on a "secure our borders" platform two years ago because too many of the good guys sat on their backsides. You can guess the rest; he got elected.

[qdouble]

107. Well my post is more towards people who are into politics, not the apolitical.

There are people of every ethnicity and demographic that don't vote and that doesn't have much to do with privilege.

However, my hypothesis is that if you surveyed the BoB movement, it would be disproportionately represented by whites.. with white males being the largest percentage.... mostly due to privilege.

[Vogon_Glory]

113. I would not dispute you about that BoB people

I would not dispute you about the BoB people. Nevertheless, I think a lot of the purists have not been paying attention to what happens when you let Republicans get elected or leave them in place. What happened in Kansas and Wisconsin is frightening.

And there is white priveledge and priveledged whites. I don't think a lot of BoBs have noticed that a lot of whites are suffering under right-wing misrule, too.

[auntpurl]

129. You are right, we need a strong Democratic Party focusing GOTV efforts in TX

because that state could absolutely turn blue SOON if we can start to enfranchise Latinos. If TX turns blue, we can tell FL and OH Republicans to go f*ck themselves because every election from here on out will be in the bag.

And those strong efforts are unlikely to happen with Trump in the WH. I see below you aren't arguing for BoB, but I think this is yet another reason to support Dems in the WH and both houses of Congress.

[Vogon_Glory]

136. I think Trump would need a lot of luck and cheating to get elected

I think Trump would need a lot of luck and cheating to get elected. Despite my frustration with the corporate lame-stream media, his campaign is currently in a sorry state, and a lot of his dirty laundry is coming up for airing in places like Vanity Fair and here and there elsewhere.

His shorting his staff is giving a whole new meaning to "working stiff" (Or is it "working stiffed"? ... )

[tonyt53]

108. What bothers me quite a bit, is all the talk about how political correctness is ruining everything

Notice that the people complaining about supposedly "having" to be politically correct are the very people that have never been the target of racism, ridicule and downright hate. Trump cites his disdain for political correctness daily. As a white guy that grew up dirt poor in a small southern town, and lived the closest to the only two blacks in that town, I was called n----r lover more than once when I was a kid. it hurt then, and it hurts now when others are subjected to such talk. This shit has to end.

[qdouble]

112. Racists simply wish for a time when being racist was socially acceptable. The very reason why Trump

got as far as he did while being outlandish is because he said what they already believed but were to afraid to say in public. Him being elected would simply encourage people to be openly racist.

White nationalists are simply tired of having to hide their hatred, which is why they hate political correctness.

[One of the 99]

111. Reading many of the comments on Elizabeth Warren's facebook page and elsewhere

It seems to be most of the Bernie or Busters are angry white people, men mostly. And you're right these are people who won't be harmed by a Trump presidency.

[qdouble]

115. Yup. If you read a lot of their comments, it's not that they are throwing the country to the wolves.

they're throwing minorities to the wolves. Bernie or Busters view their movement as punitive. "Don't pick who we want? We'll throw you to the wolves and then rebuild when you are destroyed. " They don't view themselves as becoming the victim if Trump were to get elected... but rather observers.

[One of the 99]

133. In other words...

privileged white people. Yet they claim to be standing on principle. But their callous disregard to the harm that will be done to minorities and women by Trump (or any other GOP president) prove they have no principles at all.

[qdouble]

137. Yep, noble principles are those in which you stand up for the rights of everyone.

Not giving a fuck about what happens if it doesn't hurt you directly is narcissism.

[One of the 99]

140. Exactly!!!

I voted for Bernie in the primary because I thought he was bringing up important issues and pushing the party in the right direction. When I attended some events for Bernie I found that most of his other supporters were mainly obnoxious, narcissistic hipsters.

[HooptieWagon]

114. Two choices:

A) trash this stupid thread.
B) pour a cup of coffee, sit back, and watch the trainwreck.
Oh, what to do?

[Bluenorthwest]

119. And yet both Parties have bacisally insisted upon anti LGBT bigotry in candidates and in electoral

rhetoric until 2012. So being sanguine about bigoted candidates is really an American constant. I guess the OP sees bigotry against some groups as being of no consequence. Every candidate in my lifetime has run on a platform of bigotry. Until Obama 2012. Every candidate.
Hillary has run speaking her opposition to LGBT rights while she attended social events with Trump, LGBT activists have protested Trump since the 1980's. Bill golfs with Donald. We get arrested protesting him.
So it's odd to carry on as if Trump dropped from the sky last week, the first political bigot ever. He was nurtured. Assisted and those who told the truth about him were ignored. For 30 years.

It's nice that you and the Clintons oppose Trump now. It would have been nicer had you joined us for the last 30 years. Maybe he'd not even be famous today, much less a candidate. Who know?

[qdouble]

126. Society progressed...there was also a time when democrats stood for slavery.

With Trump, you basically have a someone who regressive today. If you want to take a time machine, we can go back to periods where bigotry was acceptable throughout society.

Hillary Clinton isn't running on a platform of bigotry, Donald Trump is... clearly. There is no equivalence.

[Bluenorthwest]

131. And you ignored everything I actually said. I congratulate you and the Clintons for finally figuring

out that Donald is a dangerous racist predator. As I said I have been very actively opposing him for 30 years, as have many others. We were ignored then just as you ignore what I am saying to you today. My political allies got arrested protesting Trump decades ago while Bill and Hillary continued to legitimize Trump in word and in deed. That's just fact. I'm a long standing Trump opponent. The rest of you are newcomers because you did not listen to us back then or in all of the intervening years. Listening to the warnings would have been wise, but prejudice and bigotry prevented those attentions.

[qdouble]

135. The insinuation that anyone you have a casual acquaintance with is somehow your best friend

is ridiculous. Such thinking is typically reserved for conspiracy theorist, but it appears a lot of Bernie supporters are in that camp. Almost no one took Trump seriously as a political figure until recently.

[Behind the Aegis]

148. "It's just one little prayer."

The excuses never stop, nor do the strawman arguments. We only matter when it affects business or certain people, usually not GLBT. As a minority, we are not useful to them, until we are, then it is on their terms. It is the epitome of privilege.

[qdouble]

149. The extra funny thing about it is that privileged liberal are quick to write off minorities if we

don't march lock step with them, but they wouldn't win a single national election without us.

[Behind the Aegis]

150. The really extra funny thing is many priviliged liberals write off minorities...

...even when they fail to recognize their own privilege and that is isn't limited to ethnicities.

[uponit7771]

124. Judging by the number of OT response and deflection this OP hits the spot... right on!!!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

128. Absolutely. nt

[kcjohn1]

130. 50% of eligible voters won't vote in the general

Most will be the poor, disenfranchised, and good chunk will be POC.

Is that sign of white privilege?

[auntpurl]

134. It's a sign that the Democratic Party isn't doing a good enough job

with strong GOTV efforts. We must do better.

[qdouble]

139. I think the electoral college also keeps the total number of voters low.

People who live in states that are solidly blue or red are less inclined to vote than those that live in swing states.

[auntpurl]

141. Plus the redistricting/gerrymandering thing

although I admit I don't understand that issue as well as I should. My understanding is that it could change in 2018? 2020?

[TwilightZone]

180. 2020

Redistricting is done every 10 years, coinciding with the national census. That's why the next couple of elections are crucial.

[qdouble]

138. As I said in a response to a different person:

My post is more towards people who are into politics, not the apolitical.

There are people of every ethnicity and demographic that don't vote and that doesn't have much to do with privilege.

However, my hypothesis is that if you surveyed the BoB movement, it would be disproportionately represented by whites.. with white males being the largest percentage.... mostly due to privilege.

[auntpurl]

142. It does have to do with race, though.

It's been shown over and over that POC are disproportionally affected by voter ID laws and other forms of suppression.

[reflection]

143. I think everyone votes for their own goals based on their experiences.

A PoC may look at Hillary, juxtaposed against Trump the bigot and say to themselves "this is my #1 issue, keeping this guy out of office. Everything else is secondary." Perfectly understandable.

A white BoBer might look at Hillary, juxtaposed against Trump the bigot and say "Neither of these people are speaking to my #1 issue, which is loosening the stranglehold of Wall Street on our economy and our political process." Then they move down to their #2 issue, whatever it is, and make the decision from there. It would be true that a white person would have less to lose if a bigot is elected and manages to work with Congress to drive legislation through that makes PoC lives' worse, so it is privilege.

At the end of the day, most people are not going to cast their vote to make someone else's life better, unless doing so dovetails with their own interests. So you have subsets of minority voters who refuse to vote for Bernie and subsets of whites who refuse to vote for Clinton.

(Disclaimer: Was for Bernie, but will vote Clinton. Wouldn't vote for Trump under any circumstances, as I feel he would wreck the economy immediately and piss off the rest of the world. His bigotry is odious but I don't think he would be able to do anything meaningful with it, unless the Republicans keep the Senate and House.)

[pdsimdars]

145. And Bernie supporters aren't the apathetic ones. We have been strongly supporting

the candidate who is more likely to defeat Trump.

We feel that the Hillary supporters don't really seem to care that Trump is more likely to be elected with Hillary as his opponent. Don't the Hillary supporters want to get behind the most electable candidate? If not, why not?

That is why no Bernie supporter can take them seriously when they talk about this topic. IF you were serious, you'd be fighting as hard as we are for the most electable candidate, Bernie Sanders. If not, you're just using that as a prod and aren't serious.

[qdouble]

146. Thanks for the completely off topic reply. My argument is in no way against

Bernie supporters in general... only Bernie or Busters. Bernie supporters who don't care if bigot wins the election if Bernie is not the nominee are over-represented by white males because of privilege.

[Doctor_J]

152. calling sanders voters racist and sexist is losing strategy

besides the fact that bernie has been part of the civil rights movement for fifty years, back when it was tough, the party should probably not have nominated a person who declared in 2008 that "my white voters " would pull her through. add to that the fact that she's in favor of tpp and curbs on reproductive rights, against healthcare without profits, and could be indicted, and you can understand the ambivalence.

[qdouble]

154. First of all, I'm not disparaging Bernie voters at all...

I'm only referring to the Bernie or Bust contingent. This isn't a comparison of Bernie vs Clinton as far as policy, so you're more than a bit off topic.

If you are ambivalent towards a white nationalist becoming president of the United States, that implies privilege. It is my argument that Bernie or Busters are over represented by whites, especially white males, because they don't feel that they are in significant danger if he becomes president....while our latino and muslim brethren don't have that luxury.

Also, saying that someone is benefiting from or is apathetic because of white privilege is not at all the same as saying a person is racist or sexist.

[Doctor_J]

174. you and the rest of the conservatives have been calling sanders supporters racist, sexist, white,

and privileged for eight months. voting for a candidate like mrs Clinton, who favors for profit healthcare and the death penalty and more budget busting wars and social security cuts is privileged.

[qdouble]

175. I'm not a conservative and I'm not calling Sanders supporters racist or sexist.

I didn't say all of his supporters are white...I'm only calling out the Bernie or Bust crowd as being largely represented by white males. This is not in anyway a Hillary vs Bernie argument that I'm making. Even if Bernie is Better than Hillary... Bernie voters that will vote for Hillary if Bernie loses > Bernie or Bust camp.

- White males can afford to be indifferent towards Trump promising to deport millions of Mexicans and build a wall, latino american can't
- White males can afford to be indifferent towards Trump saying that women who get abortions should be punished, liberal women can't
- White males can afford to be indifferent towards Trump promising to ban an entire religion that they don't belong to from entering the US, muslims can't
- White males can afford to be indifferent to a president that emboldens white supremacists, Black people can't

Saying that if Bernie loses, you will sit home or not vote against Trump because it doesn't matter is a pure display privilege. Even if I were to agree that Bernie is a better candidate than Hillary, Hillary is still a better candidate than Trump...and sane people should not even entertain letting that man sniff the presidency.

[PowerToThePeople]

193. I won't be held hostage by Conservative states

The same states that gave us Clinton WILL give their electoral votes to whatever Republican is on the ticket.

I choose none of the above.

If those states really want her, then let's see them deliver those electoral votes to her.

I would accept that ending to 2016 GE, may not like it but would accept it. Otherwise it is just a hostage scenario.

[qdouble]

195. Southern states = black and latino voters.

If the demographics were the same in most the northern states, Bernie would have lost very badly.

Southern democrats have little in common with the demographics of southern republicans.

[MirrorAshes]

153. Anyone willing to risk the SCOTUS is being highly irresponsible,

and that's before we even get to what Trump would personally do.

I have no sympathy for anyone who can't see beyond this simple fact.

[qdouble]

155. +1 It shows an overall lack of concern for the country if they don't get their way.

How any liberal can think that giving up the judiciary to conservatives and having a bigot turn back race relations 40 years is something that baffles me.

It mostly comes from a position where they think a Trump presidency can't harm them personally.

[840high]

162. I don't trust Hillary on SCOTUS.

[qdouble]

172. I'll trust her a hell of a lot more than someone who doesn't want to be judged by

a Mexican or Muslim because of their history of bigoted statements about them.

[840high]

186. You do what you want to do.

[OnDoutside]

217. You should seek help

[840high]

222. How nice of an

Irish lad/lass to tell me what to do.

[OnDoutside]

223. I'm there for you ! :)

[Romulox]

161. The VAST MAJORITY of Hillary's supporters on DU are older white people. By a huge margin. nt

[qdouble]

163. 1) Whites are the majority of the population...so it's irrelevant unless we are talking about

percentages proportional to the population. Hillary has the strongest support among minorities out of anyone in the primaries.

2) The argument in this thread is not about Hillary vs Bernie. I'm not saying anything negative about Bernie voters in general, I'm only specifically speaking about Bernie or Busters. Being ambivalent towards a white nationalist being elected implies privilege as white male liberals don't see themselves as being threatened by a Trump presidency. He presents a clear and present danger to many minorities that can't be ignored or brushed off as a insignificant.

[Romulox]

164. No, it's very relevant to the race-baiting we've seen here on DU this Primary season.

Most of it was done by older whites.

[qdouble]

166. You're not really addressing the OP at all. I'll assume you're just here to post non sequitur

[Romulox]

168. Of course I am. I suspect I've identified the identity of our OP quite accurately, for example. nt

[Juicy_Bellows]

179. I believe you have - absolutely.

[qdouble]

183. I'm not white... so you suspect wrong.

[Scootaloo]

165. Good thing Clinton's supporters are completely immune from this.

[Eric J in MN]

167. Circular logic.

You guess that most Bernie-or-Busters are white males. You conclude from your guess that being a Bernie-or-Buster is white male privilege.

[qdouble]

169. Most Bernie or Busters that I can see that face of are white and specifically white males.

Of course I'd have to see a poll to confirm my suspicions, which is why I said "a demographic breakdown of this group in future polling should be very revealing."

I also provided an article and a perfectly logical reason why white males would be less apt to be concerned about the ramifications of a Trump presidency...i.e. they don't view it as an existential threat the same way minorities would.

There's nothing circular about my argument.

[Eric J in MN]

178. I have the oppposite anecdotal experience.

The two Bernie-or-Busters whom I follow on Twitter are a black man and a white woman.

[qdouble]

182. I mean, I saw a black woman who was Bernie or bust on TV, that's not really the point

when people say African Americans or Women support Hillary, it doesn't mean that there are no pro-Bernie black people or women, we're speaking percentages.

The election is just coming to an end, so we don't fully know who is truly Bernie or Bust vs who was just bluffing. However, I hope someone does a good survey on it after Sanders has endorsed Clinton. In online groups, I've definitely witnessed it in higher rates amongst whites and I've laid out why whites would be more apt to have that position. I'm open to evaluating whatever data comes out addressing it as time goes on.

[Jackilope]

176. Apathy. Both sides are betting on it.

This is much more complex. What percentage of the voting public participated in the primary election? In our state, which voted the day after the AP claimed Clinton the presumptive nominee, it was 12%. A dismal 12%.

More and more people feel that the system is rigged, why bother? More and more states have created impossible and restrictive voting. In each party, we have the top two most hated and polarizing candidates pitted against each other and I cannot tell you how many people just on my FB feed on both parties and in between are shrugging it off or wanting to write in Mickey Mouse.

When people feel hopeless, voiceless, and demoralized what is the point of voting? When it comes to voting against or voting the lesser of two evils, it isn't motivating to go to the polls.

Ever wonder if the establishment designed it that way? Accuse and slight people on race or accuse them of racism and back off and let the peasants fight amongst themselves while grander theft and antics were afoot? Keep people distracted and hating on each other than the ruling system itself?

[qdouble]

177. I definitely understand where you're coming from

but similar percentages vote in the primaries every year. Apathy is alive and well in every demographic. My intent wasn't to make it seem like BoBers are the only apathetic group out there, I'm more or less centering the argument specifically around liberals who are not apolitical.

The solution to our problems isn't to become less and less engaged. That not voting only concentrates more and more power in the groups who can work up the energy to give a damn, it's why republicans often do well at picking up seats when there isn't a presidential race. People get caught up in the hype of thinking that if we elect one man or woman, everything is supposed to change while ignoring that we have to seek influence at every level of government every single election.

[CanadaexPat]

181. Being concerned about the US bombing people

In other nations is not white privilege. If you want to view everything through a domestic lens that's fine, but be self- aware enough to know that's a form of privilege too.

[qdouble]

184. That argument doesn't make any sense. Trump says he will kill the family members of suspected

terrorists, carpet bomb Isis and encourage nuclear proliferation. His foreign policy positions are terrifyingly dangerous and incoherent... while we would only expect Hillary to be mildly more hawkish than Obama.

[dbackjon]

187. White STRAIGHT Liberals. Us LGBT fear Trump and the GOP too

[qdouble]

190. True. White straight males are probably the only

group be the group that would be least damaged by his presidency, while the rest of us would suffer from increased bigotry.

[craigmatic]

194. Not to me.

As a black person I know Obama hasn't done that much for just black people. The Clintons have a history of throwing our spokes people under the bus while locking us up with 3 strikes laws and trump is stupid but probably won't do anything for us either. So no it's not white privilege to be apathetic alot of young black people don't care. Honestly I half way don't give a shit either.

[qdouble]

196. There are non-voters of ever race, especially when it comes to young voters.

The post is more so referring to otherwise politically active people who don't care if Trump gets elected.

Also, I'm speaking of the BoB movement being predominately white, not exclusively.

[AgingAmerican]

197. The establishment = white privilege

[gordianot]

201. The ultimate expression of White privilege is the ability of practitioners to con minorities.

Unquestioned pass is always the first step. When you ask what politician X has actually done to further the cause of minorities specifically and all you get is reference to speeches you know you have been conned.

[qdouble]

202. Nice deflection, but just mentioning the words white privilege doesn't mean you're addressing the OP

[gordianot]

210. Trump is an outspoken bigot a little worse than a limousine white liberal.

Both have motives more than abstract convictions. Trump could win anyway.

[qdouble]

211. Not all liberals necessarily care about the plight of others, that fact is made obvious by

the posts of many supposed liberals in this thread. However, outright bigotry is objectively more dangerous than the dismissiveness of some liberals. Outright bigotry emboldens the most racist among us to act out on their bigotry and leads to laws and law enforcement also acting as a tool of enforcing that bigotry.

[gordianot]

214. Out right bigots are looking for scapegoats.

Limousine liberals are looking for credence to support the idea they are better than the bigots. Privelege, by way of wealth, social status, high office, or race are tools to get you where you want to be. I am a sceptic of all politicians.

[qdouble]

215. Well I agree with you in the sense that both can be bad,

but I disagree with making them seem equivalent to each other. The outright bigot creates an atmosphere that incredibly more toxic.

[MaggieD]

203. K&R

[Orsino]

204. Apathy is not just a white thing.

Nor is seeking easy non-answers to complicated questions.

[qdouble]

208. Having apathy towards things that don't effect you isn't a white thing...

but being apathetic towards the threat that a bigot can cause is something that those not affected by bigotry can more easily afford.

[B Calm]

205. Are you saying Bernie supporters are racists?

[qdouble]

207. Of course not!

1) Saying someone is privileged does not equate to saying someone is racist. If I say you are privileged that you don't have to worry about clean drinking water, that isn't me saying you're racist against people that don't have clean drinking water... it just means it's not a major issue to you simply because your status in society.

2)My original post is only addressing the hardcore Bernie or Bust crowd which I believe to be only about 1/4 of his supporters, not Bernie supporters in general.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

213. Voting for your preferred candidate is not "apathy".

[qdouble]

218. Being gleeful about the prospects of the democrats losing so you can say "I told you so"

or wishing to "Bern it to the ground" and other similar sentiments that seem to not care at all if Trump gets elected is apathy though and it's common among the hardcore BoB crowd.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

224. Your definition of apathy is mistaken.

apathy
noun ap·a·thy ˈa-pə-thē

: the feeling of not having much emotion or interest : an apathetic state

I assume you will vote for your preferred candidate. Does that make you apathetic?

[qdouble]

225. It's not mistaken at all. The attitude given hints at them not caring whether or not Trump

gets elected.

I'll vote against Trump because I care about him not being president. Do you?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

226. I'm voting against Trump and Hillary.

I'll be voting for my preferred candidate. Aren't you?

[qdouble]

227. I'm voting for the Democratic Party nominee.