2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy is it when a bogus charge is leveled at Bernie and doesn't stick
That it is then leveled at those who choose authenticity over appearance?
It's become comedic, like some Kauffmanesque performance routine.
I have to give props where due though: The recycling efforts are amazing.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)What do you expect from someone who smirks about campaign finance reform yet takes all that money from Wall Street?
Response to hootinholler (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Not in the least.
DianeK
(975 posts)Kauffman
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)This one always cracks me up.
DianeK
(975 posts)the best! i keep waiting for him to pop up and say something like 'gotcha' with a knowing wink...he was a genius!
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)did you mansplain sumpthin to sumone?
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Personally I don't believe in mansplainin.
This isn't just about the sexism charges although that would appear to be the latest application of the strategy.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Mansplainin is a term that has been used far to often to dismiss something a man says just because he is a man. Of course, there are men who do talk down to women. I think it is okay to use the term on men that do that. But, so far in this primary cycle I have only seen it used in a dismissive fashion.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)with Team Slytherin.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The Great Democracy Pumpkin is not going to come reward us for having the pumpkin patch with the most sincere elected officials. The problem is not that Washington is filled with people whose hearts are not in the right place (I think all of our candidates' hearts are in the right place) but that it's a very ungainly, cumbersome, complex system that only turns very slowly and tends to create a lot of unintended consequences whenever any change happens there. And, furthermore, actually getting the system to work takes dealing and effectively working with the very people and institutions whose powers we want to curb.
I get that you look at the candidates and conclude that only Sanders is "real"; only he actually cares about you and your problems, and the rest are sell-outs and "corporatists" or "neoliberals" or whatever the word this week is. But as Cromwell said, I beseech you to think it is possible that you are mistaken: that there are in fact very authentic and caring and sincere politicians in our party who don't meet whatever "shouting on TV" standard you have set as the appropriate sign of outrage. That it is entirely possible that the majority of our party power structure supports a particular candidate not, as you think, because she is a pandering corporatist neoliberal sellout as are they, but because in fact they understand very well what it actually takes to change things in government.
Even though I will not support Clinton in this primary as long as O'Malley is in the race, I find the absolute dismissal of her here both arrogant and frankly shocking, and I have for a while.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)It's not personal, except for when it is.
I don't hate her. I just know that she doesn't represent me, is very unlikely to ever represent me, and doesn't have what it takes to earn my support. That's pretty simple.
I also know that the older I get the less patience I have with nominating candidates that haven't earned my support. It's pretty simple.
As far as Hillary Clinton goes? I have a different perspective than many. I see her through a different lens, and it doesn't complement her.
Hillary Clinton has been on the national stage for a long time, and people have had time to get to know her. I don't know why it would shock you that anyone on this board would dismiss her. Are you suggesting that people on this board are supposed to get in line and let others do their thinking for them, are not supposed to observe, analyze, and make their own evaluations? Or that the only thing that "counts" is the "D" after her name?
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Are you saying that preferring authenticity is adolescent therefore those who choose that are fair game for untrue assertions?
I don't think you really addressed my assertion, but I have to give you props for bringing Cromwell into the discussion. Cromwell?
Oh, nice straw man BTW, at least you used fresh straw and not the moldy bits that I'm used to seeing.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Bernie Sanders is a politician. He has made compromises, bad decisions and doesn't always mirror my take in things. He doesn't always express himself in ways I would prefer.
But I trust him, and believe in him because I agree with him on most things, and trust that he will act according to principle. He might do something I don't agree with, but I will always trust his motives.
Clinton never lets you know where she really stands, There is too much smoke and mirrors.
Does she support TPP or doesn't she? I still don't know She described her position using so many weasel words that it could mean anything. If she has disagreements with it, what are they specifically? What caused her to change her mind a couple of weeks ago? Will she "change her mind" again when she is in office?
She was a supporter of Welfare Deform. Now, in response to a question about Social Security, she says she wants to be sure we take care of poor women and children. Well, poor women and children would be a lot better off if the Clinton 1 administration had not worked with the GOP to take away a big chunk of their social safety net. And the question she was responding to was abut Social Security overall. She wouldn't answer it, and just used that as another smokescreen.
Authenticity does matter.
Triana
(22,666 posts)... calmly presented evidence that a bogus charge was exactly the opposite of facts and gave several examples of specific actions by Sanders that directly contradicted the charge (ie: his voting record on various pieces of legislation).
Was immediately called a Sanders bully -- because the facts I gave didn't match the charge made against Sanders.