“Bernie or Bust”ers: Suck it up, women and minorities, because Hillary is the literal and absolute worst

Golf writer, Bernie Sanders supporter, and self-identified privileged white guy Shane Ryan would “like to address the idea that Bernie Sanders supporters who refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election are over-privileged assholes.”

I feel like “You said it, not me” would be a petty interjection at this early stage.

“Bernie or Bust” is made up of Sanders supporters who under no circumstances will vote for Clinton in the general election. They predict an en-masse desertion of the progressive movement as a result of a Clinton presidency, and in their mind nothing that could possibly happen under a Trump or Cruz administration could possibly be worse than that. They also predict that the impact of said desertion on women and minorities would be worse than anything that could happen to them under a Trump or Cruz administration, so even though it might seem like “Bernie or Bust”ers are willing to throw underprivileged people under the bus to protect their progressive politics, Ryan says, they’re actually looking out for poor people’s best interests.

Ryan kindly outlines the key arguments against “Bernie or Bust,” and while this would normally be a place in an article where a writer might be tempted to get a little hyperbolic and/or throw out a few strawmen, I give Ryan credit for providing a pretty accurate assessment.

1. There are large numbers of progressive Bernie Sanders supporters who claim that they won’t vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election, provided she wins the nomination.

2. In the event of a close race in November, those missing votes could turn the outcome.

3. A Republican presidency would be bad for the country, and only someone with a blinding sort of privilege would even consider that option, because they won’t have to suffer the consequences of the policies wrought by these men and their party.

… Yeah, basically.

Obviously, Ryan disagrees — he goes on to make his argument in a cogent format, even acknowledging his own privilege before insisting that that privilege is not why he feels comfortable telling women and minorities to suck it up through (what he predicts to be only) four years of a Republican presidency, and that in the end, we’ll all be better off.

It feels kind of odd to write this at all, because instead of disassembling Ryan’s argument piece by piece, it’s like all there really is to say is That’s wrong, and that’s also wrong, and this other piece is wrong, and your whole thing here is more or less wrong, but your syntax is pleasant, so that’s cool. Like… sorry, dude. Including the words “I recognize my privilege” doesn’t mean that the other 2,439 words of your article don’t add up to a heap of bullshit. Telling women and minorities to suck it up through something you won’t personally have to endure in support of your political goals is basically the definition of privilege. “I recognize my privilege” doesn’t fix it. Oh, he recognizes that he has no place to make this demand, but he’s doing it anyway. That definitely makes it better.

And lest Ryan lump me in with all of Clinton’s country-club foot soldiers who look down on progressives, or whatever, let’s be clear: I support Bernie Sanders. I’ve been quite open about it. I’m hardly accusing (other) Sanders supporters of ignoring the underprivileged. If Clinton makes it to the general election, I’ll be voting for her not because I’m all about stepping on the poor and oppressed or even because I think she’ll be a great president but because a Republican presidency would be a complete fucking nightmare for anyone who isn’t a well-off white guy.

Am I saying that Shane Ryan is a well-off white guy? I have no way of knowing. I’ve never met the man. All I know about him is that he’s a Sanders supporter, he says he’s a white male, and he personally wrote these words into his article: “What about all the women […] who may even die from back-alley abortions gone wrong?” And then he followed almost immediately with this:

I believe that the consequences of a failed Clinton presidency, which entails total Republican control, will be far, far worse for everyone — but especially the poor — than four years of Trump or Cruz right now.

(He says it twice, actually. Once in italics.)

So right there, by his reckoning, the consequences of a Clinton White House are worse than women dying from coat-hanger abortions. (Estimates are that about 5,000 women died every year from unsafe abortions in the pre-Roe v. Wade U.S., but whatevs, they were lucky they never had to experience a Clinton presidency.) What might happen when progressives abandon the cause in 2020 would be “far, far worse for everyone” than the things that people who aren’t him would have to endure between now and then.

And his argument that we’d only have to endure a Trump or Cruz presidency for one term before he’d be oustered by a progressive — backed by some kind of reasoning involving Trump’s favorability rating? — is naive at best. Trump may be despised throughout the U.S., but he’s still at the head of the Republican pack, and if he makes it to the White House, that means that enough people wanted him running the country to get him elected. And not in a they-don’t-know-what-they’re-getting-into kind of way — Trump and Cruz have told us exactly who they are throughout the entire campaign, and their supporters continue to grow in rank.

It’s not like Trump and Cruz are running on a platform of free puppies, and then once they start instituting their racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic policies, people are going to be all, “Oh no! This is completely unexpected! I will definitely be swinging Democratic in the next election!” The Republican frontrunners are actively campaigning on border walls, oppressing Muslims, and rolling back LGBT rights. Trump is a crude, dishonest, belligerent, fluorescent orange reality-TV star who has talked about his penis during a presidential debate, and he has not been long since dismissed as a potential president of the United States. The people who would put Trump or Cruz in the White House see his horribleness as a feature, not a bug, and they’re only going to vote him out of it if he doesn’t follow through on his promises from 2016.

And yes, that might mobilize enough progressives to vote him out — or it might not, giving us a second term of an openly, proudly caustic president with policies that belong in a dystopian young adult novel. That might be a bet you’re willing to take if your life and livelihood aren’t legitimately threatened by the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic rhetoric that the prospective Republican administration wants to turn into law. But you’ll have to pardon people who are thusly threatened if they feel like you’re willing to throw them under the bus in defense of progressive politics. And again, I’m not unaware of your suffering, I just think my agenda is more important doesn’t make things better.

And then there’s this:

If you tell me that privilege equals a kind of cosmic good luck, a roll of the dice that brought me onto this planet with built-in economic and structural advantages, then I’m with you 100 percent. If you tell me that privilege automatically makes me an ignorant greedy pig who is constitutionally incapable of empathy, then I’m with you zero percent.

But you realize I’m going to dismiss your entire argument with something like, “oh look, another white male tells us he’s not privileged!”, right?

Yes, I realize that. After all, this is the Internet.

Oh, boo fucking hoo. You haven’t even clicked “Publish” on your article and already you’re moaning about names you haven’t been called and judgment you haven’t received. If people dismiss your argument, it’s not because you’re a white man denying your privilege — it’s because your argument is patently bullshit, and that just happens to derive in large part from your denial of privilege. Cry me a goddamned river.

You know what’s privilege? It’s 2,500 words insisting that even though you’re willing to tell women and minorities to fuck themselves through four years of a Trump presidency, it’s not because you’re privileged! Oh, no! Being accused of acting out of privilege is way worse than actually screwing people over because you don’t have to worry about their problems. But in the interest of polite political debate, I’ll concede: You’re not an over-privileged asshole. Just the regular kind.

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

80 comments for ““Bernie or Bust”ers: Suck it up, women and minorities, because Hillary is the literal and absolute worst

  1. March 25, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    The consequences of Trump presidency isn’t the responsibility of people who won’t vote for Clinton. American’s are not obliged to vote for her, this isn’t North Korea.

    • Voncile Mayes
      March 25, 2016 at 2:26 pm

      Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

      You and Ryan can vote for who you like but do not tell me my Black ass will not suffer •as much” under a Trump or Cruz presidency as a Clinton presidency. Just entitled fuckery.

      • Elana
        March 25, 2016 at 4:03 pm

        … So what exactly is Trump going to do to you? I ask this as a mixed woman. And what is Hillary going to do for you?

      • March 26, 2016 at 1:40 pm

        Elana, you offer a great question. I look forward to hearing the answer.

      • March 26, 2016 at 1:40 pm

        Elana, you offer a great question. I look forward to hearing the answer.

      • BBBShrewHarpy
        March 26, 2016 at 2:31 pm

        hi this answer is for Spencer. I find it really jarring that the first comment on this article completely misses the point of both Caperton’s post and the article to which she refers, and that you then go on to stomp over Voncile Mayes to question the relative virtues of Trump and Clinton.

        Just to state the blindingly obvious, this is not about whom anybody personally supports or opposes for president but about the idea that somebody from a position of privilege, who admits that Trump would be awful, is telling less privileged people to suck it up for 4 years because the backlash against Trump’s awfulness will bring in something much better *for them* in the long run. As Voncile Mayes said more eloquently FTS.

      • Marissa123
        March 27, 2016 at 3:44 pm

        @Elana: “… So what exactly is Trump going to do to you? I ask this as a mixed woman. And what is Hillary going to do for you?”

        One example, in addition to the many that Caperton pointed out, is that Trump and Cruz promised that their first priority in office is to repeal the ACA. Clinton promises to keep it and build on it.

        Under a Trump or Cruz presidency, those who are most vulnerable due to severe illness or disability will not be able to access the care they need. Millions will be denied coverage because “preexisting conditions” will again become a disqualifier for insurance.

        My life currently depends on the ACA. I won’t make it the next 4 years to a supposed better progressive future if Trump or Cruz. A Trump or Cruz presidency with mean an overt and immediate death sentence.

      • Wordwizard
        March 27, 2016 at 6:50 pm

        Marissa, please be comforted. Now that you have the insurance that you have, you are safe. You can keep renewing it forever. If the ACA were abolished, you might not be able to transfer to some OTHER insurance that didn’t cover pre-existing conditions, but whatever you’ve got when that happens, if it does, would still keep you on, as long as you continue to pay the premiums. If you are in the least doubt, or get insurance through a job, just make sure to get an HMO that will keep its members even when circumstances (such as job loss) change. Even before ACA, people with pre-existing conditions, such as myself, would get insurance through an employer, then continue with it afterwards.

      • Marissa123
        March 27, 2016 at 9:46 pm

        @Wordwizard, Thank you that does help a bit and I appreciate you writing about this. However I’m not sure that this resolves everything. Without by subsidy through the ACA, I could never afford my current plan. More than that, the “pre-existing conditions” I do have are probably the single most expensive kinds, which may easily result in raising my premiums even further without regulations to protect me. Additionally, it is only through a combination of complicated factors through the ACA that I am able to get my exceedingly expensive (over $6000 per month) medication covered. I worry deeply for my life and the lives of so many others without all of the protections and benefits afforded by the ACA with a Trump presidency.

      • Wordwizard
        March 28, 2016 at 12:03 am

        Dear Marissa:
        You have one more enrollment window before a Republican can take office, in which you can switch your healthcare to an HMO that is NOT super-expensive, and that covers all necessary medication with a low co-pay. Find out everything you can, and make that last switch COUNT, if the GOP nominee, whichever one, wins! I live in NY, and HealthFirst is incredibly good; plus since I’m on Medicare and Medicaid, it’s free. If you can’t find something equally good wherever you might be, and the election goes the wrong way, you might even consider moving to somewhere with better options, to preserve your life. I hope this helps. Each one teach one!

      • BBBShrewHarpy
        March 28, 2016 at 8:35 am

        WordWizard, there is another form of privilege in your response to Marissa: that bestowed on people who live in states with multiiple healthcare options and a basic infrastructure that has public well-being at its center. Those of us living in the South do not have that privilege. Those of us living in Caperton’s state have already, through a series of bills passed in the state legislature, lost access to most options for pregnancy terminations, bills that were all passed under the guise of caring for women’s health but with the legislators not even taking the care to hide their nyuk nyuks. For those who think the identify of the pols in power doesn’t urgently affect day-to-day life, try living in Alabama for a while. And yes, I think Hillary, in this case, is a bullet-proof ally.

      • Wordwizard
        March 28, 2016 at 12:15 pm

        If I’m privileged because of where I live, that’s not something I was born with, but something I acquired by moving here, in part because I was escaping oppression where I lived before. I only hesitantly suggested Marissa might move, because I know there are many factors to where one chooses to call home, including how easy it is to move, but w/her life at stake, there’s perhaps a certain incentive for her to gain the same privilege I have, by coming here (or some other place of her choice). People can’t choose their ethnicity/birth sex, but they can (sometimes) choose where they live. They can also choose to stay+try to change the policies that everyone there suffers under, but I think Marissa can’t be blamed for fearing for her life, nor I be tarred with privilege, for living where I do.

      • March 28, 2016 at 11:49 am

        There are also plenty of states that blocked, for instance, healthcare access for trans people before the ACA made it a mandate. Really, anywhere that allowed OMGheathensinners to be denied access to healthcare pre-ACA, they’d be in danger if the ACA were rolled back.

  2. torifire
    March 25, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    Drop…the…f*cking…mic! Boom.

  3. michael martinez
    March 25, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    As a minority (gay). I disagree that Clinton is significantly better for minorities in terms of actual policy. The only minorities she helps are the rich.

    She only supported gay marriage when it was politically convenient, and my rights are far more important that her convenience.

    Who’s rights would be too inconvenient to protect when she’s president and the Republicans have the congress? All of them.

    I don’t buy your argument that not voting for Clinton means I’m privileged and don’t care about women or African Americans. That’s a sweeping generalizations.

    Your argument is just wrong, good syntax though.

    • March 25, 2016 at 4:02 pm

      I didn’t say that Clinton’s policies are better for minorities. (I didn’t actually say anything about her policies at all.) But they’re less bad. There’s one candidate who wants to see more Hispanic citizens harassed by law enforcement, and one who doesn’t. There’s one who wants to treat every Muslim in the country as a criminal, and one who doesn’t. There’s one who wants to defund Planned Parenthood, and one who doesn’t. Even if Clinton didn’t have any policies at all in those areas, that would still be better than Trump’s policies that are actively and massively destructive. I’m not saying that all of her policies are awesome — as noted, I too am a Sanders supporter — but it’s hard to argue that even Clinton’s most negligent policy positions are worse for women and minorities than Trump’s truly heinous positions.

      And no, not-voting-for-Clinton isn’t what makes you privileged. The areas in which you’re privileged make you privileged. It’s nothing to be ashamed of — there’s no point in me being ashamed that I’m afforded the privilege associated with being white and straight — but it’s also not something you can avoid. Not-voting-for-Clinton also doesn’t mean you don’t care about women or African Americans, either. But it does mean that you have other priorities that you place ahead of the needs of women and African Americans (which is natural. Everyone has to choose their priorities).

      Thanks for the compliment on the syntax. It’s a point of pride.

  4. March 25, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    Trump = 4 year mess, Hillary = 8 year mess

    I’m in for Sanders to the end and want money out of politics. Left with a choice between Clinton and Trump, that simply isn’t an option. So in the long run, what’s best for the progressive cause?

    I can’t help but think that 4 years of Trump, while awful, isn’t as bad as 4 years later seeing the incumbent anti-progressive Hillary run against a Republican party calling her a socialist. In the long run I really wonder if 4 years of Trump is worse than that. A Trump presidency means both the GOP and the corporate Democrats all go down in flames. Sounds like a better option than a continuation of the Bush/Clinton era.

    The Democratic party is shifting to Sanders thinking, even if they don’t vote this particular candidate in as president. Hillary wou

    • March 25, 2016 at 3:45 pm

      That’s kind of the point. That’s what privilege is — it’s not the advantages you have, it’s the things you don’t have to worry about. You can look eight years into the future and worry about the future of the progressive movement because you don’t have to look eight months into the future and worry that you might end up dragged in on some bullshit immigration charge even though you’re a citizen, just because you’re Hispanic. Or that your kids are going to walk around their own neighborhoods with armed cops tracking their every move because they’re Muslim. Or that the domestic violence shelter you run is going to get defunded because of some bullshit abortion law that isn’t even about you.

      You can tell any of those people that really, if they can hold out for four years, a progressive will be back in the White House and their lives will get better. But the response might be, “Yes, but if my kid gets shot tomorrow for looking like he could be a terrorist, he’s not going to be any less dead in four years.” And that’s why the Bernie-or-Bust, anyone-but-Hillary camp is based in privilege — because they don’t have to worry more about the next eight months than they do the next eight years.

    • ann
      March 26, 2016 at 6:08 pm

      But wouldn’t trump be able to chose a supreme court justice and that will probaly be longer that 8 year that will be till the justice dies

      • PM
        March 26, 2016 at 9:22 pm

        Excellent point.

      • Wordwizard
        March 26, 2016 at 9:40 pm

        You’re assuming that Trump’s pick would be worse / younger than Clinton’s, which is not obvious.

  5. SL
    March 25, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    I am a woman (barely, mostly a lady) AND I am black. No doubt, under the control of a republican presidency, great tragedy would befall me and most of my family. I’m sitting with a little college debt (not as bad as it could have been), for now, I got a stable ok paying job. Still living with my mom since neither of us can afford to live apart. All of that would surely be torn apart under Trump or Cruz.

    I am Bernie or Bust. Am I willing to suffer only 4 years under Trump for a better candidate? Yes. Clinton may well keep things ‘stable’ for 8 years, but ‘stable’ isn’t working. Something has to CHANGE. If it isn’t Bernie, someone worse and more powerful than Trump will come next time around.

    The time for change is now. If I must suffer for it, I will. My ancestors did and I will too.

  6. Wordwizard
    March 25, 2016 at 8:00 pm


  7. CitizenX
    March 25, 2016 at 8:23 pm

    Things are really looking grim to me guys. The way I perceive it, around 15-20% of the voting public is either Fascist/racist/sexist or cool with it (which makes you complicit in my book). Another 15% or so (there is some bleed over) are down with a Theocracy. 30%-ish don’t seem to support Democracy (Gerrymandering/voter suppression). And I’d estimate a whopping 55-70% will tolerate Corporate Oligarchy. Scary. Sad and scary and embarrassing. Bernie Sanders is an oasis in the desert my friends.

    As for Oligarchy (rule by an elite few), I feel that we might as well just bring back the monarchy. Instead of Dukes and Earls we have the 1%, buts it’s practically the same thing. Oligarchy is Tyranny, and we threw that yoke off once before. Don’t be a Tory! Be a Revolutionary!

  8. Rosemary
    March 25, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    I’m not Bernie or bust. I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton because I am afraid of a Trump presidency.

    I also disagree with this article. I heard, “it takes privilege to vote your conscience even when voting your conscience will get you hurt.”

    That implies that the under-privileged can’t hold onto moral convictions in the face of adversity. That is patently false.

    Everyone has a line that they Will Not Cross. Privilege makes it WAY EASIER for a Cis white dude a) pick this line and b) hold it. It’s WAY HARDER for someone underprivileged to do the same thing.

    BUT there’s not a privileged monopoly on moral courage. The underprivileged hold moral lines, at great cost, all. the damn. time.

    This vote isn’t my Line Too Far but it IS for some women and minorities, and I respect that.

    • PM
      March 26, 2016 at 9:23 pm

      This is thoughtful and spot-on. Thank you.

    • atljawga
      March 31, 2016 at 11:48 am

      thank you for this!!

      not rich, feminist, black woman voting for Bernie

    • March 31, 2016 at 12:02 pm

      I also disagree with this article. I heard, “it takes privilege to vote your conscience even when voting your conscience will get you hurt.”

      If you’re talking about this post, and not Shane Ryan’s article, it’s saying the opposite. It’s saying that privilege is voting your conscience when it won’t get you hurt.

      If someone is saying, “As a lesbian, I could lose my job or even my home if Cruz gets elected and this ridiculous ‘religious freedom’ legislation goes federal, but I still can’t bring myself to fill in the bubble for Clinton because she’s absolutely terrible,” that takes conviction. If someone is saying, “The country will be damaged forever if Clinton is elected, and nothing really awful would happen to me under a Cruz presidency, so I’m not going to vote Clinton,” that takes privilege. They’re free to do it, because that’s what democracy is all about, but it shows privilege.

      Let me be clear: I’m lighting altars to Cthulhu that Bernie gets the Democratic nomination. But if Clinton gets it in the end, like you said, I’ll hold my nose and vote for her, because the alternative is far worse for a lot of people.

  9. Trigger
    March 25, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    I will never vote for Hillary because I don’t vote for Republicans or corrupt politicians. I’ve voted 3rd party in every election since ’92, and if Bernie isn’t an option in November, I’ll be voting for Jill Stein or writing him in (if he’s an option to write-in). You can cast insults at me or blame me for the 2000 election or whatever, but people like you are interested in politics once every four years, you wouldn’t know a Senator from a Representative, and you wouldn’t know what a midterm was if one punched you in the vagina. Get your pathetic party-voting, lock-step, line-toting, cowardly, ignorant ass off the internet and crack a book. Start reading more than you write.

      • Wordwizard
        March 26, 2016 at 11:35 pm

        I don’t think it’s fair to call Trigger’s complaints about Clinton’s being a corrupt politician an ad hominem fallacy. The character of a presidential candidate is indeed highly pertinent as to whether they are fit for the position. Anyone who knowingly votes for someone they know to be dishonest deserves the corrupt administration that is bound to follow—unfortunately, the rest of us must suffer too, without deserving it.

      • March 27, 2016 at 6:19 am

        No, the ad hom was basically everything that came after the second sentence.

      • Wordwizard
        March 27, 2016 at 8:27 am

        Fair enough.

      • kel
        March 28, 2016 at 2:35 pm

        I love that you’re linking the yourlogicalfallacyis page on ad hominem attacks in a comment thread following your “you’re the wrong race and/or gender to hold these opinions” article.

      • March 28, 2016 at 2:43 pm

        Only to the extent that his race and gender mean he’ll be able to avoid a lot of consequences that people not of his race and gender won’t be able to avoid, and thus asking them to do so is an example of privilege, which he specifically said wasn’t the case, and which I refuted by addressing his arguments. So… no.

  10. Martin Heldt
    March 25, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    Hillary represents all the flaws of politics which I have fought my entire adult life. Her natural constituency is Wall Street. Her finger is always in the wind. When it was popular to use racist fear mongering it was Hillary in the lead, scaring people with her talk of black super-predators. This helped lead to millions of African Americans spending their lives locked away. tens of thousands are are still locked away decades later. Millions are still disenfranchised.

    Now this sleazy politician calls the super-predators by another name, her “firewall.”

    War? Elect Hillary and war will quickly follow and the poor and minorities will die disproportionately.

    She lives in a moral vacuum, her compass the winds of the moment.
    I wont vote GOP and I wont vote for Hillary.

  11. HowIsBabbyFormed
    March 25, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    In think the Bernie or bust minority are mostly people who find their right to hate a woman important. They are people who will claim to support women, but want to reserve their important right to denigrate the ones they don’t like beyond any reason or sense of balance.

    You’re just not going to convince me that the strength of this opposition against Clinton doesn’t come from patriarchy. That’s all.

    • ludlow22
      March 26, 2016 at 2:10 am

      You’re just not going to convince me that the strength of this opposition against Clinton doesn’t come from patriarchy. That’s all.

      I mean, I’m supporting Clinton, but this argument is awfully condescending to (for example) POC who are uncomfortable with her record on race and criminal justice. Or plenty of other principled folks.

      So you don’t like Bernie? Probably due to antisemitism, right?

    • March 26, 2016 at 10:03 am

      I’ve opposed Clinton in the primaries because I disagree with her policies in a lot of deal-breaking areas. While I won’t disagree that she’s been the target of a metric shitload of misogyny throughout this and other campaigns, there are plenty of reasons to oppose her that have nothing to do with her gender.

    • HowIsBabbyFormed
      March 26, 2016 at 4:03 pm


      • ludlow22
        March 26, 2016 at 6:06 pm

        So why do you hate Jewish people so much?


        I’m not even supporting Sanders and I think you’re being silly

      • HowIsBabbyFormed
        March 27, 2016 at 8:45 pm

        Your comments are stupid. There is a difference between remarks about majorities and remarks about an individual.

      • ludlow22
        March 30, 2016 at 2:20 pm

        You’re right. Why do you think it is that the majority of Clinton supporters just want an excuse to hate Jews?

      • HowIsBabbyFormed
        March 30, 2016 at 6:55 pm

        Because of Anti-Semitism and a common belief that Jews have an inordinate amount of money and power over the media and a general distrust of non Christians.

      • ludlow22
        March 30, 2016 at 11:05 pm

        OK, so your genuine view of the Democratic primary is that most Clinton supporters are only supporting her because they hate Jews, most Sanders supporters are only supporting him because they hate women, and then some small remainder actually care about other issues.

        That’s both unbelievably bleak and totally unsupported by the evidence.

      • HowIsBabbyFormed
        March 31, 2016 at 5:33 pm

        No. You are the worst. Why do you keep talking to me? You are the worst person to talk to because it’s like computer programming, where if you leave off a semicolon you get a segfault.

      • March 31, 2016 at 5:36 pm

        Enough, both of you. Take it to spillover or, ideally, knock it the fuck off.

  12. Wordwizard
    March 26, 2016 at 1:29 am

    So according to you, women who are Bernie or bust are self-hating? How nice for you to be able to know, sight unseen.

    • March 26, 2016 at 10:11 am

      Show me in the post where I said, or even implied, that “Bernie or Bust”ers hate women. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman)

      • Wordwizard
        March 26, 2016 at 11:34 am

        Dear Caperton:

        You did not. I was replying to HowIsBabbyFormed. My comment should have been placed to show that. Computer glitch?

      • March 26, 2016 at 11:38 am

        Oh! K.

    • HowIsBabbyFormed
      March 26, 2016 at 4:05 pm

      No. You said that. Why don’t you address my actual words instead of inventing your own version.

      • Wordwizard
        March 26, 2016 at 7:43 pm

        Your actual words were: “In [sic] think the Bernie or bust minority [sic] are mostly people who find their right to hate a woman important.”

        Some people who are Bernie or Bust are women. You think Bernie or Bust people who are women are mostly people who find their right to hate a woman, their own selves, thus self-hating, important.

      • HowIsBabbyFormed
        March 27, 2016 at 8:36 pm

        Your logic is bad

  13. BBBShrewHarpy
    March 26, 2016 at 10:12 am

    Wow, I don’t support Hillary at all but I can see through my loathing of her political opportunism and war-mongering ways to get your very important point, which seems to be more than most of the commenters here can do.

    I’ll vote for her, for exactly the reasons you lay out. I hope others come to the same conclusion once the primaries are over.

  14. Kylee
    March 26, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    I’m a transgender lesbian woman. I am a Bernie or Bust voter. This idea that we are all privileged voters that would not be effected is false. We are leftists, progressives, lgbt, women, even some people of color. We are voters that are sick of the corporate controlled government and Hillary represents that system. Some of us are right leaning independents that would not have ever voted for hillary. Some would have voted for Gary Johnson, the LP candidate, people that support sanders because of his economic policies even if they oppose some of his social policies.

    You need to consider that LONG TERM a clinton presidency will be a disaster. Electing such a polarizing figure would galvanize conservative obstructionism, and likely lead to Republican dominated congress and presidency in 2020

    • March 26, 2016 at 4:13 pm

      I never said, nor (that I’ve noticed) has anyone else here said, that all “Bernie or Bust” voters are privileged and/or won’t be affected by a Clinton presidency. I did argue that a white guy telling women and minorities to put up with effects that he won’t personally have to endure, in support of his political priorities, was coming from a place of privilege.

      • a lawyer
        March 27, 2016 at 11:45 pm

        Hilary is better in the short term, to be sure. But lots of folks think that electing Hilary will interfere with major, long term, improvements.

        Trump is worse in the short term, to be sure. But lots of folks think that the costs of having Trump will be outweighed by long term benefits.

        A preference for the long view isn’t “privileged”. It is merely a different approach.

    • MB
      March 28, 2016 at 9:34 am

      Why in the world would a right-leaning independent vote for Bernie, who is much, much further left than Hillary, but never for Hillary, who globally speaking is center right? Why would a libertarian vote for Bernie, who espouses social democratic economic policies, which are pretty much exactly the opposite of free market libertarian pull yourself up by your bootstraps because social safety nets are for lazy people policies? A libertarian who had actually read their party’s platform is more likely to agree with Bernie or Hillary on issues like gay marriage and abortion (keep the government out of it and let people make their own decisions) than any of their economic policies.

      I don’t care who you vote for, but I’m very confused by your political taxonomy.

  15. Kylee
    March 26, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    Also, a Clinton presidency could lead to a diasterous economic collapse. The financial institutions that were too big to fail in 2008 have only grown larger since and continue practices that are fraudulent and unethical (look up goldman sachs aluminum manipulation) Clinton will do next to nothing to bring them into line. Why would she, she benefits from their continued operations. She won’t get rid of Citizens United, because she benefits from it. Instead she’ll just modify it some.

    She won’t fix the broken healthcare system, just modify it, but keep bug insurance companies in control of our health. The only system that will work is single payer, Medicare for All.

    She supports bad trade policies that hurt the middle class.

    We are tired of the lesser of two evils argument.

  16. Pheenobarbidoll
    March 26, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Words cannot convey how stomach turning election years are, when I get to watch colonizers fight over which colonizers is the best head of an occupying government.

    So much fun.

    • ludlow22
      March 27, 2016 at 12:20 am

      I hear you but I’m not sure what to do with that, practically speaking, except to try to support people who will implement the least-shitty version of those policies.

      • Pheenobarbidoll
        March 27, 2016 at 10:02 am

        That’s the problem. No one will implement less shitty versions of policies. The policy is occupation. There’s no such thing as a less shitty occupation.

        And the very worst part is there’s nothing that can be done about it, practically speaking. It’s hopeless. There is no hope, ever, that it will ever stop being an occupation. You might get less shitty policies, you you might not. But you have the chance and every election year you have that hope.

        I never, ever will.

        And to make it worse, I get to listen to the occupiers tear each other apart and accuse each other of privilege. It’s like listening to people who stole my house fight over who is best qualified to burn it to the ground.

      • ludlow22
        March 27, 2016 at 8:33 pm

        Yeah, I genuinely understand that. I guess what I’m trying to say – not by way of argument, just in an attempt to do the most good/least bad with my life- is that if there are specific issues that (by however small a margin) mitigate the shittiness of colonization, like returning the Black Hills, ending criminalization of religious traditions involving peyote, subsidizing internet to reservations, protecting VAWA for NDN women, etc. then it’s better to use those to determine my vote than to allow someone who will oppose those goals to win.

        I realize I’m talking about .1% reductions in shittiness, and I’m not under the illusion it’s your job to pretend that it’s anything better than that, I just don’t have a better idea than to follow the lead of my friends who are NDN and political.

  17. merlyn
    March 27, 2016 at 7:26 am

    What about other key issues and identities that don’t allign with Hillary clinton. I am a black women in america and while civil and gender rights are of top importance to me, so is foreign policy especially in Haiti, my mother’s homeland. Hillary’s hand in both Haiti’s and Honduras political turmoil is disgusting. You’re argument is basically fuck other issues cause civil and gender rights in AMERICA are more important than anything else. Is that not a form of western privilege. What about her stance on Palestine and syrian refugees should people who care about that just stfu and suck it up. Insinuating that the only reason one would abstain from voting for Hillary is previlage or lack of empathy is lazy. Some morals can not bend or succumb to ‘better the devil you know’ politics

  18. Dale Rains
    March 27, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    Don’t vote for Trump if we don’t overcome the rigged election! Write in your vote for Bernie Sanders! I signed the ‪#‎bernieorbust‬ petition to let America know that Bernie Sanders does indeed have the popular vote and we are going to vote for him no matter what cnn, nbc, abc or the dnc tells us to do! I am excited about both Jill Stein and Jesse Ventura, but it is time for us to unite behind our chosen leader Bernie Sanders!

  19. Amanda
    March 28, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    Condescending and unconvincing.

  20. jay
    March 28, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    What a stupid argument, ironically one that demonstrates privilege in the arguer. Essentially what it is saying is:

    “If you want to vote for Bernie but refuse to vote for Hillary, you are demonstrating that you have enough privilege in your life to not be significantly negatively affected by a Trump/Cruz term. Therefore, you should vote for Hillary, if not on behalf of yourself, than for those less priviledged than you.”

    …Which is stupid. Because Hillary is not a great person. I have plenty of reason to believe that drone strikes, needless civilian casualties, plenty of fracking which obliterates our planet, and generally bad warmonger-ey things will happen if Hillary gets elected president. Its hypocritical to say “Vote for Hillary because if you dont, some people less privileged than

    • March 29, 2016 at 1:31 pm

      1. I haven’t told anyone to vote for Hillary. Vote for whomever you want — that’s how democracy works. But if you won’t have to suffer certain effects of a Trump or Cruz presidency, telling other people that they have to exhibits privilege.

      2. Will Trump be better or worse in areas like environmentalism and foreign policy?

    • April 1, 2016 at 12:10 pm

      Sooooo….you think Trump hates drones or something? Or you would prefer a Republican to sign off on using drones and making war?

  21. PrettyAmiable
    March 29, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Did this get posted somewhere random? Man. Caperton, do I have to name-call you in order for this comment to post?

    • March 29, 2016 at 6:22 pm

      [MODERATOR NOTE] PrettyAmiable, I have looked through all the comments buckets (Approved, Pending, Spam, Trash) and cannot find anything from you in any of them posted to this thread or any other in the last few days (although the spam bucket had recently auto-emptied, so perhaps it was there a few hours ago and I missed it - remember that we have auto-filters on certain problematic words/URLs that not just send some comments into robo-moderation, but a very few words/URLs will get a comment sent directly into the spam folder). Unless you inadvertently used a word on our autospam list then I suspect a server glitch may have been the problem - either at your IP or at our webhost, and that your comment above went through means it is probably fixed, at least for the moment.

      • PrettyAmiable
        March 30, 2016 at 2:47 pm

        Oh no! That’s totally not what I meant at all! Also, if for whatever reason my comments ever don’t post, I’m not silly enough to think I’m guaranteed a platform anywhere on the internet because Reasons(TM). Sorry for causing confusion!

        What I was trying to say is that a) there sure are a lot of new commenters here on this post and b) some of them sure are surly as fuck. It’s like instead of suggesting that many people who hold this position have to be privileged in order to hold it, people are reacting as if Caperton straight up peed on him.

        No surliness from me! Sorry again!

      • March 30, 2016 at 4:15 pm

        Well, in their defense, I did sneak into his house under cover of darkness and pee on him. I just have no idea how they found out. I thought I was pretty stealthy about it.

      • March 30, 2016 at 8:56 pm

        D’oh-pology from me to PrettyAmiable. Confusion all mine from too long between visits here lately. All good!

  22. Dr. John
    March 31, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    One aspect of this “Spite vote”, is that many here have forgotten how the Clinton’s (both) sold out the middle class when it was politically expedient (i.e. private prisons, glass-steagall repeal, estate taxes, and bankruptcy laws). To frame this conversation as “what are we going to get” under Clinton or Trump is to miss how unchallenged oligarchy operates — by getting us to agree that this is the best that can be achieved.

    Prominent researchers are telling us (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy) that we already live in an oligarchic state. The logical progression is resistance. What do the elite want us to do? Vote for Hillary using crazy Drumpf as leverage to scare. Our job is to take away this leverage

  23. April 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    If you are a Bernie or Bust type of person, I have no idea why you would prefer Trump to Clinton in the White House. It’s like saying you would prefer an actual Wall Street Person in the White House as oppose to a person who sometimes gets Wall Street money for speeches.

    • Dr John
      April 1, 2016 at 12:29 pm

      There is no type person…. Bernie or Bust. This is a misnomer for people who like to categorize simplistically.

      However, reducing the choice to a poor dichotomy is what oligarchy tries to do — to get you side with the appearance of the least evil etc… It seems many here either have a Clintonian self-interest or have been blind to their last 20 years of policy (foreign and domestic). Greedy and stupid is no way to go through the next 4-8 years.

      The point of not voting for Clinton —- says more about her than it does about the choice. It also says something about our unwillingness to trust political figures who are sell us one version of the story and turn around and do another (President Obama — for example his handling of the financial crisis). Rhetoric over substance

  24. Annaleigh
    May 3, 2016 at 1:52 am

    I’m increasingly wishing I could be Bernie or Bust. I support Bernie but I also have been so alienated by Hillary’s campaign. If it’s possible in November I so wish I could vote for Jill Stein instead.

    But I worry about my community. There was a chilling effect on us all in January when people spotted ICE. If Trump is elected, the pain will be acute, if Clinton is elected, the pain will be chronic…

Comments are closed.