2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: New Hillary Scandal Checks All the Boxes on the Clinton Controversy Bingo Card [View all]Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)And yes, I read your "scandals" post, which is basically a retread of your "Hillary kicks dogs. She spits in other people's iced tea when they're not looking. She can't stand kids. She dresses in burlap sacks" comment above.
It's not getting "so old" for some people.
And I do understand that injecting a sense of fatigue and sarcasm into the conversation might seem like a way to shut down the conversation, but it's not. The "new rules" on DU that go "live" on the 16th will go a long way toward that goal, perhaps end the conversation completely, and that will effectively end it on DU but nowhere else.
You say "You may loathe her and think she is the worst human being to ever walk the earth"...more bitter sarcasm, more fatigue. Truth is, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I do not "loathe" her. I do not think that "she is the worst human being to ever walk the earth." But then you cap it off with "but that really does not matter at this point." You actually said that...in your belief system, what other people think "really does not matter." It's coming across loud and clear in your posts, and it is your right to feel that way...I am not attacking you or trying to take that right away from you.
I am, instead, encouraging you to take a step outside of yourself for a moment and have an appreciation for your telling other people that their opinion "really does not matter."
I don't know you. I don't know what motivates you, how you think, all I know is that I do understand "words" and how they are used. The sarcasm, strictly from what i see in your posts, appears to be used in a way to marginalize concerns that people have about Hillary Clinton, to make them somehow seem foolish or petty or devoid of any value past their "hatred" of her.
It's just not that easy. You can't just wrap everyone who is not "on board" with Clinton into a neat little package, tie it off with a pretty bow, and write them off as "haters" or "dissenters." You can attempt to do that, and you can feel that you are "right" or "vindicated" or whatever these kinds of posts make you feel, but you've solved nothing.
Maybe I've pissed you off at this point. Maybe I did it a few paragraphs ago. And that was not my intent. If I wanted to flip your "off" switch, I could have simply tossed you onto my ignore list. I didn't do that. I'm trying to communicate with you and let you know what comes across on the screen when you craft this kind of message.
I have no doubt whatsoever that there are people on this site, right now, who are "all in" for Trump. That's nothing new. We went through it during Bush v. Kerry, Obama v. McCain, and Obama v. Romney. They come, they go, they aren't DU.
Some of the people who have been around here that long, as well as some of the new people who have joined during this election cycle, are "real" Democrats. In this election, that term has become vague at best. If a person is 100% behind the DNC, Wassserman Shultz, and Clinton, does that make them a "real" Democrat? If they are critics of all three, does that make them "not real?"
In my opinion...and this is just my opinion...on the list of whatever accomplishments people believe Sanders did or did not achieve during the primaries, he accomplished one core feat...he splintered off the Democrats who believe themselves to be "true progressives" from the people who believe that Clinton is "progressive." I don't believe she is. I'm not going to throw more "right wing talking points" at you. Am I concerned about Goldman Sachs and her relationship with "the big banks?" Better believe it. Am I concerned about her stance on war, and do I believe that she will not only keep us mired in the wars we are in now and send us into new ones? Yes, I do. And you have the right to dismiss me with comments about how I hate her and how I think she dresses in burlap sacks, but...even though I do not know you...I want to believe that you are smarter than that, better than that, and when you use those words it is the voice of frustration and not of reason.
On the 16th, you'll get your wish...on DU, and nowhere else...the conversation will shrink dramatically, and whether it actually rises back to the level of a civil "conversation" or simply becomes an exchange of thoughts between very like-minded individuals, I can't tell you.
People have legitimate concerns about your candidate of choice. If I do vote for her in November, it will be for no other reason than to cast a vote against Trump. Is that "enough" for me? No, it's not, and it's the best I'm going to get out of this equation, and it's the best a lot of people are going to get out of it. You can paint a picture of these people as clueless, ignorant, not "real" Democrats, whatever you'd like. It won't reflect reality. It will make you "feel right," and if that's enough for you, I guess that it's enough for you, and it will provide closure for you.
You can alienate and dismiss the people who disagree with you, or you can make an attempt to understand why they do. So far I'm seeing the first option in your posts, and not the second, and that is your right.
I think we deserve better, and I think you deserve better. I'm not talking about a "better candidate." I'm talking about a better level of discourse. And if this is what you want, you already have it, and I have nothing left that I can say to you that will make you see things differently. All I can do is wish you luck.