I think one of the biggest philosophical differences between Hillary supporters

[cali]

And Bernie supporters is that the former tend to believe that words like oligarchy are merely empty buzz words that do not reflect reality re our government, and the latter believe the word is either an accurate description or looming threat. Hillary supporter think talk of overarching corporate influence or corporate control is nothing but hyperbole and fear mongering. Bernie supporters see it as an existential threat.

[NCTraveler]

1. Clinton supporter here.

You couldn't be more wrong about understanding my thoughts on corporate power. Then again, you are just making extremely broad brush claims about a large group of people. This is how you want to view them.

Maybe you can show me where I have stated the fact we have "overreaching corporate influence" as "fear mongering." Maybe how you came to your decision about me as a Clinton supporter can be cleared up if you provide me with a quote of mine to discuss. Beyond that your claim is inaccurate and without merit.

[cali]

3. How about you actually tell us what your thoughts

are about it and why you believe Hillary is prepared to deal with it.

[NCTraveler]

16. In Florida, we call crickets bait. Nt

[daleanime]

37. Meaning you have no answer you wish to give?

[NCTraveler]

38. Correct.

Since you said it, what exactly do you think I have to answer for?

[daleanime]

41. Absolutely nothing...

if you want to leave note that you disagree with the OP, that is your right.

If I want to leave note that your disagreement is unsubstantiated, that is my right.

You have yourself a lovely day.

[NCTraveler]

43. "Absolutely nothing"

Exactly.

[daleanime]

44. See how easy that was.

But I still disagree with you.

[AgingAmerican]

52. You just proved the OP correct

[zappaman]

65. *crickets*

was the sound of you joining in 2013 and not posting until now with every post being anti-Clinton.

*crickets*

[NCTraveler]

8. I'm simply asking you to back up...

Your broad brush claim that swept me up along the way.

I knew you wouldn't as it's not accurate.

Seems you and I just hit a philosophical difference in debating. I believe the person making the claim should back it up. You believe it is my job to clear my name as you sweep me into your broad brush smear.

Fact is, there are no facts to back up such an encompassing broad brush smear.

[jeff47]

17. In other words, you got nothin.

Seems you and I just hit a philosophical difference in debating. I believe the person making the claim should back it up.

In a debate, one can also bring forth evidence to disprove the other's claim.

[NCTraveler]

18. Correct.

I have no interest in wasting my time with baseless accusations. Simple common sense.

Now that you have answered for the op, maybe you would be able to show why they have included me in their broad brush false assumptions.

Have fun going around telling people to jump for you.

[Armstead]

24. I don't see youir name mentioned in the OP

I understand how you might resent being painted with a "broad brush" just as I resernt being painted with a broad brush as a Bernie supporter.

However the Op was making a point that is mnore fundamental.

If one believes we live in a system that either is -- or is threatened by -- an oligarchy, it is difficult to understand why a candidate who is a product and part of that oligarchy is going to work very hard to fix that systemic problem.

That is a debatable point. But that is the point.

[NCTraveler]

29. The op made a false assumption...

About a large group of people and they can't back it up.

Pretty simple.

[Armstead]

33. No it is a legitimate question that I also wonder about

[NCTraveler]

36. The op isn't asking a question.

They are making broad brush assumption about a large group of people. An obviously false assumption at that. That's the reason they can't back it up in any way.

A question? Lol

[Armstead]

39. It was the posters observation but the response would be an answer as to why you disagree with it

[jeff47]

40. So again, you got nothin'.

Well, other than righteous indignation.

Btw, do you realize that explaining your position would have now taken far less time than all your claims of having no interest in wasting your time?

[BillZBubb]

45. The sad thing is the guy wasted more words evading than simply stating his position.

Why is he so afraid to state his position for all to see? And defend it?

[Nitram]

12. I agree 100% with NCTraveler.

I wish Bernie supporters would stop pretending they know what Clinton supporters are thinking. The wild statements about what Clinton supporters believe suggest someone is either deluded or trying to score propaganda points.

[NCTraveler]

15. Some of the best progressives/Democrats I know are in the Clinton camp.

Last edited Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Some of the best progressives/Democrats I know are in the Sanders camp.

I believe the op to be doing two things. 1) Projecting, 2) Painting with a large roller.

In fairness, I've seen it in the other direction.

I personally have a huge issue with corporate influence over our government. That is why the op cannot back up this extremely poor paint job. I'm not going to answer for their poor painting skills as they have demanded.

I don't think I'm out of line for stating this.

[elias49]

19. If you have a 'huge issue with corporate influence'

how can you support Clinton? Makes no sense at all.

[cali]

35. I don't get that either. It trumpets cognitive dissonance.

[uponit7771]

56. Cause she didn't vote to give corporations immunity like Sanders did? and...

... Sanders hasn't named one UNFETTERED DOCUMENTED thing she's done in favor of these corps...

Neither can you

tia

[elias49]

57. I can't think of one significant thing Hillary's done

Oh except for voting for the Iraq war resolution.

[uponit7771]

58. Which she has said was a mistake, Sanders make the same admission for his corporate votes?

[elias49]

59. To hell with her and her "apology".

"I set fire to the house. I made a mistake."
Stuff it.

[uponit7771]

60. Unnnn, democrats forgive her... her mind is changed and so is her heart... Sanders? tia

[elias49]

61. This democrat doesn't. nt

[Kalidurga]

78. My brother did that once.

Porch was still burnt up after the apology.

[daleanime]

42. Then please tell us....

we may not agree, but we will listen.

[Nitram]

55. OK, I'll bite, Daleanime, if you will listen. Clinton accepts donations...

...from corporations so that she can compete with the GOP. She is strong-willed enough, and her ethics areas such, that she will not allow her policy stances to be influenced by such donations. Clinton is on record stating that she'd like to overturn Citizen's United, and I believe her. Until that happens, the only way to beat the Koch machine is to raise a lot of money.

[PeaceNikki]

54. Me, too.

[Bettie]

51. The phrase "tend to believe"

is generally accepted to mean that it is common, but not universal among the group being discussed.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

66. The OP stated their opinion that Hillary supporters "tend to believe that..."

As for any one specific Hillary supporter, that may not be true. You may be one of them. But asking the OP to prove a negative is pointless. And, as others have said, it would be more productive if you would illuminate us as to what you do believe about overarching corporate influence or corporate control.

[MrMickeysMom]

2. Here's another difference that I've noticed...

We Sanders supporters may heave sighs, but we tend to WATCH AND LISTEN to the other guys' speeches. I've had a lot of conversations which result in the Clinton supporters admitting they DON'T WATCH AND LISTEN to Sander's speeches.

This is why I think I saw pleasantly surprised comments for what Sanders said the night of the Iowa caucuses. I reminded them that what pleased them THAT night is what he's been saying all along!

Huh!

[DanTex]

4. I always find it strange how utterly wrong Bernie supporters are when they hypothesize about what

Clinton supporters think. Does it ever occur to them to just, you know, ask?

[cali]

5. I've observed what I note many times, and not just on du

I didn't mean every single Hillary supporter or every single Bernie supporter, as I'm sure YOU didn't mean every Bernie supporter in your post.

So tell me, do you think the U.S. either is an oligarchy or is well down that path? Do you believe that corporate influence and control are an existential threat?

[DanTex]

10. I think corporate influence is way out of control. Existential threat? Probably not.

I think that, taken literally, calling it an existential threat is hyporbole. Even with corporate influence, the US will continue to exist. On the other hand, corporate control is probably the biggest factor blocking action on climate chance, which could wipe out the human race, so in that sense yes.

But even taking that into account, I think the odds of human extinction due to corporate power are low. I think corporate power causes a lot of needless suffering and death, but I don't think that it will cause extinction. Call me an optimist.

[elias49]

20. So 'needless suffering and death' is the price you're willing to pay

to have Clinton (back) in the White House?
Really? Wow.

[DanTex]

22. What? Words in my mouth?

[elias49]

25. WTF?Read your own post!

This is a quote. Pay attention to what you say:
"I think corporate power causes a lot of needless suffering and death,"

from your mouth to this forum.

[DanTex]

28. What does that have to do with Hillary?

[BillZBubb]

46. Duh! Hillary is an agent of corporate power.

Philosophically, she's bought into the right wing corporatist mythology, for whatever reasons.

She won't do anything to threaten corporate hegemony.

[DanTex]

47. Actually the GOP is the agent of corporate power.

And if Bernie is nominated, it makes the GOP takeover more likely. A vote for Bernie is a vote for more corporate power. That's why Karl Rove is running ads for him.

[BillZBubb]

53. Nice attempt at deflection Dan.

Hillary is cozy with many of the big banking and Wall Street honchos. Her policy proposals offer nothing in the way of controlling, let alone curtailing, their power.

On the economic and foreign policy fronts, a Hillary presidency wouldn't be that far removed from a rubio presidency with respect to corporate influence.

With all her political baggage and poor campaign skills, a Hillary nomination is likely to result in a repudiation of the Democrats in 2016. She just won't get enough independent voters to pull out a win. Her negatives are just way too high.

Karl Rove isn't running ads because he wants Sanders to win or even thinks he'll win. He's running ads so the Democrats will have a long battle for the nomination and won't be unified in November.

[NCTraveler]

9. That is what projection often looks like.

Spot on. The op has now said its my responsibility to show they are wrong. It simply funny at this point.

[BillZBubb]

49. Bullshit. The OP asked you for your position.

Instead of honestly delineating your position, you've simply dodged that with every post.

You weren't asked to prove anything wrong. You were asked to explain why, in your case, it was wrong. Is that so threatening to you? Or so difficult for you?

[onehandle]

7. Why are the members of The 'Not Hillary' Party so obsessed with Hillary supporters?

I know why.

[pinebox]

13. Why are members of the "NO WE CAN'T" party

so oblivious to Hillary's lies and flip flopping?

[cali]

27. Cute, coy little tease. Seems you Hillarians are far more obsessed with

Bernie supporters. You all matter endlessly with your bullshit about how awful,racist, sexist, blah blah blah, we are.

[Cary]

63. I did my research.

I was correct about this kind of "argument" being a species of red herring. Contrary to your assertion I am an expert at picking out logical fallacies. It is a big part of what I do, professionally. The sine qua non of a red herring is irrelevance. In this instance, and the prior one that I identified, you were trying to justify poor behavior of Bernie Sanders supporters with a claim of equally poor behavior from Hilary Clinton supporters.

The only telling part of that is that you are admitting your own poor behavior. The nexus between your willingness to engage in that poor behavior, and your claim that Hillary Clinton supporters are doing it, is most certainly not logical.

I kind of knew the name of your logical fallacy already; we all know the name of it. It's trite, which is why I thought there would be a better name. The name is "two wrongs don't make a right."

[Fumesucker]

11. Berniebros have an actual philosophy even if it might be gullible and stupid?

As far as I can tell ultimately the only philosophy I see from Clinton supporters is that she can win, anything and everything else is fluidly protean.

[KingCharlemagne]

21. OT but props for "fluidly protean" (albeit a bit redundant :) - nt

[TwilightGardener]

34. Yep.

[treestar]

14. another thread about supporters that does not help Bernie

We know you think you are better human beings. How Republican.

You and Bernie are not morally superior. That is not convincing.

[elias49]

23. Sure we/they are.

And I don't care to waste time 'convincing' you.

[Armstead]

30. That's a conservatuive debating trick

Equate passion and strong beliefs with a sense of "moral superiority."

The belief that "pragmatism" is the only course is also having a sense of "moral superiority."

[leftynyc]

75. The sense of moral superiority

is in every single fucking post that claims that if you're a liberal, you can't possibly support Hillary. Would you really like me to link to those OP's and posts? They're all over the fucking place.

[Armstead]

80. The sense of moral superiority

is also evident in all of the posts that claim if you an "adult" and a "realist" you can't possibly support Sanders because your just a sucker if you believe he can deliver unicorns and don't realize that we live in a conservative country where liberal ideas can't be done.

It goes both ways, and is in the nature of politics. If supporters of candidates didn't have a sense that their candidates and the values and morals they represent are superior, they'd just be apathetic and watch The Bachelor instead.

The same claims of moral superiority was made against the supporters of Obama in 2008.

[cali]

31. Doesn't hurt or help. And it was a perfectly civil post.

[Cary]

64. They're getting some well-deserved push back for this attitude

[KingCharlemagne]

26. That's not so much a 'philsophical difference,' but more of a linguistic difference. I don't

know enough about the philosophical leanings of Hillary's or Bernie's supporters to weigh in. That linguistic difference may reflect an underlying philosophical difference, but I'll be damned if I can put my finger on exactly what it is.

FWIW, I do know my own philosophy tends towards Marxism (dialectical materialism) with a healthy dose of Existentialism tossed in.

[Dem2]

48. Keep building walls between Democrats

You don't actually believe that crap, do you?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

67. Describing or commenting on an existing wall is not the same as building a wall.

And, it's interesting that you pretend to object to dividing Democrats, then make the following comment on another Democrat's clearly seriously considered opinion: "You don't actually believe that crap, do you?"

[Dem2]

69. The O/P described a scenario that denigrated/insulted people

Maybe you should tell me why it's reasonable to say that Hillary's supporters are too lazy/stupid/casual to understand the term "oligarch". It was crap and I said so. Please defend it and also point out how insulting the intelligence of people does not tend to create friction/build walls.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

70. Good grief, seriously? Show me where the OP called Hillary's supporters

too lazy/stupid/casual to understand the term "oligarch".

You can't, because it didn't happen. And what was said was not meant as an attack on anyone's intelligence. You've either done a poor job of interpreting the OP, or you're just looking for something to be offended by.

On the other hand, your response was deliberately, directly, personally insulting to the OP.

[Dem2]

71. " is that the former ..."

" is that the former (Hillary supporters) tend to believe that words like oligarchy are merely empty buzz words that do not reflect reality"

I stand by my statement, this is insulting bullshit.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

72. At the risk of of offending your delicate sensibilities, I'm going to have to point out

that you're wrong. One can be aware of the accepted meaning of a word and still consider it an empty buzz word that doesn't reflect reality. So, you're premise is null and void.

But that fact won't matter to you. Perhaps you really do relish the role of victim, in which case it would behoove you to perceive insults where they don't exist. Enjoy your victim-hood!

[Dem2]

73. Yes indeed, one can consider it an empty buzz word in context

And many people overuse words like "corporatist" (I do tend to believe we're heading toward oligarchy) and thus I can see people arguing over the excessive use of certain "catch-all" words. However! the statement as I read it came across as a broad-brush swipe at members of the Democratic party who may have different priorities. I'm not digging it.

[cali]

84. This is turning out to be a very interesting exercise,

though nothing like the one I vaguely imagined when I wrote it

[Bread and Circus]

50. I agree. And I think those who ignore our oligarchy...

... are childish and naive.

[Cary]

62. You're way off base.

The fact is that we have two outstanding candidates who will both work towards the same goals. Either one will be way, way better than any "conservative." Either one will be severely constrained by the purveyors of that dangerous and evil "conservative" ideology, unless and until we get a majority in the House and a real coalition of 60 votes in the Senate.

All of the rest of your rhetoric is some strange Manichean posturing. I see no good coming from that rhetoric. You even concede that Hillary will most likely be the nominee so what do you gain by the anti-establishment schtick? There's more than enough to do, and to agree on, and work towards but when approached to find common ground you launch into stuff like this silly "corporate influence" or "corporate control," and they you wonder why you're being scoffed at?

You're just picking fights and then blaming others for fighting.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

68. It seems to me that your comment about the OP launching into

this silly "corporate influence" or "corporate control,"

supports his/her point.

[Cary]

83. Re-reading, I can see how you perceived it that way

Note my use of the word "Manichean." Perhaps my post was still not as clear as it might be? I was trying to suggest that most people don't fall into the two extremes. I don't believe I do and from others here, or who were here, I think most people are as disappointed in the war between Hillary and Bernie as am I.

I object to that focus on that war when the real battle is against a President Trump, President Cruz, or President Rubio. Any extreme rhetoric against either of our candidates is blather.

[Cheese Sandwich]

74. Great observation.

I really agree. They think we are just blustering and using buzzwords and labels. They don't think the government is almost completely controlled by the super rich and powerful, or that the economy is massively rigged to rob 99% of us to benefit the super rich.

[cali]

77. I've certainly seen a lot of sneering about it from her supporters here.

[FrenchieCat]

76. I disagree!

[kristopher]

79. This is a decent start for looking at the differences...

As you say, it is one of the biggest differences, but I'm not sure that it should be labeled philosophical. Did you describe it as a matter of philosophy because that is a common expression?

I personally find it helpful to look at the way values and beliefs interact to establish a person's (and society's) norms. It's called VBN theory if you want to google it.

In this case, I'd guess that one description of why someone supports who they do is related to feelings of financial security. We all value that, right? So, if someone believes they are financially secure or are on track to a secure future Hillary' policy suggestions are more likely than Bernie's to be seen as a path supported by 'most people' or to put it another way, as 'normal'.
With that sense of what is normal, they tend to then filter (as we all do) the information they get in a way that glides over what is viewed as abnormal thinking. Sound like something you see a lot of around here?

This is just an example of using values, beliefs and norms in understanding the way we and those around us think.

Good OP. Thank you.

[cali]

81. I used the word philosophical, in part, because

it is about diverging world views. Admittedly, a larger motive was because I thought it was an inoffensive manner of describing these divergent views.

I couldn't have been more wrong.

[kristopher]

82. No, you were right.

That phrasing isn't offensive. You've encountered people who are trying to maintain their sense of normalcy, that's all. We seldom rush to embrace something that contradicts what we see as normal.

Don't give up, try relating your point (if you can in this rather toxic environment) to some other area where there is a shared norm.