2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDearest Hillary Fans, Many of you are going to need to update your sig lines...
Cher is obviously having major doubts about Hillary as she says she's got way more in common with Bernie AFTER GOING INTO FULL ON RESEARCH MODE.
Hillary's good at covering up the truth that's for sure, she's pulled the wool over many people's eyes. But it only takes some good truth digging to find out who's really got your back: BERNIE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3539856/Cher-feeling-Bern-Singer-former-Clinton-supporter-says-s-torn-discovering-common-Sanders.html
Cher is feeling the Bern? Singer and Clinton supporter says she's 'torn up' after discovering she has more in common with Sanders
- Singer's been a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton during her campaign
- While she has criticized candidate Bernie Sanders as being 'disingenuous'
- But she has now changed her mind saying she's 'torn' between the pair
- Cher said she found 'MUCH common ground and new respect for Sanders'
hereforthevoting
(241 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)My husband is from Boston.
madaboutharry
(40,220 posts)I don't think many people are too interested in what Cher thinks. She may be a perfectly nice person but I don't see her having political influence.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Not sure what you were talking about. Were there lots and lots of HRC followers sporting Cher stuff? I never saw one, but ... noted.
(Cher's endorsement is going to be YUGE with the 18-30 set)
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Sarandon, the original BernieBro. (TM)
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You can't seem to acknowledge that women support Bernie so women are referred to as BernieBros.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)That term is incredibly sexist and dismissive of women.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Scolding a woman for what you call a "nasty mouth" by calling her a bro is blatantly sexist.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)A nasty mouth is unisex.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You are in no position to lecture about filthy mouths when you engage in name calling using a sexist term to insult a woman.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)sammythecat
(3,568 posts)I'm sorry
one_voice
(20,043 posts)neutral. Whore was argued to be gender neutral. Not, corporate whore, just whore.
I also read that whore didn't mean what it used to mean. It just meant a dirty person.
I've never known men to be called whores. I don't know when that started.
I'm not rehashing the corporate whore discussion. Just the word whore on it's own being gender neutral. I have to admit that was news to me.
Bro, Bruh, Brah, all the 'kids' use that. They call friends of both sexes that...mostly bruh, and brah though. Bro, not as much.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)"being a bro" means doing a helpful thing. The irony in using "bro" as in Bernie Bro is that the "bros" insist they are "doing the right thing" while they steamroll you with how right and good they are. Hope that helps.
PufPuf23
(8,836 posts)FoxNewsSucks
(10,435 posts)Does that "state of mind concept" also apply to certain words, such as one that starts with a B and one that starts with a C? In some contexts, they are not meant to be gender qualifiers, but descriptions of someone's extra-despicable assholish "state of mind" .
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)We are fighting for the future of this country, and the things we are fighting against are not civil or decent. Regime change, wealth inequity, racism, etc...nothing civil about any of it.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)You are a most worthy example and advocate of your philosophy.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)While supporting someone who helped blocked a wage increase for Haitian garment workers, supported a rw coup in Honduras, and plunged Libya into chaos by opposing a peaceful solution, among other horrors. Nothing remotely civil about any of it.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Civility is the oil that keeps the wheels of society turning. Without it, we descend to the level of beasts.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)I view the Bernie Bro's as having a sense of entitlement above all else. They're on the scene now and politically aware so everything should be tilted to benefit Bernie. And if it isn't, they get angry. Doesn't have to be a male at all, as you wrote.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Are not gender qualifiers...rather they define a state of mind or behavior; got it!
Perhaps other words fall into this category...like "whore"
Mmmm
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-bernie-sanders-supporters-20160415-story.html
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)this post might answer it. You're welcome.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511740762#post63
delrem
(9,688 posts)Trump is a celebrity.
The Kardashians are celebrities.
It doesn't take political depth to be famous.
I like to hear reasons.
I happen to be in accord with another OP, "I have to admit it...I just don't like her". The fact is that I never have liked her. I'm frightened of her warmongering, how she works for her war profiteering insider trading investment capital clubs. I'm disgusted by the unprecedented graft associated with both Bill and Hillary Clinton. I weep at the number of dead, the refugees and desperate survivors of her policies. I'm offended for the imprisoned, and the disenfranchised, that she walks on like they're a carpet. I don't see her as being a champion of any social value.
Those were my opinions before Bernie Sanders announced. Years before. Hillary has made the case a no brainer.
So how come Cher endorsed her, then only now does some "overnight research"... jeez louise. That's not deep.
I don't much like Hillary's husband either.
By way of comparison, I very much like Carter.
What woke me up about her husband was how the women in my family and close acquaintance slapped my face in vociferous disagreement with my opinion that Bill was a victim of a right-wing Republican witch hunt and that it was not a real matter. I was woken to the fact that Bill was the quintessential sexually exploitative "male boss" asshole, in a world where all up and down the line the "joke" was that women had to fuck their way to the top. He was the poster boy for everything the feminist movement that I'd grown up parallel to but somehow unaware of, was fighting against in terms of sexual exploitation in the workplace.
I had been going along with the "lesser evil" meme that was so natural: Bill Clinton was not Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush, so was somehow better. I was clueless.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)There's nothing in it for her, so there's a fundamental base for honesty.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)they are not out front about that fact which I find to be creepy. Just this week I found that another friend who is for her has a son working for her. It's amazing how many there are. In media it's most of them. Most. Not all but most.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)#NotAPaidShillSince1986
delrem
(9,688 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)I'm not paid by Hillary or any campaign, in the last few days Hillary supporters have been called "paid shills", in the past few months we've been accused of having "Stockholm syndrome".
Let me be the first (apparently) to tell I am over that, and most likely we all are.
Since it seems that some specific Sanders supporters, not you that I've seen, feel like they need to start an OP about these things, I said you could start an OP about it.
It's all meta, even my post now but it's pretty damn annoying.
delrem
(9,688 posts)It's a kind of trickle-up effect, where people get bought, where entire democracies can get bought.
On the lower levels they all say golly, it was just some money to get by.
On any higher level there is no thought put toward it at all. It's all cream, baby...
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)& learned common social media protocol about spacing and punctuation. Her tweets look like they were composed by a 12 year-old.
And yes, I'm a grammar/punctuation nazi. So sue me.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)I sympathize.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lmao and pointing my finger at the comical you.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)If you are gonna jab back at me with my own words, at the least, let it make sense.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You tried telling me I have no business knowing what Clinton said to Goldman Sachs and the others. And that is insane.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I do not need to throw someone under the bus. None of your business.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)either. This outrage of what about us, with her personal that has nothing about running for office is bullshit. Ya. None of your business.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)to those assholes. I can guess pretty damn well anyway and it was pure shit.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Threatening to take away something you never were going to give, doesn't strike fear in the hearts of Hillary supporters.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)and why don't you believe Americans have the right to know her views on all those things those multi-national companies have already hurt so many with? Does she agree with their practices to their face and say another to the voting public? It's nothing like a fucking diary - she's supposed to be representing 320 million people - they have a right to know what deals she's made billions from with these corporations and how much they will affect her decisions in office. How does one vote when their candidate is so secretive and flip-flops from day to day - people know her history wrt taking money from foreign human rights abusing countries in trade for weapons, what has she promised or traded for with all these other corporations? Do you think they paid her millions per speech for her expertise in pipeline safety? NO. They expect A LOT.
Many say Romney's leaked remark sunk him, do you agree with that?
Did the '47 Percent' Video Sink Romney's Campaign?
A series of video clips from a ritzy Mitt Romney fundraiser last May have made their way to the Web, depicting the Republican presidential nominee making a number of frank and off-message remarks about the race.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in the video. "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what
These are people who pay no income tax."
Romney also joked that he would have an easier time winning the White House if his fatherborn to Americans living in Mexicowas born to Mexican parents; he expressed skepticism of the possibility of a peace deal between Israel and Palestine; he predicted that the mere fact of his being elected president would improve the economy; and he added that they were limiting his wife Ann's campaign appearances, "so that people don't get tired of her."
The Obama campaign was quick to jump on the comments. "It's shocking that a candidate for president of the United States would go behind closed doors and declare to a group of wealthy donors that half the American people view themselves as 'victims,' entitled to handouts, and are unwilling to take 'personal responsibility' for their lives," campaign manager Jim Messina said in a statement.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/did-the-47-percent-video-sink-romneys-campaign
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Indeed, the Clinton argument actually goes well beyond the Courts conservatives: In Citizens United, the right-wing justices merely denied the corrupting effect of independent expenditures (i.e., ones not coordinated with the campaign). But Clinton supporters in 2016 are denying the corrupting effect of direct campaign donations by large banks and corporations and, even worse, huge speaking fees paid to an individual politician shortly before and after that person holds massive political power.
Another critical aspect of the right-wing majority argument in Citizens United was that actual corruption requires proof of a quid pro quo arrangement: meaning that the politician is paid to vote a certain way (which is, basically, bribery). Prior precedent, said the Citizens United majority, was limited to quid pro quo corruption, quoting a prior case as holding that the hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.
Does that sound familiar? It should. That, too, has become a core Clinton-supporting argument: Look, if you cant prove that Hillary changed her vote in exchange for Goldman Sachs speaking fees or JPMorgan Chase donations (and just by the way, Elizabeth Warren
Conversely, the once-beloved Citizens United dissent from the Courts liberals, written by Justice Stevens, was emphatic in its key claim: that there are many other forms of corruption brought about by corporate campaign expenditures beyond such quid pro quo i.e., bribery transactions. Their argument was that large amounts of corporate cash are almost inevitably corrupting, and certainly undermine trust in the political system, because of the many different ways (well beyond overt quid pro quos) that corporations convert their expenditures into undue influence and access:
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/to-protect-hillary-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on-their-own-core-citizens-united-argument/
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Clinton began as inevitable against a couple of relative unknowns. Sanders had staying power, and gradually is picking off support that had originally defaulted to Clinton.
I have strong doubts as to whether he will actually overtake her, but he's doing magnificently, more or less exactly as he had to. And has to continue to do.
Celebrities tend to be isolated, and if Cher is just now getting around to paying attention to a second candidate, well, she won't be the last.
senz
(11,945 posts)Sometimes it's hard to admit that we're wrong.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...they realize they have choices.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 15, 2016, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)For all the many, many WTF moments from the Sanders campaign.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Then it's a boost when she does it. Cher is playing a game, with Hillary.
Be careful.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)Worst election cycle ever! LOL...maybe she will figure that out