Shailene Woodley: ‘I can’t say that I will immediately endorse Hillary Clinton’

My Facebook is an echo chamber of liberal politics and activism, so I saw this post about Shailene Woodley speaking to Democracy Now on the day it happened, Tuesday, which was right before Bernie Sanders conceded and announced his support of Hillary Clinton. I voted for Bernie and donated to his campaign, but I do think his concession was a long time coming and the sooner we unite to get Hillary in the White House the better. (I cannot fathom anyone who supported Bernie changing camps to Trump, but I know it’s happening and I’ve seen one unhinged Facebook acquaintance do this. Also, some Bernie supporters are losing their sh*t online following his endorsement of Clinton. I’m not seeing it beyond the one dude I mentioned, but apparently some people are pissed and they are loud.) I mention the timeline because Shailene wasn’t throwing her support behind Hillary before Bernie did, but I don’t know how she feels now. She did say a lot of good things about helping mobilize young people who are Bernie supporters to make sure they stay politically involved.

Shailene is taking part in a caravan which will cross the US to meet with local activists ahead of the DNC. She also mentioned that she’s trying to advocate for food stamp recipients to be able to use snap benefits online, with the aim of helping people in food deserts get access to healthier food. (That part is not in the excerpt below but you can read about it at the source.) Shailene is just 24 and although she’s said some questionable things earlier in her career and can come across as a space cadet, I get the sense that she’s working to educate herself and give back to causes which are meaningful to her.

Here’s some of what she said and you can watch the video on Democracy Now.

On why she supported Bernie
This is my first time engaging in politics because I felt like there was a candidate who actually spoke the truth and spoke to me and didn’t give the voice to millennials, but heard the voices of millennials. I constantly see people my age… who are feeling hopeless and feeling like no matter what they do, nothing is gonna change politically.

Her Up to Us Caravan
It’s bigger than this 2016 election, and that’s what I wanted to start with some friends — the Up to Us Caravan. We’re going to the DNC… to encourage American citizens, specifically young people, but all people, to stay involved politically… The only way to get progressives in office is to keep them politically engaged…

If we can combine forces — you’re seeing it with Black Lives Matter movements. All movements are united now, no movement is alone. And we have more power if we stand together than if we stand in solitude.

The Caravan will meet with local activists around the US
Every single state that we stop in, each night we’re going to have community meetings with lead organizers from those communities… When we’re in Boulder, Colorado, we’re gonna talk about fracking. When we’re in South Dakota, we’re gonna meet with Standing Rock reservation, from North Dakota. When we’re in Ferguson we’re gonna talk about police brutality… It’s about learning all of the different things… that our citizens have to go through, and learning that if we, again, stand together, we’re more powerful.

On Bernie’s then-anticipated support of Hillary
My support has always been by and for the people. And I can’t speak and say that I will immediately endorse Hillary Clinton. I don’t know what I will do. This is a moment in history that in 50 years from now, I think Bernie Sanders, we’re gonna look in our history books and people are gonna see — wow, this man did so much for our country…

And so, I feel like it’s our job to keep that momentum going and spread that education.

[From Democracy Now]

Bernie pushed Hillary to the left on key issues, particularly education, and that’s part of what Shailene is referring to. He also brought awareness to the fact that there are countless Americans who want free secondary education, a single payer healthcare system, and in general societal benefits which have been characterized as “socialist,” but which many European citizens take for granted. While I would have felt better if Shailene would have said “of course I support Hillary,” at least she didn’t say anything negative and focused on the mission of her trip and this cause. Shailene is working for causes she believes in and she striving to learn by actually meeting people and talking to them. There’s something admirable about that. As someone who used to be much more of an activist I can relate to that, and to her personal awakening that’s there’s work to be done.

HBO's "How to Let Go of the World and Love All the Things Climate Can't Change" Los Angeles Premiere - Arrivals

Shailene Woodley meets up with a friend and strolls around Venice dressed in short denim dungarees

Shailene Woodley meets up with a friend and strolls around Venice dressed in short denim dungarees

Photos credit: Getty, Pacific Coast News and PRPhotos

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

203 Responses to “Shailene Woodley: ‘I can’t say that I will immediately endorse Hillary Clinton’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. lilacflowers says:

    Access to healthy food in low-income food deserts is a serious problem, which, unfortunately, our Congress in its current makeup has no interest in addressing. I usually consider Shaleine an idiot and she has given me plenty of reason to think so but she is doing a good thing with this.

    • lucy2 says:

      I agree, that is a great thing for her to be doing.

    • Kitten says:

      I agree. I will say that I missed Shailene posts because they were hilariously entertaining. But yeah, she’s right about this and no shade for her political and social acvitivism.

  2. Crox says:

    Wasn’t Bernie supporting Clinton expected after she became the candidate?

    It’s usually like that, is it not? The Democratic candidates beat each other down, but when one is actually chosen, they all start supporting him. Republicans do the same. In a sort of “we’ve had our differences but he’s still on our side” way. I’m not American, but that’s how it looked like to me after the last 3 elections.

    • Jules says:

      You are correct.

    • fee says:

      You, always.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Bernie said he would support the Democratic candidate from the beginning but there’s been a lot of mythologizing of the man in certain circles while demonizing Hilary and as a result many held out hope he wouldn’t endorse her or would rather choose to run independent.

    • Wren says:

      I read that he didn’t actually concede, and she’s not officially the candidate yet. If he doesn’t publicly support her, he can be barred from speaking at the convention and his delegates automatically go to her.

  3. Alex says:

    I admire that as well. Listen while I don’t want Trump as president that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push for the ideas that are important to us from Hillary. Why not? The DNC needs to rally the base and they know it. By finding a happy medium they will sway the people that are reluctant.
    Love her causes. People not having access to good food (along with healthcare and affordable education) is appalling in a leading country.

    • Megan says:

      A Democratic majority declined to add a public option to the ACA, much less consider single payer. The idea that this, or any Congress in the near term, is going to create a healthcare and higher education entitlement is pure fantasy. Hillary knows that and I am seriously disappointed she jumped on the free higher ed bandwagon.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        I dunno, there were a lot of complications behind the Affordable Care Act and its messy self barely squeaked through as it was and has just managed to survive unceasing court challenges. The ACA was like, the worst yet most important law to me because it sent a very important message: That people have a right to health care (tho poorly defined as health insurance, in this bad law), and that the government can play a role in health care. And it was hard enough just to get that far, and will still be the standout accomplishment of Obama’s first term.

        Talking about higher-education as a right sends another important message about what our country can and should value. Whether and how it could be accomplished is something for another day but it’s better than not bringing it up for discussion. I hate to see people give up before something even begins.

      • Megan says:

        Public policy debates are separate from campaign promises. Making promises to young voters that cannot possible be fulfilled in that politican’s term does not encourage long term voter participation.

      • Lady Mimosa says:

        Free education can be achieved through work study, but the democrats tend to act like republicans when they get into office and give out grants to their buddies.

  4. Kate says:

    I know people here loathe this girl, but I really like her. She just seems like a genuinely good person who loves life and wants to help everyone else to love life too. Yes she’s a bit kooky and yes, she didn’t have the perfect answer re. feminism, but she comes across as being a lovely, happy, kind, generous young woman. And she’s a great actress outside of that crappy franchise she got trapped in.

    • Julie says:

      I always liked her too. I agree with you.

    • Nik says:

      @Kate

      +1000

    • Pandy says:

      I agree. She’s using her position to advocate for better not just to make cash on nudity and phone apps. I think she’s great. Refreshing!!

    • Rocío says:

      She’s one of my favourite new actresses. Have you seen “White Bird in a Blizzard”? She’s a very talented actress. Eva Green is on it too and killing it.

  5. Dorothy#1 says:

    I’m a Bernie supporter. I will not be voting for Trump but I’m also not sure I can vote for Hiliary. Unlike Jeb Bush I will still vote, maybe I’ll do 3rd party or write in Bernie.

    • Zip says:

      In this case you can also stay home, I guess.

      • fee says:

        Feels like we should. Bernie led in votes and had her beaten but the delegates get to vote?! Wth? What’s the point if gov just rolls over us.?
        I’ve been a Bernie supporter since day 1 but there’s no way I would vote for Hillary,never. I don’t get why people don’t get upset over all the crap she has done, I get all politicians are b.s. but the Geo political agenda she has publicly claimed to do once in office scared the crap out of me. If our country is in turmoil why does she want to go to war w/ Iran. Enough already. Clinton’s have been in white house,senate for over 18 yrs, she did nothing as 1st lady, s.s. Benghazi disaster, she knew the danger, lied to said families of the dead n blamed others.fact. Trump has loads to make up for but he has to answer to congress, he will bring $$$$ n jobs n security.
        Susan Surandon wrote an excellent article why we should fear Hillary.

      • Megan says:

        @fee Hillary had 3.8 million more votes than Sanders, has never said or otherwise intimated that she wants to go to war with Iran, and recognizes the role of the US in a globalized world. Trump has yet to articulate a coherent policy position. How that translates into Trumps ability to bring money and jobs to the US is beyond my political expertise.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        fee, make up your mind. Either you support Sanders and his policies, or you support Trump and his policies, but this comment is such a mish-mash. The Benghazi thing is a right-wing conspiracy theory. Susan Sarandon: that’s how her name is spelled. Watch for her coming out next to say we should fear Trump more than Clinton. As for your support for Trump and his promised “$$$$ n jobs n security,” WHAT? The man is a screaming ego maniac, a rich man’s spoiled baby who still throws tantrums, and this campaign is another branding marketing trip for him. He can’t even raise money or open campaign offices throughout the country — how is he going to bring $$$$ n jobs? He has a terrible temper and zero understanding of diplomacy (which prevents war, BTW), how is he supposed to bring security? And he’s deeply, deeply racist: As Lincoln said, A house divided cannot stand. No security there either.

      • Zip says:

        “Trump […] will bring $$$$ n jobs n security.”

        No, he won’t. He will spread hate and lies, nothing else. He has no plan. It’s all hot air and he did not even want to become president (just stir up sh*t) until his ego won over. I’m really scared what will happen should he become president. Granted, Hillary Clinton is no prize either and I would have loved to see Bernie make it but in this case she is the only choice you have.

        What Americans always seem to forget: the world is watching you and who you vote for will have impact on global politics. The election(s) of George W. Bush have already been something nobody understood (an idiot who started wars based on lies that everyone saw through) but with Trump they’ll all think you totally lost you mind (an orange baboon with a temper who will discriminate anyone who is not a rich, male, orange baboon with a US passport). Clinton is at least somewhat respected.

        That being said: Why in the world did two people become candidate that apparently the majority does not even like?!

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        @Fee

        Information is always better than misinformation and fear, you’re repeating a lot of conservative talking points that have no basis in reality. Hilary actually beat Bernie in the popular vote AND the delegate count.

      • sa says:

        “Feels like we should. Bernie led in votes and had her beaten but the delegates get to vote?! Wth? What’s the point if gov just rolls over us.?”

        Clinton beat Sanders in votes, so I don’t understand this comment.

        Had Sanders won the popular vote and the superdelegates went to Clinton, then I’d get it, but it didn’t happen. I’m actually dubious of the idea of superdelegates, but mid-election is not the time to change election rules and it’s pretty telling to me that it’s been a thing for as long as I can recall, but I’ve seen no evidence of Sanders ever speaking out against superdelegates before this primary. There’s not even a little part of me that thinks Sanders is against superdelegates in principle, he was against not winning.

      • LinaLamont says:

        @fee

        “…she did nothing as 1st lady…”

        She got the ball rolling on Hillarycare….I mean, Obamacare.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “he will bring $$$$ n jobs n security”

        Where do you get this from? He doesn’t know anything about creating jobs. He contracts with vendors for jobs and then doesn’t pay them. That is why he has 3500 lawsuits against him. What was his idea for dealing with US debt? Don’t pay it. That is such a profound misunderstanding of how our government works (and the value of the US dollar being seen as safe in the global market). I don’t see how anyone can give Trump credibility when it comes to the economy. He’s rich, that doesn’t mean he is smart.

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        Fee, so much of what you’ve said here is simply not accurate. And I can’t stand Hillary. I voted for Bernie in the primary (and he won my state). But I will grit my teeth and vote for Hillary in November because the very idea of Donald Trump as President of the United States is terrifying, disgusting, and shameful to me as an American.

      • Dirty Martini says:

        I can’t support HC or DT and I have no intention in staying home. I’ll vote 3rd party or write in. Those 2 choices are abominable and equally bad. Both liars, hucksters and entitled POSs. I get that 1 of the 2 will win, but I’m not laying down my integrity by choosing between them as if one is less objectionable. I’m still an American and entitled to vote. It’s a privilege I won’t give up even when it’s a futile outcome.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Saying they are both equally bad is so misguided. Clearly, there are serious negatives to a Trump presidency that do not apply to Hillary. As someone else noted, it reeks of privilege (and an dismissal of Americans who are Muslim, women, or minorities) to pretend that Trump is just as bad as Hillary.

      • Dirty marrini says:

        No Tiffany it isn’t misguided. My own values guide this. I value honesty and transparency foremost ….and both are equally abominable against that yardstick. They are both charlatans in my opinion. I get you disagree, But don’t belittle or dismiss others for disagreeing.

    • Amy says:

      I have to say that Gary Johnson is great alternative to Clinton & Trump. If he can get to 15% and get an invite to the national debates I think more people will realize their is another option.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        There, not their.

        I have to say that the self-proclaimed Libertarians I’ve met are simply small-government fiscal conservatives who are too embarrassed by the Christian right and its social conservatism to say they’re Republican.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        But Gary Johnson veers widely away from many of the causes Bernie actually supported. It confuses me what his supporters actually care about when they bring him up. Johnson is a VERY libertarian politician who wants to privatize more of our prisons, take away money from education, and strip away a national health care system.

        How is that in any way comparable to Bernie?

      • Fiorella says:

        I saw videos of Gary on YouTube with Samantha bee. Funny and entertaining. Would not vote for him. Being honest and nice is not enough. I disagree strongly with his platform. What do you like about his ideas?

      • Kitten says:

        “I have to say that the self-proclaimed Libertarians I’ve met are simply small-government fiscal conservatives who are too embarrassed by the Christian right and its social conservatism to say they’re Republican”

        THIS!!! …and Libertarians continue to be as mythical as a unicorn.

        Maybe I’ve just never met a *true* Libertarian but every self-proclaimed Libertarian I’ve known is just a Republican who eschews the label. Same exact political beliefs as a NeoCon. The only negligible difference is that they claim to be “socially liberal” but you can’t be socially liberal if you always vote Republican.

      • melodycalder says:

        Yes!!!!!!! This could be the year where our choices are not between just two parties. We are programed to believe voting for anything other than republican or Democrat is a throw away vote and we have to choose between the lessor of two evils. .. why? WE DESERVE BETTER AMERICA! I challenge all of you to take a quiz on isidewith and see where you really line up. It may be eye opening.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Melodycalder Every so often voters want to think “this is the year for the third-party vote” and every time they are disappointed and/or blamed for splitting the vote. It’s just history. The US system was set up as a strong 2-party system for better or worse, and it’s about as binary this year as could be. There’s no one further to the right than Trump to split that vote, and so the risk comes from voting to the left of Clinton. Vote-splitting on the center-left allows right wingers to gain power. I doubt you want that.

      • greenleaf says:

        @who.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “But Gary Johnson veers widely away from many of the causes Bernie actually supported.”

        THIS x1000!

      • Bridget says:

        Does no one remember the election that voters in a swing state or two casting their vote for Nader actually helped George W win?

    • SusanneToo says:

      In that case, enjoy your Trump presidency, Dorothy and fee( and Glen Ford). And all the others who will hand it to Trump by staying home or voting third party. The numbers are too close to do that. I was a Bernie supporter, too, I’m not thrilled about HRC, but this election is too important to stay butthurt and pout. Do you really want three new Scalias on the Supreme Court? Think it over, take a deep breath, vote for Hillary and organize for 2020.

      • Esmom says:

        Took the words right out of my mouth. Sigh.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Mine too. Sheesh, it’s not PERSONAL people. Bernie Sanders was a great, principled choice and I sure hope he stays in this fight as promised. But in this failing democracy, you don’t get to take your ball and go home. It’s a new day, a new fight and it’s serious. If any one thinks they are not insulated from the damage that would be done by a Trump presidency and the ever-more right-wing Congress he would bring in, they’re living in a very temporary fool’s paradise.

        And no, they can’t just escape to Canada. Other countries have rules about that.

      • Pleaseicu says:

        That’s my issue and why I ultimately decided I can’t vote 3rd party in this election: Trump and the Repubs getting to appoint up to 3 justices to the Supreme Court. That’s terrifying.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Seriously…vote for what is not what you wish and hope the world could be like. We have just barely been able to cement gay rights and they are still being threatened everyday, women’s rights are a constant battle ground. Do these groups not matter to those individuals? Because those groups will exist long after they make their decision.

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        Ex-fecking-zactly.

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        Exactly, SusanneToo, I wish everyone who is thinking of staying home would seriously consider the valid (and frightening) points you’ve made. My own husband hates them both so much that he is staying home. I cannot remember a presidential choice I liked less! I consider HRC the female incarnation of Tricky Dick Nixon. I’ve even written and published an editorial piece to that effect — but that was before the Trump candidacy moved from just an appalling and vulgar joke to an unthinkable reality. I loathe HRC but she is smart, capable, experienced, dignified, and NOT Donald Trump, the bigoted, sexist, opportunistic, sleazy egomaniac who didn’t know what Brexit was just one week before the vote, and who has admitted that he had been hoping the US housing market would fail so that he could snap up at a bargain all the homes that people would lose. I would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than live in a country enduring 4 years of the irreparable damage a Trump presidency would bring on this country and on the world. World War 3, anyone? Vote for Donald Trump.

    • AnnieRUOk says:

      @Fee
      Do you think anything in hilary’s agenda is going to get through? You can bet that dem and republicans in congress and house are going to oppose her on many of her issues.
      Trump on the other hand is more like a puppet. Sure he represents ‘amurica’ but do you think ANYONE is going to put their faith in his inexperience? No, not unless there is a stronger voice pulling the strings.
      The election is like BLM. You can lead a horse to the lake, but dammned if the horse doesn’t drink, and also claims to be an expert on the politics of water.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        I’m sorry can you elaborate on that metaphor concerning Black Lives Matter.

      • Lady Mimosa says:

        She’s not going to elaborate, it was a slip up, because liberals a racist too.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        @Lady

        Yup. I always like to give people a chance to explain themselves even though my spidey senses immediately tingled with that fun little metaphor.

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        What kind of comparison is that to Black Lives Matter? My God, I’m just overwhelmed by how the world has turned on BLM because of NOTHING AT ALL they did and nothing they espoused. It’s so damned easy to be a hater these days.

    • Trixie says:

      It’s not about voting for Hilary. It’s about voting against Trump. The only way to ensure that Trump doesn’t become president is to vote for Hilary. Voting 3rd party or not voting at all means Trump will win. We cannot allow that.

      • Kitten says:

        YES.

      • annaloo. says:

        I third this. Anyone who does not realize the reality that it is Trump v Hillary now, absolutely deserves the wakeup call of a Trump Presidency. (The rest of us don’t deserve that, though!)

        What are people willing to gamble here? What do people take for granted?

      • Dirty Martini says:

        I hear this repeatedly from both of the 2 party camps–in essence “you must vote for our candidate because the other will win if you don’t.” Can both of the 2 parties be right in this assertion? Maybe if it really is that tight?….but the logic in this as it relates to those of us who don’t want either in equal portions doesnt hold. its premise is that we actually like (or dislike) one or the other slightly more. We don’t. Or that we should capitulate and always vote for one of the two major parties. Why? As already articulated elsewhere, 3rd party funding is predicated on gaining traction. Many of us are so disillusioned with both of the two primary we find the concept of helping advance alternatives to be appealing. Even if it’s futile in the outcome of his election, it is still an important step to take. There will always be reasons to vote in the “here and now” (such as the Supreme Court argument)…….but many of us want meaningful change from what we have and not taking action and kicking that can down the road isn’t acceptable either.

    • Algernon says:

      Do * Not * Stay * Home * Do * Not * Write * In * If * You * Don’t * Support * Trump * Vote * For * HRC *

      This is exactly what happened in 2000 with Bush v Gore v Nader. People “staying home” or voting for Nader handed the election to Bush and *look at what happened*. We have a two party system. For better or worse, or whatever we may wish we had instead, this is reality. We have a two party system. And in this election, it’s Trump v. HRC. A vote for anyone other than HRC is a vote for Trump. I don’t love Hillary, I kinda do wish there was another Dem running, but she’s what we’ve got and the GOP is fielding a screaming dreamsicle nightmare who hasn’t the foggiest idea how to govern. It is **not** the same thing as running a business!

      Hillary isn’t perfect, and I know a lot of people, especially younger/first time voters, are disenchanted with the whole process but sitting out this election or voting for anyone other than HRC is going to put that cheeto lunatic into power. Please don’t sit this one out or waste your vote. Consider this a hard life lesson–politics are messy and imperfect and it is *always* the best of bad options at the federal level. If you’re passionate about Bernie’s causes, vote HRC and vote liberal/socialist all the way down your ballot, because that is where you will be able to see and effect change. Get involved locally, support the kind of candidate you want to see running for president as they run for city council, local judge, mayor, and state reps. Eventually, those kinds of candidates will work their way up the food chain if they really got the support they need on the local level. But please, for the love everything holy, put reality first and let’s make sure that Trump does not win.

    • Brittney B. says:

      Please, please, please consider voting for Hillary.

      Imagine a future in which Trump won the presidency by a narrow margin. I don’t want to be part of that margin, especially after living in FL in 2000. I totally understand that you have the right to vote — or not vote — if the candidates don’t seem worthy. I get it. I don’t like the two-party system, and I would love to vote for Jill Stein. But this is a terrifying time, and I don’t think this country can afford to cast protest votes for third-party candidates.

    • Marine says:

      I’m with you Dorothy. I hate people who say we’re wasting our vote, we’re not. With enough people voting for Jill Stein (if Bernie isn’t on any ballot) we get to give the Green Party platform a chance at the next election. But NO Bernie did not concede, he’s taking his delegates with him to the DNC

      • Algernon says:

        This is *exactly* what Nader supporters said in 2000 and here we are 16 years later with still two parties and once again facing a divisive election. It will not matter. There won’t be a viable Green Party in the next election. All there will be is President Trump. Is that *really* an acceptable outcome?

      • Betsy says:

        You will never have enough people voting for a liberal third party to make a difference in regards to getting national recognition. There is President Hillary Clinton…. or the end of America as we know it.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “we get to give the Green Party platform a chance at the next election.”

        But you will have possibly 3 Trump Supreme Court Justices that will rule for DECADES and have a profound impact on the laws that govern America!

    • TG says:

      I’m a Bernie delegate heading to Philly and will vote Jill Stein in November if it comes down to it.
      More DNC docs leaked today for anyone who’s interested.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        And you think Jill Stein will become president?

      • TG says:

        Barring getting exposed for charity fraud, #ClintonCash, etc., there is zero doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton will be the next POTUS.

  6. LinaLamont says:

    With 1,2, possibly, 3 SCOTUS seats in the balance, how can ANY Sanders supporter NOT vote for Clinton?
    It’s mind-boggling.

    • SusanneToo says:

      X 1,000,000,000,000,000

    • Betsy says:

      Because for a teeny portion of Bernie fans, it was never really about engagement or making the country more Progressive, it was about narcissism and my way or the highway.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        I know people will hate that you say that but if they’ve been on some of the websites I’ve been on they’d know it’s true. Not his entire electorate or even a large number but there was a very passionate vocal group that did feel this way and is now lashing out big time online.

      • Kitten says:

        Sadly, I’ve seen this with my own eyes. And I’m a Bernie gal…
        Well, FORMER Bernie gal.

      • LinaLamont says:

        Oh, my comment was rhetorical.

        I, fully, understand arrogance, naivete, stupidity, ignorance, Pyrrhic victories, cutting your nose to spite your face. I, also,  know that ALL politicians are scum (to some degree), duplicitous and self-serving…. that doesn’t mean you won’t benefit from them.

        Bernie Sanders is no different. He’s an old man on an ego-trip who got caught up in his own hype. This was his swan song. His last chance for his legacy. And, IMO, he’s as bad as Clinton and Trump, in that respect.

        Where was Sanders’ outrage at the superdelegate model in 2008? Oh, that’s right, it didn’t affect him. Actually, he was pro-superdelegates when he backed them for backing Obama.
        Where’s Sanders’ outrage with the NRA?
        Oh, that’s right.  He needed/needs them to get and stay elected in Vermont. He has a checkered record with them and weapons-related legislation. 

        Sanders did not get the most votes. He ranted about the superdelegates, and, then, demanded that they choose him.

        Hillary IS a bad politician. She DOES show poor judgment, sometimes.  I will NEVER forgive Hillary for Iraq. I HATE when she panders. She lies.  She’s the same as the others, but, with a brain and experience.  And, she’s the best choice in this election.

        Also, while I’m here  🙂   I can’t understand if Bill is consciously, subconsciously, or unconsciously trying to torpedo his wife at every turn.

        Sorry if any of these points have already been stated by others. I haven’t read all the other comments in this thread, yet.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        LinaLamont love your name, are you a Singing in the Rain fan?

        As for Bill Clinton, my elderly mom’s theory is he’s still trying to make it up to her. But he’s not doing a very good job, is he. Maybe she should have cut him loose.

        In my dream universe, the first woman to be president would be a mash-up of the late Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan and Elizabeth Warren. But in reality, we have Hillary Clinton and if her “brand” brings votes along with majority-gaining seats in Congress and better Supreme Court justices, I’m at relative peace with it.

      • LinaLamont says:

        @Who ARE these people?

        I just hope this election “ain’t been in vain for nothin'”. 🙂

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        @LinaLamont now I’ll hear that squeaky voice in my head all day … “I cain’t standem! I cain’t standem!” Need to run that over an image of DT.

      • TotallyOld says:

        Oh,Betsy thank you for saying what so many HRC supporters know and have been saying. I’m sorry but it’s not about Bernie’s platform or these disenfranchised Bernie supporters would be voting for HRC with no possible thought of allowing Trump to win. It’s been about “Bernie but certainly not Hillary” from the beginning. Shailene is one example by saying she can’t support Hillary she is in essence saying her vote goes to anyone but Hillary. Bernie supporters are sore losers plain & simple. You may not like Hillary’s platform but you can’t seriously consider Trump’s platform (there is none) would be anything similar to Bernie’s beliefs. Get over yourself Bernie supporters, he lost by a large margin. He is a good man but he lost! Get out there and support someone who can at least try to push his platform thru a Republican congress but don’t throw your vote to Trump because he sure as hell will not help your end cause. I’m in utter disbelief that any Bernie supporter would want Trump instead.

    • sa says:

      The only similarity I see between Sanders and Trump, that would make a Sanders supporter vote for Trump, is that neither one is a woman. Apparently that’s very important to some people.

      • Wren says:

        No, it’s that neither one is part of the establishment. Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin. People are tired of the same old, tired political dynasty families and they’re tired of being told what is good for them by politicians who lie to them all the time and don’t appear to represent their interests. People want something different, a president who isn’t, or at least doesn’t appear to be, bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists.

      • Kitten says:

        But Trump is a straight-up crook who has cheated former business acquaintances out of thousands of dollars.

        Are people REALLY buying the idea that a man with such unscrupulous business practices, a man who– quite literally–represents corporate greed and corruption and has the track record to prove it is going to suddenly change if he becomes POTUS?

        He is NOTHING like Sanders. The only thing that they have in common is that in terms of public (mis)perception, Trump is *for the people* the way Bernie is.
        He’s not, though, not even a little bit. He’s a con artist and a snake oil salesman. Say what you want about Bernie, but he’s a passionate and genuine guy. No he’s not perfect and politically, he’s made a few missteps but he IS the real deal. He absolutely 100% sincerely believes in the political platform he ran on.

      • Wren says:

        He is most definitely all of those things, but he is not establishment and he is not a politician. He refuses to be bought, or at least appears so, and that matters. Sanders too. Why else would this whole Clinton thing feel like such a kick in the teeth? If Sanders wasn’t seen as “above” the current clusterf*ck that is our political system, it really wouldn’t matter so much that he endorsed Clinton. It would be expected. People would be disappointed, but not this wailing and gnashing of teeth.

        Remember, this is all about perception. The reasons many people support Trump are shockingly similar to the reasons many people support Sanders. They see him as outside the corrupt establishment, someone who may possibly consider serving the people instead of corporate masters.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Sanders primary voter here, but I have to say he’s not a total outsider, having served as a US Senator for nearly 10 years. He’s a longtime politician, and consistent on the issues.

      • Kitten says:

        Oh yeah I agree with you, Wren, I was just making the point that well, people are idiots.

        Personally, I’m not butthurt that Bernie endorsed Clinton. It was inevitable, it was expected, and it’s a good reminder to all of us Bernie-supporters that at the end of the day, the political sphere is a place where one MUST play the game, even a perceived political outlier like Bernie.

        Still, I can’t help but wonder what went wrong. Part of me thinks that people just didn’t believe that Bernie was capable of transitioning his overly-ambitious ideals and philosophies into a highly-structured and tightly-wound political system like we have here in the US.

        But I keep coming back to the faction of Bernie supporters–the Bernie Bros–who are at least partially responsible for sinking his campaign. That and the fact that unfortunately, some of Sanders’ most vocal supporters were proud to let the world know that they don’t know their ass from their elbow when it comes to politics.
        I think that shook people’s confidence in Bernie. I could be wrong but that’s my impression thus far.

      • Wren says:

        Of course people are idiots, that was never up for debate. Sanders was shut out, pure and simple. He is (was?) a legit threat to the establishment and they did absolutely everything to ensure he’d lose. First they ignored him, then they dismissed him, now they’re compromising his credibility. Seems to be working.

        Frankly I don’t support any candidate. They all suck for different reasons and I have yet to feel even remotely represented by any of them. So I’m just sitting here watching everyone yell at each other.

      • Jen43 says:

        I got into a friendly argument with a Bernie supporter who will vote for Trump. He wants change. Period. He called me a moderate who was voting for status quo. He really didn’t give a damn about gay rights or women’s rights or anything else. He was fed up and he wanted change.

        What went wrong? Bernie calls himself a socialist and an atheist. There are generations of Americans for whom those two words are scary –scarier than a Trump presidency –and they always vote. That’s my opinion, anyway.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “No, it’s that neither one is part of the establishment.”

        Do you honestly think that Trump doesn’t have interests that align with “the establishment”? For example, think of the amount of business loans and investments he has with the banking industry. Most likely it is hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you HONESTLY think that he will put the needs of American citizens ahead of his ability to get a good deal for himself and his business ventures? When dealing with other countries, do you think he is going to be thinking about the American people, or his international real estate ventures?

        See his comments on Britexit. See how he was fine with damage to US exports, because a cheaper GBP would help his golf courses.

      • Wren says:

        Absolutely not. My point was that it’s how many people perceive him, and that matters.

    • annaloo. says:

      This is a terrible gamble Sanders supporters are taking bc they are upset. Imagine Trump picking the next SCOTUS

      • Kitten says:

        Well thus far, the only Sanders-supporters I know who are vowing to vote for Trump are white dudes.

        That’s not a coincidence and there’s more than a whiff of privilege–and possibly some misogyny–behind that.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Me too. They ain’t getting a room in my Canadian basement.

    • Brittney B. says:

      I made the mistake of reading the comments on a video of their joint rally. ALL of the top comments — I stopped scrolling after awhile — were Bernie bros insisting they’ll vote for Trump now. With hundreds of “likes” each.

      I tremble.

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        IDGI, how can any Bernie supporter (I voted for him in the primary) become a fecking TRUMP supporter? Do those voters READ? Do they listen to him? The only thing he has in common with Bernie is a dick.

        Is THAT what this is about?

        Really?

  7. Luca76 says:

    I mean she’s got a right to her opinion and I respect what she said because it wasn’t inflammatory towards Clinton . I honestly had to ignore a lot of people on social media older diehard white middle to upper class hippie types that live very cozy lives and don’t really care what happens if Trump becomes president because they hate that Bernie lost. Again it’s their right to think whatever they want but I just can’t deal with their ramblings that are based on such silly logic. I honestly have more respect for real Trump supporters than for those unwilling to compromise and still call themselves Progressives.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      They’ll care when their Social Security and Medicare get cut. I know some of these people that you describe and think they’re kidding themselves to think they would somehow be insulated from harm – plus, they have kids and sometimes grandkids. I hope that thinking about that prompts some sober reflection.

    • AngelaH says:

      I am upset that Bernie lost. When I got the email with his endorsement of Hilary Clinton, I was gutted. There may have been a few quiet tears. I knew it would happen. I mean there was no doubt in my mind that she would be the nominee at that point but seeing it right in front of my face was a bit of a kick in the metaphorical nuts.

      During the primary I was convinced that I would not vote for Hilary. There are some issues I have with her that are real and factual. There are some that came from the nastiness of the primary and there are some that boil down to personality. Like I seriously find her unlikeable and I don’t “get” her. I feel like I connect more with Bernie and I know that shouldn’t make a difference, but it does.

      However, I would NEVER vote for Trump. Ever. I don’t care if Jesus came to my house carrying a basket of kittens and told me that I should vote for Trump. I wouldn’t do it.

      If Hilary is well in the lead in my state (which is likely), I will vote for Jill Stein so they can get some votes and hopefully get funding. But it would have to be a huge lead in the polls. HUGE. Because as much as I don’t want to vote for Clinton, I have no delusions that Jill Stein will win and I’m not going to do anything to add to the likelihood of a Trump victory. So for polling purposes, I say I’m voting Jill Stein, but if it comes down to it, I will vote for Clinton.

      My sister has been sending me articles written by people like me. People that weren’t Hilary supporters and didn’t want her as the nominee but that have spent time with her while she was campaigning and see a side to her that makes me feel better about voting for her. Honestly, after the bitterness of the primaries from all parties and supporters, I needed to see that. By the end I was not rooting for Hilary or Bernie because he seemed to forget his message from early in the campaign.

      I’m hoping that by November, I can be excited about our first female president because this is huge and I want to be excited about it, but I think the wounds are still too raw. I’m ready for the convention to be over so I can lick my wounds and rest and come back energized for the general election!

    • TotallyOld says:

      Luca, not that I took it personally but I am a middle class hippie from the 60’s (thus my name) and believe me I worry greatly about Trump and what he could and will do to this country. I have children and a grandchild that I want for them to have a good life on this planet. I know you didn’t mean everyone but I sure hope there are more of my generation who are just as concerned. And yes I agree, I have people I work with that I respect and they are unapologetic in their desire to have Trump president, but it’s not because they are mad Bernie didn’t win, they didn’t like him either.

  8. Tig says:

    Amen to all of the above. Please look-if you dare- at what is going on in Great Britain right now. If somehow Trump becomes President, multiply that X 10000. I do know folks who are of the mindset that the system is too broken to ever be fixed, so torch it. My response is- are you ready for what could come next? That tends to calm them down.

  9. littlemissnaughty says:

    I had no idea the food issue was a thing. That’s terrible. It’s not something I’ve ever encountered here, there is a supermarket with healthy, affordable food almost everywhere in Germany. Except those really small villages in the middle of nowhere but usually those who can’t afford transportation have moved away. We also have some of the cheapest food of any developed country so there is that.

    Good for her for picking something she’s passionate about.

    • Esmom says:

      I live in Chicago and it has indeed been a problem for a long time. Access to healthy food is certain neighborhoods is slowly improving but there’s still a long way to go. One idea that was really great but ultimately failed because of lack of funding was a mobile produce bus that could bring the food to the areas with no access to it.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        How large are these areas we’re talking about? In the city or a little bit outside of it? It’s honestly mind-boggling to me.

      • Esmom says:

        In the city proper, where some of the worst poverty and crime is. Densely populated but with locks and blocks of urban blight, where the only food store is a corner convenience store or maybe a fast food joint.

        Whole Foods opened up in Englewood, which is consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago. I applaud them but at the same time I’m not sure how people living below the poverty line could possibly afford to shop there.

        It is mind boggling. My kids and I volunteered at a church meal there last Thanksgiving and they were utterly sobered by the surrounding area. So sad.

      • Kitten says:

        Whole Foods does accept WIC/EBT. I was behind someone in line at the WF near me who was paying that way.

        http://firstquarterfinance.com/does-whole-foods-accept-ebt/

        When we visited Lagunitas we wandered around afterwards and found ourselves in some areas in Chicago that were…well, it made us feel pretty sheltered. We don’t really have an equivalent in Boston, but of course it’s a much smaller city.

      • Esmom says:

        Kitten, that’s good to know. I know they’re also testing a store format that’s supposed to be lower priced but I think the one in Englewood is a regular WF. That’s cool that you visited Lagunitas! It is in a rough area. My kids grew up in the city and are comfortable with most areas but the people we volunteered with, mostly suburbanites, were terrified for their lives. It was sad to see such a disconnect between the two worlds, so close geographically but so far socioeconomically.

  10. Prairiegirl says:

    We’re looking to Shailene Woodley for political endorsements now? America’s in bigger trouble than I thought.

    • Dangles says:

      America has been in big trouble for a long time. Just ask the bottom 30%. Any system that serves up a choice between Racist Donald or Wall Street Hillary is broken.

    • Matomedah says:

      I was going to say- I don’t think Clinton is waiting with bated breath for shailene’s endorsement. I don’t even know who she is aside from this site!

    • AngelaH says:

      I’m sure that there are plenty of younger voters that look up to her and many of those voters were Sanders supporters, so yes, her endorsement will probably speak to a specific demographic.

    • Duchess of Corolla says:

      My thoughts, exactly. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but why do we care who celebrities are endorsing for President? What expertise do they have on the topic? It makes no sense… like so much else in this country.

  11. Talie says:

    If you want your vote to count, it’s either Clinton or Trump…unless Trump completely collapses and Gary John begins to rise higher. He’s already at an unprecedented 11%.

  12. grabbyhands says:

    I just can’t with Bernie supporters foaming at the mouth about how he “betrayed” them. It is such a childishly naive and simplistic view of how this all works.

    I’m no Hilary fan for many reasons, but believing she’s the Anti-Christ, which is how some people like to act, is not one of them. I was not a giant supporter of Bernie either, but I respect the decision he made.

    Honestly, if you say you were/are a Bernie supporter, you need to respect the decision he made too, because not only was it a rational and sound decision, it still falls in line with his ideals. Furthermore, he is putting the best interests of the nation ahead of his own aspirations-something Democrat voters (one of which I have been since I was able to vote) have traditionally been bad at-as we’re witnessing yet AGAIN, this attitude of “Well, I didn’t get what I want, so I’m taking all my toys and going home and I don’t care how it affect anyone else”.

    All this talk of how voting third parties will really make Washington take notice. No. No it won’t-third parties are still a fly to be swatted away and sending your vote that way only serves to help Trump. End of. But hey, I guess you’ll be able to smugly post about your Green Party vote while the rest of the country goes to sh*t.

    I’ll say it again-he made the only real decision he could because he could see, if many of his more ardent supporters cannot, that it was the only way to secure the things we all say are important to us. And they wanted his endorsement BAD-you can bet he forced Hilary to accept MANY concessions. You want Washington to sit up and take notice? Then continue to vocally support his decision because frankly, he did what no third party candidate could have done, and he did it from within the DC powerhouse.

    • Celebitchy says:

      Yes exactly, this was very well put. I can’t believe the idiocy that one guy I mentioned was spouting about Hillary and while there are people like that I like to think they’re just a very vocal, small group. The people who switch from Bernie to Trump or who chose not to vote do not understand or support Bernie’s vision in the first place.

    • Betsy says:

      I’m old enough to remember the eight year mess (and counting, in some respects) that Nader and his supporters gifted us.

      And honestly, if half these “dedicate progressives” would show up more than occasionally, the Democratic Party would be leftier and the wreckage of the midterms would quit happening. You can’t just wait until someone “speaks” to you, or abstain from voting to send a message (message received? Voter apathy.).

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Betsy, great comment. I’m hoping people burn themselves out protesting on Facebook, as if that makes any difference, and come around. This is the year to get people registered and to the polls, especially in light of the partial dismantling of the Voting Rights Act and other disgusting barriers to voting. Everyone should think of 5 people who might need help to vote, and watch over them like little baby chicks until they’re done November 8th.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Soooo true.

        For a small vocal crowd that never realized the fight has to go from Facebook to actual polling places to cast votes.

      • grabbyhands says:

        Betsy-

        Same, and it is annoying to hear so many people still apparently in the same mindset even though we have clear proof of how disastrous that way of thinking was for the country.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        So true Betsy!

        The BIGGEST weakness of the democrats/liberal party is that they do NOT show up at midterms. They only vote during the Presidential election, therefore, they can’t get their ideas through congress because the House gets voted in EVERY 2 YEARS.

        Sorry for the caps, but this fires me up!

    • Dangles says:

      A vote for a third party is not a vote for Trump. It’s a vote that didn”t go to Clinton or Trump. There’s no reason why anyone should assume the vote belonged to either one of them.

      • Sam says:

        Except it is, because of some very famous examples of vote splitting. It’s a zero-sum game. You have one vote to give to a limited, defined pool of candidates, and only one can receive the vote. And a vote for one means one less for all the others. Basic game theory going on.

        Most third parties running today are not “ideologically independent.” They are merely “degree” parties. (These are my husband’s terms, and he’s the political dude). The Green party of today is not presenting any unique ideology – they are merely a farther left version of the Democrats. Modern Libertarians are merely a further right alternative to the Republicans (with some minor exceptions, although those are all up for debate).

        Now, if somebody is voting for a Communist, you’d be right. But that’s because Communism is totally ideologically different from the ideology that underpins the Democratic and Republican parties. However, the Communist party is not a viable 3rd party in the US. Neither are the Constitutionalists, Anarchists or any other ideologically unique party.

        In reality today, a Green voter is simply best termed as a far-left Democrat (especially given that Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton’s positions align over 90% of the time). There is really no major policy reason to prefer Green over Democrat at this stage. I have not met a single individual who is voting Green over Democrat because of some strong policy and/or positional convictions – it’s all about a distaste for Hillary, full stop.

        And if you don’t think that voting third party can have unintended consequences, then you forget how many Republicans were thanking the Green Party for their help in 2000.

      • Algernon says:

        It absolutely is. Sam’s breakdown is perfect, but it can really just be repeated until everyone gets it: Remember 2000. Remember what happened in 2000.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Canada had neoconservative right-wing prime minister (Harper) from 2006-late 2015. He didn’t represent the views of the majority of Canadians but vote-splitting among the country’s center-left, which is roughly 2/3 of its voters, allowed him a clear path to majority ultimately.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        So well said, Sam.

      • Dangles says:

        “Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton’s positions align over 90% of the time”

        Really? So what positions do they share and which ones do they disagree on?

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Thank you for mentioning the part about degree parties Sam. So true! I’m always confronted by that thought whenever people try to trumpet up 3rd parties. The reality is that barring some major event 3rd parties will ultimately never be viable in the US.

        Most 3rd parties don’t contain significant enough policy differences to make them appealing versus the already well established Republican and Democrat parties. In the very early stages of the primaries I remember going to isidewith to see how my views aligned and in order of percentages above 90% it went: Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein. If my views are already covered by two democratic candidates how likely is it that I or any other individual would forgo the larger more powerful party to support a smaller less powerful party?

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        You said it all, Sam. If only enough third-party voters would stop and think of the points you’ve made so well.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Well said and honestly I so think while Bernie resisted once he heated up his rhetoric and started going after Clinton with words and phrases we’d hear from any Republican candidate it was going to end up this way.

      You can’t paint someone as evil (not saying Bernie did this but the ball got rolling and the Internet and memes took over) and then ever be able to compromise with them. It is why Republicans have been backed into such a corner that they’re on one hand dying on the vine and in the other desperately willing to accept the Trump card even though it spells destruction for them as well if he loses.

      Compromise and pragmatism are the realities of life.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Ideology is a terrible way to govern, and we should continue to fear it, no matter on the right or on the left.

        I think voters mistook Obama’s confidence for ideology and were disappointed that he “turned out” to be the same political pragmatist he was all along.

        And yet despite all Republican opposition, he still got things done. Being pragmatic and having that mistaken for weakness.

      • Kitten says:

        YESSSSSSSSSSSSS, ESE!

        For some reason, I’ve never been able to properly articulate that feeling, that moment when I started to question my support for Sanders. It’s always a scary time when you see sheep-like dudebro robots vilifying a female presidential candidate in one of the most misogynistic social media campaigns that I’ve ever had the misfortune of witnessing.

        But you hit the nail on the head: it was that one-dimensional, inflammatory caricature of Hillary created by some Bernie supporters that made me suddenly feel so uncertain. It was straight out of the GOP playbook and it shook me to my core because prior to that, I had assumed that all Bernie supporters were progressive, rational, intelligent and fair human beings–like my close friends, basically.

        Great comment, ESE.

        Oh and great comment, WATP as well. I completely agree with your assessment of POTUS.
        And I’ll still miss the guy..can’t help it.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Hi Kitten. Fingers crossed for the election. As for POTUS, I keep coming back to my mom, but she’s seen a lot of prez. in her lifetime and says she thinks he’ll “go down as one of the great ones” if only for all the crap he’s had to endure. Excepting the influence of the Scalia court and the NRA and despite the bigoted partisans in Congress, he still managed to pull the country forward.

      • TotallyOld says:

        Sam, that was a great explanation! Thank you, wish more could read great comments like yours.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        @Who Are

        Exactly. Obama ruled with pragmatism as best as he could and now towards the end since he is in his final term we do see him pushing more of his ideological goals but because of our checks and balances system much of what he wants is blocked. You’re right that his ability to be realistic and thoughtful was often mistaken for weakness.

        @Kitten

        Yeah it is a bit sad and scary. In some ways I think Sanders got wrapped up in his own myth, between the dudebro’s sometimes vicious and disturbing social media campaign to Sanders veering between raising objections to aspects of the Democratic Party he never complained about till he was losing and vowing to take the fight to the convention long after it was clear he had no other chances than his supporter’s outrage it just become so black and white. Bernie – good. Hilary – bad. Bird fly on Bernie’s podium – sign from above. Hilary make joke – evil.

        Whether it was Bernie’s fault or some of his supporter’s fantasies I do think there came a point where he positioned himself as the ‘good’ candidate versus Hilary implying she was shady but never able to actually provide proof and thus it was just about people not liking her or feeling nevatively without necessarilly being able to explain it.

        When you do that you put yourself in the position where you can’t compromise or align yourself with another person because then you’re aligning with the ‘bad’ person. Online I see comments where they’ve basically gone 180 on Bernie calling him a traitor and suggesting he was just manipulating them into collecting their money for his own pockets. That’s never going to lead to a positive outcome because it’s just imagining this black and white world where Bernie was going to roll in on a Unicorn and usher in a revolution.

  13. Sam says:

    Right now, presuming it is a Trump-Clinton matchup in November, the choices are between slightly left, centrist moderate and a honest-to-God fascist. WHAT is difficult about this decision? Like, what?

    And while I really hate to throw around terms like “privilege” I feel like it might be warranted here. Every person I’ve met doing their “Bernie or Bust” spiel has been white – mostly male, some women. Generally middle class. And that gets me. Because these are the people who would, by and large, have the LEAST to lose from a Trump presidency. He isn’t going to try to deport you. He isn’t going to try to snuff out your right to your own culture.

    Look at the Brexit, and what it unleashed – wave upon wave of racism and xenophobia. A Trump win would do the exact same thing here, except probably on a more epic scale. I’m a mixed person, married to a mixed person. I’ve said before on this site that racism is rising, even in my fairly open-minded city. I can’t imagine it if Trump wins. I don’t have the option of saying “I’m not ready to endorse Clinton right now.” Because I know what I risk if I don’t vote for her, and try to get others to do the same. Get past your rugged individualism and maybe start thinking of your neighbors and friends and co-workers and what a Trump presidency would mean for them, and maybe vote with that in mind for once.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Sam, this is amazing. I agree whole-heartedly and have seen the same thing among my loose-knit collection of friends. There’s no place for pouting. In politics, there’s always a chance that the person you support might lose (and mine did, and I have zero regrets about contributing to his campaign and voting for him in the primaries). Politics is pragmatic, not ideological, and the system functions best when it sticks to pragmatism and compromise. The Republicans have gone so far-right ideological over the past few decades that they have left Democrats looking stodgy and weak by comparison, but ideology has harmed the country seemingly almost without repair. Sanders wasn’t the great left-wing ideological hope that many of his supporters wanted – he was a fairly pragmatic politician himself and he did a great job getting an important message out. I hope he continues to actively campaign and that he can find a way to “thread the needle,” which isn’t easy. I’m disappointed in anyone who says ‘Bernie or Bust’ or latches on to Republican propaganda about Hillary Clinton. She’s an imperfect candidate – most of them are – but we have to stop looking for perfection and start looking to throw the bums out in Congress and reshape the Supreme Court.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Every single word you said 🙌

      • Betsy says:

        What she said, with the clapping.

        I am a white woman (and a big Clinton supporter), so I see the privilege a smudge differently and what I can see is a metric ton of sexism.

      • TotallyOld says:

        Betsy, sexism is really the issue but so many (politicians, media, etc) are not comfortable with putting that on the table. And I’m amazed at just how many women are sexist against other women.

    • Wren says:

      What’s puzzling me over all this is why everyone seems to assume that all or even some of Trump’s insane shoutings will become policy. The president is not a dictator, and the whole system is in place to prevent him from becoming one. Yes, he’s has considerable influence, but people are acting like he’ll just be able to stroll in and make new laws with a wave of his orange hand.

      I hate Trump and DO NOT want him in office, but I’m getting tired of people acting like we’re choosing our next sovereign monarch. You really want change? A lot of Congress is up for re-election. Yet somehow that is getting lost in this rabid, frothing shuffle over the presidential election.

      • Sam says:

        Wren, except you forget that we have a Congress controlled by the Republicans – and, more importantly, it’s controlled by a fairly far-right block of them. I have no doubt that many of Trump’s ideas would become policy due to the current makeup of the Congress. Paul Ryan lacks the stones to really wrangle his party. He doesn’t want to meet the same fate as John Boehner (thought by most accounts, Boehner is pretty happy where he is).

        And the current polls indicate that the odds are for continued GOP control of both Houses, so I am not sure your point really means much. If we had a competitive Congressional season, I’d agree. But not so much now.

      • Wren says:

        Yes, and they are up for re-election. If we mobilized on that, we could have some real change. But no, let’s keep arguing about which monkey would make a worse president.

      • Sam says:

        Wren – but Congress is not that simple. The House is notorious for being a mess in elections. That’s because House districts can easily be re-drawn to change the political makeup. In addition, when you have Congress, you have to consider constituent services, which tend to count for votes far more than political leanings. Democrats will gladly vote for a Republican Rep if that rep brings money and services into the district, and they’ll vote against them if they don’t. That’s why Dennis Kucinich, despite being a leftist from a leftist district, almost lost one of his elections to a Republican – he was too busy running for President to care for the district, and they let him know it.

        The Senate is not as hard, but still tricky. It’s still intensely state-specific. You can get all the out of state support you want, but the state still controls (Wendy Davis found that out the very hard way, remember?).

        So while you have some point that Congress matters, there still isn’t any good evidence that Congress is actually in play in November. The odds are still for Republican control (possibly with a small reduction). The House will stay solidly Red – and the Senate likely will too. I’m just not seeing your point on that. If you think there is a meaningful chance of flipping Congress – well, I think the numbers disagree with you there.

      • Wren says:

        I have my own ideas about how to fix things, but we can at least start by getting new people in office. I’d love to abolish career politicians and get back to a congress that truly represents the people instead of simply playing a political soccer match and calling it legislation. I know that won’t happen, but we can start by ousting the incumbents. It may not change party lines but a mass influx of new congress members and an ousting of old ones would send a pretty strong message. Just perhaps it would start a shift back towards a legislature that serves the people, not their party.

        Saying it’s too hard to make change is exactly what they’re hoping you’ll say. Focus on the monkeys, it’s too complicated to change congress. We’ve done nothing and we’re all out of ideas. The people have to demand change from ALL aspects of our government if we truly want change, and sadly we’re being very effectively misdirected.

      • Sam says:

        Wren – again, I think you miss my point. I am talking about November. You seem to be making some point about Congress in general, which is not my focus. How, exactly, do you suggest doing what you are suggesting, but in November? That’s my point. The Congress is not changing in November, by most accounts. The next President will have to deal with that. If it’s Trump, he’ll have a very amendable Congress to institute him policy. What is the dispute about that?

      • Wren says:

        34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats are up for election in November. I call that significant. Significant enough to send a message if we voted out everyone who currently holds office.

      • Sam says:

        Wren – not really. You have to understand that not all Congressional seats are actually “up” in political terms.

        A sizable chunk of Congressional seats are termed “non-competitive.” These are seats that pose no real risk of being lost. This is normally because the political makeup of the district and/or state is overwhelmingly in favor of a single party. For example, if a district is 70% Republican, there is little to no chance of a Democrat taking that seat. The DNC, which oversees disbursement of campaign funds, will likely not give anything beyond the minimum to the Democratic candidate. That’s because they know any Democratic run is futile and want to hold funds for more competitive races. Same thing with the Republicans. Do you really believe that Nancy Pelosi (who represents San Francisco) fears a Republican challenger? No, and with good reason!

        So while you pulled the right numbers, you don’t consider how many, if any., of those races are actually regarded as competitive. And I think your argument about “vote them all out” is short-sighted and wee bit privileged. There are many decent reps who, while you might not like them, actually do bust their humps to try to better the districts they live in. Who are you to tell the people of that district “oh, vote them out, it’ll be good for you!” What if their rep actually addresses their issues and helps steer funds into the district? But you know better, since voting them out will be a strike at “the system?” My rep is pretty good, I think. He shows up at civic meetings, his offices will actually listen to you, my husband has done some work in conjuction with him, etc. The district is generally pretty pleased with him. But according to you, we must vote him out to make a point? truthfully, the more I think about it, the more I think your idealism is actually hurtful.

      • SusanneToo says:

        Wren, I have been voting since 1968. I still hang on to my idealistic views as best I can, but time has also instilled a bit of realism in me. You seem idealistic, but also young and naive. NOW is the time to start organizing for 2018, NOT November. There’s no time for that. HRC is truly the better of two poor choices as SCOTUS appointees are for life. Please consider that and, if necessary, hold your nose and vote for Hillary.

      • Wren says:

        I am young and perhaps naive but I also don’t care about which party has power because it really does all seem the same. I’m neither Republican nor Democrat and I don’t like either party. We froth and scream about politics and what ends up happening? Everyone bitches and it’s still a soccer match between the parties where we all lose. So why not vote in some new players? If party lines don’t change oh well. It’s no good throwing up our hands and saying things are impossible. We can at least try.

        I’m sure there will be many people who will yell at me and say I’m wrong and so on and so forth. I’m going to do what I think is best just like you will. I know the choice will be between a giant douche and a turd sandwich because it always is. Pretending otherwise is pointless, and incredibly distracting. Perhaps if we accepted this and turned our angry attention elsewhere, we could effect change.

      • Sam says:

        Wren, I don’t think it’s “perhaps naïve.” It just is.

        Please, don’t try that old “Democrats and Republicans are the same!” No. No they are not. Let’s consider, shall we:

        The official platform of the Democratic Party calls for abortion and contraceptive care to be available to women. The Republican Party Platform does not. THAT IS NOT A MINOR THING.

        The Democratic Party supports the existence of labor unions – which, while imperfect, represent one of the best avenues for the securing of worker rights and protections from labor abuses. The Republican Party generally opposed labor unions and collective bargaining.

        The Democratic Party supports decreasing the number of prison inmates, eliminating mandatory minimums and alternatives to incarceration. The Republican Party favors prison privatization, capital punishment and harsher mandatory minimums.

        I could go on, but you get the point. It takes a particular level of ignorance to say “they’re the same” when they demonstrably are not. The only people who can claim that are ones who do not stand to lose regardless of party. Now, I’ve said repeatedly that I’m a moderate who tends to think both parties get it right at times, and wrong at others. I can see both sides. But I can also see that they are very distinct groups. Calling them the same is so naïve as to be actually mind-boggling. Seeing no major differences between Clinton and Trump tells me more about you than you know. Trust me, if you’re a racial minority, ethnic minority, immigrant, religious minority, etc. – you can tell the difference pretty quick. And it’s kind of scary.

      • Betsy says:

        Wren, I’d like to point out that twenty years ago when we had a majority of “career politicians,” we had collegiality and compromise and a working government.

        Now we have a bunch of Tea Party know-nothings. We have gridlock. We have people shouting “you lie!” during the SotU. We have shutdowns over nothing at all.

        There is no choice this November, not for thinking people.

      • Wren says:

        No the platforms aren’t the same but the end result seems to be. I know they have different values and agendas, you don’t need to enumerate them. But I also see them oppose each other at every turn, doing not what is best for the country or the people but what is best for themselves, their financial backers, and their party. My interests are spread pretty evenly between the two parties, and both sides champion things that are repugnant to me.

        I see an angry orange pumpkin and a corporate servant. No, they aren’t the same, they are each awful for different reasons. Clinton is happily in the pocket of the conglomerates that are doing their damnest to crush everything I hold dear, and Trump is, well, and angry orange pumpkin with no love or regard for anything but himself, no policy, and no clue. Giant douche, turd sandwich.

        To add, I don’t actually think we should “vote them all out” in congress, I was pointing out that people (especially the rabid Sanders supporters) seem to be ignoring a very important opportunity to effect change. It’s either president or nothing, and I find that essentially ignoring the legislature is odd if one cares that much about change. Personally I think our senator is lousy and will be voting against them come November as their seat is on the ballot, the others I still need to read up on. In the end it may not matter, the lousy senator may get re-elected anyway. I just feel that that people are being much too narrow and are allowing the presidential sh*tshow to overshadow other important issues.

      • Sam says:

        Wren, that still just tells me more about you than anything else. If you’re an immigrant, immigration policy isn’t “an agenda” to you, it’s a big deal. If you’re a woman in dire need of birth control, the Republican defunding of PP isn’t an agenda to you, its a life-altering thing.

        And the end result? So basically, you believe somebody like George Bush and Barack Obama to be basically the same? Really? I give Bush his credit – he was able to keep the country together through the 9/11 aftermath and handled that well, but his subsequent actions really handicapped him. Obama has led the country through the worst recession in decades and managed to, if not greatly improve things, keep a depression at bay. But they also are radically different. Obama was the first President, ever, to support marriage equality – something no Republican was willing to do. He did numerous executive orders barring federal discrimination against LGBT people. He pushed military equality more aggressively than any other president in history. Do you genuinely believe that any Republican would have done that? If you do, I have a beach in Montana to sell you. And maybe that stuff doesn’t matter to you, but if you’re an LGBT person, it does. Obama tried to give a big chunk of immigrants here illegally a path to citizenship (yes, SCOTUS blocked him, but that’s not his fault). Would a Republican president have done that? No – but if you’re one of those people, I’m sure it mattered. For an LGBT person, or an immigrant, the differences aren’t just “agendas.” They matter. And if you think nothing is changing (or at least trying) you haven’t been paying attention.

        That’s my problem with what you say. To you, maybe there is no difference. But that’s because you have a status where your life doesn’t change much based upon who is in officer. But my point is that there are people who DO see their lives change based on that stuff. It is a privilege to be able to not care who is in office or to not see the differences between candidates. And that’s what you seem to not understand.

      • Wren says:

        You seem to be assuming that the things that are important to you are the exact same things that are important to me. Or telling me that they should be the same, because all true Scotsmen and so on. Which tells me something about you too. As I said, the things I care deeply about are split pretty evenly between the parties. So where one area gains another loses. I see my industry on the brink of disaster, and Clinton in the pay of those who are hastening this catastrophe. That’s no small issue to me. I’m also an ardent feminist and the birth control and abortion issue is very close to my heart. Again, no small matter. I could go on. No, I don’t think they’re all the same, but I do feel that I lose something either way.

      • Sam says:

        Wren – that’s the problem. Read that last comment back, seriously. “Me. Mine. Me. I. I. I.”

        See the issue? That’s your issue. You vote solely as an individual. That type of thinking is what creates people who have your viewpoint – “It’s all the same to me.”

        Look back at my initial comment – I said something about “rugged individualist” voters. And that’s you. You vote your own interests only.

        But here’s the thing: I believe that’s not moral. I will throw everything I have behind Clinton because I can see that if Trump wins, people I genuinely care about and respect will suffer. My mother is an immigrant. My in-laws are immigrants and Muslims. I am partially POC. My husband is POC. My children are POC. I have neighbors who would be directly negatively impacted by a Trump presidency. I’m voting against him, in addition, to finding his views horrific, because I care about people other than myself. I get that part of being a decent human being is trying to look out for others. I do not want a racist in the White House – even if the racism doesn’t hit me (I’ve mentioned various times on these posts that I am generally presumed to be white, despite not being so). I don’t minimize bad effects just because they do not affect me. Maybe the Trump racism won’t touch me, but it will touch others. I shouldn’t need a personal stake in something to care about it.

        That’s why I pointed out the platform differences. I’m straight as they get, but I wouldn’t vote for a candidate who advocated hatred against LGBT people. Why? Because it’s morally right. I don’t need to be gay, or even know a gay person, to get that. See how easy that is? I can use my vote as a message that it’s not okay to think the way Trump does, and I can use my vote to support my fellow humans who are being threatened by his rhetoric and supporters. Clearly, that is not something that has occurred to you, but, hey, to each their own.

    • Trish says:

      It’s simply not true that Brexit has unleashed “wave upon wave of racism”, that’s such a beatup. The English that voted for Brexit were predominantly the poor who have suffered massively under trickle-down economics and neo-liberalism epitomised by the EU and the bankers that control it. There is some xenophobia but the millions of people were voting against the establishment that has made what was once a civil society into one of massive inequality. The hard right will try to take advantage but it’s up to the left to stop obsessing about minor outrages on social media and engage the poor who are suffering entrenched poverty and injustice around the world.

      Hilary is a warmonger, controlled by wall street and the defence industry. While I don’t endorse Trump, his economic policies are much closer to Sanders than Clinton’s are. I’m very afraid for the world if Clinton and her cronies get into power.

      • Sam says:

        Sweetie, just no. Please have several seats while I explain this:

        http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/frenzy-hatred-brexit-racism-abuse-referendum-celebratory-lasting-damage

        You read that? That article states that in the weeks after Brexit, reported (not actual, just reported to the cops) hate crimes in Britain rose 57%. Let me spell that out for you – Fifty seven percent. And again, that’s just the reported ones. So yeah, please tell me again how Brexit didn’t unleash racism and xenophobia. Please also tell me how UKIP didn’t plaster ads around showing lines of refugees and referring to “breaking points” (yes, I’ve seen those too). So kindly pound sand on that one.

        And Clinton scares you more than Trump? Honey, I can smell the whiteness and middle-class-ness of you from here. Trump supports massive levels of deportations. He supports banning an entire religion from being able to enter the United States (despite the fact that there is no genuine way to prove one’s religion). He is on the record as supporting “punishment” for women who have abortions. He has encouraged his supporters at rallies to attack dissidents. He has advocated for hunting down the families of terror suspects. You can google any of this.

        Hillary Clinton has not advocated any of these things. She is not a perfect candidate, but (and I feel like capitals are appropriate given your apparent lack of nuance) but SHE IS NOT A FASCIST. Donald Trump is. But see, you’re white and native-born, so you don’t care. It’s not your family getting deported. It’s not your family getting screamed at for daring to speak something other than English in public (yes, that’s happened to mine). It’s not your family afraid to practice their faith in public. Honestly, YOU are what I was talking about in my first comment. People exactly like you, the “progressive” individualists who can’t see beyond your own nose. Frankly, if the progressive movement had actual guts, it would make clear that people like you aren’t welcome, but I don’t hold my breath for that.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Go Sam!

        Honestly, people who say, “Oh, it won’t be so bad,” need to sit down with a little book of history. If they only confined it to the past 75 years, that would be sufficient.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Damn Sam, you are on a roll today!

      • silverunicorn says:

        @Trish

        What you wrote is highly incorrect. I live in northern England and I am not British born. In the past three weeks, only thanks to a different accent I risked to be pulled and beaten up once, and nearly got screamed ‘Go home’ twice, only saved by the fact that I’m travelling with my UK driving licence in my pockets. I’m also thinking to take my passport with me from now onwards. If I hadn’t taken that precaution, I would be history. It’s WAR here. Yes, British papers are all focussed on politics now and they don’t speak about it; however, ‘on the ground’ the hate and hostility are staggering.

        @Sam spot on, in one week after the ruinendum the reported hate crimes went from 63 to about 400. Concerning the unreported crimes double that figure.

    • grabbyhands says:

      Sam-THIS. Thank you!

      • TotallyOld says:

        Sam – wow! Where are you? I would never stalk you but I would love to meet you! You articulate so well and your salient points were on target.

        After reading the comments, I’ve come to the conclusion that we are all of two voices. One voice for the social aspect of life & hope for our world and one voice for a fiscal life. I don’t think we will ever change those that feel wealth and a material life are more important than a socially caring life. Sad.

    • Algernon says:

      *frantic clapping and supportive yelling*

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Great comment, Sam. So many good points in there!!!

    • Lahdidahbaby says:

      Yes, exactly., Sam! (You are kicking some major ass today.) I find it personally, politically, morally, & philosophically threatening to imagine Donald Trump in command of the United States. It sickens me that so many Bernie supporters would switch to Trump! I can’t STAND HRC, but she is competent and experienced, and for all her faults, SHE IS NOT A FASCIST. For feckssake, why is it even necessary to say all this?

  14. wolf says:

    good decision by her to not support the war monger Hillary clinton

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Actually, she said she’s deferring her decision. She’s thinking about it. Which is fine.

      As for war mongers, you’d be hard-pressed to find an American president who is NOT a war-monger. It pretty much comes with the job description.

      And if you think DT would not demand military intervention the first time he feels ‘insulted’ by a foreign leader (which would probably start to happen on Day 1), you really need to give your head a shake.

    • Betsy says:

      War monger, eh?

    • Merritt says:

      No one is waiting for an endorsement from Shailene anyway.

  15. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    It’s funny because I was just wondering what she was doing a few days ago. Her plan for the caravan and concerns about food are well worth it. We have too many food deserts in this country.

  16. The Original Mia says:

    I really like the idea of being able to use SNAP online. I hope it becomes an option in the future.

    • Bob says:

      I’m on SNAP, don’t own a car and the nearest grocery store has a produce section that’s so pathetic they can barely stock onions that aren’t rotting and I think it’s a terrible idea. It wouldn’t make it any easier for me to get fresh vegetables or fresh meat.

      What it would do is make it easier for Amazon to make money. One of the reasons SNAP is such a great program is not only that it feeds poor people, but it stimulates the economy. If people could use SNAP online, that would lessen the positive impact on the local economy. Brick and mortar stores lose revenue, employ fewer people, etc. Making food stamps redeemable online is a very short-sighted idea. A rich person’s answer to a poor person’s problem.

  17. OTHER RENEE says:

    Not only has Trump failed to come up with a coherent political policy, he has yet to come up with a coherent sentence.

    Do we want this man’s hand on the red button? Seriously?

    Staying home or voting third party brings Trump one step closer to that possibility. Don’t. Do. It.

    Good on Shailene for caring more about the planet than in posting butt selfies on Instagram. How refreshing.

  18. The Swedish Isabelle says:

    Speaking of U.S politics, I’ve never really understood working class people who vote for a non-socialist party or even worse: vote for Trump! As someone from the working class it just baffles me that people vote for a system that beats us down. Capitalism is never a system that we will gain from! It’s sort of like as if a black person would vote for Trump.

    • Wren says:

      Actually what’s crippling us is all the restrictions we’ve placed on capitalism. Some restrictions are good, but we’ve gone so far we barely have a capitalist system anymore. Capitalism itself isn’t inherently bad, and a truly free market is a form of democracy; you vote with your dollar instead of your ballot.

      Except the market is not free. Take food, for example, more specifically corn. The government (taxpayers) subsidizes a huge amount of our agriculture, which sounds good in theory (farmers getting paid) but basically now allows the big ag companies to dictate what is grown and how much is grown. The huge commodity groups have well funded lobbyists, ensuring their interests are taken care of, regardless of what the people (consumers) actually want. Or what is even economically sustainable, to say nothing of what is environmentally sustainable. That is not capitalism. That is an oligarchy, and that is what America is becoming, which at the end of the day screws nearly everybody.

      • Algernon says:

        A totally free market isn’t that great, either, though. When America has done best has been during periods of regulation and reform (such as the early 20th century and 1990s). I agree we’re too much an oligarchy these days, and we need *serious* committed reform pretty much everywhere, yes including agriculture, but regulation, in and of itself, isn’t the enemy. It’s how we keep the field level so that individuals can succeed in the same market as a major corporation.

      • Wren says:

        I never said regulation was bad, it isn’t. What is bad is that those determining the regulations are the ones profiting from said regulations. The voters, aka consumers, are NOT directing the market, which they should be. They are being lead through a maze where it appears that there are choices but in reality there’s only one path, and that path is set by corporate lobbying groups. That is not capitalism.

        Honestly I think we should start with ag. What’s more important than our food supply? Yes, it’s my industry so I’m biased, but if (and when, because it’s neither economically nor environmentally sustainable) the current system collapses, nobody will care about much else besides feeding their families. After all, food supply is one of the three legs of democracy.

      • Algernon says:

        @ Wren

        Oh, yes, I agree with that completely. You can’t talk about regulation without talking reform. They go hand and hand, but we’re currently stuck in a situation in which we aren’t allowed to talk reform so that a select few can keep manipulating regulation to benefit themselves. I just don’t know how we break it.

      • Wren says:

        I have my ideas but frankly I’m not seeing how anything short of a revolution will shake the dollar-lined iron grip of corporate interests on our government. There are many movements away from this model, they are rapidly growing as more and more consumers decide they want something better, but still small in comparison and very much hampered by the big industry. The market is trying, and it is fostering change, but I just hope it won’t be too little too late. I’m in ag (duh), and it’s pretty painful for me to see just how screwed we really are. We’ve shunted our farmers and ranchers to the side in favor of huge companies. We grow food not to feed and nourish our people but to boost the bottom line of a frighteningly small number gigantic companies.

        Honestly, I’m scared. Clinton is bought and paid for by said huge companies, and has demonstrated time and again she will serve them first. Trump claims not to be influenced by them, which would be great, but the other points against him are staggering and unsupportable. I don’t see a win here either way.

      • Algernon says:

        Trump isn’t influenced by them because he *is* them. Anyone who thinks Trump will do anything other than continue to perpetuate a system in which corporations and the billionaires who own them continues to be favored is naive. He doesn’t have to be beholden to corporate sponsors because he’s already sitting at that table. Which is, to me, even worse. It’s like knowing the devil is in the room and inviting him to dinner.

      • Wren says:

        As far as I know he’s not in ag, though. I will be researching this. He is the corporate interest in other areas to be sure, but I don’t think it’s in this one. He’s also not out to make money, so buying him the normal way will be hard. He’s out to satisfy his own ego, which just means that a different form of currency could be quite effective. We’re likely screwed either way.

        He has claimed to not be interested in catering to the big food company interests, which of course is probably hot air and lies, but it piqued my interest. I’m going to have to pay more attention on that front. Not that I’m supporting him, far from it, but it is a sliver of hope should the worst happen.

      • Betsy says:

        So you’re Republican.

        The few “restrictions” on capitalism are what keep this country going. My goodness. Re-read The Jungle. Learn your Progressive history. Uncover why Unions were – and are – such a great idea. Discover how business will sooner screw everyone over to turn a profit.

      • Kitten says:

        I think unions WERE a good idea but I’m not so sure they still ARE a good idea.

    • Algernon says:

      If there’s one thing Americans excel at, it’s voting against our own best interests.

      There are a lot of reasons why it happens, but a big one is that the GOP is really good at scaring good Christian white folks into believing that they’re losing “their way of life” because of empowered minorities and immigration. They make them afraid of everyone who isn’t white and Christian and then they’re so worried about Ali down the street enacting Sharia law in their Mississippi town that they totally miss how the GOP is screwing them out of economic opportunity left, right and center. It’s totally evil, but it’s also kind of brilliant. The GOP is really, really good at the misdirect.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Mississippi? Heck, I see this kind of “thinking” in New York and New Jersey.

      • Algernon says:

        I just used Mississippi as an example because they have actually enacted anti-Sharia legislation, never mind that we’re already inoculated against religious doctrine being sanctioned into law.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Algernon wasn’t slighting your citing Mississippi so it’s okay … but no kidding, they really did that. Because if ever there was a threat from Sharia law it would be in the Mississippi Delta. What are those initials, SMH? Smack my head?

      • Sam says:

        This is the actual background for the whole “creeping sharia” thing –

        The Sharia scare happened a few years ago, mostly due to some cases that occurred, not in Mississippi, but in New Jersey, of all places. In Case 1, a judge denied a restraining order to a Muslim woman who alleged that she was the victim of marital rape at the hands of her Muslim husband. The judge ruled that the husband couldn’t be charged with a crime because he lacked the requisite mens rea, or criminal intent, to rape. The judge stated that because the couple followed a conservative interpretation of Islam that taught that a woman had a duty to consent to sex with her husband, the husband had no criminal intent and had not intended to rape his wife. YES, it was a bad ruling and was immediately reversed on appeal. Nobody is arguing that the ruling was good. But the judicial system there actually worked and the judge was reversed.

        In the second case, also in New Jersey, there was a contract dispute between two members of the same mosque that wound up in civil court. The mosque itself had some kind of internal board that could adjudicate disputes among members in accordance with Islamic law. The judge basically ruled that this board could be a form of binding arbitration and that the mosque’s religious arbitrators’ determination could stand in secular court.

        That is it. It’s one really lousy criminal case that was immediately reversed and one civil decision in which a judge allowed a religious group to work out a dispute amongst themselves. That’s it, and that’s “creeping sharia.” However, nobody got worked up over the state-backed rabbinical courts that function in places like NYC for Jewish people who wish to get married, divorced, etc. according to Jewish law. It’s just plain anti-Muslim hysteria.

  19. SusanneToo says:

    Sam, Let me add my thanks to you for fighting the good fight with facts and statistics. It’s very difficult to reach someone whose only concern is me, me, me, me. How will it affect ME?? I’m not sure you reached her, but let us hope you got through to some here.

  20. elle says:

    I can’t say that I endorse Shailene Woodley. Is there a chance she’ll go away?

  21. KatyD says:

    I remember the election of 2000 when so many people cried that they couldn’t vote for Gore because “reasons.” These people voted for Nader and Bush won by a squeaker and a Supreme court decision. Then our country went on to start two disastrous, futile wars in which thousands died and the economy tanked, which ruined many. Now, here we are again. If you can’t learn, then you deserve what’s coming. Ben Franklin invented the free lending library so people can educate
    themselves and make wise decisions. Sadly, Trump represents a certain sector of our country in many ways–a nation of arrogant idiots–who act without thinking of consequences. It’s a bad sign for our country.
    If Trump gets in, say good-bye to women’s rights to choose, good’bye to a balanced Supreme court, good’bye to fairer minimum wage and workers’ rights, millions will lose healthcare coverage, education will suffer, and Congress will focus on the important issues like moral outrage bills aimed at a small portion of our country and which bathroom they use. It’s going to be a YUGE diaster…epic….

    • tami says:

      Obama was the opposite of bush…he continued the wars, did not fully close guatanomo bay, had more shootings and terrorist attacks than any president, had more racial divide than any president, had more unemployment then 8 yyrs of bush and spent more money than any president. He seems like a decent guy but in what world was he a good president? I dont care for trjmp..but he is no more polarizing than obama proved to be….despite all his “talk.”

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        Obama was blocked by the GOP at every juncture, so it’s ludicrous to list the things he was voted into office to do and then “failed” to do. The far right hated that a black man was POTUS and their open scorn of him — including the Trump-led Birther movement — fostered a racial divide in this country that harkens back to the 1950s. I have NEVER in my life seen a sitting president subjected to the hatred and open, overt disrespect Obama has endured.

      • tami says:

        Im the far right…and i didnt hate that a black man was POTUS…so please dont paint a group of people as racist that arent…although its a convenient narrative to tell yourself…not all rightwingers are crazy gun toting racists

      • KatyD says:

        That’s such a default position of conservatives these days–blaming Obama for Bush’s diasasters. If anyone remembers 2008, our country was on the verge of a serious collapse–banks were failing. We could of had a great depression. From that, we came back to a more stable position. Things aren’t great but it’s certainly better than 2008. I’m not a big Obama fan but I can see that things have improved and people who are extreme partisans seem to see nothing but their own biases. Further, my point wasn’t even on Obama anyways. So, that person’s default answer to anything is “BUT BUT Obama . . . !!” Sad…

  22. Dangles says:

    If Clinton loses it won’t be the fault of third party voters or the people who chose not to vote. It’ll be her fault for not being appealling enough to attract a sufficient number of votes to win. End of story.

    • Dangles says:

      Still waiting for Sam to yell me about how 90% of Jill Stein’s policy positions are aligned with Wall Street Hillary’s. I’m also interested in hearing about the 10% of their policies that aren’t aligned

    • Pepper says:

      This.

      I get that this is her last chance, but she wasn’t the right choice for this election. To put it plainly, people just aren’t that into her, they never have been. It’s always been an issue for her. Not that people hate her, but that the vast majority of those who don’t just think she’s pretty meh. It’s why Obama was able to come out of nowhere and take away her sure thing nomination in 08, it’s why Bernie did so well when usually a candidate like him would be lucky to get 5-10% of the primary votes. It’s why Trump is polling so damn close behind her when everything else says he should only be getting 30% of the vote at most.

      She’s a fine enough politician, but without the Clinton name she’s just a footnote, she’s done nothing special, good or bad, with her time in office. She’s a terrible, terrible campaigner, and she lacks that it factor that make people like her husband and Obama and most successful presidential candidates stand out. She’s Al Gore, she’s John Kerry, she’s just sort of there. Even people who quite actively support her mostly just talk about how we can’t let Trump win, because they have nothing much to say about her beyond the ‘girl power’ platitudes.

      The Democrats needed another Obama this year, someone who could get people truly excited and steal the spotlight away from the sh$%-show that is the Republicans. Hillary was never going to be that person, and the DNC made a huge mistake putting her forward as the presumptive nominee. They needed a bold choice this year, instead they went with the legacy they think they owe a second chance.

      • Jayna says:

        I disagree. She may not have the charisma, but she has my respect and belief as someone with the absolute ability to be the POTUS, someone who is a policy wonk comes up with policies on issues, not throws out one-liners like we’re going to have Mexico pay for a wall and halt Muslims from entering the country, and she has the temperament and steady hand and experience, which is sorely needed in this world right now. I don’t need a star. And you forget that there was a period before announcing her intention to run that she had a very high approval rating as Secretary of the State.

        And you might want to read all of her accomplishments and how hard Hillary worked for this country as Secretary of State. She is beyond qualified to become the next President of the United State. #I’mWithHer

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton%27s_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State

      • tami says:

        Agree. Listening to her is like watching paint dry. Shes been around for so long…i would rather see someome new. Plus shes a trilliander speaking for the poor which i find disturbingly hypocritical.

    • DIrty Martini says:

      Yes. This. And same applies to Trump. So sick of the “you must vote for my candidate because otherwise you get the other one” logic . So myopic and small.