Eh, I think you might be reaching a little bit there. The term “corporate whore,” in the popular lexicon, is divorced from the gendered nature of its root word. There is no similar designation for “nigger.” My point being that nobody is confusing calling someone a corporate whore with calling someone an actual whore.

You know as well as everyone else on this thread that “corporate whore” is just a crude way of saying “sellout,” and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Are you really going to tell me calling out “corporate whores” in the Democratic party is the same thing as walking up to a woman and calling her a whore?

Yes, a serious, and true, statement, only regrettable in that the language used allowed for more disingenuous huffing and puffing from the likes of you and other Clinton supporters. There is nobody in 2016 who doesn’t understand “corporate whore” to be a colorful way of saying “sellout.” It’s a valid criticism for…

I agree that’s equally frivolous, but not quite the same thing. Song’s reference was tone-deaf, but rooted in truth. Clinton and de Blasio’s little joke was just tone-deaf, period.

They aren’t, and he isn’t, and you need isolated incidents like this to continue pushing that narrative because once you move beyond the cynical identity-politicking of the Clinton campaign, all that’s left is her record of being a war hawk, a neoliberal, and someone who’s been on the wrong side of history time and…

Exactly. Everyone understands the actual criticism beneath the language, but the end result is this presents yet another opportunity for cynical identity-politicking from the Clinton campaign.

I couldn’t of been more clear

I think that’s probably true. I don’t think anyone’s trying to crucify her over it. It’s just kind of a bummer.

At first I was like, “What is offensive about this?” But then I thought about if snapchat had a blackface filter and she posted “INSTA-BLACK PERSON,” and told myself to shut the fuck up.

Let me break down the order of events for you, because you are arguing a point that is not being contested by me:

Of course they are, because they have a long history of being disgusting misogynists. You — or whoever that troll I foolishly tried to engage with was — are trying paint a diverse group of millions of people with that same brush without a lick of evidence to suggest it to be true. I’m pretty sure Elizabeth Warren is…

No, it negates the fact that their lack of approval is based on gender. I can see that logic isn’t your strong suit, but try to keep up, cutie.

No, I think “misogynistic” is deflection of the highest order. I don’t think a single Sanders supporter wouldn’t also be supporting Elizabeth Warren if she were running. And honestly...just wait till we get closer to November. You’re gonna see a lot of these people singing a different tune when the prospect of a…

No, actually it was debunked by the New York Times (among others) for the tabloid nonsense that it was, and yet dumb people who refuse to look past the headlines still continue to bring it up..

Haha okay. After I posted it, I was like “uhhh I hope my intention is clear...”

No, I know, I was just making a half-joke...the insinuation being that the presence of Trump supporters = more rape victims.

Yeah my first thought was “Why’d they close down? Because they couldn’t admit any more victims?”

Based on 99% of the criticisms I’ve heard from Clinton supporters, their aversion seems to center around some combination of feeling that his ideas are unrealistic, and that Clinton is the safer choice in a general election. For Sanders supporters, their aversion to Clinton tends to be based on her being a neoliberal…

I’ve gone on about this in detail before, but to put it in very simple terms, I think for most Clinton supporters, their aversion to Sanders as a candidate is not ideological. For most Sanders supporters, their aversion to Clinton is ideological. So the dynamic makes sense, even if I don’t agree with it.

My personal favorite. I can’t get through this without collapsing into a pile of tears and convulsions.