What would re-establish trust here?

[BainsBane]

40. If people stopped fighting the primary

when people insist Bernie should have been the nominee and engage in bs about the primary being rigged against him, they make clear that the votes of the majority of women and people of color are not only dispensable but despised. Given that a segment of posters prioritize Bernie's career above the voting rights of the majority, it is impossible to claim they don't want to exclude when it is obvious they do. They make excuses for Trump voters while insulting the 16.5 million Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primary, insisting our votes amount to nothing but a DNC orchestration, because ultimately they refuse to see us as equal citizens with the same rights of political choice. During the primary they made no secret of their contempt for women, people of color, the elderly and disabled, and some went so far to argue that our votes shouldn't count, or the that caucuses that provided for absentee provisions for the elderly and disabled were illegitimate. That argument that the franchise should be restricted or that votes be overturned in favor of corporate polls has far more in common with GOP voter suppression than democratic or Democratic Party values.

Let's cut with the pretense that the concern is unity. The goal now as during the primary is to compel the subaltern to submit to the dominion of a vocal minority of voters insistent that their wishes should supplant the majority. The bizarre thing is that they seem to think an argument on DU can obviate those tens of millions of votes, votes they ultimately believe were illegitimate, just as our ideas and lives are illegitimate. That they insist we shouldn't alienate the ratfucking fascists who pretend to be progressives while voting for Trump, all while insulting Democratic voters, shows precisely where their allegiances lie.

I see people posting the same empty, contentless attacks against Clinton and the Democratic majority who supported her during the primary and the general election. After working for years to bury her candidacy and the party, they succeeded. The party is decimated, which is exactly what they wanted. (Posts at JPR explicitly say as much). The recent influx of people who didn't vote for our nominee in the GE rushing over to blame Democrats for daring to exercise their voting rights independent of their control has the intended consequence of deepening divisions to further weaken the party. Some who did vote for the nominee make similar arguments because ultimately they refuse to accept the Democratic majority's right to exercise the franchise as they see fit. They claim they despise the "corporatists, which are somehow limited to women and people of color, because the inherited wealth of male presidents is perfectly acceptable, to the point the aristocrats like JFK and LBJ are idolized. Whereas a female candidate who follows existing law and doesn't depart from the history or contemporary practice of the party is demonized. Even though her political career is over, they can't disguise their anger that she dared to exceed her place in life, just as they resent her Democratic majority for refusing to submit to their dominion. As long as they act like our votes are illegitimate, it is impossible to believe they don't seek to exclude, particularly since some particularly argued for restricting (and many more argued for overturning) our votes during the primary.