I got into this brief, frustrating exchange on Facebook yesterday. I think I made my point pretty clearly, but that was at the expense of burying my rage and fury. I suppose this is the healthiest outlet for it.
I'll start by saying that I understand where this person is coming from. Those are some trying life experiences. How they relate to this presidential race, however, seems tenuous. But that's where this person's anger comes from, and that's why I held back.
I take exception to the Trump fear mongering. One of Clinton's biggest selling points going into the primaries was that she'd be the best possible candidate to go up against Trump. However, if the primaries have proven anything, it's that this is not true. 42% of the electorate is independent (no party affiliation), and Sanders is favored amongst this group. This group, by the way, was barred from voting in most primaries because most primaries are closed. I've always thought this was silly. The whole point of a party system is so that all Americans and their ideas are represented. The parties are not supposed to be exclusive clubs. Even if you identify and are registered as a Republican, you should still have the option of deciding which Democrat best represents you, and vice versa. If we really wanted our presidential elections to be a respectable and intellectual battle of ideals, and less of a cult of personality popularity contest, I think this would be a great start.
And while we're at it, let's get corporate money out of politics. That would also help a lot.
So please, for the love of democracy, don't you (mean lady on Facebook, or anyone else who agrees with her) dare blame progressives for Donald Trump. If anything, to "piss away your vote" would just as much be to vote for the primary candidate who is less likely to defeat him in the general as it is to vote in the general for the candidate who best represents you and your ideals (despite the apparent unlikeliness of their victory). It is inherently anti-democratic to shame people for voting for who they legitimately believe is the best candidate. I'm sorry that I'm not interested in playing a game of political ass-fuckery.
You make Trump possible by supporting a system that perpetuates this ass-fuckery, election after election, by not taking a stand for yourself and your fellow citizens. I don't really care what activism you've engaged in for what specific cause, you're presently perpetuating the oligarchy, and as far as I'm concerned, all our other troubles stem from that. You could try to convince me otherwise, that these issues are not as intertwined as I see them, but all you did was whine and bitch about how tough it used to be and how today's women aren't afraid enough of a single orange douche in a suit.
And yeah, Trump is pretty deplorable. But he'll veer toward the center in the general election, as most candidates do, and we'll forget about a lot of what makes him so ugly. This is America, after all, and we citizens have the collective memory of gold fish. I'm not saying this in defense of Trump, but I think we're overestimating exactly how much he'd be capable of accomplishing in four years. You mention "his cronies," but I'm not sure who those are. Are we talking about his potential cabinet? Do we believe a substantial amount of congressional candidates will label themselves as "Trump candidates"? Aside from Trump's own lack of experience and political ineptness, we generally overestimate the power of sitting presidents.
Besides, some shitty women-harming* laws were recently passed in Oklahoma. What is Hillary Clinton going to do about that, exactly, beyond mere lip service? What can a president do that the current president hasn't already done regarding equal pay?
So while I view Hillary Clinton as a president who would engage in needless conflict around the world, do nothing to make college more affordable, do nothing to address income inequality, do nothing to make healthcare more widely available (and that includes women's healthcare, ya stooge), and pat herself on the back for the kind of "incremental change" that only ever really benefits a fortunate few, you view her as someone who simply won't fuck up what we've achieved so far with regards to women's rights.
There is a reason why the majority of millennial women do not support Hillary Clinton. It's not because they're not afraid enough. It's because they're living the lives you are privileged enough to only pretend to care about. It's no surprise you view mere lip service as something substantial, because that's all you yourself have to offer to women who aren't exactly like you: old (by your own admission), white, and probably upper-middle class (I get to make an assumption about you after all the nasty ones you made about me). Young women do not need "incremental change," they need their change to be drastic. This is what someone like Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein actually offers. This is why we support these candidates. But I must just enjoy lording over women. That's why I'm so pro-woman, right, ya twunt? That must be why so many women my age feel exactly the same as I do, because they're actually men. I didn't say it, you did. The armchair psychoanalyst inside me is having a ball with you accusing me of wanting to feel smug.
The DNC can continue to ignore young people at its own peril. We owe them absolutely nothing, because, again, it's not a club, and elections are not games.
*Apparently, at least one Oklahoma lawmaker views this as a loophole.