2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDolores Huerta used to be a UFW organizer and a member of Democratic Socialists of America.
How does anyone go from THAT to campaigning for HRC?
What would YOU call that trajectory?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Dolores Huerta was great when she was still fighting for the farmworkers and the poor.
Why is she supporting the candidate the growers would naturally prefer?
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Centrist politicians never fight for farmworkers.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)path
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Good one.
amborin
(16,631 posts)what clinton gave dh
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)My god, but do you believe belittling the hard work Dolores Huerta has done, LOSING A SPLEEN during a protest for farm workers rights, by making her appear to be a sell-out for a paltry $100k (IF true) is going to endear your candidate to the Latino community?? Really?
You're forgetting that she's supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, too, and that the Latino community went for Hillary 2 to 1 over Barack Obama in 2008.
You're negating Hillary and Bill's hard work since 1972, going to impoverished Hispanic communities to help people to register to vote, sitting and eating spicy foods with their families, and talking to them about their power of the vote, and that under President Bill Clinton's Admin, the U.E. rate for Hispanics went from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000.
The Clintons have built a strong and robust relationship with the Latino community while Sanders has been voting for NRA-favored bills during that same time. And now his supporters believe that the Latino community should pledge fealty to their candidate because...because why, exactly?
cali
(114,904 posts)Igel
(35,356 posts)That's how.
It's close to being a "Do you still beat your wife?" kind of question in the sense that you have to accept the presuppositions to understand the utterance.
UFW organizer? Good, moral stance, highly valued.
HRC supporter? Bad, immoral stance, to be decried.
Zinger: How do you, what could cause you, to go from being good and moral to being bad and immoral?
Presupposition: Huerta is now bad and immoral. Either she was corrupted from outside (by whom?) or she had some sort of character flaw that ultimately destroyed her sense of morality and justice.
At that point your brain has accepted, provisionally, the truth value of the presupposition and is in the position of being able to get past the post to question it.
Provisionally accepted truth values are often remembered as the actual truth values. (Similarly, negated utterances presuppose the truth value of the non-negated utterance. "I am not a cook" turns out to mean "NOT(I am a cook)." And in tests given a few days or weeks after hearing such utterances, a fair percentage of the time only part of the utterance's meaning is remembered. Remembering just "not" gets you nothing, and counts as not remembering the utterance at all. Remembering the entire thing is common. But forgetting the "not" is also common, and becomes, "I am a cook." It's why "Do you still beat your wife?" or "Do you deny having sex with that dog?" are smears, even though we stoutly and accurately defend the idea that questions make no logical assertions and have no actual logical truth value. Language doesn't follow the rules of formal logic.)
So asking HRC if she still has sex with goats is a smear, asking how Huerta could go from UFW activist to HRC supporter is a smear, and asking if Sanders still likes to watch bestiality and snuff films is a smear. Doesn't matter what the answers are, we've done pondered the presuppositions in that 0.6 s it takes to pull all that real-world knowledge together to parse the sentences. Quite a few will be offended by all the presuppositions, and it's pointless to tell them that the questions are just questions. "Jeesh, what harm does a simple question do?" Of course, Sanders supporters will quite likely make exactly that point in the HRC-related question, and HRC-supporters are likely to make the same irrelevant point with the Sanders-related question.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)insiste on dragging her name down the gutter to Hillary?
Why do you insist on destroying her name for your dirty campaign?
You got no reason to complain. What you can do, is explain why she went from social democrat to a corporate Hillaty supporter and why you insist that anyone shouted "English only" from a rabid racist crowd? (That's the narrative the racist Hillary wants to pout forward, isn't it?
I hope you realize that your disgusting attitudes reflects badly on your corporate candidate who should wear the logos of her corporate owners..
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I'd say she's consistent.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's never anti-patriarchy to support the less-progressive candidate.
And nobody who fought for NAFTA can ever care about farmworkers.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)The actual enemy? Come out of the trees.
And not everyone who disagrees with you is a "capitalist roader." Smug paternalism is never a good look.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You used the "white capitalist patriarchy" thing.
(I don't use terms like "capitalist roader", either. That's batshit Maoist talk.)
It's only anti-patriarchy to support a radical women.
Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm were anti-patriarchy.
It can't be anti-patriarchy to back the Wall Street/Beltway candidate.
Gender doesn't outweigh everything else.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I should know better than to reply to your haiku posts.
Let's walk through this slowly. DH wants Repukes to lose. DH feels HRC will beat them, because letting Repukes win will continue white capitalist patriarchy. Bernie has no track record of beating the right. HRC does.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And Bernie has been beating the Right in Vermont for decades now(It used to be an overwhelmingly GOP state, too).
And a candidate who gets Wall Street money will never fight the capitalist patriarchy.
(in the Nineties, she didn't fight patriarchy, period. Fighting patriarchy is supposed to include standing with poor women against patriarchal attacks on their supposed lack of "personal responsibility". HRC never defended poor women when it mattered.)
So spare me the matronizing tone...you're not entitled to talk down to me, or to anyone else.
I stand with the poor and the powerless, no matter what.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)You're a riot.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)Is overwhelming. She won't win the ge, b/c union workers are still wounded by NAFTA. That's just one of many reasons why she would lose.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html
Further, everyone knows full well that she would approve the TPP. Game's up, then.
Besides her blatant corruption, or really as an integral part of it, is her neo con war mongering.
amborin
(16,631 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)And a supporter of Hillary Clinton for President when Bernie Sanders is her opponent.
WTF indeed.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Fail harder. And yes, I'm a real socialist, not a brogressive.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I was just confused about why anybody in that group would prefer the status quo candidate.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)or "father"...as in like a father talking to a small child.
The intent was to avoid sexist language. Sorry.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Have a gander.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)She has a track record of surviving the right. Big difference.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)party.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)She's supporting the person who was in the trenches for Latinos since 1972 and who has built strong alliances with them ever since.
Unemployment at its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years: Overall unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. The unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics has fallen from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
Latinos remember...and they're fiercely loyal to those who stands with them in the bad times as well as the good. In this case, the Clintons.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Quite the conflict of interest - puzzling that someone of her stature would vote against her own interests.
http://www.dsausa.org/cornel_west_and_dolores_huerta
Note That Huerta Is Listed As An Honorary Chair Of The Organization Here
http://www.dsausa.org/our_structure
stone space
(6,498 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The Wall Street candidate can't care about farmworkers and the poor.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Seriously???
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If it was another candidate who cares about farmworkers and the poor, it would at least make sense.
Hell, if she had run herself, I'd have supported her.
But the candidate of the status quo?
That's what I don't get.
stone space
(6,498 posts)But it happens, nonetheless, and I've learned to live with it over the decades.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's about why a long-term committed working-class activist would ever make a choice that contradicts what her life is about.
She has the right to do that...it's legitimate to see it as a climb-down, though.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You're trying to turn this into being about my ego or something and actually this OP is totally unrelated to my sense of self or anything like that.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Not sure why you feel it is about you personally.
It's as much about me as it is about you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Frankly, you're talking to me like I'm a six-year-old. It's not appropriate to do that.
amborin
(16,631 posts)Where it's coming from.
And that's the scary thing you see over and over-how cheaply people can be bought.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Quite the conflict of interest based on her affiliation with organization linked below.
http://www.dsausa.org/cornel_west_and_dolores_huerta
Note That Huerta Is Listed As An Honorary Chair Of The Organization Here
http://www.dsausa.org/our_structure
stone space
(6,498 posts)How is this a problem?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
stone space
(6,498 posts)Feel free to quote the relevant passage.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Snip ...
DSA HONORARY CHAIRS
Bogdan Denitch
Barbara Ehrenreich
Dolores Huerta
Eliseo Medina
Eugene "Gus" Newport
Frances Fox Piven
Gloria Steinem
Cornel West
Snip ...
http://www.dsausa.org/our_structure
stone space
(6,498 posts)The part you quoted makes no mention of any "Conflicts of Interest", and I'm not going to go searching for something that you seem to be having difficulty in finding, yourself.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)The conflict that arises from belonging to an organization that is opposed to much of what HRC stands for.
stone space
(6,498 posts)..."Conflicts of Interest" is that the passage simple doesn't exist, and that it is simply being made up, and the material at the other end of the link does not say what it is claimed to say.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
stone space
(6,498 posts)You can't expect us to take your word for it if you can't even find it yourself.
Links don't work that way.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)All links necessary have been previously provided.
stone space
(6,498 posts)All links necessary have been previously provided.
Why is it our job to look for whatever it is at the link that you can't even find, yourself?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
stone space
(6,498 posts)Not unless one considers "Go, Fish" as an answer.
I thought it was just a card game.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
stone space
(6,498 posts)Does the link not say what you claim it says?
(Asked, but not answered.)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)of the candidate preferred by Wall Street.
You're either with the streets, or the suites. You can't be with both.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
stone space
(6,498 posts)of the candidate preferred by Wall Street.
Or was this quoted from the link in question?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)On the face of it, it's inconsistent with membership in that group to support the candidate preferred by Wall Street.
It doesn't require a specific organizational policy to prove that.
There's nothing here for you to be this much of a stickler about.
stone space
(6,498 posts)This is like pulling teeth.
Why not simply post the quote and be done with it?
Is there a reason why you are refusing to do so?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The point is that she was DSA...that means you are on the left.
However, I can post this:
(link: http://www.dsausa.org/cornel_west_and_dolores_huerta)
Dolores Huerta
Supporting HRC is the opposite of believing that "working and poor people-who are the majority-have to have a voice" and of "active organizing for democracy"
stone space
(6,498 posts)Dolores Huerta
I can quote statements irrelevant to the current discussion as well.
But what I'm looking for is a statement regarding "Conflicts of Interest", not just random quotes.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And there doesn't have to be.
Why are you belaboring this?
stone space
(6,498 posts)Do you have a relevant link to back up your claims?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nobody claimed DSA had a "conflict of interest" policy.
What is this about with you?
You're being a relentless stickler on this and you have no reason to be.
stone space
(6,498 posts)The quote you provided said absolutely nothing about any "Conflicts of Interest".
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's enough that it conflicts with what DSA stands for-which is justice for all, including the poorest of the poor. Supporting HRC in the primary conflicts with fighting for the powerless.
Now stop belaboring. You're not the judge and jury.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)But why bother? It's like trying to argue with a two-year-old. Even knowing you're right, they don't have the maturity to admit it, or even just quit.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Note That Huerta Is Listed As An Honorary Chair Of The Organization Here
http://www.dsausa.org/our_structure
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)I can remember when legal aid was the most necessary resource for the civil rights movement. Some chose to march, some chose to preach, some chose to teach, some chose to work within the system and some chose to work around and outside the system. But they ALL contributed, radicals and peacemakers alike. The movement made progress because their approaches were different but all pulled together and all were appreciated. There were great differences of opinion about HOW to accomplish the goals but never about WHAT the goals were. Individuals did not always agree with each other but I don't remember the kind of nasty disparaging going on that I see within the party today. Hopefully we can and will overcome this before November.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Green Texan
(31 posts)Hillary's campaign, her allies, and her supporters keep losing credibility more and more.
riversedge
(70,299 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesnt always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one youre already in.[/center][/font][hr]
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)nothing wrong with them
Cruz
Bush
...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Her group got a large donation from the foundation
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)book_worm
(15,951 posts)Stop challenging people's motives just because they don't endorse who you want.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Your personal thoughts aside, thanks for sharing the additional bit. She is on our side big time. I'm on her side big time.
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)I call it continuing her activism for effective change.
CBHagman
(16,987 posts)...a life path.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Socialism has become less attractive since the Democratic Party stopped being friendly to socialists and socialist ideas. For the past 35 years, our party has advanced or cooperated in schemes to force people off welfare, make it almost impossible to get mental health care, send more people to prison, privatize government services and government workers, and generally hinder government's ability to do things for working class and middle class people. Before the transformation, many prominent members of our party stood with UFW in actions such as the grape boycott. Somehow I can't see that happening now. The critical decision was to pursue campaign funding from large banks and investment companies, and it was a conscious decision, a decision that made it nearly impossible for our party to support any kind of socialism in any form. So people had to choose between being where the action was, and still is, or remaining true to their principles. It's not easy being on the outside, looking in, and many socialists and liberals figured they should drift to the right to avoid becoming irrelevant. They only did what our party did, so I don't think we can fault them for that.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Just like I said a hundred times after the BLM fiasco, keep it up...
...and you did just that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)So you've got nothing to be smug about.