2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton...groundbreaking speech about basic human rights.
This was the post that got me banned by the BernieBros.
This is an incredible speech. I am happy to be able to post this again.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)Would LOVE for one Sanders supporter to acknowledge the struggle that women go through.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Even I once really liked her. Then I got to know Hillary Clinton.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)Be specific....what have you ever done for the rights of women?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Is saving the world from evil liberals and progressives by trying to destroy those who rise to leadership what a "caring human being" does these days?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Zira
(1,054 posts)Her new found massively liberal voting status has me stymied because I watched her and Pelosi cave and give the Republicans what they wanted on nearly every issue for years.
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)Apparently she has "evolved" on this too.
From "The Nation" - Clinton Backed Honduran Regime is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-clinton-backed-honduran-regime-is-picking-off-indigenous-leaders/
[div class = "excerpt"]
Hillary Clinton will be good for women. Ask Berta Cáceres. But you cant. Shes dead. Gunned down yesterday, March 2, at midnight, in her hometown of La Esperanza, Intibuca, in Honduras.
Cáceres was a vocal and brave indigenous leader, an opponent of the 2009 Honduran coup that Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, made possible. In The Nation, Dana Frank and I covered that coup as it unfolded. Later, as Clintons emails were released, others, such as Robert Naiman, Mark Weisbrot, and Alex Main, revealed the central role she played in undercutting Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president, and undercutting the opposition movement demanding his restoration. In so doing, Clinton allied with the worst sectors of Honduran society.
Despite the fact that he was a rural patriarch, Zelaya as president was remarkably supportive of intersectionality (that is, a left politics not reducible to class or political economy): He tried to make the morning-after pill legal. (After Zelayas ouster, Hondurass coup congressthe one legitimated by Hillary Clintonpassed an absolute ban on emergency contraception, criminalizing the sale, distribution, and use of the morning-after pillimposing punishment for offenders equal to that of obtaining or performing an abortion, which in Honduras is completely restricted.) He supported gay and transgender rights. (Read this. Among the first to be murdered was Vicky Hernandez Castillo, a transgendered activist in San Pedro Sula. Hernandez left her home on the night of the coup, apparently unaware that the new government had decreed a curfew. She was found dead the next morning, shot in the eye and strangled; Sentidog, an LGBT monitoring group, writes that 168 LGBT people were killed in Honduras between the coup and 2014.) Zelaya apologized for a policy of social cleansingthat is, the murder and disappearance of street children and gang membersexecuted by his predecessors. And he backed rural peasant and indigenous movements, such as the one Cáceres led, in the fight against land dispossession, mining, and biofuels. Zelaya, as president, was by no means perfect. But he was slowly trying to use the power of the state on behalf of the best people in Honduras, including Berta Cáceres.
Since Zelayas ouster, theres been an all-out assault on these decent peopletorture, murder, militarization of the countryside, repressive laws, such as the absolute ban on the morning-after pill, the rise of paramilitary security forces, and the wholesale deliverance of the countrys land and resources to transnational pillagers. Thats not to mention libertarian fantasies, promoted by billionaires such as PayPals Peter Thiel and Milton Friedmans grandson (cant make this shit up), of turning the country into some kind of Year-Zero stateless utopia. (Watch this excellent documentary by Jesse Freeston on La Resistencia: The Fight for the Aguán Valley.)
Such is the nature of the unity government Clinton helped institutionalize. In her book, Hard Choices, Clinton holds up her Honduran settlement as a proud example of her trademark clear-eyed, pragmatic foreign policy approach.......
......Im tempted to end this post with a call on Bernie bros and sisters to hold Hillary Clinton responsible and to ask, when possible in town halls and meet and greets, if she ever met Cáceres, or if she is still proud of the hell she helped routinize in Honduras. But, really, Cáceress assassination shouldnt be reduced to the idiocy of American electoral politics. All people of goodwill should ask Hillary Clinton those questions.
Response to dflprincess (Reply #3)
Post removed
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I have met dflprincess in person, had lunch with her and found that she is a wonderful lady. There was nothing snobbish at all about her, "trend-sucking" or otherwise.
Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #13)
Post removed
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)She sounded like a good ol' Humphrey Democrat to me.
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)meltdown on aisle seven!
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)I read the hidden post. Sounds like Beausoir is the one that had the meltdown. I wonder if he/she kisses his/her mother with that mouth.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)A crazy story...
My aunt, god bless her, wasn't a particularly political person, but she had a friend whose son worked in the White House...It was a different time, with less security, and she walked past the vice president's office and saw Walter Mondale.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)I have pics of Fritz at my dinner table.
I was just a kid then.
He was a great Minnesotan. And his wife was a gracious woman.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)When he ran against Gary Hart I loved Hart and believed Mondale represented everything that was wrong with politics in that I saw him as a party functionary. I imagine that's how Sanders supporters feel about Hillary Clinton. Of course I got over it and voted for him in November.
Here's the kicker... I am ashamed of how I felt about him all those years ago...He is a good and decent man and loyal Democrat.
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)If you have objections to it and any facts to refute what is in that article perhaps you could post them here or contact the author of the article and rave at him in your reasoned and articulate way.
Response to dflprincess (Reply #16)
Post removed
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)And all the other big names in the party over the last 40 years. Wellstone was always the one I liked and admired the most.
Again, you still haven't explained what you find inaccurate in the article all you've done is attack me for posting it.
Can't handle the truth?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)SOS Clinton and the Clinton foundation. Interesting stuff.
Makes you wonder #WhichHillary?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511520691
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Thank You For Sharing.
hedda_foil
(16,373 posts)If Hillary supporters designed to treat us with respect rather than sneering ridicule, there 'm ight be a better chance of bringing the party back together for the general election.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)BernieBros squeal in protest.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)What an inflammatory, nasty, and untrue post.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)How she preaches to us that abortion should be rare, as if women cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. GTFOOH with this bullshit that Hillary is some kind of pillar of women's rights.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)you know, not to have to deal with an abortion, which is expensive...I hope you are just being argumentative, because if you don't understand abortions being rare is a good thing, then that is sad.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)So everyone can see exactly which posts of yours were hidden, and deduce for themselves why.
Here's a hint, though; none of them were hidden because you posted Hillary's Speech on Human Rights.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I only skimmed Skinner's lengthy OP re: the new system, but wonder what it will take these days for someone to be given the ol' heave-ho.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)OH MY GOD DID I EVER!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He's like OH GOD MAKE IT STAHP!!!
polly7
(20,582 posts)Zira
(1,054 posts)No, we are not all "bernie bros." Good bye.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And listened to it multiple times.
Roland99
(53,342 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)...rather than being torn apart from economic difficulties? The Hague feels this is a pressing issue, as does Senator Sanders.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You should make shirts, like, "I was Banned By The BernieBros!!!! and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"
".....And this thread.
Which I am POSTING AGAIN.
Damn Youuuuuuu, BernieBrooooooos!"
jfern
(5,204 posts)Oh right... Not a fan of Hillary's views on "human rights"..
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)oasis
(49,381 posts)Avalon Sparks
(2,565 posts)A fighter for her corporate masters....
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)It was a long journey. She made hundreds of millions.
She laid waste to the ME.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)that's why I asked.
delrem
(9,688 posts)It's about Hillary Clinton, then it's about fracking. Oh, and war, and war profiteering. And it's about fighting for the rights of investment capital to use private health care insurance as a forced, parasitical, means to create fat private profits. In lieu of a single payer government guaranteed universal health care package.
Leave your brains at the door.
I was just attempting to lighten the mood.
All of the things you pointed out are issues that I disagree with her on.
delrem
(9,688 posts)I figure, there has to be a way out of this trap.
Where Hillary Clinton is the "nominee".
I don't think the way out is to reflexively vote for her "because she's a D".
How could that be a way out?
Zira
(1,054 posts)Just like the Republicans are doing. They will end up with a candidate they will unify behind.
The DNC won't unless they do the same.
Since 30% of the Dems say they won't vote for Hillary no matter what, even if she wins over 50% in the primaries she cannot win the general election. They need to replace her because she is not a viable candidate, just like the RNC is now trying to replace trump. They did the math and found out over 30% of Republicans won't vote for him no matter what so he's not a viable candidate no matter how many delegates he gets. Hillary is in the same boat. The Dems need to unify and they can't under her. I expect she will get replaced or we will have a GOP president that isn't currently running in the primaries. The GOP were talking choosing Ryan in a contested election since they can't win the GE with Trump but Ryan is all over the place with saying he'd accept one minute and wouldn't the next - just like when he took speaker. They will pick a unifying candidate, it won't be trump. And if the DNC doesn't do the same, we will have a Republican president in November even though the majority of the country are Democrats.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)year in, year out.
Shame this thread had to go all pear shaped. I can't wait for the day when we can celebrate the achievement of a wonderful, hardworking Democratic woman.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If they had just wanted to post this stuff without the whole incessant personal attacks and "BernieBro" nonsense, I suspect it would be a different story.
MADem
(135,425 posts)What's wrong with "Great speech?" or "A groundbreaking moment?"
An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I've said up and down GD-P for the past 8 months that I liked her a lot more before she got to the Senate and tacked hard right with stuff like flag burning legislation, "marriage is a sacred bond", etc.
But that statement- echoed by others in this thread- doesn't gel real well with the "BernieBros don't like her because they're out to get her" narrative.
MADem
(135,425 posts)and the rest of that Dem leadership at the time cooked up that flag thing to prevent the GOP from introducing a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that would codify the illegality of flag burning into our founding document.
They keep trying (as recently as last year, I think), but so far they haven't been able to muster a sufficient majority.
IF you bother to read the proposed law (which didn't pass), it changes NOTHING. It's a rope-a-dope law. It was very carefully written to be just that.
It prohibits flag burning.... ON FEDERAL PROPERTY. It's already illegal to start fires on federal property. Doesn't matter if you are burning your brassiere, your draft card, or a flag--or your eighth grade civics essay, or a picture of your ex-spouse. No fires allowed. If you want to burn a flag, knock yourself out--just don't think you can stand in the rotunda on the Hill or on the Mall, or in front of the VA, or where ever, and do it.
Further, if the flag burning was an act of protest, the law did not apply. It was specifically written to insist that the burning of a flag was illegal if and only if the purpose of the burning was to incite public violence.
Next, it made it illegal to steal a flag (like from a flagpole or public building) for the purposes of protesting.
So, if you stole the flag from the flagpole in front of a federal building you would have a problem.
Solution: Bring your own flag, burn it on public property, and make sure you're protesting, not trying to start a riot.
Smoke and mirrors. It was designed to mollify the easily distracted. Who knew it would outrage those who can't see when a distractable dog is fed a bone....?
The subsequent year, someone else introduced another flag burning amendment. HRC voted against that one--perhaps it didn't have as many loopholes and caveats as to make it meaningless.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Unnecessary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html
If Hillary had some otherwise unblemished record as a staunch defender of the 1st Amendment, I'd probably ignore it. But not only did that legislation come in the middle of a long string of rightward positioning on everything from Iraq to marriage equality, it is impossible not to view it in the context of her entire career, which spans everything from support for her husband's "communications decency" internet censoring attempts, to last years line hand-waving away "free speech etc concerns" in the context of, again, censoring speech on the web.
I'd love for her to come out with a strong statement of defense of the 1st Amendment, because i think that should be a bedrock principle all progressives agree on.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The NYT has demonstrated no love for HRC for years, so I wouldn't be surprised if they crapped on her.
She's got to do twice as well as anyone else to get half the credit with them. They like to maximize their level of Hillrage periodically to sell papers. It's rather sleazy what they do.
She is a lawyer and not stupid. She KNOWS what the job of the Supreme Court is. That's why her law was just a meaningless bit of sop, caveat-laden, to preserve the right to protest and make it unnecessary for the Supremes to even need to hear a challenge to it.
Preventing Republicans from mischief-making IS a public service, especially when there are a lot of them and they suck up all the oxygen in the room.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I think that's nitpicking, frankly--she's not trying to prevent average people from communicating; she's looking to disrupt the lines of communication for people who are hell bent on killing us all.
And she's not saying "Kill 'em all" like Trump. She's saying we need to preserve our liberties but by the same token not let enemies use our openness against us. And we need to sort out how to do that.
Hell, Franklin Roosevelt actually did far worse, yet no one crawls up his ass about it--they post pictures of him with his dog and cigarette holder, and wax poetically about what a (swoon) wonderful feller he was.
And he was a wonderful feller--but he didn't hesitate to wipe his ass on the Constitutional rights of all, not the least of whom were American citizens, when he perceived danger. If he thought you were a bad guy, he'd tap your phone and follow you around and violate the hell out of your civil liberties, to the point of arresting you, holding you incommunicado, denying your right to a legal assistance or a day in court, and not think twice about it.
I think proposing that we do some more thinking about how we can keep our country (and the people in it) safe while denying enemies the opportunity to blow us up at sporting events or public gatherings is an important and useful thing to do. Not sure why anyone would object.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Holocaust.
And it is similarly my family's experience with things like Naziism which causes me to be something of a 1st Amendment asbolutist. You don't stop terror or totalitarianism by censoring free speech, instead you hand the totalitarians a victory.
FDR did some indefensible things in WWII- like internment- but the direct threat to our nation was far more fundamental, existential and real than ISIS or gamergate twitter trolls or whoever it is we're supposed to be "shutting down".
We are often sold a bill of goods about "stopping terror" by people who want to roll back constitutional rights, and yet when they get those tools, do they use them to stop terror?
Or something else?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/surprise-controversial-patriot-act-power-now-overwhelmingly-used-in-drug-investigations/
MADem
(135,425 posts)about how to target people who merit scrutiny better.
It's a challenge. Just because it's a challenge doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it. We've got to have that conversation and keep having it, and keep thinking about it.
Doing nothing is like leaving the door open and inviting the enemy in.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Full stop.
MADem
(135,425 posts)What's a problem is people conspiring to kill us.
The challenge is trying to figure out how to identify and stop them before they succeed in their plans.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Also, encrypted iphones aren't the problem, either.
That's the FBI trying (again) to bust drug users, not the NSA trying to stop terrorists.
With all the money we give the NSA, they should be able to listen in to those folks. Silencing them will only force them to plan via carrier pigeon and make them harder to spot.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"I'll buy the pressure cookers, you get a hold of the gunpowder, nails, steel ball bearings and dogshit," then these are matters of concern. "Letting them speak" isn't going to stop those bombs from going off.
All these issues you raise should be thought about and talked about. Ignoring them isn't going to make them go away. Calling HRC "bad" for bringing up the topic isn't a good move, either.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Listening in and paying attn. to it, is.
They catch people like that- but to catch them, they have to hear them. To hear them, the people have to be able to speak.
She didn't "bring up the topic", she hand waved away "free speech etc concerns", as techdirt noted. That is bad.
Unfortunately when you have widely lauded UN commissions on Human Rights headed by such bastions of personal freedom like Saudi Arabia demanding that someone "do something" about supposed human rights abuses like people being able to post 'blasphemous' cartoons, it makes one skeptical as to what, exactly, these "we have to crack down on communications on platforms like twitter" statements are actually aiming at.
MADem
(135,425 posts)her views is terribly unfair.
She doesn't want to shut down speech, she wants to find a way to intercept the speech of the bad guys, without playing the "watch what you say, watch what you do" card on those who haven't done anything wrong.
It's not an easy needle to thread--but it's not going to be threaded at all if we don't talk about how best to do it.
As for the UN, you know full well that those commission seats are rotating, and every now and again an asshole gets to be the mouthpiece for a completely unsuitable portfolio. It's not the norm, but it happens on occasion. We push through.
Response to MADem (Reply #57)
Dynamite Dave This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)minions.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Yeah, I'm pretty sure you weren't.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)What does the magic triangulation ball say?
Avalon Sparks
(2,565 posts)Hillary's rights to bomb them to smithereens begins.... Just saying...
Clintons multimillion personal bank accounts are filled to the brim with bribe money. They are beholden to their bank rollers.... Anyone that can't see this is either willfully or ignorantly blind.