HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » "Clinton Policies Ha...

Thu May 12, 2016, 11:54 AM

"Clinton Policies Have Hurt Women"

Interesting article from Nakedcapitalism:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/clinton-policies-have-hurt-women.html

Yves here. This post is an indictment of the policy positions that Clinton has taken on issues that affect women.

Another disingenuous element of the “women should vote for Hillary” campaign is that the efforts she’s been touting to prove her bona fides, such as her intent to name a Cabinet withhalf the posts filled by women, is that she’s selling trickle-down feminism. The tacit assumption is that breaking the glass ceiling is an important breakthrough for women. In fact, that is a concern of elite women. As Hillary’s own record attests, and that of women CEOs (Linda Wachner to Marissa Mayer) or women in Congress (Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi are prime examples, as are Republicans like Joni Ernst from Iowa and Shelley Moore Capito from West Virginia), women in positions of influence more often identify with members of their class (well off, well educated women) than middle and lower class people of either gender.

...“I strongly argued that we had to change the [welfare] system…I didn’t think it was fair that one single mother improvised to find child care and got up early every day to get to work while another stayed home and relied on welfare…The third bill passed by Congress cut off most benefits to legal immigrants, imposed a five-year lifetime limit on federal welfare benefits, and maintained the status quo on monthly benefit limits, leaving the states free to set benefit limits…I agreed that he [Bill] should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage…Weeks after Bill signed the law, Peter Edelman and Mary Jo Bane, another friend and Assistant Secretary at HHS who had worked on welfare reform, resigned in protest.” – Hillary Clinton in her 2003 memoir Hard Choices.

Not liking Hillary has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has everything to do with the hypermasculine values she espouses.
Hillary is that rare combination, even in our grotesque political landscape, of a smooth-talking neoliberal with the worst tendencies of a warrior-neoconservative. You couldn’t say that about Bill to the same extent, but there isn’t a regime change opportunity, a chemical or conventional arms deal, an escalated aerial (or lately drone) war, or an authoritarian friend in need, that Hillary hasn’t liked. If we get her, we will only be setting back feminism by decades, because her policies—like welfare “reform”—have always come packaged under the false rubric of caring for women and children. It’s like George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” the rhetorical cover she needs to enact policies, time after time, that erode women’s and children’s standing even as she claims to be their steadfast advocate.

…In the early 1990s Hillary did represent, to some limited symbolic level, a change for the better in terms of feminist values—though this certainly didn’t translate into actual policy improvements for women or children or minorities, rather the opposite occurred in policies engineered by the Clintons. Furthermore, one could argue that it was George H. W. Bush who prompted the relative humanization of the 1990s, after the harsh Reagan-era rhetoric, promising a kindler, gentler nation, and aspiring to be the “education president” and “the environmental president.” The elder Bush’s policies were to the left of either Clinton, when it came to immigration, civil liberties, clean air, disability, and many other issues.

The Clintons went out of their way to pursue—often gratuitously—policies that hurt women and children. The reelection seemed safely in their pockets, yet they went ahead anyway with harmful laws on crime, welfare, telecommunications, immigration, and surveillance, legitimizing right-wing discourse that was to bear full fruit in the following decade. It was the Clintons who set the stage for the massive harm that was to befall women, immigrants, the poor, the elderly, and children once they provided liberal cover to social darwinist ideas that had been swirling around in maniacal think tanks but had not been able to make it through Congress.

The Clintons have somehow managed to convince half the sane world that they should be the natural recipients of African-American votes, despite everything they have done, when in power, to erode the economic security of African Americans and other minorities; the false hope raised during the 1990s was that the economic boom, itself a mirage as it turned out, would eventually lead to significant wage gains, but that never happened.
Poor and minority women and children were drastically hurt by the welfare bill the Clintons so enthusiastically pushed through Congress, and likewise all the policies, from trade to student aid, they pursued in the name of fiscal responsibility, cutting the deficit and the debt, and playing by Wall Street’s tune. On neoliberal disciplinary virtues (which in Hillary’s mouth are twisted in a rhetoric of “empowerment”), she’s little different than Milton Friedman, the greatest post-war popularizer of the “free market” mythos. “Personal responsibility,” separating the virtuous from those deserving of sanctions, is as much a credo for her as it was for Reagan, as it was for Barry Goldwater.

95 replies, 4996 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 95 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Clinton Policies Have Hurt Women" (Original post)
kaleckim May 2016 OP
bettyellen May 2016 #1
kaleckim May 2016 #2
bettyellen May 2016 #5
kaleckim May 2016 #6
bettyellen May 2016 #9
kaleckim May 2016 #11
Baobab May 2016 #50
Blue Meany May 2016 #53
kaleckim May 2016 #56
Baobab May 2016 #17
Baobab May 2016 #18
Baobab May 2016 #87
cali May 2016 #69
bettyellen May 2016 #70
jack_krass May 2016 #83
bettyellen May 2016 #95
Peacetrain May 2016 #23
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #34
kaleckim May 2016 #42
cali May 2016 #71
Henhouse May 2016 #94
kaleckim May 2016 #43
SheilaT May 2016 #4
bettyellen May 2016 #7
kaleckim May 2016 #12
bettyellen May 2016 #14
kaleckim May 2016 #16
bettyellen May 2016 #33
Baobab May 2016 #54
bettyellen May 2016 #55
Baobab May 2016 #58
bettyellen May 2016 #64
Baobab May 2016 #72
bettyellen May 2016 #77
Baobab May 2016 #84
bettyellen May 2016 #89
SheilaT May 2016 #29
Baobab May 2016 #59
bettyellen May 2016 #63
Baobab May 2016 #73
bettyellen May 2016 #80
Baobab May 2016 #81
bettyellen May 2016 #82
Baobab May 2016 #85
bettyellen May 2016 #88
Baobab May 2016 #90
jack_krass May 2016 #93
uponit7771 May 2016 #3
kaleckim May 2016 #8
reddread May 2016 #24
uponit7771 May 2016 #39
kaleckim May 2016 #44
uponit7771 May 2016 #48
kaleckim May 2016 #49
bettyellen May 2016 #67
BootinUp May 2016 #10
kaleckim May 2016 #13
BootinUp May 2016 #15
reddread May 2016 #25
bettyellen May 2016 #19
leftynyc May 2016 #22
bettyellen May 2016 #31
leftynyc May 2016 #32
bettyellen May 2016 #35
kaleckim May 2016 #45
Surya Gayatri May 2016 #37
bettyellen May 2016 #41
Surya Gayatri May 2016 #46
kaleckim May 2016 #57
BootinUp May 2016 #60
kaleckim May 2016 #61
BootinUp May 2016 #62
JTFrog May 2016 #20
Hiraeth May 2016 #21
farleftlib May 2016 #26
Sparkly May 2016 #27
kaleckim May 2016 #47
Baobab May 2016 #51
JTFrog May 2016 #91
antigop May 2016 #28
djean111 May 2016 #30
Puglover May 2016 #40
apnu May 2016 #36
bettyellen May 2016 #68
apnu May 2016 #75
bettyellen May 2016 #79
trudyco May 2016 #38
MisterP May 2016 #52
seabeyond May 2016 #65
kaleckim May 2016 #66
synergie May 2016 #74
bettyellen May 2016 #78
kaleckim May 2016 #92
guillaumeb May 2016 #76
polly7 May 2016 #86

Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:04 PM

1. bullshit that the "glass ceiling" does not matter- who do you think usually prefers hiring men?

 

Of course it matters to have women hired at all levels. We are impoverished because the glass ceiling is so low. None of the policies listed hurt women disproportionate- what a joke.

Total baloney- she has done more for the health of women and children (especially those in poverty) than any candidate for POTUS ever has. This is ill informed and wrong headed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #1)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:07 PM

2. Any adult want to respond?

"she has done more for the health of women and children (especially those in poverty) than any candidate for POTUS ever has."

So the things the article mentioned, structurally changing the government and our economy in ways that decimated POOR women and children, doesn't deserve an adult response? Do you understand the role of class in all of this, or appreciate the impact on the poor and working women of the country of the right wing structural reforms she and her husband supported in the last few decades?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #2)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:10 PM

5. condescending bullshit. OMG class issues- shocker. I get it -you want more money, and my freedom

 

Last edited Thu May 12, 2016, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

and civil rights are secondary. if it isn't ALSO a man's problem- it ain't a real problem. Heard it a thousand times this year. No sale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #5)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:12 PM

6. You're confused

"you want more money and my freedom"

A full on right wing response, shocking.

"if it isn't ALSO a man's problem- it ain't a real problem."

What in the hell are you talking about? How is the impact that her horrible policies have had on poor and working class women and children not an issue? My god, the Democratic Party has too many people like you in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #6)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:13 PM

9. you made my freedom and civil rights a lower priority- that is where SBS fucked up.

 

And you too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #9)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:17 PM

11. What in the hell are you talking about?!

"you made my freedom and civil rights a lower priority"

Everyone agrees about your civil rights, SBS, his supporters and myself and I'd ask you how Clinton has proven (something more than words) that she will do a damn thing more than Sanders would do to further your civil rights. We ALSO CARE ABOUT THE ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF THE POOR AND WORKING CLASS WOMEN! Get that into your head. Her getting into the White House will have no impact, none, on the poor or working women of the country, and you seem to think that doesn't matter at all. So you can stop your bourgeois whining and moralizing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #11)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:09 PM

50. If they can exclude large groups right at the beginning it makes the economy appear healthier

in statistics.

That applies to women, it applies to putting black people in prison..
A policy of mass exclusion hides the fact that jobs are going away- something they seem to want to hide for as long as possible.

For example, roughly 10% of us have some expensive chronic illness and will never be profitable to insure.

This is the case everywhere in the world and everywhere else it seems they deal with it by means of government deciding to fix it and they fix it, but in "our system" which we are trying to force on others, we use the system to do things like force people out of the job market-

if you have a healthcare system that denies affordable care to the working poor, they have to be completely destitute, meaning unemployed, to get enough help to manage. Also, it hinders information gathering to make it too expensive for people to go to the doctor unless they are literally dying. That hides illnesses that are picked up in civilized countries - information which is useful or at least was useful in setting policy (we're waging war on that too)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #50)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:18 PM

53. Good points. Now I wonder if they include prison labor in employment stats n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #50)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:34 PM

56. Well said

!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #9)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:30 PM

17. Shift to globalized services will hurt a lot of women and minorities

womens and racial equality will be put on the back burner by globalization.

Existing and ending trade deals focus on increasing international trade in services, prioritizing creating a level playing field for corporations from around the world. To do that things like domestic regulations must be disciplined. An assumption is made that Least Developed Countries are allowed to discriminate but developed countries are not.

So a lot of carve outs that have benefited women and minority owned firms will vanish. A lot of public sector workplaces will be privatized and the bidding to do that work globalized, so the lowest qualified bidding firms will win, and they may be from far away and who they employ and what they pay them will totally be their own business. They may only employ men. or whatever, it will be out of our control, if they can do the work, and are the cheapest, they win.

Global firms that win bids in the former public sector likely will not rehire the workers who lost their jobs because their pay likely would be too high. One of the main goals is reducing labor costs and increasing the profitability of the global supply chains.

So a lot of women and everybody else, all Americans who currently do those jobs may well lose them. At that pint they will be in a state of shock and the process may cause them serious health problems because of the way they trusted HRC now and were deceived.

Thats what happens when you are lied to really shamelessly by somebody you are close to and they stab you in the back by taking advantage of your trust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #9)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:32 PM

18. No, unfortunately, you have it backwards, and I suspect you may even know that.

In any case, i am doing my duty in telling you this. Dont say you werent warned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #9)

Fri May 13, 2016, 01:51 AM

87. This is the deal Clinton-signed) that is screwing our healthcare up- see its effect on South Africa-

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/gats-and-south-africas-national-health-act


The GATS and South Africa's National Health Act
A Cautionary Tale
Author(s):
Scott Sinclair
November 23, 2005

{link:https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2005/South_Africa_and_GATS.pdf|Download]

341.76 KB40 pages

This (2005) study shows how South Africa’s flagship health legislation conflicts with binding commitments the former apartheid regime negotiated under the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). This trade treaty conflict threatens to undermine the much-needed legislation and, if left unresolved, would make meeting the health needs of the majority of the population far more difficult. The study explores several options that South Africa has for resolving this conflict in favour of its health policy imperatives, but each entails risk. South Africa’s dilemma should serve as a world-wide warning that health policy-makers, governments and citizens need to be far more attentive to negotiations that are now underway in Geneva to expand the reach of the GATS.

The current WTO talks are now entering the final phase of negotiations. If the deadlock in agriculture is broken, there will be massive pressure on governments, especially developing country governments, to make substantial new GATS commitments. Lost in all this brinksmanship is careful consideration of the actual impacts of trade-in-services commitments on development policies.

The study provides concrete evidence of the problems WTO services commitments can cause for redistributive health policies worldwide. It also explores options for South Africa to resolve the conflict between its GATS treaty commitments and its health policies. The study includes an executive summary and a foreword by David Sanders, Professor and Director, School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape.

The document can be downloaded free of charge from:
DOWNLOAD LINK

Note: A hard-copy version of this study will be published in South Africa by the South African Municipal Workers Union and the Municipal Services Project in March 2006.

“Sinclair shows how the outgoing apartheid regime, cynically or carelessly, sold South Africa’s sovereignty and the right of its citizens to a more equitable health dispensation by signing up to the GATS. By laying bare the maze of bewildering legalese embedded in the articles of the GATS he shows how this trade treaty both threatens to further commercialize South Africa’s already highly skewed health care system and also to undermine the redistributional thrust of the long-awaited National Health Act passed in 2004.”
—From the foreword by David Sanders.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #5)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:19 PM

69. Disgusting comment. Truly disgusting

 

And ironic as Hell. Not to mention entirely ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #69)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:23 PM

70. people have additional important priorities aside from this "class struggle" people are beating

 

over our heads 24/7- whether you like it or not. Life and death priorities that should never be characterized as secondary. That is a lesson many here need to learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #5)

Thu May 12, 2016, 06:16 PM

83. Hill-logical

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #83)

Sun May 15, 2016, 07:24 PM

95. Bro-gressive?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #2)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:48 PM

23. What a bullshit statement to make to bettyellen..

" Any adult want to respond?" who the hell do you think you are coming in with that condescending crap...


I cannot believe this goes on in DU.. I try to stay out of the pit of GDP ..but this is too much..

As a woman, I have had that crap thrown at me before too.. what the hey... sheesh..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peacetrain (Reply #23)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:22 PM

34. That's how they roll...

I laugh out loud at their brogressivism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #34)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:45 PM

42. ...

What does my response have to do with her gender? It would have been the same if it were a man. Give me a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #34)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:39 PM

71. I scoff at your idolization. As you have said, you adore her, you'd willing die for her.

 

You have a trove of starry eyed posts about your undying love for her. You have many DU pals who share the same sentiments. Bernie is my Senator but no way would I indulge in the your mawkish and dangerous indulgence. Yes, dangerous. Because it's clear that uncritical adoration of a politician can be just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #34)

Sun May 15, 2016, 05:38 PM

94. lol..I might steal that " brogressivism" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peacetrain (Reply #23)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:48 PM

43. Give me a break

You know, there is real sexism, and some of it is institutional. My response has nothing to do with her damn gender. Give me a break with that. You may think it was rude, and maybe it was, but I am just as frustrated with Clinton's male supporters about the lack of ability to have adult conversations about Clinton. Nothing I said was sexist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #1)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:10 PM

4. Can you please provide specific examples of what she

 

has done for the health of women and children?

Please, I really want to know, because so many people claim that, but I've never seen them point to legislation or programs that she initiated or even supported.

Voting for the Iraq War didn't improve the health of women and children in that country. At least I'm pretty sure it didn't. And I personally can't recall any peace accords she presided over. Maybe she's so modest that she herself has never mentioned them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #4)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:12 PM

7. Aside from endless advocacy, CHIP and OTC Plan B for starters- both game changers...

 

read up more. she has been fighting hard for us for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #7)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:18 PM

12. The floor is yours

You can stop evading and answer her question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #12)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:23 PM

14. And CHIP and OTC Plan B don't matter to you why? Not your paycheck- got it.

 

Women's issues are the original class issues. Learn it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #14)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:27 PM

16. "Women's issues are the original class issues."

Gibberish, as if a black woman living in a poor community in Chicago has the same concerns, interests, and difficulties as Hillary freaking Clinton. My god, you're just proving how cut off, and well-off, YOU are.

Of course CHIP and OTC Plan B matter, they have zero, nothing to do with the structural reforms she pushed for. You are welcome to be an adult, to remove yourself from her emotionally, and to have an adult response to the impact her and her husband's policies had on poor and working class women. The data on that is not debatable.

"Learn it."

Why in the hell would I take advice on you on what to learn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #16)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:20 PM

33. CHIP and OTC Plan B are keys to survival for the poorest among us.

 

bottom line- check your poverty stats and connect the dots. so tired of this ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #33)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:27 PM

54. I don't know what OTC plan B is but I do know that SCHIP has been under attack for a while because

it conflicts with so called "competition policy" which is incorporated into our trade policy.

A bunch of new concepts have become big drivers of policy - they emerged out of the GATS negotiations in the 90s- which has been a real disaster- as in worst policy mistake ever- but the reasons are obscure and non-obvious to people. For example, GATS caused the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1998 leading to the massive amounts of lending in the mid 2000s and the collapse of the housing bubble and subsequent huge bailout which cost taxpayers something like 12 trillion dollars to date and destroyed a good chunk of the equity of many American families. GATS is also the reason why our health care is so horrible and they refuse to fix it.

A good source of info that is clear and easy to read is Policy Alternatives in Canada at http://policyalternatives.ca the best source of info in the US is public citizen, at http://citizen.org

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #54)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:31 PM

55. Plan B is the "morning after" pill, which used to be prescription only.

 

A good example of the kind of policy she was able to push for -that quietly helps millions of women safely prevent pregnancy and or abortion. Win/win. As opposed to this nonsense "no restrictions at all" on abortion that has zero support from Dems or the GOP. I don't believe a single person is fooled by that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #55)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:39 PM

58. Bernie is 100 times more likely to be reliable on an issue like that than Hillary

She's not trustworthy

She lacks a moral compass.

Also, her new pals on the right don't want women to abort a fetus, they want them to be forced to carry them to term because the combination of high, unaffordable hospita costs and right wing churches which have some kind of monopoly - they basically sell babies.

They make six figure sums on babies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #58)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:02 PM

64. he is more likely to be inactive, as his past proves.

 

New pals on the right, selling babies?!?!? That is fucking nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #64)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:57 PM

72. Hillary cozying up to the right, faith based baby selling, questionablereliability of pro-woman poli

It really is nuts, I agree. But its true.

Unfortunately. The right wants the shaming of young women - as well as the forceful unaffordability - for example, high deductibles, of a hospital stay to effectively force a young mother to give up her baby and the baby its real mother.

They are taking advantage of the sorry state of government in America and the fact that we apparently now are the only country that treats young Caucasian women as badly as we do to allow them to extract huge amounts of money from well to do would-be parents, many who come here from other countries.

I first heard about this maybe 15 years ago when i had a colleague who was an adoptee and she in her spare time was an activist for adoptee rights which is basically pushing for open records so that when grown adoptees could track down their birth parents, especially mothers. And apparently, a great many mothers are literally forced into it. They don't have any choice, they feel, they don't have the resources to fight this system that is set up to strip them of their babies.

If this bothers you I strongly encourage you to look into it and fight it.

You should know that sometimes the hospital bills for both insured and especially uninsured mothers can be huge. Under some circumstances they can go up into six figures. The highest I have ever heard was insured spread over two plan years, consumer driven high deductible insurance, ectopic pregnancy with preeclampsia $287,000

>New pals on the right, selling babies?!?!? That is fucking nuts.

As far as new pals, Hillary is cozying up to the right.

She claims to share their values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #72)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:29 PM

77. the right has attacked Hilary for her pro-abortion stance for 25 years, LOL. You seem very

 

confused at her actually history of advocacy. Don't embarrass yourself by posting about reproductive rights any longer. If you actually gave a shit, you would know better than this. Forced baby selling my ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #77)

Thu May 12, 2016, 06:20 PM

84. Are you even a woman?

You certainly don't sound like one


>bettyellen
77. the right has attacked Hilary for her pro-abortion stance for 25 years, LOL. You seem very

View profile
confused at her actually history of advocacy. Don't embarrass yourself by posting about reproductive rights any longer. If you actually gave a shit, you would know better than this. Forced baby selling my ass.



Nor do you have a clue about the America of today, are you even American?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #84)

Fri May 13, 2016, 08:37 AM

89. You're posting quotes from the Heritage Foundation and you have the nerve to question me?

 

Hilarious. We have your number now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #7)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:01 PM

29. Endless advocacy for what exactly?

 

CHIP and OTC Plan B are just buzzwords.

Specifics, please. Because the specifics I know mostly about are her Iraq War vote, her championing of third world despots, her saying that we would never, ever, have a single payer system. And those are specifics that turn me off, and make me not vote for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #7)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:46 PM

59. You are wrong, the Clinton Administration opposed CHIP -

I remember that because I was livid at them. Now I realize the reason, the same reason she is against public health care and education and water, its a trade deal that is basically a takeover of our future for corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #59)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:00 PM

63. Nope. Orrin Hatch floated that bullshit and the Globe picked it up, did a shoddy job reporting it..

 

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Oct. 6, 2007: "The children’s health program wouldn’t be in existence today if we didn’t have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue."

He said something less flattering when supporting Obama year later- as did Hatch who was pushing for Mc Cain, but that is politics. Do you believe Kennedy or Orrin Hatch?

Stop spreading RW smears if you want anyone to take you seriously.


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #63)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:01 PM

73. This was in the 1990s, not 2007, and trade deals basically freeze policies that are not deregulation

and privatization. the US declared health insurance was a financial service in the GATS schedule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #73)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:49 PM

80. Nope. In 2009, Obama reauthorized and EXPANDED it to cover four million MORE children.

 

The only time it was in danger was the Bush years- so peddle that bullshit elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #80)

Thu May 12, 2016, 06:08 PM

81. https://www.google.com/search?q=schip+crowd+out&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

This is what GATS did - the concept of crowd out is a product of GATS

https://www.google.com/search?q=schip+crowd+out&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #81)

Thu May 12, 2016, 06:12 PM

82. The Heritage Foundation? Well, now that we know who you are speaking for.... all this bullshit

 

makes a hell of a lot more sense. LOL. Kills you that Hillary and Barak did anything good- doesn't it? You have to shit on all of it. We see you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #82)

Thu May 12, 2016, 06:22 PM

85. Barack not "Barak"

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #85)

Fri May 13, 2016, 08:35 AM

88. the Heritage Foundation is the source of your dis-info- that is more significant than a typo....

 

which is why you are not fooling anyone. Fuck that noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #88)

Fri May 13, 2016, 09:21 AM

90. See here https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/gats-and-south-africas-n

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/gats-and-south-africas-national-health-act

The same problems South Africa has had , we have had with GATS, and over a million people have died unnecessarily, basically sacrificed on the alter of free trade ideology.

Because we are already paying enough money for a single payer system, we just don't do it. To coddle the insurance and drug companies who buy off the politicians.

And they and their armies of sock-puppets are lying to us about cost. Because they want a fake crises to in effect "offshore" millions more jobs HERE. Maybe African and Asian women would benefit but its at the expense of American women. Because their global temping plan pits the developed countries skilled workers against those elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #1)

Sun May 15, 2016, 05:35 PM

93. "she has done more for the health of women". Fuking laughable

 

This bullshit is insulting at so many levels.

Maybe she helped rich women. Maybe.

But ask the women whose husbands were thrown in prison for drug posession because of policies she helped hawk to the public.

Ask the women whose welfare was cut off, and got thown out on the street like trash, because of policie she helped hawk.

The fucked up thing is, that by throwing hundreds of thousands of men into prison, the Clintons created a need for MORE welfare, then CUT WELFARE, a viscous cycle of poverty created by feeding the Prison industrial complex and pandering to the "Law and order" crowd. Sickening. I know people who were personally affected by this shit.

For every rich, white woman she helped, she brought several less fortunate "to heel"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:09 PM

3. So now we're parotting Trump attacks against Clinton here too?!?!!!?!!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:13 PM

8. You Clinton supporters

long ago packed your brains. What would a left wing critique of Clinton look like? Do they exist? If so, what do they look like? Seems that you can't tell the difference between a left wing critique and the stuff Trump says. If you can't, maybe accept that politics isn't your thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #8)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:48 PM

24. blam

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #8)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:39 PM

39. Word Salad at best, This OP is the similar enough to what Trump has been saying and now it shows

... up on GDP.

FACT NOT IN DISPUTE: Clinton is being attacked on both sides by men who are impugning her character.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #39)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:50 PM

44. How pathetic and weak

"Clinton is being attacked on both sides by men who are impugning her character."

Sorry, this is a gender issue? What fake, superficial feminism, as if there aren't females on the left saying the same exact damn thing. This is getting so tiring.

You can stop evading and start talking about the impact of her policies on poor and working class women at any time. A real feminist would jump at the chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #44)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:58 PM

48. Facts aren't pathetic or weak, she's being attacked by two men who impugn her character frequently

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #48)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:02 PM

49. What does their gender have to do with anything?

Telling that you lump Sanders in with Trump, people that have next to nothing in common other than they both have penises. Please, keep on fighting sexism by adopting the mindset of sexists. Brilliant. The article I posted was from a site run by a woman, and that woman (Yves Smith) approves of what was said in the article. The first paragraph is by Yves. So, you can stop evading now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:15 PM

67. and making up new ones. a new low every day here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:16 PM

10. Must. Stop. Women. From. Hurting. Themselves. !@32@!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #10)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:23 PM

13. Your cartoon there

is disturbing. God damn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #13)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:26 PM

15. its an old classic. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #13)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:49 PM

25. for good reason.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #10)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:38 PM

19. LOL. While they're at it, throw in another lecture to POC too. Always funny.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #19)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:47 PM

22. I can't get enough

 

of hearing how low information, stupid, ignorant, in a bubble I am because I support Hillary. Really - they should keep it up, it's so very swaying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #22)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:17 PM

31. what's funnier- to think that the only issues we have that matter just happen to be economic....

 

or that they think we haven't heard that brilliant theory. or seen this shit cut and pasted a thousand times. oh lord, spare us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #31)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:19 PM

32. As far as I'm concered

 

Anybody who doesn't do EVERYTHING they can to keep donnie from filling up the supreme court and the rest of the federal bench with more scalias is no liberal, no progressive and certainly no Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #32)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:28 PM

35. Yeah, I chalk it up to the ignorance of those who think president= a savior ....

 

poor SBS would have them come at him with a thousand knives when "protesting congress" does nothing to further his agenda. wash rinse and repeat.
they don't care about anything but their pocket books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #31)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:52 PM

45. Nope

Economic issues aren't the only thing that matter, but those issues have been utterly ignored for too long and you bourgeois Clinton followers simply don't care what her policies did to poor and working class women. Yes, economic issues aren't the only things that matter, but they are damn important and you have no interest in truly addressing them. It's disgusting, poor and working class women matter as well, if they don't matter to YOU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #19)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:35 PM

37. I'm expecting the "Stockholm Syndrome" meme to be evoked any second now...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #37)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:41 PM

41. A lot of this betrays an anger toward certain voters who have ALWAYS been disenfranchised....

 

coming from people who have always been top of the heap. They fell for the "wedge issue" RW framing pretty hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #41)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:52 PM

46. So much of the gratuitous Hillary-Hate (TM) around here

 

sounds like it was lifted whole from the site that shall not be named.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #37)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:38 PM

57. Instead of engaging

in a debate and being mature, thinking adults, you two want to talk to each other about how horrible people are for caring about actual issues, as well as poor and working class women (while claiming to be feminists). WHY are people angry? Is it that we're all irrational ideological purists, or are we responding to the actual impact of policies? You both know better, but pretend otherwise. Now, back to your "ain't they horrible" convo. Maybe you'll understand my words if I insert some immature emoji?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #57)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:47 PM

60. What policies would have impacted people without leaders on the left you now scorn?

The idea that we didn't need to play politics as it always has been played, the only way it really can be played, to win as many votes as possible at the peak of the Reagan era. Perhaps protesting on the Mall outside would have been enough. I don't care if its called being a purist or whatever, its just plain ignorant.

Consider that and get back to us.

I haven't read the article, don't need to, I have seen enough of this tripe over the years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #60)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:56 PM

61. Your post is jumbled

and isn't clear. Having said that, I don't need any damn lecture from someone supporting Clinton or politicians like her. Wages haven't grown in decades for most, inequality has exploded along with private debt, infrastructure is collapsing, de-industrialization has spread, schools and poor communities have been abandoned. Previous generations inherited a country in far better shape than the one you are handing over to the young. Why you think you and others are in a position to lecture on how it's done is beyond me, you've screwed everything up and the young will have to clean up the mess you've created.

"leaders on the left you now scorn?"

Sorry, who are the leaders on the "left" you're talking about? Don't for a second claim the Clintons are "leaders on the left", unless you want to re-define what it means to be on the left.

"I haven't read the article, don't need to, I have seen enough of this tripe over the years."

Shocking. Head back in the sand for ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #61)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:59 PM

62. No, not head in the sand. Facing the political realities as always. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:43 PM

20. mainly because half the people I was with believed it until I explained the situation to them

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:46 PM

21. hugs in the front. knives in the back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:56 PM

26. The way Steinem and Albright marginalized and insulted Sanders supporters

 

is a prime example (anecdotally) of the substance of this article. To women like this, poor women
are looked down upon for asking that their needs be met. Welfare reform was not needed at
the time B Clinton enacted it and his punitive system actually hurt women who tried to return to
the workforce and others who were far from being "welfare queens." He would have not suffered
any repercussions had he vetoed it and was warned about how harmful it would be. Hills was on
board from Day 1. I don't believe she has ever said anything but good about it.

But the bill that President Clinton signed is not welfare reform. It does not promote work effectively, and it will hurt millions of poor children by the time it is fully implemented. What’s more, it bars hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants—including many who have worked in the United States for decades and paid a considerable amount in Social Security and income taxes—from receiving disability and old-age assistance and food stamps, and reduces food-stamp assistance for millions of children in working families.

This was a truly radical proposal. For sixty years Aid to Families with Dependent Children had been premised on the idea of entitlement. "Entitlement" has become a dirty word, but it is actually a term of art. It meant two things in the AFDC program: a federally defined guarantee of assistance to families with children who met the statutory definition of need and complied with the other conditions of the law; and a federal guarantee to the states of a matching share of the money needed to help everyone in the state who qualified for help. (AFDC was never a guarantor of income at any particular level. States chose their own benefit levels, and no state's AFDC benefits, even when coupled with food stamps, currently lift families out of poverty.) The block grants will end the entitlement in both respects, and in addition the time limits say that federally supported help will end even if a family has done everything that was asked of it and even if it is still needy.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/03/the-worst-thing-bill-clinton-has-done/376797/

So she made a speech about women's rights' being human rights but he's chummy with Saudi Arabia who
has an abominable women's rights record. Women and kids also suffered disproportionately from the
'08 crash caused by her backers" G. Sachs, Lehman Bros. et al


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:58 PM

27. So proclaims another white man

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #27)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:54 PM

47. I'm not black

Can I point out objective reality in black communities? You aren't a man, can you make a comment on testicular cancer? Seems like facts and reality are for everyone to discuss.

My wife agrees with me entirely and finds you bourgeois Clinton "feminists" to be equally appalling. Should I have her type for the dumb brute man, will that somehow change the reality you seem keen to ignore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #47)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:12 PM

51. Many of them are sock puppets, working from a script

present company excepted of course.


Any campaign where health care /health insurance is involved attracts these ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #51)

Fri May 13, 2016, 02:52 PM

91. You mean someone who just signed up and has thousands of posts

 

full of propaganda attacking a Democratic candidate? Yep. Lots of those socks and zombies on DU right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:59 PM

28. that's a really good article. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:02 PM

30. How can anyone who consistently advocates for wars, holds the TPP up as the "gold Standard",

 

says she will bring NAFTA Bill out of retirement, who won't ban child-killing and maiming cluster bombs, just for starters - be considered a friend to women? Because women get hurt by these things EQUALLY?

Do her supporters understand the difference between words and actual deeds? Or do they just not care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #30)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:39 PM

40. I think a bit of both.

And a lot of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:30 PM

36. I'm confused, author says no to feminist values then uses feminst terms

Although there is much to be said for the critique in this article, I’m leery of the “feminist values” framing. It reinforces gender stereotyping. And Hillary making her status as a female candidate a prime reason for voting for her preserves all of that cultural baggage.


Then later

Not liking Hillary has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has everything to do with the hypermasculine values she espouses.


Which is it? Are we talking gender or removing gender form the conversation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #36)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:18 PM

68. as soon as I read the "glass ceiling" doesn't matter, I called bullshit. WTF do they think there

 

are so few women in good jobs? The ceiling is, for most women, quite low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #68)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:10 PM

75. You are correct

I think Bernie supporters are tripping over themselves trying to oppose Hillary but also not come off as misogynist jerks. Its not hard to be against Hillary's politics and polices without bringing gender into it. Simply talk about her politics and policies and nothing else. How hard is that? Very hard for some people apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #75)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:33 PM

79. they fucking jumped the shark claiming SBS is "better" than HRC for women.....

 

That is what got me disgusted with certain people here. Many do no know any better- but they all pretend to be experts. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:39 PM

38. The article didn't give very many good examples

I loved the "trickle down feminism" line.
The article points out that Hillary is much like those women in management I've seen over the years. They have to out man the men around them. Just like the Clintons had to out Republican the Republicans around them under Bill Clinton.

Hillary supported Bill's Welfare "reform", NAFTA, tough on crime stance which adversely affected the Af-Am and Latino community. Crack had higher penalties than Cocaine. Another devastating blow to minorities. Of course Glass-Steagal repealed and telecommunications act adversely affected everybody.

The Clinton Foundation has accepted huge donations from regimes who do not promote the rights of women. So Hillary talks a big story across the world then puts her hand out for money from some of the most repressive regimes for women in the world.

Hillary co-sponsored the Lily Ledbetter Fairness act but women still make .7 of what men make. So now its the Paycheck Fairness Act. Maybe it will work. Like all Dems she supports choice (except last trimester), emergency contraception, and planned parenthood. She also talks about family leave and affordable childcare. I haven't seen it. She advocates at committees overseas a lot. But that's just talk.

She's very tepid with healthcare, living wage increases, and education. She won't do much about fossil fuels and the environment. She won't take on the banking system, promote small business, get rid of payday loan and other predatory banking practices. She does say she will fix social securities injustice with women. That's good. I don't know how much she will really fight for things because she can't really push the donor class to pay their fair share of taxes. She's too beholden to them.

I think the scariest thing with her is her hawkishness. Again, she's trying to out man every man around her. Out Republican the Republicans. And the Clinton foundation makes a ton of money from donations from the military-industrial complex and dictatorships around the world. While women and children, the old become collateral damage in her wars.

Hillary is a woman and I'd love to see a woman president. We are overdue. But does she have the best of stereotypical women's values? Health, hearth and home, peace, love, humanity, generosity, kindness? These are the qualities I look for in the Dems. Bernie has them. I don't think Hillary does, just like this article said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:12 PM

52. the reasoning is that she's "the X candidate"--so therefore she can do what she likes with whoever

X happpens to be and still be "their candidate"

empty mislogic, but it works

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:04 PM

65. Clinton has done more for women, girls and children, around the world, for decades.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #65)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:10 PM

66. Oh great, you again

Yes or no, the policies the article mentioned (which you didn't have enough guts to read, be honest) caused massive harm to poor and working class women. Yes or no? Answer the question. I know the data and the studies, do you?

"Clinton has done more for women, girls and children, around the world, for decades."

Thanks for the bumper sticker, saves me the time of having to go to her campaign website. Here's where you link her freaking speech in China, or whatever, and ignore the type of thing the article focuses on (and you ignore).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:06 PM

74. It's amusing how much you guys love bankers and former GS employees when they feed your

 

Clinton hate.

Yves is Susan Webber, and despite sweet soothing RW attacks on Hillary that she whispers in you ear, she is not using a factual basis for her attacks. That bit where she basically echoes the right wing frustration of how people who actually vote for Dems won't buy the GOP BS, kind of tells you where she's coming from.


Are you doing this blindly, or with an agenda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #74)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:30 PM

78. with an agenda, for sure. now they are saying HRC wants to stop abortions and sell the babies....

 

It gets crazier every day. Embarrassing to see DU sink this low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #74)

Sun May 15, 2016, 05:25 PM

92. You're talking nonsense

How in the hell is she a banker? Michael Hudson, my favorite economist, worked on Wall Street at one point. He is also a socialist and one of the best living economists in the world. Using your silly definition, is he a "banker"? Do you really think your argument is logically convincing?

"Yves is Susan Webber, and despite sweet soothing RW attacks on Hillary that she whispers in you ear"

Is there a reason why you Clinton supporters can't differentiate between a left wing and a right wing critique? Do you realize that there are left wing critiques of corrupt politicians like Clinton? If so, what exactly would they look like? It seems that you all either don't know enough about the issues to know what it means to be on the left, or what a left wing critique looks like, or you're too intellectually incurious and lazy to be bothered to put any effort towards making sense of this. Or, you simply just don't know what you're talking about.

I have a feeling that if I were to cut and paste something that Chomsky has said about corrupt Hillary or her corrupt husband, and if I pretended the comment was mine, you'd call it "RW".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:15 PM

76. You will, of course, be accused of misogyny for this post.

It will not matter what your motivation, the accusation will be made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 06:23 PM

86. All over the world. In HORRIBLE ways. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread