Why this Socialist-Feminist is not voting for Hillary

41 posts / 0 new

Sun, 2016-01-10 09:13

lagatta

Despite the important symbolism of a woman President, throughout her career Hillary Rodham Clinton has opposed even modest measures to improve life for the vast majority of women in the US, both economically and socially.

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-this-socialist-feminist-is-not-voti...

Clinton was honest about how deeply at odds with any democratic-socialist movement she is. “We’re not Denmark,” she said, praising the “opportunity” and “freedom” of American capitalism. With this bit of frankness, Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist—indeed, no non-millionaire—should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark—yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way.

Sun, 2016-01-10 12:09

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Isn't her husband responsible for welfare 'reform'?

It's all about the Benjamins.

Sun, 2016-01-10 14:17

kropotkin1951

Good article and if I was an American there is no way I would vote for her. She is just another neocon imperialist.

Sun, 2016-01-10 14:27

NDPP

'We Came, We Saw, He Died' - Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi

https://youtu.be/Fgcd1ghag5Y

An American monster.

Mon, 2016-01-11 10:50

abnormal

kropotkin1951 wrote:
.... if I was an American there is no way I would vote for her.

Only problem with that position is that, if she is the Dem's candidate, the GOP alternatives are far worse. With the exception of Trump they are all religious nutbars (Trump is just a nutbar). Call it strategic voting if you want but I prefer to think of it as a vote against the religious extremists that want to turn the US into a Christian theocracy.

The only redeeming thing I can say about Trump is that, while he's said he's in favour of traditional marriage, he's not going to waste time or money trying to ban same-sex marriage. The others have all made it clear that one of the first things they'll do is elected is to issue executive orders banning same-sex marriage and, to the extent possible, eliminate all LGBT rights and protections. [Whether they do that before or after they issue an executive order banning all abortions is an open question.] After all "the Bible trumps the Constitution". And then there are some seriously [url=http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/10/mike-huckabee-thinks-blacks-cant... positions[/url].

The other thing to remember about this election is that we can expect to see a number of US Supreme Court justices retire in the relatively near future and the sitting President is the person that nominates their replacements. It's a given that if any of the GOP candidates ends up in the Oval Office any nominees will make Scalia look positively liberal.

Mon, 2016-01-11 14:33

kropotkin1951

There is no reason to vote for one war monger in preference to another. When the choice becomes the least of two evils I refuse to play because it means you have to vote for evil. If I was American I would not have voted for Obama either because it ws obvious he would be just as beligerent as Bush. Instead of backing away from extra judicial murders in foreign countries he institutionalized them and made it normal.

If you vote for evil thats what you get.

Mon, 2016-01-11 15:51

Mr. Magoo

Perhaps Americans have other concerns in addition to foreign policy. And perhaps Clinton might just differ from Trump or Carson or Cruz in some of those regards.

Mon, 2016-01-11 16:37

kropotkin1951

Did you even read the article Magoo? That very thing was also well covered in it.

When enough citizens buy the lesser of evils logic you get Trudeau as PM. Better than Harper but not good enough for real progress or REAL CHANGE.

Quote:

As first lady of Arkansas, she led the efforts by her husband’s administration to weaken teachers’ unions and scapegoat teachers—most of them women, large numbers of them black—

...

As first lady, Hillary wasn’t a mere spectator to this; within the White House, she advocated harsher policies like ending traditional welfare, even as others in the administration, like Labor Secretary Robert Reich, proposed alternatives. Clinton defended her preferred policies by demonizing mothers struggling to get by as “deadbeats” who were “sitting around the house doing nothing.”

...

She has said that abortion should be safe, legal, and “rare”—a qualifier that contributes to the stigma against the procedure. Last summer, during the right-wing attacks on Planned Parenthood that would later inspire a deadly shooting at a Colorado Springs clinic, Clinton tried to split the difference, saying one week that she found the videos about Planned Parenthood’s supposed practices “disturbing,” and the following week clarifying that she supported the organization—a bold stance from someone who once said that “women’s rights are human rights.”

...

Clinton was honest about how deeply at odds with any democratic-socialist movement she is. “We’re not Denmark,” she said, praising the “opportunity” and “freedom” of American capitalism. With this bit of frankness, Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist—indeed, no non-millionaire—should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark—yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way.

Mon, 2016-01-11 16:53

Mr. Magoo

OK. I'm not wearing a "Go Hillary" button right now or anything. I'm just noting that for probably a lot of Americans, domestic policy is going to be more important than foreign policy. And even if Clinton is "no different" from her k00K opponent with regard to foreign policy, and even if she's been a letdown with regard to domestic policy, I can still imagine some folk voting for her just to not have someone sure to be worse.

If Americans ever tire of this "lesser evil" game then they can always feel free to revisit their own electoral system that pretty much guarantees it.

As to anyone who won't vote for Clinton, I don't have a quarrel with that, so long as they don't complain if they get President Cruz, and so long as they don't actually vote for the Republicans to show the world how angry they are at the Democrats.

Mon, 2016-01-11 18:28

#10

kropotkin1951

Mr. Magoo wrote:

OK. I'm not wearing a "Go Hillary" button right now or anything. I'm just noting that for probably a lot of Americans, domestic policy is going to be more important than foreign policy.

Unfortunately finding socialist feminists in America is hard to do. Did you miss the authors politics? I'll give you a hint its contained in the headline.

Mon, 2016-01-11 18:40

#11

Mr. Magoo

I get that. And if the author doesn't wish to vote for Hillary, I get that too.

It's not for me to tell the U.S. what to do, but if enough of them ever want more choices than the two they've always had, they'll probably need to change their electoral model.

And meanwhile, I expect that some voters will say to themselves "I guess my vote can't really change foreign policy, but do I want an end to equal marriage, and an end to the welfare state, and a wall on every border, and a repeal of the first healthcare plan that's ever let me see a doctor?" If even the most basic things can still hang on a knife-edge vote, then a socialist-feminist President might be a ways away.

Mon, 2016-01-11 19:28

#12

kropotkin1951

In the meantime I don't see how a socialist-feminist could support the corporate rule that Hillary represents.

It is clear from your posts that no one that knows you in the real world would likely ever call you either a socialist or a feminist. I can see how you would not really get that perspective given how far removed it is from the views you regularily spout on this board.

Mon, 2016-01-11 19:40

#13

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
It is clear from your posts that no one that knows you in the real world would likely ever call you either a socialist or a feminist.

I expect some would, though it wouldn't come with the high-five of approval.

I think, though, that it probably comes down to "are you a socialist-feminist who'd prefer to see the preservation of equal marriage, reproductive choice and unions" or are you a "socialist-feminist who's so pissed off that who-the-fuck-cares, and let's just let the world burn".

Mon, 2016-01-11 19:51

#14

kropotkin1951

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It is clear from your posts that no one that knows you in the real world would likely ever call you either a socialist or a feminist.

I expect some would, though it wouldn't come with the high-five of approval.

I think, though, that it probably comes down to "are you a socialist-feminist who'd prefer to see the preservation of equal marriage, reproductive choice and unions" or are you a "socialist-feminist who's so pissed off that who-the-fuck-cares, and let's just let the world burn".

I guess what I got from this article and the quotes I posted is that Hillary is not a good bet if you want to protect anything because she is a right wing corporate controlled imperialist. It would be like voting for Trudeau and expecting you will get anything different than the Conservatives on the important issues. The only reason we have more than two parties in this country is because some of us have never felt voting for them would make a difference despite the Liberal modus operandi of running as progressives. Hillary is way worse than most of our Liberal leaders.

Mon, 2016-01-11 20:19

#15

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The only reason we have more than two parties in this country is because some of us have never felt voting for them would make a difference despite the Liberal modus operandi of running as progressives. Hillary is way worse than most of our Liberal leaders.

That, and our (admittedly poor) electoral model makes a third party meaningful, and perhaps even viable.

For all intents and purposes, the Electoral College model proposes three choices:

1. Republicans

2. Democrats

3. The Man in the Moon.

Quote:
It would be like voting for Trudeau and expecting you will get anything different than the Conservatives on the important issues.

I haven't yet heard many on even the modest "left" of the spectrum bemoan the fact that we didn't get Harper again.

Tue, 2016-01-12 13:45

#16

abnormal

Mr. Magoo wrote:
And meanwhile, I expect that some voters will say to themselves "I guess my vote can't really change foreign policy, but do I want an end to equal marriage, and an end to the welfare state, and a wall on every border, and a repeal of the first healthcare plan that's ever let me see a doctor?" If even the most basic things can still hang on a knife-edge vote, then a socialist-feminist President might be a ways away.

That's the point - personally I dislike Hillary immensely but the GOP candidates are all far worse. Not that I can vote but I see a vote for her as a vote against the repeal of LGBT protections. A vote against the banning of all abortions. A vote against ....

Wed, 2016-01-13 01:52

#17

kropotkin1951

abnormal wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And meanwhile, I expect that some voters will say to themselves "I guess my vote can't really change foreign policy, but do I want an end to equal marriage, and an end to the welfare state, and a wall on every border, and a repeal of the first healthcare plan that's ever let me see a doctor?" If even the most basic things can still hang on a knife-edge vote, then a socialist-feminist President might be a ways away.

That's the point - personally I dislike Hillary immensely but the GOP candidates are all far worse. Not that I can vote but I see a vote for her as a vote against the repeal of LGBT protections. A vote against the banning of all abortions. A vote against ....

So you would vote for Hillary instead of Bernie? Why?

If you bothered to read the article you would know that was the choice she was talking about. As usual someone on babble had to dive down the rabbit hole and say she is better than Republican's. The article was not about that so who cares.

Do you have anything to say about the articles contents?

Wed, 2016-01-13 10:43

#18

abnormal

I wouldn't vote for Hillary over Bernie but unless things change she's going to end up on the ticket. But that aside, regardless of who the Dems put forward I'd be lining up to vote for them instead of whoever gets the nod from the GOP (and the way things are shaping up that's probably going to be Trump or Cruz).

Wed, 2016-01-13 11:14

#19

lagatta

How can Ted Cruz become POTUS? He was born in Calgary,non?

Wed, 2016-01-13 11:34

#20

kropotkin1951

lagatta wrote:

How can Ted Cruz become POTUS? He was born in Calgary,non?

Lets see his "real" birth certificate. LOL

Wed, 2016-01-13 15:53

#21

Michael Moriarity

lagatta wrote:

How can Ted Cruz become POTUS? He was born in Calgary,non?

Apparently, it is largely accepted by the U.S. legal community that a person born anywhere with at least one U.S. citizen parent is a "natural-born citizen" for constitutional purposes.

Wed, 2016-01-13 16:41

#22

kropotkin1951

Michael Moriarity wrote:

lagatta wrote:

How can Ted Cruz become POTUS? He was born in Calgary,non?

Apparently, it is largely accepted by the U.S. legal community that a person born anywhere with at least one U.S. citizen parent is a "natural-born citizen" for constitutional purposes.

Except if the person is Obama, according to Republicans like Cruz

Wed, 2016-01-13 17:54

#23

Mr. Magoo

It's actually already been noted, in another thread, that if Cruz applied his own logic to himself, he'd be ineligible.

Interestingly, Canada has neither age restrictions nor nationality restrictions on the office of PM.

In the U.S. you must be a naturalized citizen, and if I recall correctly, you have to be at least 35 years of age (though in practice, I don't think any President has really cut that one close).

Wed, 2016-01-13 18:02

#24

kropotkin1951

Our first two PM's were born in Scotland but all the rest were born either in Canada or colonies that would become part of Confederation.

Wed, 2016-01-13 18:14

#25

Mr. Magoo

I would imagine that even without a formal restriction in the U.S., most U.S. Presidents would also be U.S. citizens. And if some "foreigner" ever got withing striking distance of the Oval Office, wouldn't their convoluted electoral system give voters plenty of opportunities to say "not so fast, there, Mr. Schwartzenegger"?

Thu, 2016-01-14 10:21

#26

BillBC

"In the U.S. you must be a naturalized citizen" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this isn't true. You have to be a "natural born" citizen, which is not the same thing. Being only "naturalized" is why, for instance, Henry Kissinger (shudder) wasn't eligible. What "natural born" means precisely is a matter of debate, but traditionally it's meant born in the United States. (When McCain was running, Congress passed a resolution making him eligible--he was born in the Panama Canal zone, which was then US territory but not part of the US.)

This makes Cruz ineligible. Surprising that no one has raised this issue, though I think Trump mentioned it...

Thu, 2016-01-14 11:28

#27

voice of the damned

^ It's being talked about. Mike Luckovich, the liberal Democrat cartoonist for the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, had this cartoon the other day...

/p>
http://tinyurl.com/z9j74by

Possibly somewhat xenophobic, unless the point is to mock GOP double-standards for hollering about Obama's citizenship but giving Cruz a pass. Luckovich is one of my current favorites among political cartoonists, but he sometimes shows a bit of a nasty streak. (He had a rather unseemly obsession with John Boehner's skin tone, for example).

Thu, 2016-01-14 12:31

#28

swallow

Well, Cruz is clearly a Canadian sleeper agent. Why else woud he speak only about sealing ujp the Mexican border?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Our first two PM's were born in Scotland but all the rest were born either in Canada or colonies that would become part of Confederation.

John Turner was born in England. Granted, he was only PM long enough to step in front of a moving truck, but technically still a foreign-born PM.

I seem to recall a former Governor of Michigan who couldn't run for president becuase she was a Canadian immigrant.

Thu, 2016-01-14 12:56

#29

Michael Moriarity

It seems that this "natural-born citizen" issue is being taken seriously by some well recognized constitutional scholars. Newsweek has an article about it on their site.

Thu, 2016-01-14 14:35

#30

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this isn't true.

I think you're correct. I had a braino.

Thu, 2016-01-14 18:49

#31

kropotkin1951

swallow wrote:

John Turner was born in England. Granted, he was only PM long enough to step in front of a moving truck, but technically still a foreign-born PM.

You are right. I remembered his Mom was from BC and never thought to check his birth certificate.

Thank you for not calling me a libelous liar for making a mistake.

Thu, 2016-01-14 19:34

#32

NorthReport

It's about time Americans had a Canadian President!

Unfortunately though it's Ted Cruz, and after the damage he would cause Americans would never ever forgive us.

---------------

Start Making Sense: Should Feminists Vote For Hillary Clinton?

http://www.thenation.com/article/start-making-sense-should-feminists-vot...

Thu, 2016-01-14 19:41

#33

Mr. Magoo

I heard that his first act as a newborn was to pay for his own birth out-of-pocket.

That's what's called "walking the walk".

Fri, 2016-01-15 08:55

#34

swallow

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thank you for not calling me a libelous liar for making a mistake.

Well, we can all depart from babble standard practice occasionally, right?

Now, back to calling each other fascists....

Tue, 2016-01-19 03:10

#35

NDPP

Bill's past may continue causing problems for Hillary...

Exclusive: Juanita Broaddrick Says Bill Clinton Called Her Repeatedly After Alleged Rape

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/17/exclusive-juanita-bro...

"Hillary Clinton's role as an enabler of Bill Clinton's behavior is an issue that has been raised by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

'I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark Attorney General, raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73. It never goes away."

Wed, 2016-01-20 01:22

#36

NorthReport

Hillary Clinton Emails Face New Scrutiny

Former secretary of state’s private server included highly classified intelligence, review says; unclear whether information was deemed classified when sent

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-emails-face-new-scrutiny-145...