Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[arcane1]

1. You learned a lot about DU in one week?

[merrily]

5. The OP is likely one of the "I have read DU daily for years but just registered" Hillary supporters.

No need to be cynical!

[Baobab]

13. Read the following paper which i think illustrates just how badly we've been lied to on one issue,

just one issue, health care.

here is the paper to refer to. There are lots of other sources of information on the GATS but no other sources specific to the US like this one.

Why? Because the US generally was never told practically anything about this world changing FTA that was signed during the Clinton years. NOTHING.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdf

First thing you will learn is that virtually everything in US politics today is "off" because of this huge omission.

All the reasons we've been told that health care is broken, basically biol down to its been done to support really bad trade policy that we're trying to export to the rest of the world, largely against their will.

Also, another thing you will learn is that the other side of the trade is jobs. Its entirely possible that health care has been a manufactured crisis to allow them to LOWER, not raise US wages in multiple areas, including most skilled services, teaching, nursing, probably IT, etc.

It just goes on and on.

And I wont even get into most of it here and now because it would just be too much.

I would like to hear what people think about this.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

2. With all her faults, and she has plenty, with all her positions I disagree with, and there are

several, I would not know what to think of her if I hadnt been around long enough to know who is behind all the criticism.

There is so much of it, from so many corners, that it would be hard to figure it out.

Hillary has been on the receiving end of hate and vitriol from an orchestrated, organized opponent which will do anything to destroy her.

[merrily]

3. Former NYT exec Jill Abramson sounds VERY objective, much like the NYT. LMAO! nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

4. This belongs in GD:P

You should self delete and repost there.

[SunSeeker]

9. Please cite me to similar objections you've posted to pro-Bernie posts in Good Reads. TIA. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

11. Every one I've seen.

I've also alerted on them for violating SOP. I am a Hillary supporter, but primary threads/threads about Hillary/Bernie belong in GD-P.

[SunSeeker]

17. This is the only one of yours I've seen. But I agree with you on primary threads.

Ever since the Admins took GDP and Hillary/Bernie Group posts off the front page, Good Reads, Video Forum and the State groups have been used as a trojan horse to get divisive Pro-Bernie/Anti-Hillary primary posts on the front page.

But I think this OP is not so much about the primary or who you should vote for as it is a rather excellent analysis of the sexism aimed at women in high position.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

21. Yup, I've seen the same thing.

It's become rather annoying. However, I think most Hillary/Bernie threads (unless they fall under LBN) should be kept to GD-P or their respective groups.

[immoderate]

6. OK, so why do I trust Bill even less?

--imm

[dogman]

7. It's her truth telling that worries me.

She is against a Federally mandate minimum wage of $15, I believe her.
She is for the death penalty, I believe her.
She is ready to confront Iran, I believe her.
She wants to continue the war on drugs, I believe her.
She will consider releasing the transcripts of her speeches, well maybe not, who knows.

[840high]

15. .+1

[SunSeeker]

8. K & R

[thereismore]

10. Gender gender gender. Nope. It's judgement. nt

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

12. Yes, we have gotten that memo already.

Any criticism of Hillary is defacto sexism. Got it.

[Maedhros]

14. Some people, maybe.

Not me. I disagree with her policies.

[Larkspur]

16. HRC worked hard to be untrustworty and inauthentic

She's championship caliber in triangulating, only Bill is better.

[My Good Babushka]

19. Pseudo-Freudian dodges

In any number of posts, Sanders supporters have listed the policies of Hillary that they are clearly opposed to, and they would be opposed to them whether or not she was wearing a power pantsuit.

[betsuni]

22. K&R

[Ino]

23. Where do I start?

There is so much wrong in that article, that I don't know where to begin... or end. I'll point out just a couple of things concerning the Abramson article that this one references: "In a Guardian editorial on Monday, former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson pointed out that Clinton has the best truth-telling record of any candidate in the race"

Abramson wrote in her Guardian article: "As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates."

Follow her link to Politifact, which analyzes the truthiness of 78 Sanders statements and 175 Clinton statements -- more than twice as many, a large percentage of which go all the way back to debates with Obama. Included among Clinton's "statements on issues" are such padding gems as "Could I just point out that ... I seem to get the first question all the time?" and statements of fact that no one disagrees with ("African-American children are 500 percent more likely to die from asthma than white kids.&quot So, there's that.

Abramson's article ends with this:

she’s switched some of her positions and sometimes shades the truth. In debates with Sanders, she cites her tough record on Wall Street, but her Senate bills, like one curbing executive pay, went nowhere. She favors ending the carried interest loophole cherished by hedge funds and private equity executives because it taxes their incomes at a lower rate than ordinary income. But, according to an article by Gerth, she did not sign on to bipartisan legislation in 2007 that would have closed it. She voted for a bankruptcy bill favored by big banks that she initially opposed, drawing criticism from Elizabeth Warren. Clinton says she improved the bill before voting for passage. Her earlier opposition to gay marriage, which she later endorsed, has hurt her with young people. Labor worries about her different statements on trade deals.

Still, Clinton has mainly been constant on issues and changing positions over time is not dishonest.

Thus, Abramson herself brings up several instances of many Clinton flip-flops/contradictions/inconsistencies, but then blithely declares them "not dishonest" or excuses them with a flippant "she behaves like other politicians."

A lie is not less of a lie just because other politicians are guilty of them. And changing positions over time -- especially when the position suddenly changes just before a debate, or when it has become politically safe/expedient to change -- IS dishonest.