Dolores Huerta used to be a UFW organizer and a member of Democratic Socialists of America.

[Ken Burch]

How does anyone go from THAT to campaigning for HRC?

What would YOU call that trajectory?

[sufrommich]

1. The smearing of Dolores Huerta begins. Predictable. nt

[Ken Burch]

9. No smear. Nothing I said was a lie.

Dolores Huerta was great when she was still fighting for the farmworkers and the poor.

Why is she supporting the candidate the growers would naturally prefer?

[DrDan]

32. "was great"? - btw, she is a long-term Hillary supporter - nothing new

[Ken Burch]

37. And it has never been consistent with membership in the UFW or DSA.

Centrist politicians never fight for farmworkers.

[DrDan]

39. she obviously sees thing differently than you - and I trust her judgement

[amborin]

63. she got $100,000 from clinton

[DrDan]

72. she has an honorable past - I trust her - feel free to throw her under the bus with the others

[amborin]

74. lots of people have honorable pasts, until the day they succumb and a follow a different

path

[DrDan]

77. And some remain honorable

[BlueCaliDem]

78. ZING!

Good one.

[amborin]

80. whereas some will turn for $100,000

what clinton gave dh

[BlueCaliDem]

85. What a sad attempt at denigrating a civil rights icon for Latinos, implying she's a sell-out.

My god, but do you believe belittling the hard work Dolores Huerta has done, LOSING A SPLEEN during a protest for farm workers rights, by making her appear to be a sell-out for a paltry $100k (IF true) is going to endear your candidate to the Latino community?? Really?

You're forgetting that she's supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, too, and that the Latino community went for Hillary 2 to 1 over Barack Obama in 2008.

You're negating Hillary and Bill's hard work since 1972, going to impoverished Hispanic communities to help people to register to vote, sitting and eating spicy foods with their families, and talking to them about their power of the vote, and that under President Bill Clinton's Admin, the U.E. rate for Hispanics went from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000.

The Clintons have built a strong and robust relationship with the Latino community while Sanders has been voting for NRA-favored bills during that same time. And now his supporters believe that the Latino community should pledge fealty to their candidate because...because why, exactly?

[cali]

20. How is that a smear?

[Igel]

87. The presuppositions.

That's how.

It's close to being a "Do you still beat your wife?" kind of question in the sense that you have to accept the presuppositions to understand the utterance.

UFW organizer? Good, moral stance, highly valued.

HRC supporter? Bad, immoral stance, to be decried.

Zinger: How do you, what could cause you, to go from being good and moral to being bad and immoral?

Presupposition: Huerta is now bad and immoral. Either she was corrupted from outside (by whom?) or she had some sort of character flaw that ultimately destroyed her sense of morality and justice.

At that point your brain has accepted, provisionally, the truth value of the presupposition and is in the position of being able to get past the post to question it.

Provisionally accepted truth values are often remembered as the actual truth values. (Similarly, negated utterances presuppose the truth value of the non-negated utterance. "I am not a cook" turns out to mean "NOT(I am a cook)." And in tests given a few days or weeks after hearing such utterances, a fair percentage of the time only part of the utterance's meaning is remembered. Remembering just "not" gets you nothing, and counts as not remembering the utterance at all. Remembering the entire thing is common. But forgetting the "not" is also common, and becomes, "I am a cook." It's why "Do you still beat your wife?" or "Do you deny having sex with that dog?" are smears, even though we stoutly and accurately defend the idea that questions make no logical assertions and have no actual logical truth value. Language doesn't follow the rules of formal logic.)


So asking HRC if she still has sex with goats is a smear, asking how Huerta could go from UFW activist to HRC supporter is a smear, and asking if Sanders still likes to watch bestiality and snuff films is a smear. Doesn't matter what the answers are, we've done pondered the presuppositions in that 0.6 s it takes to pull all that real-world knowledge together to parse the sentences. Quite a few will be offended by all the presuppositions, and it's pointless to tell them that the questions are just questions. "Jeesh, what harm does a simple question do?" Of course, Sanders supporters will quite likely make exactly that point in the HRC-related question, and HRC-supporters are likely to make the same irrelevant point with the Sanders-related question.

[Bohemianwriter]

76. Why do you...

insiste on dragging her name down the gutter to Hillary?

Why do you insist on destroying her name for your dirty campaign?

You got no reason to complain. What you can do, is explain why she went from social democrat to a corporate Hillaty supporter and why you insist that anyone shouted "English only" from a rabid racist crowd? (That's the narrative the racist Hillary wants to pout forward, isn't it?

I hope you realize that your disgusting attitudes reflects badly on your corporate candidate who should wear the logos of her corporate owners..

[Matariki]

90. That word doesn't mean what you think it does

[Starry Messenger]

2. Giving zero fucks for white patriarchal capitalist supremacy.

I'd say she's consistent.

[Ken Burch]

4. She's supporting the white capitalist candidate.

It's never anti-patriarchy to support the less-progressive candidate.

And nobody who fought for NAFTA can ever care about farmworkers.

[Starry Messenger]

8. You remember the Republicans, Ken?

The actual enemy? Come out of the trees.

And not everyone who disagrees with you is a "capitalist roader." Smug paternalism is never a good look.

[Ken Burch]

12. We've proven HRC isn't the only one who can beat the Right.

You used the "white capitalist patriarchy" thing.

(I don't use terms like "capitalist roader", either. That's batshit Maoist talk.)

It's only anti-patriarchy to support a radical women.

Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm were anti-patriarchy.

It can't be anti-patriarchy to back the Wall Street/Beltway candidate.

Gender doesn't outweigh everything else.

[Starry Messenger]

16. Whut?

I should know better than to reply to your haiku posts.

Let's walk through this slowly. DH wants Repukes to lose. DH feels HRC will beat them, because letting Repukes win will continue white capitalist patriarchy. Bernie has no track record of beating the right. HRC does.

[Ken Burch]

22. We ALL want Repukes to lose. Either candidate has an equal chance of beating them.

And Bernie has been beating the Right in Vermont for decades now(It used to be an overwhelmingly GOP state, too).

And a candidate who gets Wall Street money will never fight the capitalist patriarchy.

(in the Nineties, she didn't fight patriarchy, period. Fighting patriarchy is supposed to include standing with poor women against patriarchal attacks on their supposed lack of "personal responsibility". HRC never defended poor women when it mattered.)

So spare me the matronizing tone...you're not entitled to talk down to me, or to anyone else.

I stand with the poor and the powerless, no matter what.

[Starry Messenger]

24. Haha!

You're a riot.

[Ken Burch]

38. And you're in the Socialist Progressives Group?

[amborin]

66. hrc only represents the elite's interests; if you take the time to examine her actions, the evidence

Is overwhelming. She won't win the ge, b/c union workers are still wounded by NAFTA. That's just one of many reasons why she would lose.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

Further, everyone knows full well that she would approve the TPP. Game's up, then.

Besides her blatant corruption, or really as an integral part of it, is her neo con war mongering.

[amborin]

67. ps: dh got $100,000 from clinton

[eomer]

71. Not just in it, she is the *lead host* of the Socialist Progressives Group.

And a supporter of Hillary Clinton for President when Bernie Sanders is her opponent.

WTF indeed.

[Starry Messenger]

82. The haha was for your sexist attack on me.

Fail harder. And yes, I'm a real socialist, not a brogressive.

[Ken Burch]

91. I made no sexist attack on you.

I was just confused about why anybody in that group would prefer the status quo candidate.

[Starry Messenger]

92. "Matronizing" nice try, but no cigar.

[Ken Burch]

93. I was actually just trying to avoid the term "patronizing", which derives from "pater"

or "father"...as in like a father talking to a small child.

The intent was to avoid sexist language. Sorry.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. I believe you're confused. It's GD:P, not the Socialist Progressives Group.

Have a gander.

[Ken Burch]

89. I know what group this is, I was referring to that poster's tagline. n/t.

[Armstead]

73. HC has no track record of beating the right

She has a track record of surviving the right. Big difference.

[Skwmom]

26. Maybe people are starting to see that argument as a method to hide what is happening in our own

party.

[BlueCaliDem]

83. She's supporting the candidate who voted FOR the 2007 immigration bill.

She's supporting the person who was in the trenches for Latinos since 1972 and who has built strong alliances with them ever since.

Hillary Clinton, the presumptive favorite for the Democratic nomination, beat Obama 2–1 among Latino voters in the 2008 primary. It wasn’t just name recognition, either. The Clintons have a robust network of Latino leaders and activists, and long history with outreach that dates back to 1970s in Texas.http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/hillary-clinton-has-deep-history-with-latinos-and-theres-not#.njzBE2wYD

Unemployment at its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years: Overall unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. The unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics has fallen from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000, also the lowest rate on record.

Latinos remember...and they're fiercely loyal to those who stands with them in the bad times as well as the good. In this case, the Clintons.

[cantbeserious]

7. Huerta Openly Supports The Candidate Representing Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks

Quite the conflict of interest - puzzling that someone of her stature would vote against her own interests.

http://www.dsausa.org/cornel_west_and_dolores_huerta

Note That Huerta Is Listed As An Honorary Chair Of The Organization Here

http://www.dsausa.org/our_structure

[stone space]

3. I don't see the problem. Is there something that you are leaving out, here?

[Ken Burch]

6. That a lot seems to have been abandoned.

The Wall Street candidate can't care about farmworkers and the poor.

[stone space]

10. You're upset with her just because she supports a different candidate than you and I?

Seriously???

[Ken Burch]

15. Not that it's a different candidate...that it's the Wall Street candidate.

If it was another candidate who cares about farmworkers and the poor, it would at least make sense.

Hell, if she had run herself, I'd have supported her.

But the candidate of the status quo?

That's what I don't get.

[stone space]

19. I often don't get why folks choose a different candidate from me.

That's what I don't get.

But it happens, nonetheless, and I've learned to live with it over the decades.

[Ken Burch]

27. It's not about me at all...I can handle people disagreeing with me.

It's about why a long-term committed working-class activist would ever make a choice that contradicts what her life is about.

She has the right to do that...it's legitimate to see it as a climb-down, though.

[stone space]

29. It is legitimate for both you and I to support a different candidate.

[Ken Burch]

41. Why are you trying to make this about me?

You're trying to turn this into being about my ego or something and actually this OP is totally unrelated to my sense of self or anything like that.

[stone space]

47. It's about all of us. Some of us support different candidates than others of us.

Why are you trying to make this about me?

Not sure why you feel it is about you personally.

It's as much about me as it is about you.

[Ken Burch]

51. You are being very patronizing here.

Frankly, you're talking to me like I'm a six-year-old. It's not appropriate to do that.

[amborin]

70. the $100,000 explains a lot; and as is so often the case, it's not even that much money considering

Where it's coming from.

And that's the scary thing you see over and over-how cheaply people can be bought.

[cantbeserious]

11. Huerta Openly Supports The Candidate Representing Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks

Quite the conflict of interest based on her affiliation with organization linked below.

http://www.dsausa.org/cornel_west_and_dolores_huerta

Note That Huerta Is Listed As An Honorary Chair Of The Organization Here

http://www.dsausa.org/our_structure

[stone space]

13. She supports a different candidate than you and I.

How is this a problem?

[cantbeserious]

14. Conflicts With Her DSA Affiliation - Follow The Web Links - Read The Web Pages

eom

[stone space]

17. I'm not going to pursue your links looking for the phrase "Conflict of Interest".

Feel free to quote the relevant passage.

[cantbeserious]

21. Huerta's Honorary Chair With DSA Is A Conflict Of Interest With Her Support OF HRC - See Web Link

Snip ...

DSA HONORARY CHAIRS

Bogdan Denitch
Barbara Ehrenreich
Dolores Huerta
Eliseo Medina
Eugene "Gus" Newport
Frances Fox Piven
Gloria Steinem
Cornel West

Snip ...

http://www.dsausa.org/our_structure

[stone space]

23. Please quote the passage that talks about the "Conflict of Interest".

The part you quoted makes no mention of any "Conflicts of Interest", and I'm not going to go searching for something that you seem to be having difficulty in finding, yourself.

[cantbeserious]

25. One Can Only Speculate That One Is Being Obtuse On Purpose - Conflict Of Interest Is Derived From

The conflict that arises from belonging to an organization that is opposed to much of what HRC stands for.

[stone space]

28. One can only speculate that the reason why nobody quotes the passage on...

..."Conflicts of Interest" is that the passage simple doesn't exist, and that it is simply being made up, and the material at the other end of the link does not say what it is claimed to say.

[cantbeserious]

30. One Is Being Obtuse - On Purpose - We Now Know Your Game - Duly Noted

eom

[stone space]

33. Please quote the passage in question.

You can't expect us to take your word for it if you can't even find it yourself.

Links don't work that way.

[cantbeserious]

34. One Can Only Speculate That Being Obtuse Is A Defense From Reason And Conclusion

All links necessary have been previously provided.

[stone space]

35. Are you unable to quote from your own link?

All links necessary have been previously provided.

Why is it our job to look for whatever it is at the link that you can't even find, yourself?

[cantbeserious]

36. Already Asked And Answered

eom

[stone space]

40. Asked, but not answered.

Not unless one considers "Go, Fish" as an answer.

I thought it was just a card game.

[cantbeserious]

42. Already Asked And Answered

eom

[stone space]

43. Why are you unwilling to post the quote from your link?

Does the link not say what you claim it says?

(Asked, but not answered.)

[cantbeserious]

45. Already Asked And Answered

eom

[Ken Burch]

44. It's simple. Membership in DSA cannot be consistent with support

of the candidate preferred by Wall Street.

You're either with the streets, or the suites. You can't be with both.

[cantbeserious]

46. Thank You For That Elegant Reply

eom

[stone space]

48. Quote, please.

It's simple. Membership in DSA cannot be consistent with support

of the candidate preferred by Wall Street.

Or was this quoted from the link in question?

[Ken Burch]

50. Because the group is Demcratic Socialists of America

On the face of it, it's inconsistent with membership in that group to support the candidate preferred by Wall Street.

It doesn't require a specific organizational policy to prove that.

There's nothing here for you to be this much of a stickler about.

[stone space]

52. Then post the qoute along with the link.

This is like pulling teeth.

Why not simply post the quote and be done with it?

Is there a reason why you are refusing to do so?

[Ken Burch]

55. There doesn't need to be a "quote".

The point is that she was DSA...that means you are on the left.

However, I can post this:

(link: http://www.dsausa.org/cornel_west_and_dolores_huerta)

Active organizing for democracy is needed now more than ever. For this to succeed, both working and poor people - who are the majority - have to have a voice. DSA is one of those voices.

—Dolores Huerta

Supporting HRC is the opposite of believing that "working and poor people-who are the majority-have to have a voice" and of "active organizing for democracy"

[stone space]

57. Not sure of your point here.

Active organizing for democracy is needed now more than ever. For this to succeed, both working and poor people - who are the majority - have to have a voice. DSA is one of those voices.

—Dolores Huerta

I can quote statements irrelevant to the current discussion as well.

But what I'm looking for is a statement regarding "Conflicts of Interest", not just random quotes.

[Ken Burch]

60. There isn't a "conflict of interest policy" to quote

And there doesn't have to be.

Why are you belaboring this?

[stone space]

61. OK, so that particular link is irrelevant.

Do you have a relevant link to back up your claims?

[Ken Burch]

62. I just proved them. The quote I posted proved them.

Nobody claimed DSA had a "conflict of interest" policy.

What is this about with you?

You're being a relentless stickler on this and you have no reason to be.

[stone space]

64. No, you didn't.

I just proved them The quote I posted them.

The quote you provided said absolutely nothing about any "Conflicts of Interest".

[Ken Burch]

69. You keep acting like a policy has to be shown. It doesn't.

It's enough that it conflicts with what DSA stands for-which is justice for all, including the poorest of the poor. Supporting HRC in the primary conflicts with fighting for the powerless.

Now stop belaboring. You're not the judge and jury.

[NV Whino]

75. I admire your perseverance and restraint

But why bother? It's like trying to argue with a two-year-old. Even knowing you're right, they don't have the maturity to admit it, or even just quit.

[cantbeserious]

5. Seems There Is A Disconnect - At Camp Huerta - Reconcile This With Support For HRC - Quite Puzzling

http://www.dsausa.org/cornel_west_and_dolores_huerta

Note That Huerta Is Listed As An Honorary Chair Of The Organization Here

http://www.dsausa.org/our_structure

[Jitter65]

18. Maybe a past history like this is why...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?_r=2

I can remember when legal aid was the most necessary resource for the civil rights movement. Some chose to march, some chose to preach, some chose to teach, some chose to work within the system and some chose to work around and outside the system. But they ALL contributed, radicals and peacemakers alike. The movement made progress because their approaches were different but all pulled together and all were appreciated. There were great differences of opinion about HOW to accomplish the goals but never about WHAT the goals were. Individuals did not always agree with each other but I don't remember the kind of nasty disparaging going on that I see within the party today. Hopefully we can and will overcome this before November.

[Skwmom]

31. I would call that sad. n /t

[Green Texan]

49. It already came out that she lied

Hillary's campaign, her allies, and her supporters keep losing credibility more and more.

[riversedge]

84. Calling Dolores Huerta a liar is wrong. and you should be ashamed of your self.

[randome]

53. Hilarious. Clearly there is something 'wrong' with someone who holds a different opinion than you.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[SoLeftIAmRight]

68. So you are just like the Trump supporters?

nothing wrong with them

Cruz
Bush

...

[Duckhunter935]

54. I saw on another thread

Her group got a large donation from the foundation

[Hoyt]

56. I trust her decision. You shouldn't question someone who has really been in the trenches.

[book_worm]

58. She believes Hillary has a good record and would be a better president than Bernie?

Stop challenging people's motives just because they don't endorse who you want.

[NCTraveler]

59. Awesome person.

Your personal thoughts aside, thanks for sharing the additional bit. She is on our side big time. I'm on her side big time.

[ismnotwasm]

65. She's an admirable, incredible person.

I call it continuing her activism for effective change.

[CBHagman]

79. I call it a biography, a CV, a resume...

...a life path.

[HassleCat]

81. It's part of the general strategy

Socialism has become less attractive since the Democratic Party stopped being friendly to socialists and socialist ideas. For the past 35 years, our party has advanced or cooperated in schemes to force people off welfare, make it almost impossible to get mental health care, send more people to prison, privatize government services and government workers, and generally hinder government's ability to do things for working class and middle class people. Before the transformation, many prominent members of our party stood with UFW in actions such as the grape boycott. Somehow I can't see that happening now. The critical decision was to pursue campaign funding from large banks and investment companies, and it was a conscious decision, a decision that made it nearly impossible for our party to support any kind of socialism in any form. So people had to choose between being where the action was, and still is, or remaining true to their principles. It's not easy being on the outside, looking in, and many socialists and liberals figured they should drift to the right to avoid becoming irrelevant. They only did what our party did, so I don't think we can fault them for that.

[Bobbie Jo]

88. Keep it up...

Just like I said a hundred times after the BLM fiasco, keep it up...

...and you did just that.

[Ken Burch]

94. A lot of BLM supporters support Bernie now.

So you've got nothing to be smug about.