*Honest* question for Hillary supporters:

[cali]

Scout's honor, this is a super sincere and innocent question.

How come Hillary tacitly supported union busting for SIX freakin' years as she sat on Wal-Mart's board?


<snip>

Of course, then, as now, Walmart’s biggest cost was labor. And to keep labor costs in check, Wal-Mart took pains to make sure its workers didn't unionize. During Clinton’s tenure, the company’s strategy for dealing with organized labor was directed by fellow board member, John Tate. Mr. Tate famously summed up his philosophy at a 2004 managers meeting: "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living.”

According to former board members, Clinton did not denounce the ‘anti-union’ efforts Tate spearheaded, nor rail for increased employee wages. Donald G. Soderquist, the board’s then vice chairman, has said that not only was Clinton “not a dissenter,” but that “she was a part of those decisions.” Wal-Mart’s stock rose by more than 500% during her tenure and Clinton’s shares were worth nearly $100,000 by 1992.


<snip>


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/22/hillary-clinton-wal-mart-minimum-wage-layoffs-store-closures-column/80225734/

[peacebird]

1. She currently supports increasing outsourcing, and increased H1B visas also.....

[Dragonfli]

4. At least she is consistent on two things H1b and Walmart union busting which counts in my mind (1

(2 support for bush doctrine preemptive wars and strikes as well as Regime Change supporting dictators, bloody evil ones, or run of the mill military narcissistic ones, as long as they do whatever a corporation or corporations want.


If she gets to (3

she will finally have the beginnings of an actual consistent full PLATFORM rather than a couple things she appears consistent on.


I'd say good for her! Except the things she favors consistently I consider evil.

[cali]

2. What? No Hillary fans want to answer

my super duper honest® question?

[PeaceNikki]

3. My guess is that 95% or so have you on ignore.

[cali]

5. Of course they do. Hillary supporters are such sensitive types

You do understand, I trust, that my op is nothing but a riff on the patently dishonest "questions" (rhetorical attacks) that are posted by Hillary fans every day.

At least I'm intellectually honest. I don't see much of that with her supporters here.

[Dragonfli]

7. And yours at least comes off as amusing, whereas theirs come of as simply desperate /nt

[PeaceNikki]

11. Whatever, Cali.

[cali]

12. Lol.

Resorting to the hackneyed "Whatever".

[arcane1]

54. There's been a lot of that going on today.

The memos can't come out fast enough to keep up.

[Matariki]

46. Does it really not matter?

Presiding over union busting and low wages? It really doesn't matter?

Is it because it was in the past? And if that's why it doesn't matter to her supporters, what exactly is an acceptable cut off point for you?

Or do her supporters not care about low wages and unions?

[Liberal Jesus Freak]

48. Is Bravenak off tonight? n/t

[pangaia]

27. 'Scout's honor'

You are TOO good, Cali.

[cali]

36. Why thanks, pan

[turbinetree]

45. And thats why you are great......................

ask a simple question for the simple answer --------------

[mythology]

57. It's amusing that your post first insults Clinton supporters and then claims intellectual honesty

Those two things are mutually exclusive.

As Socrates put it, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

So congrats on what you consider a big victory or some sort of uber cool snark smackdown of Clinton supporters. Because if that's all you've got, then I suppose celebrate it. But to have to try to belittle and insult people just because they have the temerity to disagree with you, that's just sad.

[oasis]

15. Not challenging a fellow member of the board does not equal support.

Besides, the important thing is, many national unions support her now. They obviously are willing to chalk up her past association with Walmart as ancient history.

[jeff47]

17. Try reading the 2nd paragraph of the excerpt this time. (nt)

[oasis]

18. Great. Now try reading MY second paragraph. n/t

[jeff47]

19. Right after you correct your error. (nt)

[oasis]

21. No need. Unions support Hillary. Case closed.

[jeff47]

22. Nope. Their willingness to overlook her record does not correct your error. (nt)

[Jefferson23]

25. How do you reconcile the members support of Bernie over who their leaders are supporting?

It appears they most definitely are not in agreement and her record is likely
the reason why. Do you feel her record with WalMart is not problematic
to her claims of supporting unions?

[oasis]

30. Again, ancient history. Not everyone is obsessed with Hillary's

past. The stakes TODAY are just too high.

[Jefferson23]

32. It's not ancient history and she is in a highly competitive race. Your response does

not address the fact there is a disconnect between the members and their leadership.
If you are saying the leadership is supporting her b/c she will be the likely winner
than please state that..it appears that is what your meaning is with "stakes are too high."

Her record is not a confidence builder and it is another view into her very low trustworthy
ratings. What I see is a pattern and that pattern results with Democrats losing more and
more seats across the country, they don't believe their votes count for much and don't
bother voting.

[oasis]

38. Unions will mobilize their members for Hillary in the GE.

They know for certain a GOP victory will further diminish their numbers.

[Jefferson23]

39. I wouldn't count on it. We have lost too many seats to count on that argument any longer. n/t

[turbinetree]

50. Sorry --------------but some of us are----------------- with her record........................

look no further than on "trade deals".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511254768

[tblue37]

53. The leaders do. But when rank and file members are allowed to voice their preferences,

they overwhelmingly support Bernie.

One reason why people were so easily turned against unions by the corporatists was tha union leaders, once they got a taste of power, were susceptible to corruption. They were easily coopted by TPTB, the very ones the union was supposed to work against.

I think union leaders, even today, know which side the bread is buttered on.

[Cobalt Violet]

55. They all have their heads up their asses.

And they are convinced it smells like roses.

[yourpaljoey]

6. sounds like you want to discuss ISSUES... I'm sure they'll get right on that

[Dragonfli]

9. They would if they could! but unfortunately they all have doctors notes that say:

They're allergic to issue discussions and that such discussion may cause a severe rash or even a red swelling of the face requiring an epipen be used immediately before going to the hospital.

Poor dears, I think it is that sensitivity issue spoken of upthread.

[arcane1]

8. There is no memo to answer that, only memos to ignore mention of it n/t

[nashville_brook]

10. Clintonians can't answer this b/c there's no good answer

Hillary is in the bag for lower wages, off-shoring jobs with bad trade deals, and making life easier for Wall Street donors.

[cali]

13. I enjoy calling them out on their endless attacks tarted up

as questions. Then they run back to their safe space Hill cave to complain that Bernie supporters won't answer their bullshit faux questions.

They are so transparent.

[valerief]

28. Or Turd-Way, as we know it. nt

[Jefferson23]

14. Great question. Looks to me like their feelings about Clinton & union workers being busted is

to say, WHATEVER.

Why in the hell her past record is over looked and they expect a different
outcome this time is beyond me.

[cali]

16. Kick. Why won't Hillarians answer an honest question???

[cyberswede]

20. They're looking into it

[CharlotteVale]

23. ...

[cyberswede]

24. Cut it out!

[valerief]

29. DUzy!!!!

[cali]

33. ......

[thereismore]

26. The lines have been drawn. Divisions are clear. nt

[TIME TO PANIC]

31. I worked at Wal-Mart for two weeks when I was in my early 20's.

They made me watch anti-union videos during my job orientation. I still don't know how I passed the drug screening.

[Wilms]

34. The lab techs might have been heads.

[TIME TO PANIC]

37. Most likely.

[sarge43]

51. Probably figured anyone who willingly worked there had to be stoned. Just one of the dudes. n/t

[Mike__M]

35. I am almost certain that

Your concerns about her boardroom decisions will be put to rest as soon she releases the Wall Street speech transcripts.

[Hissyspit]

40. Better question. Who the fuck would be on Walmart's board of directors?

[Dont call me Shirley]

41. "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who

work for a living.”

What an Orwellian statement. The bloodsucking parasites are the Walton heirs.

[cali]

42. And Hillary had no problem with that union busting dog shit.

[Dont call me Shirley]

43. One would conclude simply being on the waltons board would make one a union hater/buster.

[cali]

44. Maybe not, but the evidence in her case, makes it clear

[Matariki]

47. Lol. We need to have an 'honest question' hour

Maybe a whole day!

But in truth, I think what you are asking is actually a good question. I would love to know why Clinton supporters are willing to overlook this. I really would.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Ok...

Of course, Wal-Mart is always a good target going back to the 1990s
and IF a candidate has ties to the giant,
it plays well to mention it in a Primary. Evidently, someone got the memo!

So let's take another look at Hillary’s connection to Wal-Mart:

According to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices, board colleagues and company executives noted. She made limited progress in both areas, but she never voiced any objections to the company’s anti-union stand, they said.

But in 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution to her campaign from Wal-Mart, citing “serious differences” with its “current” practices.

Would this information so strongly parroted in DU hurt Hillary Clinton in a general election? NO
Is it hurting her with Unions now? NOT PARTICULARLY
Is the aim of primaries to end up winning the General Election? YES
Is there any candidate pure as the driven snow throughout their entire lifetime? NO
Are there issues that either candidates running in the primaries may have that the Right will attack? YES
Is this one of them? NO
Is Hillary evil incarnated? NO
Is the fact that Hillary Supporters would rather not participate in this inquest a crime? NO
Is there a reason they would prefer not to? YES
Is that reason that they know that if one does not support Bernie Sanders, and one tries to say anything positive about Hillary Clinton, they will be torn to shreds, no matter how they respond? YES
Is it starting to feel like authoritarian rule in the clubhouse? POSSIBLY....depends who you ask.

“Let me talk about myself and I’ll let Sen. Sanders talk about himself,” she said. “Our real differences are with the Republicans.”

[Eko]

52. Since she sat on the board

I would think she voted,, and you have her voting record for that correct?

[great white snark]

56. All that really matters now is if any Wal-Mart issues would hurt her in the GE.

Since Wal-Mart is a sacred cow to Republicans I'd say no.

[Kang Colby]

58. Did you read the opinion piece?

Because your question is answered at the top of the article. Essentially, Hillary understands that a 65% increase in minimum wage would put a lot of workers out of a job. Hillary understands basic economics and presents real world solutions.

I'm surprised a Bernie supporter would post an article like this, because if you read it you'll notice the article explains that Hillary has had to dumb down her proposals due to the fact Sanders continues to pitch bizarre and unrealistic economic plans.

Sanders thinks companies are going offshore to avoid taxes, so his plan is to raise taxes to bring the companies back and keep more of them from going overseas. LOL....you can't make that up.

Sanders says we need paid family leave (I agree), but his plans would bankrupt our employers which would end up providing 52 weeks of unpaid leave per year.

[closeupready]

59. Did anyone ever respond, Cali?

This was a good question, and New York is a state with strong unions, so it's a timely one.