Video & Multimedia
In reply to the discussion: Seriously, What The Hell Does Hillary Clinton Stand For? [View all]I admit, I do find it hard to get. Your party has supported a trade model, for decades now, that has de-industrialized the country. There is no debating this. The trade model has decimated unions and helped to reduce wages. Yet, union leadership continues to support her (I say this as a former UAW rep). That doesn't make logical sense, unless we factor in corruption. Your party has supported austerity, the WTO, the coming TPP, gutted New Deal financial regulations, has bailed out financial capital with over a year's worth of GDP (while doing nothing for students, homeowners, and local governments), has passed NAFTA, and the three trade deals under Obama. It has supported mass privatizations nationally, at the state and local level (I live in Chicago, try arguing otherwise). I could go on. Wages haven't grown in over a generation, de-industrialization has spread, inequality and private debt has exploded, infrastructure is crumbling, all of this has happened with either party in power (show that inequality hasn't exploded under Obama) and yet lots of working people continue to work within your party and the other corrupt party. Throw in the fact that we are marching towards ecological destruction and your party's likely nominee is announcing clear as day that any radical change is impossible and shouldn't be expected. So, we shouldn't expect to do anything about that.
Now, who (especially on the left), would want to change any of that?