How can any "radical" deny poverty's role in violence? How could any "radical" overlook her role in harsh sentencing laws and prison privatization (private prison interests have been bundlers for her campaign). Why do people in poor communities turn on each other violently more than people in rich and middle class areas (places where these arguments carry water)? Of course it has to do with poverty, inequality, desperation, hopelessness, etc. Her argument on health care is kind of narrow too, odd for a "radical". Yes, maybe CHIP helped her, and that's great, but Clinton is arguing against fundamentally changing an inequitable, inefficient and immoral health care system. The ACA has some good parts, but it too is unsustainable. Health care costs still outpace wage growth for most people (just less so than before), and that, over time, will cause a crisis. Health insurance companies are still central to the ACA, and they are inefficient at the institutional level. No arguing against this. Compare the waste in private insurance companies to public health care systems in the US and elsewhere (or Social Security compares to privatized pension systems). So, not radically changing this health care system (which will not happen over night, Sanders never claimed it would and it didn't happen in Canada over night either) will result in tens of thousands of people dying because they lack care, massive amounts of people going into bankruptcy and paying far too much for an inefficient system. Again, odd that a "radical" would miss that and make an argument based on their own personal experiences.
"Hillary Clinton talks about and works for the least privileged in society"
She and her husband have been given billions, with a b, by corporate interests and banks since entering politics. They rose up in Arkansas with Walton money and immediately went after teachers. Her largest donors over her career are giant banks and huge corporations and her record shows that she supports those corporations in office. In fact, she, her campaign and her family have been doing tons of fund raising gigs with the very groups she would be battling (challenge me on this), if she were actually progressive (which she isn't). She has supported a horrible trade model that has destroyed working people, led to inequality, stagnating wages, decimated unions, widened the power differential between capital and labor, and she and her husband strongly pushed to gut social programs during his presidency that decimated the poor and communities of color. I could go on like this. Some "radical".
"I don't agree, and if his policies will only help my privileged, middle class family and friend"
Can she or anyone here cheering this nonsense essay on make an argument to back this claim up? Anyone? She isn't a radical because she says she is. If it is that easy, maybe we should assume that democratic people's republics were democratic because they said they were. LOL!
= new reply since forum marked as read