Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Republican Dirt Machine - Trolling Hillary From The Left? [View all]wyldwolf
(43,875 posts)177. 'true' isn't the issue. 'relevant' is (and some of these are factually inaccurate)
1) Hillary Clinton was a board member of Wal-Mart
Sure, from 1986 to 1992, where she used her role to push for more environmentally friendly policies and better treatment of women. Clinton used her position to urge the company to improve its gender and racial diversity. Other board members have said Clinton was 'a thorn in Sam Walton's side' on matters of gender and racial diversity and environmental issues.
But here is where your criticism is a sure loser. The electorate as a whole apparently doesn't care that she sat on the Walmart board 28 years ago. No matter how hard 'progressives' (and President Obama) tried to make it an issue in 2008, it didn't resonate and there is no indication it will in 2016. Last I checked, Walmart was still the #1 box store on the planet, shopped at by millions of Americans - yep, even Democrats. You're telling them they're doing something evil. That's going to set REAL well with them.
2) the DLC that the Clintons helped set up was funded at the beginning by the Koch Brothers.
Not true - and here's why.
A. The Clintons didn't 'help set up' the DLC. The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 along with founders and Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri). The Clinton's, least of all Hillary, was not involved in that mix. Bill Clinton wasn't involved until 1989 - four years later.
B. Apparently, from the source that originally made that claim, the funding started in 2001, 16 years after the organization was founded. Koch Industries was one of 28 corporations that donated. Not coincidentally, these same corporations were found on a DBC list (you are familiar with the DBC, right? 'Democratic Business Council,') under the umbrella of the DNC and still thriving last I checked. They originated the organized practice of contributions from corporations a half decade before the DLC ever had their first pow wow. If anyone 'progressive' in the Senate or House received campaign funding from the national party in the last 30 years, chances are it came from these evil corporations, including the Kochs.
3) Hillary Clinton supports the TPP
I don't know. I DO know while Secretary of State, she supported her boss, President Obama, who was pushing it. Cabinet members often support the President on decisions they may personally disagree with. I haven't seen or heard of her support for it since leaving that post and becoming a private citizen. What I DO know is she dropped all support of CAFTA (voting twice against it in 2005) and backtracked on NAFTA while a Senator and during the 2008 campaign.
When you find a verified recent quote (post SOS) from Hillary Clinton that supports TPP, let us know.
4) Hillary Clinton supports expanding H-1B visa program.
Awesome! So do I. Isn't it amazing that not only do I support a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, I also support hiring skilled foreigners legally.
5) Hillary Clinton conveniently did not vote AGAINST the bankruptcy bill, which is what Joe Biden strongly supported and helped get through congress as the senator of the state (Delaware) where many of the credit card companies are based out of.
Well, if you call leaving the Senate the day her husband had heart surgery "convenient," then yeah she conveniently didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill.
Interesting, though, Elizabeth Warren was on a PBS show back in 2007 and this very subject came up. Here is what she said:
I wanna be fair in this story. Mrs. Clinton, in a much more secure positionas Senator ... when the bill came up once againSenator Clinton was not therethe day of the vote. It was the day that President Clinton, you may remember, had heart surgery. But she issued a very strong press release condemning the bill and I assume if she had been there that she would have voted against it.
Here is an excerpt from Clinton's statement on the bill:
This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a "fresh start" and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives.
You can read it all here.
Senator Clinton voted for every single amendment to add consumer protections to the bill - each of which were rejected by both Republican majority and other Democrats. She voted against cloture in an attempt to keep the final bill from coming to a vote at all.
As President Obama has said when referencing the ACA and Republican attacks on it, "if it's really so bad, why do you have to be misleading about it?"
If Hillary Clinton is so bad, why do you have to be misleading about her?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
206 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If the GOP bullshit machine latches on to something that Dems aren't happy about -- and haven't
winter is coming
Aug 2014
#12
Oh, I don't think they just echo them. They distort and spin and edit them. And it has an effect.
nolabear
Aug 2014
#20
Oh, she did. But it was the idiotic notion that she shouldn't get any speaking fees...
KittyWampus
Aug 2014
#47
I haven't seen *any* Dems saying bad things about Benghazi. There have been a handful
winter is coming
Aug 2014
#24
Are you attempting to portray the RW as NOT trying to frame the conversation?
Sheepshank
Aug 2014
#138
if you fail to acknowledge this manpulative, propoganda type tactic by the RW
Sheepshank
Aug 2014
#140
Thank you, well said. I'm beginning to wonder about this. Could it be a dirty
sabrina 1
Aug 2014
#92
There will be many dirty tricks associated with 2016. Whether this is one of them... who knows? nt
winter is coming
Aug 2014
#98
The Third Way is very good at this kind of thing. Regardless, I won't be supporting
sabrina 1
Aug 2014
#101
Democratic trends don't prevent stolen elections. We prevent it by avoiding a close election.
pnwmom
Aug 2014
#167
Winning is KEY. I'd rather win with a Democrat that wasn't progressive enough to suit DU
pnwmom
Aug 2014
#191
And these groups have been "Trolling Obama From The Left" since day one. You Better Believe It!
Tarheel_Dem
Aug 2014
#8
Because Dems are weak-willed creatures who loved Hillary until the RW told them not to.
winter is coming
Aug 2014
#9
Hell, Ma'am, You Can See The Left Auxiliary Of The Republican Right In Action Here Every Day....
The Magistrate
Aug 2014
#13
Oh, you are correct about that, we DO see it here every day. In fact I see some of it
sabrina 1
Aug 2014
#97
Saying the left is exactly like the right, is like saying there is no difference in the parties.
Rex
Aug 2014
#164
When the end product of the 'left' in question is to elect Republicans, its not much of a 'left' nt
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#86
Your position depends on a willful ignorance of American political history
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#176
I didn't say you did. Try reading what I actually wrote. Speaking of strawmen... nt
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#181
Whereas the centrists simply aim to bring us 'Democratic' candidates who advance RW legislation.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Aug 2014
#29
A number of people describe concern for sexism, homophobia and racism as Third Way
BainsBane
Aug 2014
#33
No, I think the misreading of "Third Wayers are economically to the right, socially to the left"
winter is coming
Aug 2014
#137
I didn't miss the so-called "point". I thought it was word salad, as is this:
winter is coming
Aug 2014
#194
When you write circular and self-contradictory arguments, I see word salad.
winter is coming
Aug 2014
#196
So you entered this discussion talking about how one can provide quotes as evidence
BainsBane
Aug 2014
#91
Well, THAT was not even weak try. Manny asked a simple question, you made a claim
sabrina 1
Aug 2014
#100
CORPORATE/ELITE power is what is behind the manipulation. Right vs. Left is the illusion...
cascadiance
Aug 2014
#150
'They describe concerns about civil rights, sexism, and homophobia as "Third Way."'
AgingAmerican
Aug 2014
#59
These people are different than me, and so are those people. Therefore, they're exactly the same.
DisgustipatedinCA
Aug 2014
#174
I've certainly been surprised at the bitterness of some of the attacks on Hillary,
Nye Bevan
Aug 2014
#36
I think it's safe to say they've even got operatives on anonymous message boards...
Cali_Democrat
Aug 2014
#37
If I were a member of the GOP dirt machine, I'd troll Warren and Sanders,
betterdemsonly
Aug 2014
#41
And that strategy is classic ratfucking from CREEP....if I may bring a historical perspective to
msanthrope
Aug 2014
#127
However, if one was a member of the Green Party, one might try to strip off dissatisfied democrats..
SidDithers
Aug 2014
#124
As I note in post 127, that's classic ratfucking....shaving off the edges in order to attack the
msanthrope
Aug 2014
#128
Hillary needs help pissing off the left like water needs help freezing at 40 below zero.
bunnies
Aug 2014
#51
Actually, progressives need to stop taking unsourced editoritials as real journalism
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#71
I'm referring to online sources that spread misinformation to the left - read the OP
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#80
so, not being a part of the CORPORATE MEDIA hierarchy means "unsourced misinformation"? Yeah, RIGHT!
cascadiance
Aug 2014
#157
'true' isn't the issue. 'relevant' is (and some of these are factually inaccurate)
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#177
If Nader hadn't been in that election, funded by the GOP, the Jeb regime would not
MADem
Aug 2014
#166
Which is not nearly as much as the dlc has taken from the Koch Brothers
betterdemsonly
Aug 2014
#121
Why are you trying to change the subject from GOP big-money donors specifically funding Ralph
MADem
Aug 2014
#172
I wonder if the GOP would have donated to Nader if we had "instant runoff voting" in place
cascadiance
Aug 2014
#163
You think the HRC campaign could make shit like this up to deflect real criticism? Yeah, me too. nt
Electric Monk
Aug 2014
#74
There is a lot of corporate money flowing into attacks against all liberals.
raouldukelives
Aug 2014
#184