Rosario Dawson, how dare you lecture Dolores Huerta?

[bigtree]

bwdone2017@theonlyadult
Rosario Dawson, how dare you lecture Dolores Huerta? | Cindy Casares http://gu.com/p/4hq9d/stw


If labor activist Huerta has concerns about Bernie Sanders, let’s listen to them. Don’t insult her integrity by calling her an ‘instrument of the establishment’

Despite the most recent primary results, Bernie Sanders is still losing to Hillary Clinton. In my opinion, it’s not because he has bad ideas, but because his campaign strategy is to portray himself as an exemplar of moral virtue and Clinton as evil incarnate. Not only that, he decries anyone who doesn’t agree with him as a corrupt sell-out. Some of his supporters seem to agree.

When legendary farm labor, feminist, and voting rights activist Dolores Huerta published an op-ed saying she didn’t know enough about Sanders to vote for him, citing his inconsistent record on immigration and his lack of presence in the United Farm Workers struggle (that’s the labor union she co-founded with the late Cesar Chavez), the person who spoke up on Sanders’ behalf was an actress who once played Huerta in a poorly received biopic of Chavez. Rosario Dawson, a 36-year-old from New York City whose Latino ancestors hail from Puerto Rico, a US territory, and Cuba, the beneficiary of an open-door US immigration policy these last 57 years, wrote an op-ed in the Huffington Post lecturing Huerta.

“I am surprised, dismayed, and concerned that you would do your legacy such a disservice by becoming an instrument of the establishment, rather than joining this movement to create a better America like you once inspired us to do,” Dawson said.

Forget that Huerta not only cofounded the UFW but has dedicated six decades to fighting on the front lines of the workers’ rights movement. She’s been arrested 22 times while demonstrating for the cause and was even hospitalized in 1988 – as a grandmother – with two broken ribs and a ruptured spleen while protesting President George HW Bush’s opposition to the UFW grape boycott. Forget all of it. Dawson has declared Huerta’s legacy destroyed on Bernie’s behalf.

In case there was any doubt as to whether Sanders approved of her message, Dawson was subsequently picked to introduce him at speaking events in San Diego and Los Angeles, where she told crowds to be wary of the media. She spoke of how she been registering Latino voters for 11 years through Voto Latino. Good for her. Dolores Huerta has been doing it for 56, since back when that kind of thing could get you lynched.

The whole episode smacks of the Sanders’ overall style, one that, in the words of former Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank, “alienates his natural allies”.

Frank once said of Sanders: “His holier-than-thou attitude – saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else – really undercuts his effectiveness ... To him, everyone who disagrees with him is a crook.”

I suppose that, in addition to Huerta, UFW president Arturo Rodriguez (Cesar Chavez’s son-in-law, who has been fighting with the UFW since 1973), is a crook, too. He also wrote an op-ed questioning Bernie Sanders’ voting record on immigration. Sanders voted against the 2007 bipartisan immigration bill on the grounds that it didn’t have enough protections for new guest workers (although it did boost protections for farmworkers). Yet Sanders didn’t appear to have the same concerns when it came to co-sponsoring a 2011 bill to allow agricultural guest workers, currently only allowed for seasonal farm work, into Vermont’s dairy farms, which offer year-round work.

“Although Senator Sanders opposes use of guest workers because of concerns over exploitation,” wrote Rodriguez, “is he willing to make an exception for guest workers in agriculture? Is this the same kind of exception that saw – and still sees – farm workers excluded from the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act guaranteeing minimum wages and overtime pay after eight hours, and other protections?”

It’s a fair question from a man who has spent many decades fighting on behalf of farm workers. But please, Dawson, tell us how the UFW are a bunch of corrupt sell-outs. Better yet, I’d love to hear the answer from Sanders himself.


Cindy Casares is a columnist for the Texas Observer and the founding editor of Guanabee Media, an English-language, pop culture blog network about Latinos established in 2007

read: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/27/rosario-dawson-dolores-huerta-bernie-sanders?CMP=share_btn_tw

[NWCorona]

1. I would agree if she didn't try to throw Obama under the bus in 2008

[brush]

2. Who tried to throw Obama under the bus? Pls explain how.

We need to here more than an unexplained accusation.

[NWCorona]

3. Sorry for not being clear

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/21/1488535/-Dolores-Huerta-did-the-same-thing-to-Obama-in-2008

[Uponthegears]

5. And this

http://www.salon.com/2008/01/19/huerta_obama/

At some point, Hillary is going to have to stop playing the victim and start playing the leader.

[EndElectoral]

9. Thanks for the reminder.

[roguevalley]

14. amazing how some get a pass. amazing how

Some demand silence in others. She can say any damned thing she wants. No one owns the entire experience for anyone and everyone

[shadowandblossom]

40. Labeling people who disagree as "corrupt" and "establishment" is about silencing people.

She can say any damned thing she wants, even if it is about silencing others voices, and then we can discuss how grating some of us find that.

[shadowandblossom]

25. I feel that way about Sanders.

I want to see him take responsibility for his votes for one. He did make his own choices. Another thing that irks me is that there would have to be a transition between ACA and Single payer, (assuming you could get it through congress, which I don't see as a possibility at this time,) but every time he is asked about this transition he blames Clinton rather than addressing it. Rather than talk about the transition he starts talking about Clinton attacking him. Well it's obvious that something like that can't be seamless, so address the question. I feel like this is a common theme when I watch him and it bothers me.

[Autumn]

4. My feeling is that the baton goes to the young activists and young voters now,

it's their world, their future. They will have different allegiances, as they should.

[shadowandblossom]

15. The votes, actions, and opinions of people over thirty count too.

Activists who have been doing it for real, with a real cost, and for their entire lives will get a lot more respect from me than some actor. I don't like how casually and lightly you discount her years of work, her broken ribs, and the way she has put herself on the line for others. What have you done that compares? I don't like seeing real heroes treated that way.

Intelligent people can and do disagree.

Questioning and disagreeing are not cause to label someone the enemy, they're cause to explain your positions and take personal responsibility for where they are imperfect and cause harm--no one is perfect. He should discuss and take responsibility for his own beliefs and actions, not treat those who disagree with him or question him as the "enemy."

He's running to be president not God.

[Autumn]

20. It's a dishonest game she plays. It's not questioning and disagreeing. She has a pattern

http://www.salon.com/2008/01/19/huerta_obama/

It's not the 70' anymore, we have video and the internet. We can prove what is said and what is done. She lied, about Obama's supporters and Bernie's.

[shadowandblossom]

33. When is it going to be okay to question Sanders? It goes way beyond Huerta.

Everyone who questions Sanders gets labeled as corrupt. I feel like that is the centerpiece issue in this article and it's something I am tired of. I talk to people on here and a Sanders supporter dismisses everything Clinton supporter say by claiming we're getting paid to do it. That's a pattern a lot of us are seeing, where anyone who disagrees with Sanders is labeled corrupt, (planned parenthood, John Lewis, Dolores Huerta, online supporters, boatloads of journalists) and I hope you guys have the guts to address it. I'm talking about Sanders and something I see as a serious issue in the Sanders camp. What about this pattern with Sander's and many of his supporters?

"You can prove what is said and what is done," in some cases yes, and in other cases these tools help us, and interested parties, to cherry-pick and misrepresent a small piece of a broader more complex image.

[Autumn]

35. You can question him anytime you want. I only read your header and I'm done.

This thread is off to to the trash can where it belongs.

[shadowandblossom]

38. Cover your ears and close your eyes then, but I don't require people to agree with me.

You can disagree with me without being evil, blind, or corrupt.

[beedle]

42. Thos issues have been addressed already

No one is making accusation that are not based on actual facts regarding those people you mentioned:

Planned Parenthood: was questioned for supporting a Dem candidate during the Dem primaries, which it had never done before, and for no apparent critical reason (not like Sanders was anti-choice, or had a suspicious, let alone bad, record on the issue.) Then we learn that the Pres of PPH's daughter(neice?) was working the Hillary campaign ... that should be questioned.

John Lewis: Gave a statement that at face value claimed Sanders was lying about his civil rights credentials, and also at face value claimed he saw the Clintons at the important civil rights marches (which Sanders actually attended) when he hadn't met them until a decade or so later. He should have indeed been called out for that ... he was and he retracted (although he did repeat the same nonsense again later.)

Dolores Huerta: again, caught in what on the face of it looked like a lie, one that was refuted on more than one freaking video recordings and had eye witnesses to the incident. Again, she should have been called out for that (and she should still be called out for not retracting and apologizing, which as far as I know she has not done as yet.)

Now, what 'serious issues' would you like to address about the Sanders camp? You seem to have failed to mention them other than citing push back on Clinton camp (to be generous) 'misstatements'?

[shadowandblossom]

51. First back to my original point, before the deflection, then addressing the deflection.

What I am talking about is the problem where people who disagree with Sanders or support Clinton are labeled immoral, corrupt, ignorant, "establishment", or "schill." It seems to me like there's little tolerance for other views when it comes to Sanders and I can't respect that attitude.






-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Well if the niece of the president of that amazing organization thinks she is the best option GOOD for her for getting out and working with the campaign they both think is best. Bravo to her for getting involved.



2. Dolores Huerta: (I wouldn't be surprised if someone said it and wasn't caught on video in the hubub of the crowd by the way. Not that it would matter to what I am posting about.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/21/why-neither-side-is-quite-right-in-their-reads-on-that-dolores-huerta-english-only-shout-down/

"The plain truth about what happened is that no one seems to have described events quite accurately. Here's the video Sarandon shared in her tweet. The key section runs from about the 53:35 minute mark to around 56:46.

If you watch the Sarandon video, you will note that some of what is said and done is not audible or clear. But this much is:

Around 53:35, there is a call from the back of the room for a Spanish interpreter, because some in the room do not speak English.
There is a lot of cross talk, yelling, hissing and complaining around the 53:55 mark, as Huerta comes to the stage.
There are people shouting, "She's with Hillary" and "No," around the 54:12 mark.
At around 54:30, the permanent chair (the man speaking into the microphone) asks people to settle down, stop yelling and observe.
Then, the permanent chair says at around the 55:21 mark, "We're going forward in English only."
This statement was followed immediately by much applause and cheers of "Thank you." All of this together would indicate that the people pleased by the permanent chair's English-only decision were probably Sanders voters.
So there you have it. Right? Sanders voters can't be tarred and feathered for -- or even deemed guilty of -- Huerta's "English-only" chants claim. And Huerta appears to have misattributed the permanent chair's English-only decision to the raucous crowd.

But it's really not quite that simple.

"First off, neither Huerta, the precinct's permanent chair nor the precinct captains for Clinton and Sanders could be reached for comment Sunday. Nevada Democratic Party officials, who oversee the caucuses, have yet to respond to requests for comment about events or procedure. Ferrera also declined to comment.

Second, this video really does not prove Huerta was guilty of the bias alleged by Sanders supporters; it's easy to see why she felt abused and upset after being shouted off the stage. Nor does it completely clear the Sanders supporters of all the allegations against them; some of the comments that are clearly audible in it amount to more than bad public behavior."

3. John Lewis: I saw that endorsement when it first came out. You can interpret it that way, but what I heard was that he was dismissive. (also Sanders did what he did elsewhere in the country) He also apologized after the blowback and said he wasn't trying to say he didn't contribute anything to the civil rights movement. He's also entitled to his view, even if all of that weren't the case.

No one is holding Sanders to the same level of perfection you expect of those who think Clinton is a better candidate and he is running for president...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

64. But this thread right here--it's about Huerta. So we're really not going way beyond her here.

[bigtree]

16. that's not how I view the legacies of my ancestors and peers

...we rightly built on the wisdom and experience of those who came before us.

Moreover, we had the smarts and foresight to include our elders in our own struggles, advantaging our causes with their experienced counsel and influence.

There's far to much casting aside of the legacies bequeathed to these emerging generations. If I could teach them nothing else, I would have them always regard these pioneers of our rights as precious allies who deserve a strong voice in our advocacy; if for no other reason than for the fights they waged and sacrifices they made (in an era which many of us will never experience and likely cannot fathom) standing against violent resistance to serve as voices for the voiceless in our society.

[Autumn]

18. Dolores Huerta lied, no one chanted English only. If Dolores Huerta doesn't know who

Bernie Sanders is or what he has done it's because she doesn't want to know and IMO I think that's a lie too.. When one get's partisan and throws away people who have fought for the same things you have that voice should be cast aside. I don't care that she supports Hillary, she has that right but she has to fucking right to lie, be honest about your support and stand by it. Voices that speak lies are not voices I want to hear.

[bigtree]

22. she was mistaken on that

...and you know, the 'lie' thing is not going to work.

THAT'S the disrespect I agree is being shown here.

Sanders supporters focused on that point as if that was the nub of Huerta's objection. It's the ONLY concern they have over that incident. If they would put aside the point-scoring bullshit for a nanosecond over what Huerta (83) says she heard or witnessed we could have a frank discussion about the fact that the Sanders contingent at that caucus GOT THEIR WAY.

Sanders wasn't injured or affected in ANY way at that caucus by what Huerta said or did. Spanish-speaking participants WERE affected and disadvantaged by the eventual decision to NOT have an interpreter, even though Dolores Huerta offered her services. The Sanders people at that caucus prevailed and GOT THEIR WAY.

But that wasn't enough, you and your supporters have to run this woman down because of WHAT SHE BELIEVES she heard. Why play the victim in that incident? What did Sanders lose? What did he stand to lose?

To me, this is nothing but a deflection from the substantive points Ms. Huerta is raising in her articles. It's the same kind of backbiting, cutthroat politics which Sanders supporters practice on this board. If you and your candidate cared a wit about the issues she's raising, about the issues this woman in the op is raising, you'd address them. Instead you raise this piffling bullshit. You needn't wonder why your candidate is losing so many of these voters who share Ms. Huerta's opinion.

[Autumn]

24. A lie is a lie, not a mistake and she has a pattern of doing that. She did it the last time

she supported Clinton. You ought to be wondering why Hillary has lost so many voters who supported her last time. But you won't. so you have a nice day, and by that I mean have a nice day bigtree.

http://www.salon.com/2008/01/19/huerta_obama/

[bigtree]

32. yeah

...that's exactly the type of response I'm talking about.

Here we have an icon of our nation's struggle for human rights advocating for her community as she has for decades and decades, and all you can remark on are these petty campaign charges. Do you imagine there's some majority of people dwelling on that? Or is it your aim to elevate that campaign nonsense above all else? Because, THAT'S the disconnect the Sanders campaign has reveled in.

So cravenly determined to defend the notion that they have concern for the communities affected, but so deliberately disassociated from the people in those communities critiquing their response. Is there any more isolating a way the Sanders campaign can engineer to address these communities?

[shadowandblossom]

58. Wow.

"So cravenly determined to defend the notion that they have concern for the communities affected, but so deliberately disassociated from the people in those communities critiquing their response".

To me some of these "controversies" being commenting on, rather than addressing the real issues in the article, reflect a missing of the big picture over and over and over. There's also this recurrent failure in seeing that these are simply human beings (and ironically, usually ones who have done way more for their communities than Sanders has. That's the part that is most amazing to me. The petty attacking of these people who have done so much more than him, while acting like he is a champion. I know not everyone is doing this, but it's aggravating.)

[Armstead]

26. She attacked Sanders....And did she bother to talk to him or anyone on his campaign?

One can disagree with specifics on issues. Bernie had to weigh his objections to guest worker visas against the merits of the larger bill. He made a call.

One can disagree with things like that, but when you stack that against his lifelong record and commitments and values, it is outright lying to claim that overall he is not a strong supporter of immigration reform and the people she claims to represent. That's just old fashioned dirty politics.

[yardwork]

27. The moderator yelled "English only!" and the crowd cheered.

It's on the videos. Listen for yourself.

[Autumn]

29. You know what? It's been heard. Over and over again. She even walked it back.

but you keep on beating that rented mule. Cause that's about all you got.

and just in case

Beat it like a rented mule
To beat someone, as you would a mule that did not belong to you. Without hesitancey.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Beat+it+like+a+rented+mule

[tk2kewl]

6. even heroes are not immune to criticism

[shadowandblossom]

17. No person is immune to criticism, someone running to be leader of the country least of all.

He's no hero of mine. But I respect what your saying, I think it is hard for people who do feel that way to question their hero. One that that is bothering me a lot is this black and white thinking, where Sander's must be all good, and all perfect, and anyone who critisizes him is being dismissed as morally inferior, stupid, ignorant, or "establishment", because it reflects an attitude that isn't healthy. It's cult-like. It's healthy for people to disagree with each other.

[cosmicone]

7. If god went against Bernie

Bernie fans would lecture god.

[NWCorona]

11. Doubtful

[Armstead]

31. God has a lot to answer for

[beedle]

44. God needs a good lecture

no matter who the imaginary sky ghost supports.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Rosario Dawson correct, Huerta said all the same things about Obama in 2008 and worse.

She's doing material. Repeats. She was unfair to Obama in 2008.

"Barack Obama actually took money from the company that was creating the nuclear waste and wanted to dump it in Nevada."

"I have been a civil rights activist like this all of my life, and I have been to Chicago many times for many different campaigns that the community there —- the Latino community was there. I have, to this day, to meet Mr. Obama. I have never encountered him in any of these big campaigns that we have done in Chicago on different issues."

"These people here actually went to see Obama, Senator Obama. So I don’t believe that he has that kind of courage and that kind of judgment. Or let’s say, is it judgment or is it wisdom or whatever? But he chose not to be associated with one of the biggest causes that we have in our community."

"And it’s interesting that in Nevada, where she got almost 59 percent of the Latino vote, in spite of the oppression and the voter suppression and huge intimidation on the part of the Obama supporters of the Latino casino workers, they voted for Hillary."
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/1/democratic_presidential_nomination_could_hinge_on


'When she said Obama refuses to help Latinos, suppresses the vote and has bad judgement she was wrong but when she says those things about Bernie she's right and how dare anyone claim she could ever be wrong??!?!?!"

[shadowandblossom]

21. Dolores Huerta is entitled to her opinion, it's no cause to dismiss her as "establishment,"

and to treat a woman who has dedicated her life to helping others like she is corrupt, simply because Huerta believes Sanders is not as good a choice to serve as President as Clinton is. Obama has nothing to do with this subject.

If you thought this article was about how Dolores Huerta can't be wrong you didn't read the whole thing. To me it seemed more about how Sander's can't be wrong, and those who disagree with him get called corrupt, even in cases like Huerta, where they clearly aren't. So stop deflecting and erecting strawmen.

You said, "Rosario Dawson correct..."

Is it "wrong" to disagree with Sanders? Does disagreeing with Sander's make a person "establishment." If not why is it right for Dawson to call Huerta, a lifelong activist, "establishment," for disagreeing with Sanders. Prove that Huerta, is "establishment" and prove that she is corrupt as is being implied by Dawson.

Go ahead, embarrass yourself.

[CalvinballPro]

10. At least Dolores Huerta has good company under the bus, w/ Paul Krugman and E. Warren.

And anyone else who doesn't tow the Sanders line sufficiently.

[shadowandblossom]

23. and John Lewis! and planned parenthood, and people who vote for Clinton.

and journalist who write anything that isn't hateful toward Clinton or worshipful toward Sanders. Didn't you know? We're all just a corrupt bunch of "Schills".

Disagreement will not be tolerated.

[TrueDemVA]

12. It's an opinion

Saying she has become an instrument of the establishment may come off as kind of strong, I will admit. I can see her side of it as well though. This isn't the first time that Mrs Huerta has criticized an opponent of Hillary. She was a vocal critic of Obama, now they are buds.

I can't fault Rosario Dawson for saying what she did. Just b/c someone has a history of fighting for a good cause, doesn't mean that are free from criticism, especially when that person helps spread a widely debunked story about Bernie supporters yelling English only, when it was obvious to everyone that was not the case. This was done in order to paint his supporters in a negative light in order to get votes for Hillary.

Doing things like that makes it easy to be referred to as an instrument for the establishment. Just saying.

[Scuba]

13. I miss the unrec button.

[melman]

19. As hard as this failed last time

you're going drag it out again?

[bigtree]

28. oh, yes

...bravo, if this has been posted before.

[shadowandblossom]

37. thanks for sharing it

I appreciate your posting it.

[Dems to Win]

30. How dare Huerta accuse Rocky Anderson of sexism?

How dare Dolores Huerta accuse Rocky Anderson of sexism when he talked about the corrupt pardons issued by the "two for the price of one" Clinton Administration? (as she did on Democracy Now a few days ago).

How dare Dolores Huerta slander good people by claiming they chanted "English Only" at the Nevada caucus, when video shows they did no such thing?

Huerta's own actions in her zealous advocacy for Hillary make her fair game for criticism.

[bigtree]

34. well, she's amply defended

...Rocky Anderson and the Sanders folks who denied Spanish-speaking participants at that caucus an interpreter, not so much.

[Attorney in Texas]

36. I really liked Rosario Dawson's comments, but are you saying she should defer to Ruben Navarrette

in his criticism of Dolores Huerta?

Or are you saying Dawson should defer to Carolyn Breedlove's criticism of Huerta?

Or are you saying Dawson should defer to Jorge Rodriguez-Jimenez's criticism of Huerta?

Or are you saying that free speech stops at the feet of Dolores Huerta generally or just that Rosario Dawson does not enjoy such rights?

[shadowandblossom]

39. Look at these people trying to impugn her character. Reminds me of Scientology.

It honestly reminds me of how Scientologists react to external criticism, by attacking the person's character and labeling them subversive. By engaging in censorship. There are even have online harassment mobs for people who disagree with Bernie or don't support him... also similar to Scientology's approach of sending out people to harass people outsiders who don't fall in line. (minus the lawsuits)

I know that most supporter are not like this. But for those who do on any side that's not something to be proud of.

[bravenak]

41. As much as I love Rosario

This was spot on

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. There you go, silencing another PoC for not holding the right views

[TheSarcastinator]

45. how dare you think YOU can tell either woman what to think?

Another unintentionally Hillary-ous post that should have been more carefully considered.

[whatchamacallit]

46. No one, no matter how accomplished and revered, is above reproach

That attitude is as dangerous as it is servile.

[beedle]

47. Sorry, How dare Cindy Casares

lecture Rosario Dawson?

I assume there is some official hierarchy of who can lecture whom? So can I see the official org-chat to confirm this is a legitimate criticism?

[bigtree]

48. clue

...only one of them is a civil rights, human rights icon.

But if you think this line will ingratiate your candidate with the Latino community, by all means... it's not as if bashing Ms. Huerta has worked for the Sanders camp, so far.

[beedle]

49. Civil rights icons can lie?

I'm sure the Latino community will understand how lying by someone who represents their community is not doing them any favors.

Or is the Latino community just dumb sheep who can't think for themselves in your opinion?

[bigtree]

56. no one except the Sanders folks are selling this line of yours

...and certainly not buying it.

How's that Latino vote working out for ya?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

65. You say that as if it's a magic incantation.

She's also been very dishonest. And that's a lot more recent. As I said elsewhere in this thread, if she wants to be remembered for her civil rights record, she'd do well to stop with this other nonsense. She's hurting herself, and that's her own fault.

[bigtree]

66. it's a reality for the millions who have benefited from her advocacy

...something you obviously couldn't give two shits about.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Oh yes indeed, that woman is just too uppity for her own good!

Shame on Bernie for letting her speak her mind!

[Blue_Tires]

52. There's that word again...

"establishment"

[LisaM]

53. I never heard of Rosario Dawson before this.

Not that it doesn't mean that she can't have a legitimate opinion, but in this case, I gotta go with the one who was with Cesar Chavez.

[jillan]

54. OH NOES!! Fall in line people. Never question those that have come before you even if it is someone

that you admire.

[one_voice]

55. I think both these women

have strong important messages.

The two generations can learn from each other. Stop talking at each other and talk to each other.

Generations have always learned from each other. That's the way things are done.

I admire both. I think it's a shame they're being pitted against each other. Strong women pitted against each other.

[Joe the Revelator]

57. Who is she NOT to question Huerta? These people aren't gods. They can be questioned.

[Starry Messenger]

59. k&r

[Gothmog]

60. That is a great article in the OP

[Cha]

61. K&R.. Gracias, bt

[Cha]

62. That's how these people are.. everyone of them. they know nothing but insults and disrespect..

#establishment is their go to buzz word. They all talk the same.

Too bad BS needs the #establishment Super Dels that he's always denigrating. too bad for him that is.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

63. How dare she? Is there some law I didn't know about that says you can't call out a liar?

What's with this idiotic notion that one cannot call out a liar? It's great that she has an admirable Civil Rights record. It's a real shame she's doing so much damage to herself. But that's her fault, not anyone else's.

If she wants people to remember her for her Civil Rights record, she'd do well to stop with this other nonsense, because that is what she'll be remembered for at this rate.

No one has sufficiently explained to me how she's so sacred that she cannot be criticized. I don't belong to that religion.