HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » athena » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Aug 7, 2004, 10:55 PM
Number of posts: 4,187

Journal Archives

Being against the Ex-Im Bank is an extreme right-wing position.

When you oppose the Export-Import Bank, you play right into the Republican party's hands.


Conservative Republicans have singled out the bank as a symbol of “corporate welfare,” saying it hands out generous subsidies, especially to big companies like G.E. This year, House Republicans blocked a vote to renew funding for the bank.


The bank offers financing and insurance for American companies exporting products, and most industrialized nations have similar agencies. The Export-Import Bank actually makes money and returns funds to the Treasury. The bank says it supported $27.4 billion in exports and 164,000 American jobs last year. Nearly 90 percent of its loan recipients, the bank says, were small businesses, whose exports accounted for about 40 percent of those supported with Export-Import funding.

The article explains further down that one of the organizations criticizing the Ex-Im bank is owned by the Koch brothers.

Here is further reading that can educate you about what the Ex-Im Bank does and why getting rid of it would put the U.S. at a huge disadvantage compared to countries like Germany:


Hillary Clinton respects the public's opinion.

She's not an ideologue. She has her opinions, but if the majority of the people move to her left on an issue, she reassesses, and almost always decides that the people are right. The public opinion is strongly in favor of gay marriage and has been so for a few years now. Ergo, marriage equality will be safe under HRC.

Honestly, I think it is great to have a president who respects the people. President Obama is the same way: he was initially against gay marriage but came around when the public decided to support gay rights. What all this means is that when HRC is president, we should all work hard at the grassroots level to advance progressive causes, to make sure she does not move to the center. FDR himself said, "Make me do it."


Consider the following scenario.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there are only 1000 people in the country.

450 are conservative, and 550 liberal.

Out of the 450 conservatives, 250 vote for Trump. The rest stay home because they can't be bothered to vote.

Out of the 550 liberals, 200 vote for Hillary. Another 100 vote for Jill Stein or stay home.

Who wins? Who would have won if the 100 disaffected liberals had held their noses and voted for the candidate representing their party? How can you argue that a liberal who is deliberately choosing not to vote, or voting for a write-in candidate, is not helping Trump win?

This really shouldn't need explanation, but I guess some of Bernie's supporters are so new to politics that they genuinely don't realize that not voting is equivalent to letting the opposition win.

Not voting is not an act of activism or revolution. It's the ultimate act of passiveness. When you don't vote, you make yourself indistinguishable from someone who doesn't follow politics or someone who is a right-winger but can't be bothered to vote.

Maybe you should look into her policies and record


before supporting the man who:

1. does not consider abortion a high-priority issue

2. and has zero women among the top ten highest-paid staffers on his campaign.

I'm really sorry to say it, but you're being sexist.

But I don't appreciate being told that I owe someone at my vote because she's a woman, particularly when she got where she got on her husbands coattails.

First of all, no one is telling you that you owe Hillary your vote. You can vote as you wish. You can even choose not to vote. It may not be a wise decision, but it's your decision.

In the beginning of the race, I also felt exactly like you about Hillary's connection to Bill. Then I read this article by a feminist:
It made me realize that the "coattails" argument, the one you made and the one I used to believe, is extremely sexist. We don't hold it against men when they benefit from an unfair advantage. Take the Kennedys for example. But we do hold it against women. Men benefit from an unfair advantage all the time. In fact, I think that being married to Bill has actually hurt Hillary, precisely because many women think that we can only be legitimately successful if we don't get the kinds of advantages men get all the time. We assume she got where she is because of Bill, and that makes us ignore her own accomplishments.

She is an intelligent and capable woman. Intelligent and capable women tend to be married to intelligent and capable men. We can't start holding that against them.
Go to Page: 1