Anonymous wrote:This article sums it up for me well. If the question is one of policy and not identity, then Sanders is the real feminist in the race.

Clinton helped champion her husband's gutting of welfare funding which plunged hundreds of thousands of women and children further into the downward spiral of intergenerational poverty. She has been mostly silent on the abuse of women's rights in U.S. supported regimes like Saudi Arabia. She has put corporate interests first ahead of human (women's) rights. I don't even want to get started on NAFTA and TPP. I have always said that at least Clinton has been consistent on Planned Parenthood but this article points out that even her position on abortion, that is should be "safe, legal, and rare" makes me wonder if she can also be swayed on this if it suits her politically.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kshama-sawant/bernie-vs-hillary-whats-a-feminist_b_9367996.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give it up. If we found 100 studies showing that welfare reform and trade deals actually help women, OP would just shift her reasoning yet again. She knows where she wants the argument to come out, and so she will do whatever it takes to draw the lines so it ends that way.

I'm happy to see though that there are other people who are just as offended by her reasoning as I am.

I'm also happy this education gave me more insight into how little Bernie has done for women, and how much Clinton has done.

I have not bent my reasoning in any way for this entire thread. I have been asked repeatedly to explain my reasoning and it is the same each time. And that has caused people to accuse me of pointing to the same things over and over again. Well, yes, those are my reasons for seeing it this way.

It's more that you ignore all the facts that counter your view.

Yep. OP conveniently forgets to address very thoughtful, well documented replies

I can't reply to everything but I have thanked the people who have provided links on gun control and pointed out some Clinton's more positive work for women.

OP, here you go.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/more-than-just-a-symbol/476490/

I posted that a few pages ago; OP didn't have time to read it, I believe.

Of course

I read it but it does not include any facts which haven't been covered in this thread and I disagree with author's conclusions as well as her use of negative language regarding Sanders' contributions. It is a very slanted article and of course the articles I have posted are slanted in Sanders' favor. Fair enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give it up. If we found 100 studies showing that welfare reform and trade deals actually help women, OP would just shift her reasoning yet again. She knows where she wants the argument to come out, and so she will do whatever it takes to draw the lines so it ends that way.

I'm happy to see though that there are other people who are just as offended by her reasoning as I am.

I'm also happy this education gave me more insight into how little Bernie has done for women, and how much Clinton has done.

I have not bent my reasoning in any way for this entire thread. I have been asked repeatedly to explain my reasoning and it is the same each time. And that has caused people to accuse me of pointing to the same things over and over again. Well, yes, those are my reasons for seeing it this way.

It's more that you ignore all the facts that counter your view.

Yep. OP conveniently forgets to address very thoughtful, well documented replies

I can't reply to everything but I have thanked the people who have provided links on gun control and pointed out some Clinton's more positive work for women.

OP, here you go.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/more-than-just-a-symbol/476490/

I posted that a few pages ago; OP didn't have time to read it, I believe.

Of course