YES

get off my lawn

Sorry, we had to deny your application because you’re Asian. Try another school.

a lot of white men with similar records

There are some democrats that are male progressives that have a law background that ran for president that are not hated by people? Who?

Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris have in common

I would posit those three agree with each other far more than they disagree with each other. It would be odd to find someone that objects philosophically to only one in that set. From where I sit they have a lot of similarities:

• Party Affiliation: All three women are Democrats.
• Experience in Public Service: Clinton, Warren, and Harris have held significant roles in public service. Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State under President Barack Obama, as well as a U.S. Senator for New York. Elizabeth Warren is a U.S. Senator for Massachusetts. Kamala Harris is the Vice President under President Joe Biden, and prior to that, she was a U.S. Senator for California and the Attorney General of California.
• Women’s Rights Advocacy: Each of these women has been an advocate for women’s rights. Clinton has a long history of advocating for women’s rights both domestically and internationally. Warren has focused on issues such as equal pay for equal work. Harris has a record of fighting for women’s health rights and equal opportunities in the workplace.
• Law Background: All three women have backgrounds in law. Clinton is a Yale Law graduate who worked as an attorney before her political career. Warren was a law professor for more than 30 years, and Harris was a prosecutor and served as the Attorney General of California.
• Presidential Candidates: All three have run for president. Clinton was the Democratic nominee in 2016, Warren was a primary candidate in the 2020 election, and Harris was also a primary candidate in the 2020 election before eventually becoming the vice-presidential candidate.
• Progressive Policies: They all have advocated for progressive policies such as healthcare reform, climate change mitigation, and wealth inequality reduction. Clinton championed healthcare reform as early as the 1990s, Warren has been a vocal critic of Wall Street and a proponent of wealth redistribution, and Harris has put forth plans addressing healthcare access and climate change.

This is the real question. I’m sick of people dismissing criticisms against her because she’s black and/or a woman. Give me an actual reason to like her!

She’s definitely a horrible public speaker. I totally disagree with how she tackled truancy during her time as a DA/AG. Is this just my internalized racism speaking or can I ACTUALLY feel this way?

I don’t like her because of situations like her truancy laws. If you think she’s not liked just because of her race and/or gender, then you’ll never understand why people don’t agree with her.

I’m not a big fan of the Republican party but there are some issues they are championing at the moment like free speech

Free speech like this?

• Legislation in Tennessee could potentially criminalize speech that causes ‘emotional distress’ to or ‘frightens’ another person, which could be seen as a suppression of free speech (www.alternet.org/gop-revolts-against-free-speech-republicans-push-anti-protest-bills-across-the-country/).

• In Washington state, Republican Senator Doug Ericksen introduced a bill that would allow state authorities to charge protesters with “economic terrorism” if they participated in illegal demonstrations or coerced private citizens into doing so (www.alternet.org/gop-revolts-against-free-speech-republicans-push-anti-protest-bills-across-the-country/).

• In Kentucky, a bill was passed criminalizing the act of insulting a police officer (www.alternet.org/gop-revolts-against-free-speech-republicans-push-anti-protest-bills-across-the-country/).

This is so lazy. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. Feel free to toss out wild claims without providing anything to support what you are saying, but then don’t be surprised when no one believes you.

Hillary Clinton was widely respected every year

(source needed)

Here’s a list of objectionable stuff Hillary was involved with prior to running for president:

• Hillary Clinton’s hawkish stance on war, being more hawkish than Barack Obama and Joe Biden. She is specifically noted for advocating an escalation in Afghanistan​.
• Clinton’s involvement in the 2009 military coup in Honduras. Rather than condemning the coup, Clinton pressured other countries to recognize the new right-wing government, leading to increased violence and instability in the country​​.
• The firing of seven employees from the travel office during the Clinton administration in 1993, an act that some critics attribute to Hillary Clinton’s influence. The fired employees were later reinstated due to public pressure​.
• Controversies surrounding her commodity trades from 1978 and 1979, in which she turned an initial investment of $1,000 into nearly $100,000. No official investigations were carried out, but the incident raised eyebrows and led to criticism​​.
• Involvement in her husband’s controversial pardons during his presidency, including those for the owners of a carnival company convicted of bank fraud​.
• A controversy regarding gifts taken from the White House upon the Clintons’ departure in 2001. Some items, worth $28,000, were meant for the White House estate and not as personal gifts for the Clintons. These items were returned after complaints from the donors​.

For me, it’s this:

[Harris] fought for this law, which raised the financial penalty and made it a criminal misdemeanor for parents, up to a year in jail, when their children missed at least 10 percent of school time.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/10/17/924766186/the-story-behind-kamala-harriss-truancy-program

Well hell man, give us the details.

OK, if it’s so easy and the workers create all the value, those workers are free to start their own competing company and become the billionaires.

Because there are also CEOs and similar executives that do NOT fuck up and make billions for their companies. Big risk, but big reward.

brings jobs back to America

NOOO not THOSE jobs

So you stop and then it goes unchecked.

But de-federating ENSURES it goes unchecked…

Certainly, if it’s baseless propaganda you’ll have no trouble rebutting all the points instead of attacking the source.

HAHAHA if you think that’s a wall of text, have a great day. I’ll try and find a shorter quote to totally disprove you next time.

Aha, so only “TRUE” capitalism can be critiqued.

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 1851

I guess he was ahead of his time; able to criticize capitalism before it was invented!

People have bemoaned capitalism as long as it has existed. When do you think this “golden age” of capitalism was when everyone was universally content with the state of affairs?