Do you hold it against her that, despite all her feminist bona fides, that there is no evidence that she ever attempted to seriously address the problems faced by low-wage female workers during her time with the company, and she has always declined to give interviews on this subject?
Gee. Maybe she was on the board when they didn't get all this incorrect publicity all over the place.
Since you have NO clue what her agenda was, maybe she was trying to instill change. Who cares. How LONG ago was that? Did it affect a THING? Does it go to what she is trying to stand for today? Does that put some big ass blight on all her many accomplishments concerning this and all other topics Trump has not only not addressed, but does not know ONE thing about? I am sure she is trying to help women.
Is TRUMP?
This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Name one politician that has less faults than Hillary being on a Wal-Mart board? I worked for Wal-Mart. They were very fair, pay-wise. They gave me a break every 2 hours and insisted upon it. They were humane to a fault. When was the last time you worked for that company? Maybe Hillary had something to do with THAT? Can you prove it either way? Maybe that position she held made some headway in ways you cannot even fathom. HOW DO YOU KNOW????
Hillary is very pro women's rights. No matter what she was trying to accomplish WAY BACK WHEN. You can tear her apart all day and night and you won't have one leg to stand on where TRUMP is concerned.
She could do just about anything and be better than that loose cannon who doesn't know anything about running a country. If she were running against Bernie, that's different. She is running against HITLER the BOZO.
Yes, I do.
It is one of many reasons I believe HRC is a mediocre presidential candidate. History suggests whenever HRC has had the choice of doing the brave or right thing (according to my beliefs), she has opted to do the politically expedient and/or very profitable thing instead.
Another example has to do with bankruptcy reform. In one of Elizabeth Warren's books (she was a Harvard professor of law, specializing in bankruptcy law, prior to becoming a Senator), she relates meeting with then-Senator HRC, and explaing to HRC just how damaging the proposed bankruptcy reform legislation would be for ordinary Americans.
According to Warren, HRC listened to her evidence, asserted that she (Clinton) was convinced of the damage the proposed law could do, and would fight against its passage. Not very much later, Clinton voted for the bill. One suspects the campaign contributions (and payments for speeches....;-D...) which HRC received from various entities in the financial industry overrode her moral objections to the bill.
So, yes, HRC has many warts on her record, and I fully acknowledge that. That being said, I still think she's the "better" candidate compared to Donald Trump. That's almost certainly damning by faint praise, but it is also reality.
Like what? How do you know? I would like to see you make some statement proving this besides just making stuff up. WHAT? Name 6?
Your claim that Walmart has "systematically discriminated against women" has no basis, no merit, and no proof. If you are referring to the high-profile Walmart vs Dukes case, supposedly involving 1.6 million women, that was thrown out by the Supreme Court in 2011. Get your facts straight.
Since you chose to frame the question with a false statement, the question is invalid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc._v._Dukes
@DJAM -- I think it's fair to say that HRC has put her foot into various political cow pies over her career. Just off the top of my head, I think there are fair criticisms (as well as ridiculous excessive partisan rancor) about:
1) Her vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq.
2) Her acceptance of large speaking fees from various corporate interests (and lack of transparency about them)
3) Her handling of her private e-mail server. Even the head of the FBI said she exercised bad judgement.
I know that's only three and, yes, some people will make mountains out of molehills (e.g. Benghazi! (tm)) for partisan political gain and, yes, Trump has arguably many more/larger warts than HRC. But I think Irmagerd Kern does have a legitimate observation.
She has done and will do more harm if she wins.
HI THERE OLD.
This was not directed towards you.
I liked immensely what you said about Hillary and her blunders. I liked that you explained what happened between her and E. Warren. If I were E. Warren, I would be righteously pissed off.
I was talking about Irmagerd's flippant remarks that mean nothing. If Hillary were running against Elizabeth Warren or Bernie, I most certainly would vote for either of them before her IF I THOUGHT THEY COULD WIN.
If they had one chance in HADES.
However, since she is pitted against the Donald, I think we are both still on the same side, you and I, as to who we need to stand behind. She is hardly perfection. But I cannot speak of any candidates in the past hundred years that are. All of them, from George Washington on, are filled with warts. BUT NOT AS BAD AS TRUMP.
Just making a flippant remark that Hillary causes more problems than she solves, really says nothing. Your argument had merit. Irmagerd's had nothing.
I love Elizabeth Warren. I like what Bernie stood for when he was making any real sense; regarding how things could "maybe" occur if he managed to make it to the Oval . After what they did to Obama, I still think Bernie was totally weak and ineffective. His ideas were too idealistic in this day and age. He has opposition. He just yelled at the top of his lungs and made me turn the channel. I don't need a cheerleader. I need someone who can get things done in the face of the EVIL RIGHT who rules the White House. I have never seen Elizabeth Warren in the Oval either. She has a great record, but she has not been TRIED. We have to hope and cross our fingers on that one.
I have, however, seen Hillary. She knows what is UP at least. Maybe Elizabeth Warren would be beaten down worse than Obama if she were elected. Maybe the right wing would loathe her more than Obama and really rebel. I know she would try and stand her ground. I think she would be terrific, but I don't know how much weight "being right" and "idealism" carries any longer when you have to fight every moron in Congress just to make it through the day. I think Hillary can make some headway. And it is because she plays both sides. She knows how to deal with conflict. I think she cares a lot more about her legacy than she gets credit for. You cannot support the left without leaning to the right just to get them on your side while you make much needed change. I know this is weak, but it may be practical.
(But I mostly agree with your very salient points)
She is not as BAD as the naysayers say. That is the only reason I defend her. No other.
Side-splittingly funny.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/walmart-sex-discrimination-women-_n_1575859.html
Ever hear the old saying that where there's smoke, there's fire? Even you know what that means.
