Hillary Clinton doesn't support reparations for women.

[mhatrw]

These are Hillary Clinton's own words:

"Too often, these are called women’s issues. Well, I am a proud lifelong fighter for women’s issues, because I firmly believe what’s good for women is good for America. … As far as I’m concerned, any issue that affects women’s lives and futures is a women’s issue."

Yet Hillary Clinton does NOT support reparations for women oppressed by a long legacy of gender discrimination! Thus Hillary Clinton must be a sexist who only cares about men.

It doesn't matter that not one of the other candidates is supporting reparations for women. Clinton is the only candidate who has presented herself as the foremost champion for women's rights. Clinton is the only candidate who has taken up the mantle of the ultimate outsider in Presidential politics as the only viable female candidate in US history. As such, Clinton must be held to a standard unique to all other competing candidates as well as all other incumbent politicians. Thus, since Clinton does not support reparations for women, she is clearly a sexist with a male only agenda.

[stevenleser]

1. Well, you simultaneously slapped a lot of African Americans in the face while showing you dont

really understand Coate's point, all while making a joke of women's equality.

Well done.

[kristopher]

2. Look in the mirror when you say that Steven

[stevenleser]

3. Only if its a two-way mirror with the OP at the other end. nt

[kristopher]

4. Well, the comment was transparent...

But it certainly wasn't glass.

[mhatrw]

5. I understand Coate's point quite clearly, and I agree with it.

I want reparations made to all oppressed peoples in the USA and everywhere else in the world.

What I don't agree with is disingenuous operatives who argue that the candidate they do not favor is evil for having the exact same stance as the candidate they support.

[notadmblnd]

6. So are you saying that women are not and have not ever been oppressed?

Or are you saying that the suffering of women through the centuries is not as important as African American suffering through the centuries?

It is true that women were not rounded up by African slavers and sold to white men from Spain Portugal and Great Britain and other countries that participated in the oppression of African Americans. But women have been enslaved for millennia also. No, it is you who is making the joke by minimizing the suffering of not all, but many women who still suffer to this day.

[libdem4life]

11. I'm truly confused here...really. No one can outline a substantive definition, who qualifies,

how much, I'm assuming its POC, so what about lineage/DNA (some is, of course from plantation whites)what about those from, say, Somalia...they may have been here back then, how much (taxpayer's money I assume), for how long, lump sum or month to month, and just how would this much talked about phantom idea be administrated. You seem to understand what this all means. To me, it's a Straw Person Subject and a gigantic Tax and Spend Federal Program.

HRC doesn't know. Obama doesn't know. (or they are not saying) So now Bernie is taking the heat aka Gotcha, for not coming up with a plan for Reparations.

What the heck are reparations other than some vague word to mollify a sense of White Guilt? And what is it that could not be fairly extended in the form of $15 an hour minimum wage, Jobs "repairing" the infrastructure, free college, decent healthcare...all of these I consider forms of reparations that would benefit the entire country. And they are achievable with a little bit more equity in the form of income inequality.

[DanTex]

7. Second OP in this tone. Interesting that Bernie fans think the reparation issue is a big joke.

[mhatrw]

8. Reparations are not a big joke. I agree with reparations. The big joke is Clinton supporters

like you trying to castigate Sanders for having the exact same stance on reparations that your own candidate has.

It's duplicitous, desperate, and disingenuous.

[John Poet]

9. And Childish.

[cascadiance]

16. I think that most want to see POC helped to overcome the many difficulties they've faced...

... throughout our country's history. Whether reparations are the best means to achieve those goals of trying to help overcome those difficulties is a question that has been debated for a long time. Some people have no interest in making any changes to help those and stand against reparations. Others feel that the logistics of trying to do them would have a lot of problems that in many cases wouldn't be fair. How do you determine who's the most affected. Would someone who's a recent immigrant from Africa (or maybe second generation to one that's just recently moved here) get the same benefits of those who's ancestors have been deeply affected by slavery, etc. here and who have far less in money and resources they've inherited than someone that was the recent immigrant. Would they both be treated equally in terms of getting reparations if it is just their skin color that is used as a measurement? How would we determine different party's eligibility and the amount they were affected.

I think if we can focus on today where we can have people who are living more in poverty, etc. and have had their past in terms of assets and education, etc. affected by what they've inherited in life not be affecting so much what hey can make of their future, by doing things like making college education (or trade education, etc. too) free to those who want it. If we can make this less of a historical study exercise to determine who gets what, etc. but focus on how to give everyone a decent shot in having a decent life, and to not have their life affected adversely by any kind of discrimination, that I think is a better goal than trying to talk about reparations as a required goal that has a history of many different directions that don't make it a universally held goal of everyone.

And like you said, for one candidate to try and use "reparations" and cherry pick its usage to apply to one group of people to try and criticize their opponents and violate using it in a different context is something that makes no sense to me either. I think the main qualifications a candidate should have is not advocacy of something like reparations as a solution, but to be open to someone's future definition of it as a solution if it can be made to practically work for the real goal in society of us all having an equally decent chance of having a good life, and not "getting reparations", which is a potential means to a goal, but not the goal itself.

[riversedge]

10. Take the post down before you continue to look more stupid. Mocking and using reparations

to cut down a Democratic candidate is beyond the pale.

[farleftlib]

12. OMG you're calling someone else stupid?

After what you posted earlier? LMAO

[artislife]

14. Yup..we sure are in the silly season. nt

[mhatrw]

13. I am NOT mocking reparations. I am in FAVOR of reparations, and especially in favor

of reparations for African Americans.

What I am mocking is the pretzel illogic that Clinton supporters have contorted themselves into so they can denigrate Sanders for having the exact same stance on reparations that Clinton has.

[Bread and Circus]

15. From what I read that is essentially TNC's argument and thus I think this OP strikes a chord.

To me, his points sounds like a bunch of double standard double speak.

Basically comes right out and says Bill Clinton and Hillary CClinton advocated for some of the most racist policies in modern history but gives Sander's a higher bar to cross because of "labels"... which makes sense to him.... because "reasons"....