General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald: Women will be invested in Hillary, opposition to her will be depicted as misogynistic
<...>
Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, shes been around forever, the Clinton circle. Shes a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. Shes surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But shes going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. Its going to be this completely symbolic messaging thats going to overshadow the fact that shell do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. Theyll probably have a gay person after Hillary whos just going to do the same thing.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/greenwald-bashes-neocon-hillary-clinton-shes-a-fcking-hawk/
boston bean
(36,217 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #4)
AverageJoe90 This message was self-deleted by its author.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)far fom progressive.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)nt
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you are totally right...he is an privileged White asshole!
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)but is that a bad thing? I'm not sure. Women being invested in a candidate seems to me to be a good thing.
Still, I'm not convinced (A) Hillary will run, or that (B) Hillary will win if she does run for president
And I am a long time admirer of Hillary, but the truth is the truth.
randome
(34,845 posts)But just as some straight people have 'issues' with gays, Greenwald has his own serious issues. He's been telegraphing some embarrassing aspects of his personality of late.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Greenwald says opposition to Obama is depicted as racist and opposition to Hillary will be depicted as misogynistic.
This is a common notion in right wing circles. Greenwald isn't even trying to hide it anymore.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... he'd have no problem defending his own opposition to Obama, and Hillary. And yet he falls back on Limbaugh's pre-emptive defense ... and so ... if you disagree with Greenwald, you've actually called him a racist or misogynist.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)Mr_Harshaw
(19 posts)... Just be honest and use it as tool like any other.
NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Greenwald is a tool. Good suggestion.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)alp227
(32,002 posts)If you go to that "Stop Hillary" page on Facebook, you'll see a whole fucking sewer pit of misogynistic crap. See this example from the My Right Wing Dad blog.
Or any right wing website about Obama, you're bound to see "Kenyan" or any racial microaggression that falls short of the N-word.
There are plenty of constructive criticisms to be made about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Problem is that the crazy bigots get the most attention for their trash talk.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Have no stomach for it.
SamKnause
(13,084 posts)Mr. Greenwald I agree with your assessment of Hillary Clinton.
She will not get my vote.
I will support Bernie Sanders.
If he doesn't run, the Green Party will get my vote.
My conscience will not let me vote for Hillary.
This country needs to make a sharp left turn !!!!!!!
P.S. Just my 2 cents and the opinion of a proud, dirty, socialist, fucking, hippie, female.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)SamKnause
(13,084 posts)into voting against my best interests.
That is the job of Fox News and the majority of the mainstream media. (I do not get my news from the corporate media)
The voters are responsible for all those sent to Washington to represent the needs and wants of the citizens.
Hillary will not do that if elected.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The GOP knows that votes for a 3rd party helped them get Bush into office in 2000.
They are perfectly happy for folks on the left to split their vote. It closes the gap and gives them a shot.
And they appreciate it.
How you feel about it is totally up to you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And they really appreciate it. In fact, they appreciate it so much that I will bet that they will award themselves big bonuses once they learn she has won.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Fuck the good of the country. It's all about you, amiright?
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)Thanks for showing us the One True Path, oh wise one.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Is it "arrogant" to point out what the goals of the site are? I think maybe you need to "wise" up and read the TOS...you seem unclear on the concept. The stated goal here is to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office, after all, not to bash/trash Democratic candidates.
The poster avoids censure by making the comments outside of "campaign" season, but a point in time will arrive when those kinds of comments will be sanctioned.
Discussionist is over that way, where people can vote for whomever they like.... -------->
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I'm glad that your conscience is sated.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)Hillary is the only Democrat in America who can win a presidential election two years away.
TheKentuckian
(25,011 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Pushing the GOP where they really want to be.
Many of us on the left no longer have a party that represents us.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)Apparently they no longer have to earn your vote. You should just give it to them because the talking point is that a vote for anybody else is a vote for the Gee Oh Pee.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)so does karl rove, justice scalia and all the teabaggers.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Anybody who wastes their vote on a third party may as well stay home - you aren't sending a message. You're having a temper tantrum.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,948 posts)childish need for perfection is losing us the WAR. because now its WAR. and the UN-LOYAL OPPOSITION IS winning AGAIN.
G_j
(40,366 posts)than brow beat an individual who sounds passionate and committed about their choice.
Maybe two young people!
PFunk
(876 posts)Not letting the 'fear' meme stop me from voting my conscience this time. Greenwald may be an idiot but he's spot on about Hillary.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Was everyone on this thread born after the 2008 primary? The only possible reason you could have ever supported Obama over Clinton in 2008 was because you hated women, according to many people... a good number of whom "went PUMA" with their outrage that a black guy got the nomination, so... yeah.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Or at points right now, this site has a certain number of high-posting personas who will shamelessly make either of the following points:
If you criticize Obama -- never mind, if you criticize any policy of the U.S. government even if you don't mention the name of the current nominal executive -- it must be because you're a racist.
And if you don't cheerlead for Clinton -- who is the only Democrat who could possibly win in 2016, and furthermore totally inevitable -- it's because you hate women.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Me, I'll vote for Clinton against a Republican. But I'll vote for any liberal against Clinton.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)However, if she decides to run, she has to win the nomination first. Now, in the primary, will I vote for Clinton? Not if Warren, Sanders or Biden runs.
temporary311
(955 posts)My only complaint is that the article tries to make it seem like the next set of PUMAs will be anything other than a deranged minority, much like the originals.
JI7
(89,237 posts)would have been happy with either Clinton or Obama. most also wanted to see both of them on the ticket. if either of them had dropped out most of their supporters would have gone to the other one .
those who are closely involved and on internet forums where you have strong supporters it will always get very ugly.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)temporary311
(955 posts)the Dem nominee is gonna be the President.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)He's pushing his book.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)The question was answered during his book tour. Why was he so hateful? Because he knew it would stir up controversy. That means page views. That means more people hear about his book. That shit is libelous. If someone said something like that about him he'd lose his shit on twitter, might even sue.
But Clinton is above that. She's been getting smeared for over a quarter century. She can deal with petulant little nothings like Greenwald.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)When you read the GQ interview, Greenwald was asked a simple question about the 2016 field....it wasn't a specific question about Dems or GOPers.
Then he proceeds to launch into a tirade against Hillary and says opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. Then he says something strange about the Dems running a gay candidate after Hillary. I don't even really know what his point was there.
Of course he says nothing about Republicans.
Greenwald is NOT the left.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)diseased ramblings, have you read any expression of solidarity from him for the LGBT community in Russia? I mean, after his support for Citizens United, you'd think liberals would've awakened to the reality that this asshole definitely isn't "the left". Everything GG does, is for GG, just ask Sibel Edmonds.
He flirted with backing Gary Johnson in 2012, but he was too chickenshit to just come out and say so definitively, because that might have meant losing some support from the few remaining idiots on "the left" who think he's super groovy.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Why?
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)He has to start Clinton bashing early.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)And money is its name.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)I think that's one of the Koch brothers he's chatting with, with his back turned.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Just so he knows, I would have no problem voting against the gay candidate if it were him.
onecaliberal
(32,755 posts)Kindly go fuck yourself. Not because of any perceived vote for or against Hillary, but because you insult my intelligence. People like you make me completely sick.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)onecaliberal
(32,755 posts)Peacetrain
(22,871 posts)piffel
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)That was only ever a Republican strawman. While there has been some obvious racism directed at him (mostly from Teabaggers), it's never been the case that criticism/opposition was universally, or even mostly, painted as racism. That's a complete and utter lie.
I have many issues with Hillary, she wouldn't be my preferred candidate (I would like Elizabeth Warren or, better yet, Tammy Baldwin) but she will inevitibly be better than whatever frothing madman the GOP nominates.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Opposition to and criticism of Obama was routinely labeled as racist, and still is. During the primaries, many here were called racist (and still are) for not joining the choir in kneeling at the Obama altar. One would have to be living under a rock in order to miss it.
I was for Hillary during those primaries, and I have no doubt she will win the nom, and probably the presidency if she runs, but I also have no doubt that criticism of her will frequently be labeled as sexist. That's just modern politics 101.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)and they'll be the same folks who are standing against Obama out of racism.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The reality is that there is opposition to Obama that is just plain racist.
Are you willing to acknowledge that?
NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)Clinton was called a rapist, murderer, and drug dealer. Dems don't know how to be nasty like republicans but "most" of us are too intellectually honest and consistent to make false arguments.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yes, there are a few extremists out there who have indeed engaged in such.....whether out of careless(even if well-meaning) paranoia.....or out of some other less scrupulous personal agendas, but this is hardly universal amongst liberals, just as most of us also don't believe that all men are potential rapists or that all white people are automatically literally "privileged", just for being white. etc.
Honestly, I myself don't think Hillary is perfect, but I'd certainly vote for her if she ran.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Why should that depiction gain any traction? Why should it have any more traction than Fox news telling us that people that voted against Bush are terrorist sympathizers?
No one has a monopoly on ridiculous hyperbole. The people harmed by it are those whose message is subsequently discredited.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)to steer us away from any misogynistic tendencies like assuming women will support Hillary just because she has a vagina.
KT2000
(20,567 posts)but he does not know women very well.
alp227
(32,002 posts)This post sounds awkward, since Greenwald is gay and you may be insinuating something bad.
ancianita
(35,925 posts)So there's that.
KT2000
(20,567 posts)none-the-less - he does not know women very well. There are some women who despise Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. A segment of the female population has their "guns" out for other females. It's a curious thing but when women are successful in the workplace or politically, their harshest critics can be women. Not all women see it as shared success. They would certainly deny misogyny though.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)What a toxic pile of angry dung he is.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)white supremacist, pro bono?
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)when you see that neither was nearly as critical of the Bush regime.
Glenn and Eddy have openly discussed their disdain for any government services which help the common people.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)Edward Snowden In 2009: Leakers Should Be 'Shot In The Balls'
The Huffington Post | By Luke Johnson Posted: 06/26/2013 3:56 pm EDT | Updated: 06/26/2013 4:07 pm EDT
NSA leaker Edward Snowden despised classified leaks in 2009, illustrating that the former Booz Allen Hamilton employee was not always the champion of transparency that he has become.
The technology website ArsTechnica published IRC chats where he railed against a New York Times story about the U.S. rejecting an Israeli request for aid to attack an Iranian nuclear site and the United States' covert efforts to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
"Are they TRYING to start a war? Jesus christ. they're like wikileaks," he said in the chat.
"they're just reporting, dude," said another user.
"moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?" he said. "those people should be shot in the balls."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/edward-snowden-leakers_n_3504746.html
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Snowden may just be intent on taking down anyone who wants to use government services to help people, i.e, healthcare, student debt reform, small business loans, civil rights protection, etc.....
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)Didn't care much for the Social Security, but his fanatics completely overlook everything that happened prior to "the leak". It's like he didn't exist for them before that. Leaking wiped the slate clean as far as they're concerned.
ancianita
(35,925 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)He was in Geneva from 2007-2009 (Bush administration). His "crisis of conscience" came about shortly after the black guy took office in 2009. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right?
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)ancianita
(35,925 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Because they blew your bogus talking points out of the water.
ancianita
(35,925 posts)ancianita
(35,925 posts)"Snowden says today that he is amused by reports of his
'right-wing politics, based on what seem to be Internet rumors and third-hand information, and I have read it with some amusement...I support a guaranteed basic income, I think we should take care of sick people, I believe women can make their own choices, and that the government is at its best when it's building bridges instead of bombs. Does that sound right-wing? But I also think it's common sense that people have individual rights, a right to be left alone, and a right to protect our families from violence....Personally, I'd describe my political thought as moderate.' "
Burrough, Andrews and Ellison, authors of the recent Vanity Fair article on Snowden, say "His earlier online comments suggest frustration at losing his dream career..."
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2014/05/edward-snowden-politics-interview
At least you could try not to censor the guy if you're trying to build some profile of him.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That pool is so shallow that they can't even produce a prospect, much less a contender. They're going to end up trying Romney again because bad ideas never die, they just stink. Who else have htey got? Rubio? Paul? Oh, maybe Perry, even though he got laughed out of the nomination by his own party?
Maybe Greenwald would circle his wagons around the Republican contenders. I dunno. And since there aren't any such people, it's likely a moot point.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)yodermon
(6,143 posts)Of course that was 6 years ago.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-American-Hypocrites-Toppling-Republican/dp/0307408663
pnwmom
(108,951 posts)rather than by a rational appraisal of the candidates and their positions.
P.S.
A great deal of the opposition to Obama IS racist. When in history have Republicans in Congress ever filibustered more bills and been more determined to oppose a President at any cost?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)He really does have some issues of his own, doesn't he?
Spazito
(50,103 posts)All he ever writes, once one crosses out all the extraneous words, is 'Fuck Obama, Democrats and everyone who dares to criticize me'. He needs the extra words to get his paycheck.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
Spazito
(50,103 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)Why does it matter to you so much?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Specified that. When I think opposition it's Republican Party and their supporters, tea party etc.
alp227
(32,002 posts)And now THIS? Sheesh, Greenwald is all over the damn place, right on so many things but on full Fox News mode next. Nobody's perfect.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Leave out the person who said it for a minute.
I think he's kind of right on this, although I don't know if all women will be invested in her winning.
But I think a lot of criticisms of her policies will be decried as sexism almost automatically, at least by a subset of supporters.
Which is not to say she won't face ACTUAL misogyny (already has in fact), especially from the right wing.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)firstly, because she's a Democrat, secondly, because she won't take shit from Republicans...she loathes the entire party and thirdly because I'm concerned about Supreme Court nominees.
As a woman, I'd be happy to have Hillary Clinton as the first female President (if there isn't a better female candidate that runs). That said, I didn't support Sarah Palin solely because we have anatomy in common. Policy and capability do make a difference to most women.
I suspect if Hillary runs, I will be calling Greenwald a misogynist because he certainly comes across as one. And his preemptive whining won't stop me from doing so.
Cha
(296,726 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)I will vote for her if she heads the ticket. I will not be voting for Rand Paul or any other libertarian in sheep's clothing. I think the dribs and drabs of Greenwald's revelation schedule is tied to trying to impact elections.
alp227
(32,002 posts)This statement of his, "Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist," is WAY hyper generalizing.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)In fact, what will happen is that any truly misogynistic criticism that is rebuffed will be labeled as "name calling people misogynistic." It's a preemptive dismissal of the undeniable misogyny that the 2016 elections will harbor.
JI7
(89,237 posts)be stories that come out accusing him of things and how it was part of the negative campaign he knows will happen .
this way anytime something negative did come out him and his people would go "see, we told you he was going to be attacked" .
greenwald is doing the same thing here so when there are sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton and people complain he wants people to go "see, we said this would happen and you should not fall for it because it's to avoid discussing .........................."
BeyondGeography
(39,339 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)Whatever shitty, misogynistic thing I might happen to say over the next two years with regard to Hillary Clinton should in no way be construed as being misogynistic ... it will just be honest criticism! Like railing against a call to sympathize with 300 Nigerian girls and turning it into a diatribe against American imperialism--that was not in the least bit insensitive or misogynistic either; it was just your garden variety isolationist, anti-imperialist rant! Who really cares about of kidnapped little girls, anyway?
Yoy ... this is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Clinton has been a champion for women's rights for her entire life. And suddenly, some tragedy happens, and she says something about it, she's being imperialistic. It's not a genuine concern that she would legitimately hold as a champion for women's rights for her entire life.
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)I wonder if it has to do with Democratic policies towards women...hmmm... I hope GG Man can answer this! What a wise, big man!
turk151
(1 post)If he had said the same thing about Elizabeth Warren, it would be clear cut misogyny. But, with Hilary, I get that "New York Snow" feeling.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)New York snow?
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)And anyone who votes for Clinton is a reverse-misogynist. You know Greenwald is full of shit. He can no longer hide it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I'd sooner vote for her than an anthropomorphized pilonidal cyst like Glenn Greenwald.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)be voting for Hillary in the primary but I will if she becomes the Democratic candidate. I don't vote for candidates based on their sex.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)on the wrong candidate. I guess he should just come right out and join the throng of mysoginists that proclaim women should never have been given the right to vote in the first place....they have been speaking loudly since Mittens' ungracious loss. I know plenty of Conservatives that blame the women for voting in Barak Obama lol.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You can't make this shit up- but you could probably google nd find out where she got that sexist talking point.
Cha
(296,726 posts)'em, Greenwad.. Rofl. Got his venom all in an uproar over any perceived Democratic nominee.. even a hypothetical future Gay person. What a load of bullshit/AKA/Glenn Greenwald.
Bet he just loves him some asshole like rand paul.
sheshe2
(83,623 posts)and...."Greenwad"!
I can't help it, she.
sheshe2
(83,623 posts)Don't apologize to me.
Cha
(296,726 posts)"Bullwad"!
pinto
(106,886 posts)Fuck you, Greenwald.
lpbk2713
(42,735 posts)For a male candidate that would be a plus. It would imply seasoning and experience
well suited for the task at hand. But in his context ... it's code for "she's an old hag" .
This assclown's a dipshit. Why anyone wastes their time on this fool ...
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)gonna be dickheads
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)then again...you never know for sure if people are really who they claim to be:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023152339
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Where posters assume that opposition to something that Obama is doing or suporrts is based on racism. And I would bet money that posters here will accuse the anti Hillary crowd of misogyny. Happens all of the time.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Pirate Smile
(27,617 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)by the comments that will occur.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)If they start going down the hysterical etc path, then damn straight they will get that label.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)corporate takeover of the country. Most of my bitching will be attributed to misogyny
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Toss your best bullshit sarcasm at me... You know I can take it.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)While sweeping the nation, and raking it in, it sounds like GG has raised quite a few hackles, of some pretty unlikely sources. I thought they were allies?
In a release posted to Pastebin, the secretive activist group is calling for members to attend and disrupt scheduled book signings where Greenwald will be promoting his new book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State.
The point of contention between Greenwald and the group stems from his relationship with First Look founder and eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar.
eBay purchased PayPal in 2002.
Representing the PayPal 14, a group charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act after they attempted to disrupt PayPals operations in retaliation for PayPals refusal to process donations to WikiLeaks Anonymous stated that the 14 are struggling to raise more than $80,000 in court-ordered restitution that must be paid to eBay/PayPal.
http://warincontext.org/2014/05/14/report-claims-anonymous-will-protest-glenn-greenwald-for-ties-to-paypal-billionaire/
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Anonymous members are instructed to attend Greenwalds book signings to protest, record their activities, hand out fliers, and explain the relationship between the author and his financial benefactor.
The YourAnonNews Twitter account expressed support for the campaign on Monday, along with the account representing Occupy Wall Street.
---
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)about. This is the reason you don't hear much from him on the socio-economic issues that Occupy claimed to care about. GG loves attention, but he loves him some capitali$m even more. I guess, some folks of conscience, have figured out when GG shows up, there's a smell in the room, and it has the whiff of elephant dung.
As an aside, I found out last night that he's a "former" member of the National States Rights Party, I guess that's the party ticket he ran on back in the day. I think you & I know what "states rights" really means, don't we?
yodermon
(6,143 posts)1) "Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic" vs
2) "Opposition to her is going to misogynistic"
because criticism of GG in this thread is acting as if he said #2.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Is this one of those 'GG didn't mean what he said and wrote, he meant something else entirely but worded it all wrong' defense?
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)And I don't want a republican anybody in the White House.
Certainly not because she is female. It would be great to see a female president but I am not a huge support of Hillary Clinton.
She is nowhere near my first choice, actually I would be UNHAPPY to vote for her, but I would still vote for her, because voting R is unthinkable.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)"I think what these leaks did is, they demonstrated that there really is this government that just is the kind of permanent government that doesnt get affected by election choices and that isnt in any way accountable to any sort of democratic transparency and just creates its own world off on its own.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/greenwald-bashes-neocon-hillary-clinton-shes-a-fcking-hawk/
Intelligent, insightful. Thank you, Glenn Greenwald.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I don't like Glenn Greenwald, nor his politics. I voted against Hillary Clinton in the primary and would in 2016 because of her policies if she ran (I would reluctantly vote for her in the GE).
That being said I have seen one person thus far make such a comment. The person is a celebrity and was a supporter of Clinton in 2008. To the best of my knowledge, the person did not openly support Barack Obama (my guess is the person voted for him). The replies to the person's post were generally negative in terms of disagreeing with the person (which tells me it isn't something that would work).
Whether this becomes a mainstream argument or not, I have no idea (I hope it won't). All I'm saying is I have witnessed such an argument.
Last disclosure, I generally like the person who made the comment as I have seen the person in several television shows.