I don't know what you mean by smear. Do you just mean "things were pointed out about her that people have good reason not to like"? People don't like Clinton. People don't like Schumer. It's reasonable to judge people by the company they keep. I'm pretty sure you all have reason to dislike someone who spends large amounts of time in free association with Steve Bannon.
Yeah, because Steve Bannon is a Nazi.
Clinton and Schumer are mainstream Democrats. I happen to like them! In fact, most Democrats like them. So without offering any actual reasons to dislike them aside from "you should already know that they're terrible," you're making no effort to persuade anybody who doesn't already agree with you.
I mean, no, this is a debate about whether she has any consistency and whether we should value it in a politician (no and yes respectively).
That's what I said. Do politicians have consistency? In general, no. If you don't like those politicians, as with Hillary, this lack of consistency is proof of their corrupt nature. If you do like these politicians, as with Bernie, this lack of consistency is proof of their ability to get things done and figure out where their constituents are at.
"The compromises your politician made are evil, but the compromises my politician made were just pragmatically necessary" came up a lot during the primary. I'm pretty familiar with the argument by now.
Yes, and people didn't like Schumer or Clinton's stance on Israel. That's not a conspiracy, that's just not supporting an apartheid regime.
I already responded to this. Jacobin should make more effort to avoid dog-whistling to the anti-Semitic left.
Israel is engaging in human rights abuses with Palestine. Also, they're worried about security. The one doesn't justify the other by any means, and I support UN recognition of Palestine as an independent nation, and believe that Israel would benefit significantly from such an action. But that doesn't mean everybody who's supporting Israel's right to security is doing so because they've been corrupted by Jewish New Yorker senators. That allusion is problematic, and I don't think it's accidental.
You're welcome to do the research. It wasn't very good.
That's why I read the article! To learn information! That's why I'm disappointed that it failed to provide any information. That is actually the job of news articles -- to give people information that may change their positions. It's just not the job of this article, because it isn't intended to change anyone's positions.
Honestly, your take down was really lazy.
Well, I didn't get paid as much as this guy did.
I feel like you've gone "some people who supported Sanders have criticized her, I hate people who supported Sanders, therefore the criticisms cannot be legitimate".
I mean, I explicitly called out that I thought one of the criticisms was potentially legitimate, and the presence of all the other less legitimate criticisms damaged it. There is nothing I can do to prove my motivations to you, so if you think I'm just being disingenuous, why bother responding?
Why is criticizing a politician using a collection of true and sourced facts now a smear?
That's like the definition of a smear. Using true and sourced facts to paint a misleading image of a politician with the intention of damaging them. What do you think "smear" means?
