This criticism would have made sense a few years ago, but it doesn’t play with the facts anymore. Times are changing, and there was zero evidence of a “socialist boogeyman” slowing Bernie down. Quite the contrary. 

If you are serious about a Clinton run in 2020 then you apparently want to doom us to decades of Republican Government. Even if, somehow, Clinton won, it would be a total disaster, cementing a catastrophic resentment on the right and enabling a massive, culture shifting backlash. A 2020 run by Hillary would be an act…

For being right about everything?

Congratulations. Your identity politics may just doom us all.

Bernie had the votes in the rust belt and your analysis is total shite.

You think Bernie’s supporters destroyed the election? Hate to break it to you, but this is the reason you lost. Your delusional, entitled fantasies didn’t win you the election in 2016 and they won’t do you a bit of good moving forward. You were not owed the win. Your candidate stood for nothing, other than her…

Then you’re a delusional, partisan hack. Clinton was and is a warmongering, elitist, neoliberal disaster.

She was an awful candidate and she lost and her arrogance, entitlement, elitism and lack of a message saw a demagogue elected as President. You are a fool to support her.

Oooooh. Which do you prefer? Her ‘catty’ side, or the side that bombs children? What about the side that colludes with banks? HillDawg is SO fierce.

I don’t mean this snarkily. If the only place you can stand to read politics (much less a feminist take on politics) is Jezebel, you’re yet to branch out. There’s a lotta worse shit out there, but on the shit continuum Jez is still towards the shit end.

Unless more information surfaces this is hard to argue with. It’s very strange that more people aren’t making these points. The bit about a so called feminist who is married supposedly talking about ‘roadfucks’ in his podcast, when nobody has managed to find the audio, is especially weird (ETA: I read downthread they…

You didn’t deserve to get attacked for this.

From the article, it seems he has a) had a long term affair with someone who claims it didn’t end because he was her boss and as such had constant access to her, even though the affair continued for eight months after her job ended, b) flirted online with someone who wasn’t interested and didn’t take the hint, c)…

It’s not about whether a person who poses themselves sexually can or cannot be a feminist, but certainly a prominent woman who makes of herself a spokesperson for feminism must expect to be subjected to feminist critique for how she engages with the media and its representation of women, including by her own choice,…

The wording was vague because Hannah removed the portions making it clear that Graham was not supporting Trump.

You’ve been lied to by the selective quotations in this article. Lyndsey Graham was openly criticizing Trump and for some reason all of that was removed from the quotation (care to tell us why, Hannah?). Graham was saying the cause for concern was that Trump had possibly been legally wiretapped, meaning there’d been…