Hillary Clinton to Attend ‘Women for Hillary’ Grassroots Organizing Meeting in Wisconsin

From my email inbox comes news of a “Women for Hillary” grassroots organizing meeting to be held on the campus of UW-Milwaukee on Thursday.

On Thursday, September 10th, Hillary Clinton will make her first trip of the campaign to Wisconsin for a “Women for Hillary” grassroots organizing meeting in Milwaukee. During the event, Clinton will discuss her record of fighting for women and families. As president, Clinton will protect funding for Planned Parenthood, and will fight Republican efforts to take away women’s right to basic healthcare like affordable birth control.

She will fight to ensure all workers receive paid leave, allowing them to take time off for a new baby or to care for a sick relative without losing their paycheck or their job. And she will fight to ensure that women receive equal pay. This will strengthen America’s families by helping women and their families get ahead.

Members of the public interested in attending can sign up here.

Hillary Clinton will speak at a ‘Women for Hillary’ Grassroots Organizing Meeting

WHEN: Thursday, September 10th 2015 at 5:30 PM CDT
Doors open at 4:00 PM CDT

WHERE: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Spaights Plaza

Entry near south side of:

Golda Meir Library
2311 Hartford Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53211

Share:

Related Articles

22 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton to Attend ‘Women for Hillary’ Grassroots Organizing Meeting in Wisconsin

    1. Real simple, Strawman. “Grassroots” refers to a movement of real live people. A groundswell of individuals who believe in the same causes. People who comprise the workforce that performs the ongoing tasks that make a civilized society and productive economy possible. Occupy Wall Street comes to mind. so do the hundreds of thousands of people who marched on Madison in 2011, as well as the thoughtful bloggers on sites like this. Grassroots would be distinct from “astroturf” or “manufactured consensus” – both of which are mostly illusory entities conceived and promoted publicly by the oligarchy and its lapdog media. The “Tea Party” comes to mind, along with the acute infestation of multi-named trolls in political blogs of late.

      1. Very good Charles. Any activity in support of liberal causes is “grass roots” and any activity in support of conservative causes is “astroturf.” I got it. That is not how I see it of course and it is laughable to call any campaign rally “grass roots” as it (regardless of party) is organized from the top. And since when do you have to sign up for a grass roots meeting? That didn’t happen at any tea party rallies that came to my attention.

        1. You asked for a definition of “grassroots” and you got one. No mention of partisanship was indicated in the definition that you were given.

          Yet you managed in your first sentence to claim that CK was being partisan in stating his definition, when you claimed he said conservative movements were automatically astrotruf, so you are simply lying there.

          Also, CK made absolutely no reference to whether Hillary’s event was “grassroots,” or not. Questioning him/readers about it, insinuating that he was, is more intentional disruptive trolling.

          Event organizers asking potential attendees to sign up does nothing to at all to indicate or prove in any fashion the event organizers are NOT part of a grassroots movement. Your logic is flawed all the way around. Basing something on the statement “of tea-party rallies that came to your attention…” is the laughable part in this thread so far. Was that one event or both of them that came to your attention?

          Get the hook, please.

          1. Thanks for having my back. “Preciate it.

            Notice that “Denis Navratil” ignores my outing him as “The Strawman.” Ditto for my reference to multi’named trolls on numerous sites. He knows I’m on to him and most of his aliases on numerous blogs, and have been for a long time.

            To save DN the trouble of trolling this comment, I’ll state now that I won’t be engaging him further on this thread.

  1. I admit to using two different screen names on two different sites. The reason I do is because on the other blogging site someone hijacked my screen name and was posting offensive and threatening comments. The site manager confirmed to everyone the comments were coming from multiple IP addresses none of which were the one I had always posted from. My other screen name is Fairs Fare but as long as I’m honest about it I don’t see any harm. For some others that hide behind and utilize multiple screen names in an effort to deceive and cause controversy they deserve the title TROLL. Listen Denis instead of always be confrontational and argumentative try to provide links backing up your position. I’m not going to slam you for having an differing opinion especially if it’s supported by facts. As a matter of fact I would be willing to back you up if it’s a substantiated opinion. Not everything in this world is black and white, liberal or conservative. There is room for compromise and there is room for differing opinions. That’s the grassroots movement we should all be focused on and is the at the root of the dysfunction in D.C.

    1. WB, I am glad you brought up the subject of links. It seems that there is an odd obsession among some bb commenters with links. Generally speaking, the thoughts or opinions I offer here at bb are my own. No link is possible in such a case. I think the link is sometimes overrated and what I have noticed is a tendency to simply dismiss the source as illegitimate without actually addressing the merits. Furthermore I find a your source/my source battle very uninteresting. And lastly, many of my comments are challenges to progressive assumptions, again, my thoughts, perhaps shared by many conservative, but not something provable via a link. A good rule of thumb might be, always think, seldom link.

      1. Denis,

        You wrote, “WB, I am glad you brought up the subject of links. It seems that there is an odd obsession among some bb commenters with links.”

        1. From where did you graduate with a degree in psychology?

        2. Did you take any classes about people who comment on blogs at 2:58 a.m. about “odd obsessions?”

        3. Are there any other “odd obsessions” you’ve “noticed” about “bb commenters?”

        You wrote, “”Generally speaking,” the thoughts or opinions I offer here at bb are my own.

        4. When they aren’t, who is telling you what to write?

        You wrote, “No link is possible in such a case.”

        5. Why not? You made claims about what the Koran said. Since most here at BB probably have never read the Koran, why can’t we ask you to document your claim?

        You wrote, “I think the link is sometimes overrated.”

        6. Could you provide an example of when a BB link was “overrated?”

        You wrote, “and what I have noticed is a tendency to simply dismiss the source as illegitimate without actually addressing the merits.”

        7. When have you “noticed” this at BB? Please provide links.

        You wrote, “Furthermore I find a your source/my source battle very uninteresting.”

        8. Is that because you’re unable to find any credible sources that share your position?

        You wrote, “And lastly, many of my comments are challenges to progressive assumptions, again, my thoughts, perhaps shared by many conservative, but not something provable via a link.”

        9. I asked you yesterday, on what issues do you consider yourself a “conservative.” Why have you not responded?

        You wrote, “A good rule of thumb might be, always think, seldom link.”

        Below is from a link for a “rule of thumb.”

        “A rule of thumb is a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

        10. When do you think your “rule of thumb” to links should be applied?

      2. In that case… I THINK you are often wrong and seldom prove your case. “thoughts, perhaps shared by many conservatives, but not something provable via a link” like building a big beautiful wall along 6500 miles of border while ignoring the shoreline would solve illegal immigration. You are right it’s not provable by link or any other fashion. No link is possibly going to prove how this is economically feasible. This thought shared by conservatives is powering many presidential campaigns. It’s just an example and I’m not saying you necessarily have opined that way. Lately, the thoughts and opinions offered by conservatives tend to be on the ridiculous side. Links to studies, statistics and unbiased sources are a legitimate and easy way to support a position, even the ridiculous.

        1. No, a fence would not solve illegal immigration. There is not a solution. However, a good fence would slow the illegal immigration so would be a good idea.

          1. Why don’t you mention or acknowledge that here in WI, one of the most influential and recipient of some of the most generous Walker tax breaks, or grants and loans offered by WEDC is against limiting immigrant labor that is essential to their profitable operations in WI.

            Over 75% of farm laborers are immigrant labor and corporate interests don’t want to see any changes to the current “system,” of cheap labor exploitation. Don’t limit immigrants from entry into the USA and don’t round up and deport any of them is the call. Residents don’t work for slave labor pay or conditions.

          2. Denis, can you name a “fence” that worked?

            Ronald Reagan: “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!”

            1. Why yes. The one surrounding the White House has been effective until the current occupant and the subsequent mismanagement.

  2. Now suppose there was no fence whatsoever at the White House. Same # of breaches or fewer? No link possible. Asking for you to use your brain.

    1. Cut the obvious trolling and your continuing crap and nonsense. Your asinine question means nothing related to the topic of Hillary and her visit to Milwaukee. Didn’t Walker tell you that there are no hypothetical questions? Insinuating that someone needs to respond to what you demand they respond to, or they are not using their brain is pure passive aggressive chiding and more abuse directed at another particular commentator.

      Zach, I think privilege has clearly been abused again and this is never going to change. There is clearly a personality disorder behind this poster and as much as I tend to be forgiving in most circumstances, this individual contributes absolutely nothing educational or informative or worth caring about ever. Disruption and distraction and various abusive attacking is the only goal and I brought that up a year or so ago. Nothing has changed with this troll. The same goes for ®troll on the other thread.

      1. Denis, w/r/t your “Now suppose there was no fence whatsoever at the White House.”

        Asking you to use your brain.

    2. My brain has been telling me you are a moron but my heart keeps telling me to have patience and compassion for your obvious mental disorder. I’m going to do as you suggest and use my brain. Now suppose I never acknowledge your existence again… Whatsoever!

Comments are closed.