If "clean campaign" means he can't bring up her ties to money, he ought not to have bothered running at all
because that's his defining policy issue
But he did not just bring up Clintons ties to money (which would be not really clean, unless he has specific allegations, but it would be appropriate).
He accused PP of corruption in their endorsement.
And then his campaign went on the claim that PP is trying to take Bernie down.
“What we are doing in this campaign, it just blows my mind every day because I see it clearly, we’re taking on not only Wall Street and economic establishment, we’re taking on the political establishment.
“So, I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund and Planned Parenthood. But, you know what? Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time. Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment.”
Sanders believes that the system has been corrupted by corporate money. His campaign is based on that. So attacking people as being corrupted by corporate money is part of a clean campaign, since it is his major issue.
Negative political tactics don't become non-negative because the speaker believes it to be true or important.
If the Democratic nominee calls Trump an incompetent bigot, is that suddenly non-negative? If Rick Santorum was running against Barney Frank, would be attacks on Frank's sexuality be similarly clean because Santorum made "the gay agenda" a central part of his campaign?
Friends helping friends cronyism is a far cry from all but stating the only reason PP endorses Clinton is because she hired certain people right before.
If you want to argue Clinton got endorsed because she's been connected and working with PP forever and they're interconnected, that's not unreasonable, but thats not the same as Sanders failing to get the nom because of who is known Hillary's staff. The element of causality is not there.
because friends help each other out. It's the foundation of establishment politics.
And the way that such interest groups and elected officials become friendly is generally though advocacy/leadership/support for their cause. Sanders has been in Washington since the early 90s, he's had plenty of opportunity to show these groups his support. And he's been a reliable vote, but very rarely a leader for progressive causes.
I mean its possible Sanders has been secretly an influential leader in supporting reproductive rights and that just hasn't translated to any affiliation or support from those he's helping out. But that would suggest he's really bad a politics, which is pretty important for both jobs he's campaigning for. There's a reason that the progressive groups he's received support from are MoveOn and DFA - neither are focused on policy, they're almost purely campaign based, held online votes for their endorsement and mostly care about whomever is the most liberal candidate in order to push the conversation left.
Yeah screw that guy for only completely agreeing with and backing every single progressive position on reproductive rights and not being an influential leader in supporting those rights
Nobody is saying he'd be bad, but being an ally doesn't make you the best choice for an endorsement, and it doesn't mean you aren't willing to put other priorities on top. It doesn't even imply you're a strong activist.
If Sanders had argued that, i would not have bat an eyelid.
If anyone else makes that argument, i will find it completely believable.
Not only do i find it believable, but i think it's a reasonable, and proper, reason for endorsing someone.
However, if you are going to paint someone as "the enemy" the moment they support another candidate, well, how good of an ally are you?
He's painting someone as an enemy?
Ya its been this for like 10 pages now. Some Hillary supporters think Bernie is saying he will fight PP now because he didnt get the endorsement. Others are saying he is revealing he does not actively care about PP. It has been a circular discussion that is hinged on do you think Bernie is attacking PP by saying he is challenging the establishment. I think he is attacking the establishment and the establishment is using its resources to attack him. The more I read this over and over the further I am from the position that Bernie was attacking PP. I am not even sure what the goal is anymore by attacking him in this manner. It certainly is divisive for whatever reason.
Bernie stated that:
A: He is fighting Establishment.
and
B: PP is part of the establishment.
Later his campaign clarified that:
C: Establishment, including PP, is trying to take down Bernie.
A + B + C = ?????????
I'd say that adds up to Bernie saying he is fighting PP.
Ok so in your view Bernie is actively against PP. Okay we can move on.
Friends helping friends cronyism is a far cry from all but stating the only reason PP endorses Clinton is because she hired certain people right before.
If you want to argue Clinton got endorsed because she's been connected and working with PP forever and they're interconnected, that's not unreasonable, but thats not the same as Sanders failing to get the nom because of who is known Hillary's staff. The element of causality is not there.
because friends help each other out. It's the foundation of establishment politics.
And the way that such interest groups and elected officials become friendly is generally though advocacy/leadership/support for their cause. Sanders has been in Washington since the early 90s, he's had plenty of opportunity to show these groups his support. And he's been a reliable vote, but very rarely a leader for progressive causes.
I mean its possible Sanders has been secretly an influential leader in supporting reproductive rights and that just hasn't translated to any affiliation or support from those he's helping out. But that would suggest he's really bad a politics, which is pretty important for both jobs he's campaigning for. There's a reason that the progressive groups he's received support from are MoveOn and DFA - neither are focused on policy, they're almost purely campaign based, held online votes for their endorsement and mostly care about whomever is the most liberal candidate in order to push the conversation left.
Yeah screw that guy for only completely agreeing with and backing every single progressive position on reproductive rights and not being an influential leader in supporting those rights
Nobody is saying he'd be bad, but being an ally doesn't make you the best choice for an endorsement, and it doesn't mean you aren't willing to put other priorities on top. It doesn't even imply you're a strong activist.
If Sanders had argued that, i would not have bat an eyelid.
If anyone else makes that argument, i will find it completely believable.
Not only do i find it believable, but i think it's a reasonable, and proper, reason for endorsing someone.
However, if you are going to paint someone as "the enemy" the moment they support another candidate, well, how good of an ally are you?
He's painting someone as an enemy?
Ya its been this for like 10 pages now. Some Hillary supporters think Bernie is saying he will fight PP now because he didnt get the endorsement. Others are saying he is revealing he does not actively care about PP. It has been a circular discussion that is hinged on do you think Bernie is attacking PP by saying he is challenging the establishment. I think he is attacking the establishment and the establishment is using its resources to attack him. The more I read this over and over the further I am from the position that Bernie was attacking PP. I am not even sure what the goal is anymore by attacking him in this manner. It certainly is divisive for whatever reason.
Bernie stated that:
A: He is fighting Establishment.
and
B: PP is part of the establishment.
Later his campaign clarified that:
C: Establishment, including PP, is trying to take down Bernie.
A + B + C = ?????????
I'd say that adds up to Bernie saying he is fighting PP.
You know he's like 95% in line with the establishment in voting right? He's not out to destroy the establishment, he's not Ron Paul.
Just because he thinks he'd a better president than Hillary because of his perspective doesn't mean he thinks she's Sarah Palin
Bernie's new Simon and Garfunkel ad is pretty great, as political ads go. Non-traditional, to the point, with a good song. Bernie doesn't even talk in it except to deliver the required "I approve this message" at the end.
Friends helping friends cronyism is a far cry from all but stating the only reason PP endorses Clinton is because she hired certain people right before.
If you want to argue Clinton got endorsed because she's been connected and working with PP forever and they're interconnected, that's not unreasonable, but thats not the same as Sanders failing to get the nom because of who is known Hillary's staff. The element of causality is not there.
because friends help each other out. It's the foundation of establishment politics.
And the way that such interest groups and elected officials become friendly is generally though advocacy/leadership/support for their cause. Sanders has been in Washington since the early 90s, he's had plenty of opportunity to show these groups his support. And he's been a reliable vote, but very rarely a leader for progressive causes.
I mean its possible Sanders has been secretly an influential leader in supporting reproductive rights and that just hasn't translated to any affiliation or support from those he's helping out. But that would suggest he's really bad a politics, which is pretty important for both jobs he's campaigning for. There's a reason that the progressive groups he's received support from are MoveOn and DFA - neither are focused on policy, they're almost purely campaign based, held online votes for their endorsement and mostly care about whomever is the most liberal candidate in order to push the conversation left.
Yeah screw that guy for only completely agreeing with and backing every single progressive position on reproductive rights and not being an influential leader in supporting those rights
Nobody is saying he'd be bad, but being an ally doesn't make you the best choice for an endorsement, and it doesn't mean you aren't willing to put other priorities on top. It doesn't even imply you're a strong activist.
If Sanders had argued that, i would not have bat an eyelid.
If anyone else makes that argument, i will find it completely believable.
Not only do i find it believable, but i think it's a reasonable, and proper, reason for endorsing someone.
However, if you are going to paint someone as "the enemy" the moment they support another candidate, well, how good of an ally are you?
He's painting someone as an enemy?
Ya its been this for like 10 pages now. Some Hillary supporters think Bernie is saying he will fight PP now because he didnt get the endorsement. Others are saying he is revealing he does not actively care about PP. It has been a circular discussion that is hinged on do you think Bernie is attacking PP by saying he is challenging the establishment. I think he is attacking the establishment and the establishment is using its resources to attack him. The more I read this over and over the further I am from the position that Bernie was attacking PP. I am not even sure what the goal is anymore by attacking him in this manner. It certainly is divisive for whatever reason.
Bernie stated that:
A: He is fighting Establishment.
and
B: PP is part of the establishment.
Later his campaign clarified that:
C: Establishment, including PP, is trying to take down Bernie.
A + B + C = ?????????
I'd say that adds up to Bernie saying he is fighting PP.
Ok so in your view Bernie is actively against PP. Okay we can move on.
No, i don't think Bernie is actively against PP.
At worst Bernie is passive supporter in general order of things.
But when PP endorsed Bernie, he decided to, for whatever reason, to paint them as out to get him.
Why?
I'd guess because he saw it as a way to mitigate whatever damage it might do, and activate his supporters.
Or maybe he really thinks PP is out to get him.
Friends helping friends cronyism is a far cry from all but stating the only reason PP endorses Clinton is because she hired certain people right before.
If you want to argue Clinton got endorsed because she's been connected and working with PP forever and they're interconnected, that's not unreasonable, but thats not the same as Sanders failing to get the nom because of who is known Hillary's staff. The element of causality is not there.
because friends help each other out. It's the foundation of establishment politics.
And the way that such interest groups and elected officials become friendly is generally though advocacy/leadership/support for their cause. Sanders has been in Washington since the early 90s, he's had plenty of opportunity to show these groups his support. And he's been a reliable vote, but very rarely a leader for progressive causes.
I mean its possible Sanders has been secretly an influential leader in supporting reproductive rights and that just hasn't translated to any affiliation or support from those he's helping out. But that would suggest he's really bad a politics, which is pretty important for both jobs he's campaigning for. There's a reason that the progressive groups he's received support from are MoveOn and DFA - neither are focused on policy, they're almost purely campaign based, held online votes for their endorsement and mostly care about whomever is the most liberal candidate in order to push the conversation left.
Yeah screw that guy for only completely agreeing with and backing every single progressive position on reproductive rights and not being an influential leader in supporting those rights
Nobody is saying he'd be bad, but being an ally doesn't make you the best choice for an endorsement, and it doesn't mean you aren't willing to put other priorities on top. It doesn't even imply you're a strong activist.
If Sanders had argued that, i would not have bat an eyelid.
If anyone else makes that argument, i will find it completely believable.
Not only do i find it believable, but i think it's a reasonable, and proper, reason for endorsing someone.
However, if you are going to paint someone as "the enemy" the moment they support another candidate, well, how good of an ally are you?
He's painting someone as an enemy?
Ya its been this for like 10 pages now. Some Hillary supporters think Bernie is saying he will fight PP now because he didnt get the endorsement. Others are saying he is revealing he does not actively care about PP. It has been a circular discussion that is hinged on do you think Bernie is attacking PP by saying he is challenging the establishment. I think he is attacking the establishment and the establishment is using its resources to attack him. The more I read this over and over the further I am from the position that Bernie was attacking PP. I am not even sure what the goal is anymore by attacking him in this manner. It certainly is divisive for whatever reason.
Bernie stated that:
A: He is fighting Establishment.
and
B: PP is part of the establishment.
Later his campaign clarified that:
C: Establishment, including PP, is trying to take down Bernie.
A + B + C = ?????????
I'd say that adds up to Bernie saying he is fighting PP.
You know he's like 95% in line with the establishment in voting right? He's not out to destroy the establishment, he's not Ron Paul.
Just because he thinks he'd a better president than Hillary because of his perspective doesn't mean he thinks she's Sarah Palin
Why, hello there mister Strawman, nice weather we're having.
Friends helping friends cronyism is a far cry from all but stating the only reason PP endorses Clinton is because she hired certain people right before.
If you want to argue Clinton got endorsed because she's been connected and working with PP forever and they're interconnected, that's not unreasonable, but thats not the same as Sanders failing to get the nom because of who is known Hillary's staff. The element of causality is not there.
because friends help each other out. It's the foundation of establishment politics.
And the way that such interest groups and elected officials become friendly is generally though advocacy/leadership/support for their cause. Sanders has been in Washington since the early 90s, he's had plenty of opportunity to show these groups his support. And he's been a reliable vote, but very rarely a leader for progressive causes.
I mean its possible Sanders has been secretly an influential leader in supporting reproductive rights and that just hasn't translated to any affiliation or support from those he's helping out. But that would suggest he's really bad a politics, which is pretty important for both jobs he's campaigning for. There's a reason that the progressive groups he's received support from are MoveOn and DFA - neither are focused on policy, they're almost purely campaign based, held online votes for their endorsement and mostly care about whomever is the most liberal candidate in order to push the conversation left.
Yeah screw that guy for only completely agreeing with and backing every single progressive position on reproductive rights and not being an influential leader in supporting those rights
Nobody is saying he'd be bad, but being an ally doesn't make you the best choice for an endorsement, and it doesn't mean you aren't willing to put other priorities on top. It doesn't even imply you're a strong activist.
If Sanders had argued that, i would not have bat an eyelid.
If anyone else makes that argument, i will find it completely believable.
Not only do i find it believable, but i think it's a reasonable, and proper, reason for endorsing someone.
However, if you are going to paint someone as "the enemy" the moment they support another candidate, well, how good of an ally are you?
He's painting someone as an enemy?
Not literally, no brushes have been involved as far as i can tell.
But he has pointed out that he is fighting Wallstreet, The Establishment (including PP), and what have you, and (according to his campaign strategist Tad Devine) they (yes, including PP) are out to get him.
I don't think he's fighting the entire establishment. That would make him an anarchist.
Well duh, he is fighting Democratic establishment (didn't think i needed to add that Democratic there, guess i was wrong).
And his campaign strategist went on to TV and said, point blank, that, yes, they think that PP is trying to take them down.
From what I gather, it seems PP wants Mrs. Clinton to win and everybody's saying that. I don't know how that will affect Mr. Sanders' policies apart from the campaign strategy of, "welp. No help there" which is my takeaway from what's been said.
When "enemy" comes into the mix I expect at least a strong hint of "raaagh we're going to take them apart raaagh." Instead I'm seeing the campaign staff playing Eeyore which is hardly malevolent against PP.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Friends helping friends cronyism is a far cry from all but stating the only reason PP endorses Clinton is because she hired certain people right before.
If you want to argue Clinton got endorsed because she's been connected and working with PP forever and they're interconnected, that's not unreasonable, but thats not the same as Sanders failing to get the nom because of who is known Hillary's staff. The element of causality is not there.
because friends help each other out. It's the foundation of establishment politics.
And the way that such interest groups and elected officials become friendly is generally though advocacy/leadership/support for their cause. Sanders has been in Washington since the early 90s, he's had plenty of opportunity to show these groups his support. And he's been a reliable vote, but very rarely a leader for progressive causes.
I mean its possible Sanders has been secretly an influential leader in supporting reproductive rights and that just hasn't translated to any affiliation or support from those he's helping out. But that would suggest he's really bad a politics, which is pretty important for both jobs he's campaigning for. There's a reason that the progressive groups he's received support from are MoveOn and DFA - neither are focused on policy, they're almost purely campaign based, held online votes for their endorsement and mostly care about whomever is the most liberal candidate in order to push the conversation left.
Yeah screw that guy for only completely agreeing with and backing every single progressive position on reproductive rights and not being an influential leader in supporting those rights
Nobody is saying he'd be bad, but being an ally doesn't make you the best choice for an endorsement, and it doesn't mean you aren't willing to put other priorities on top. It doesn't even imply you're a strong activist.
If Sanders had argued that, i would not have bat an eyelid.
If anyone else makes that argument, i will find it completely believable.
Not only do i find it believable, but i think it's a reasonable, and proper, reason for endorsing someone.
However, if you are going to paint someone as "the enemy" the moment they support another candidate, well, how good of an ally are you?
He's painting someone as an enemy?
Ya its been this for like 10 pages now. Some Hillary supporters think Bernie is saying he will fight PP now because he didnt get the endorsement. Others are saying he is revealing he does not actively care about PP. It has been a circular discussion that is hinged on do you think Bernie is attacking PP by saying he is challenging the establishment. I think he is attacking the establishment and the establishment is using its resources to attack him. The more I read this over and over the further I am from the position that Bernie was attacking PP. I am not even sure what the goal is anymore by attacking him in this manner. It certainly is divisive for whatever reason.
Bernie stated that:
A: He is fighting Establishment.
and
B: PP is part of the establishment.
Later his campaign clarified that:
C: Establishment, including PP, is trying to take down Bernie.
A + B + C = ?????????
I'd say that adds up to Bernie saying he is fighting PP.
Ok so in your view Bernie is actively against PP. Okay we can move on.
No, of course he's not against PP.
But he, and members of his staff are doing a lot of work to establish the idea that PP is against them seemingly because they endorsed Clinton over him
Bernie's new Simon and Garfunkel ad is pretty great, as political ads go. Non-traditional, to the point, with a good song. Bernie doesn't even talk in it except to deliver the required "I approve this message" at the end.
Friends helping friends cronyism is a far cry from all but stating the only reason PP endorses Clinton is because she hired certain people right before.
If you want to argue Clinton got endorsed because she's been connected and working with PP forever and they're interconnected, that's not unreasonable, but thats not the same as Sanders failing to get the nom because of who is known Hillary's staff. The element of causality is not there.
because friends help each other out. It's the foundation of establishment politics.
And the way that such interest groups and elected officials become friendly is generally though advocacy/leadership/support for their cause. Sanders has been in Washington since the early 90s, he's had plenty of opportunity to show these groups his support. And he's been a reliable vote, but very rarely a leader for progressive causes.
I mean its possible Sanders has been secretly an influential leader in supporting reproductive rights and that just hasn't translated to any affiliation or support from those he's helping out. But that would suggest he's really bad a politics, which is pretty important for both jobs he's campaigning for. There's a reason that the progressive groups he's received support from are MoveOn and DFA - neither are focused on policy, they're almost purely campaign based, held online votes for their endorsement and mostly care about whomever is the most liberal candidate in order to push the conversation left.
Yeah screw that guy for only completely agreeing with and backing every single progressive position on reproductive rights and not being an influential leader in supporting those rights
Nobody is saying he'd be bad, but being an ally doesn't make you the best choice for an endorsement, and it doesn't mean you aren't willing to put other priorities on top. It doesn't even imply you're a strong activist.
If Sanders had argued that, i would not have bat an eyelid.
If anyone else makes that argument, i will find it completely believable.
Not only do i find it believable, but i think it's a reasonable, and proper, reason for endorsing someone.
However, if you are going to paint someone as "the enemy" the moment they support another candidate, well, how good of an ally are you?
He's painting someone as an enemy?
Not literally, no brushes have been involved as far as i can tell.
But he has pointed out that he is fighting Wallstreet, The Establishment (including PP), and what have you, and (according to his campaign strategist Tad Devine) they (yes, including PP) are out to get him.
I don't think he's fighting the entire establishment. That would make him an anarchist.
Well duh, he is fighting Democratic establishment (didn't think i needed to add that Democratic there, guess i was wrong).
And his campaign strategist went on to TV and said, point blank, that, yes, they think that PP is trying to take them down.
From what I gather, it seems PP wants Mrs. Clinton to win and everybody's saying that. I don't know how that will affect Mr. Sanders' policies apart from the campaign strategy of, "welp. No help there" which is my takeaway from what's been said.
When "enemy" comes into the mix I expect at least a strong hint of "raaagh we're going to take them apart raaagh." Instead I'm seeing the campaign staff playing Eeyore which is hardly malevolent against PP.
Ummm, yeah, that's why they endorsed her...
That's not what people are talking about here.
What we're debating about is Bernies response to PP endorsing Hillary.
Which have been, directly from Bernie "They're establishment and i'm fighting against establishment" (paraphrased, there's an actual quote earlier in the thread).
And from his campaign "The Establishment, including PP, are trying to take Bernie down".
Also, why did they endorse her.
Do they think she'd be the best champion of their cause? (mine, and many others take on the issue)
Or did they endorse her because she hired PP CEO's daughter?
OR are they trying to take down Bernie? (as Bernies campaign seems to suggest)
Take down is excessive but by choosing to endorse during the primary their aims are not hidden. These endorsements and the timing is all calculated and to say otherwise is to insult Clinton.
If by aim, you mean getting Hillary elected, then sure, that's what endorsements are for.
But claiming that they are trying to takedown Bernie, is downplaying any possibility that they might actually just think of Hillary as the better candidate.
If by aim, you mean getting Hillary elected, then sure, that's what endorsements are for.
But claiming that they are trying to takedown Bernie, is downplaying any possibility that they might actually just think of Hillary as the better candidate.
It is both things. It does not downplay Hillary at all that she was chosen by PP. Even if you do believe that as a Hillary supporter you do not care that the Sanders campaign is trying to save face.
Take down is excessive but by choosing to endorse during the primary their aims are not hidden. These endorsements and the timing is all calculated and to say otherwise is to insult Clinton.
Of course the timing was calculated. People will begin voting in just a couple weeks, if her campaign staff didn't try to get the maximum effect possible out of the endorsement they should be fired.
Nobody ever got close to the notion that the timing wasn't calculated.
If by aim, you mean getting Hillary elected, then sure, that's what endorsements are for.
But claiming that they are trying to takedown Bernie, is downplaying any possibility that they might actually just think of Hillary as the better candidate.
It is both things. It does not downplay Hillary at all that she was chosen by PP. Even if you do believe that as a Hillary supporter you do not care that the Sanders campaign is trying to save face.
Right, i'm a Hillary supporter, that's all there is to it.
Nothing at all about Sanders deciding to make allegations about PP's integrity, or tying PP to wallstreet, or his campaign (and him) accusing PP of trying to get him.
At first i thought he had mispoke, then he doubled down on it.
Whether this will be a political winner for him, remains to be seen, though i doubt it (how is Sanders doing with women atm?).
But whether it's a winning move or not, it is one i disapprove of, not only because of how slimy it is. but who the target (PP) is.
If by aim, you mean getting Hillary elected, then sure, that's what endorsements are for.
But claiming that they are trying to takedown Bernie, is downplaying any possibility that they might actually just think of Hillary as the better candidate.
It is both things. It does not downplay Hillary at all that she was chosen by PP. Even if you do believe that as a Hillary supporter you do not care that the Sanders campaign is trying to save face.
Right, i'm a Hillary supporter, that's all there is to it.
Nothing at all about Sanders deciding to make allegations about PP's integrity, or tying PP to wallstreet, or his campaign (and him) accusing PP of trying to get him.
At first i thought he had mispoke, then he doubled down on it.
Whether this will be a political winner for him, remains to be seen, though i doubt it (how is Sanders doing with women atm?).
But whether it's a winning move or not, it is one i disapprove of, not only because of how slimy it is. but who the target (PP) is.
HRC is the Human Right's Campaign, which is another group that sponsored Hillary. And for that group as well, Hillary is much more proactive on LGBT issues than Bernie is, to the point it seems as if she is more likely to help their cause.
Hillary Clinton
proactive on LGBT issues
who fought for DOMA
the woman who is documented to be against gay marriage at least as recently as 2010
no
that dog won't hunt, sir
Shorty on
+4
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
edited January 2016
like come on it's pretty clear that the HRC endorsed Clinton because she's the candidate the party wants, and the HRC wants to work with the party
not because they feel that she personally is good on LGBT issues, because that's insane
this doesn't even have to be a criticism--clearly they felt this was the best way to get their policy enacted
I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable but that's politics
HRC is the Human Right's Campaign, which is another group that sponsored Hillary. And for that group as well, Hillary is much more proactive on LGBT issues than Bernie is, to the point it seems as if she is more likely to help their cause.
Hillary Clinton
proactive on LGBT issues
who fought for DOMA
the woman who is documented to be against gay marriage at least as recently as 2010
no
that dog won't hunt, sir
If we want this conversation again, Clinton supported the DOMA for the same stated reasons many Democrats did: to get states rights to marriage accepted federally and prevent a blanket amendment. Sanders didn't vote for it on States Rights grounds and declined to work towards gay marriage in Vermont due to being "divisive" until it passed over a governors veto with a 90% approval from citizens.
Neither campaign has a perfect record with LGBT rights, and I don't give a shit about old positions on an issue with such massive public perception change over the past decade. Hillary has been more active for promoting LGBT rights than Sanders, and maybe that's just a function of her being Sec State, but that activism is why she got endorsed.
If by aim, you mean getting Hillary elected, then sure, that's what endorsements are for.
But claiming that they are trying to takedown Bernie, is downplaying any possibility that they might actually just think of Hillary as the better candidate.
It is both things. It does not downplay Hillary at all that she was chosen by PP. Even if you do believe that as a Hillary supporter you do not care that the Sanders campaign is trying to save face.
Right, i'm a Hillary supporter, that's all there is to it.
Nothing at all about Sanders deciding to make allegations about PP's integrity, or tying PP to wallstreet, or his campaign (and him) accusing PP of trying to get him.
At first i thought he had mispoke, then he doubled down on it.
Whether this will be a political winner for him, remains to be seen, though i doubt it (how is Sanders doing with women atm?).
But whether it's a winning move or not, it is one i disapprove of, not only because of how slimy it is. but who the target (PP) is.
they aren't some bystander in this, they did deliberately do this to help hillary/hurt bernie
which is a gamble for them but we're pretty sure Hillary's going to win so not much of one
They calculated that Sanders would accuse them of corruption for endorsing Hillary?
Their opinion of Sanders must have been lot lower than mine was.
Why are you one of the harder people to talk to in this thread? The bolded.
And you are all reason and understanding?
So what's the issue with the bolded?
I was, legitimately, surprised when Bernie came swinging at PP, i would not have expected that of him, when he did it, i assumed he had fumbled the answer.
But he did it, and it seems to have been calculated move on his part.
Anyone that would predict that he might do that, will have to have had lower opinion on Bernie than i did.
Hell, i did not even go into the accusation that they were deliberately trying to hurt Bernie.
If by aim, you mean getting Hillary elected, then sure, that's what endorsements are for.
But claiming that they are trying to takedown Bernie, is downplaying any possibility that they might actually just think of Hillary as the better candidate.
It is both things. It does not downplay Hillary at all that she was chosen by PP. Even if you do believe that as a Hillary supporter you do not care that the Sanders campaign is trying to save face.
Right, i'm a Hillary supporter, that's all there is to it.
Nothing at all about Sanders deciding to make allegations about PP's integrity, or tying PP to wallstreet, or his campaign (and him) accusing PP of trying to get him.
At first i thought he had mispoke, then he doubled down on it.
Whether this will be a political winner for him, remains to be seen, though i doubt it (how is Sanders doing with women atm?).
But whether it's a winning move or not, it is one i disapprove of, not only because of how slimy it is. but who the target (PP) is.
they aren't some bystander in this, they did deliberately do this to help hillary/hurt bernie
which is a gamble for them but we're pretty sure Hillary's going to win so not much of one
They calculated that Sanders would accuse them of corruption for endorsing Hillary?
Their opinion of Sanders must have been lot lower than mine was.
Why are you one of the harder people to talk to in this thread? The bolded.
And you are all reason and understanding?
So what's the issue with the bolded?
I was, legitimately, surprised when Bernie came swinging at PP, i would not have expected that of him, when he did it, i assumed he had fumbled the answer.
But he did it, and it seems to have been calculated move on his part.
Anyone that would predict that he might do that, will have to have had lower opinion on Bernie than i did.
Hell, i did not even go into the accusation that they were deliberately trying to hurt Bernie.
Its extreme hyperbole on a false premise. You asked why some people are viewed with disdain in this thread and I answered you.
HRC is the Human Right's Campaign, which is another group that sponsored Hillary. And for that group as well, Hillary is much more proactive on LGBT issues than Bernie is, to the point it seems as if she is more likely to help their cause.
Hillary Clinton
proactive on LGBT issues
who fought for DOMA
the woman who is documented to be against gay marriage at least as recently as 2010
no
that dog won't hunt, sir
She stayed out of politics in her time as Sec State, she was opposed to gay marriage in 2008 but came out in favor almost immediately after leaving her gov posting. I don't recall her saying she was opposed in 2010, and I'm not finding anything, either.
But let's look at the two pre-Clinton's time as sec state.
-Hillary Clinton says she's personally opposed to gay marriage, but thinks it should be a state decision and fought for the right of states to make that decision (see DOMA, which was meant to prevent an actual constitutional amendment). In 2006, when asked about her state, New York, passing a law legalizing gay marriage, she supported it.
-Bernie Sanders says he's personally in favor of gay marriage, but thinks it should be a state decision and fought for the right of states to make that decision. In 2006, when asked about his state, Vermont, passing a law legalizing gay marriage, he opposed it.
Lip service aside, Clinton was the one who went to bat when the issue came home and was concrete action rather than a nebulous value.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
HRC is the Human Right's Campaign, which is another group that sponsored Hillary. And for that group as well, Hillary is much more proactive on LGBT issues than Bernie is, to the point it seems as if she is more likely to help their cause.
Hillary Clinton
proactive on LGBT issues
who fought for DOMA
the woman who is documented to be against gay marriage at least as recently as 2010
no
that dog won't hunt, sir
If we want this conversation again, Clinton supported the DOMA for the same stated reasons many Democrats did: to get states rights to marriage accepted federally and prevent a blanket amendment. Sanders didn't vote for it on States Rights grounds and declined to work towards gay marriage in Vermont due to being "divisive" until it passed over a governors veto with a 90% approval from citizens.
Neither campaign has a perfect record with LGBT rights, and I don't give a shit about old positions on an issue with such massive public perception change over the past decade. Hillary has been more active for promoting LGBT rights than Sanders, and maybe that's just a function of her being Sec State, but that activism is why she got endorsed.
no, she was personally opposed to the entire idea and only expressed her support of it after it didn't matter anymore
this is documented, dude
when she was secstate she took umbrage with changing the language in passport applications from Mother and Father to Parent 1 and Parent 2
HRC is the Human Right's Campaign, which is another group that sponsored Hillary. And for that group as well, Hillary is much more proactive on LGBT issues than Bernie is, to the point it seems as if she is more likely to help their cause.
Hillary Clinton
proactive on LGBT issues
who fought for DOMA
the woman who is documented to be against gay marriage at least as recently as 2010
no
that dog won't hunt, sir
Compared to stalwart LBGT champion Bernie Sanders who's staff categorized his vote against DOMA as a vote on "states rights" grounds and who in 2006 said he was "comfortable" with allowing Civil Unions in Vermont for gay couples, but not full marriage.
This door swings both ways, Sanders does not have the spotless record he claims when you look back on his positions.
Yes, that email existed. That was not great, but that email also explicitly said she did not want to create a Fox News headline and giant fight over something minor. Seeing her support for New Yorks gay marriage law, I think that email was more displeasure with personally having her name attached to a change she didn't approve, but obviously our opinions differ.
If Sanders gave interviews on NPR talking about how he fought to make government work more friendly to Transgendered individuals, or said that gay rights are human rights to the UN human rights council, I'd be more inclined to think he was a strong activist. And if Hillary had not done those things, I'd be more willing to believe she still secretly doesn't like gay marriage. But as it stands I think that old positions and that email are rather weak tea.
I ate an engineer
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
HRC is the Human Right's Campaign, which is another group that sponsored Hillary. And for that group as well, Hillary is much more proactive on LGBT issues than Bernie is, to the point it seems as if she is more likely to help their cause.
Hillary Clinton
proactive on LGBT issues
who fought for DOMA
the woman who is documented to be against gay marriage at least as recently as 2010
no
that dog won't hunt, sir
Compared to stalwart LBGT champion Bernie Sanders who's staff categorized his vote against DOMA as a vote on "states rights" grounds and who in 2006 said he was "comfortable" with allowing Civil Unions in Vermont for gay couples, but not full marriage.
This door swings both ways, Sanders does not have the spotless record he claims when you look back on his positions.
yeah, and honestly, the sum total of their past and current positions put them about on the same level to me
which means HRC picked the candidate who's tighter with the power structures they want to work with
HRC is the Human Right's Campaign, which is another group that sponsored Hillary. And for that group as well, Hillary is much more proactive on LGBT issues than Bernie is, to the point it seems as if she is more likely to help their cause.
Hillary Clinton
proactive on LGBT issues
who fought for DOMA
the woman who is documented to be against gay marriage at least as recently as 2010
no
that dog won't hunt, sir
She stayed out of politics in her time as Sec State, she was opposed to gay marriage in 2008 but came out in favor almost immediately after leaving her gov posting. I don't recall her saying she was opposed in 2010, and I'm not finding anything, either.
But let's look at the two pre-Clinton's time as sec state.
-Hillary Clinton says she's personally opposed to gay marriage, but thinks it should be a state decision and fought for the right of states to make that decision (see DOMA, which was meant to prevent an actual constitutional amendment). In 2006, when asked about her state, New York, passing a law legalizing gay marriage, she supported it.
-Bernie Sanders says he's personally in favor of gay marriage, but thinks it should be a state decision and fought for the right of states to make that decision. In 2006, when asked about his state, Vermont, passing a law legalizing gay marriage, he opposed it.
Lip service aside, Clinton was the one who went to bat when the issue came home and was concrete action rather than a nebulous value.
If we're thinking about the same quote, that's a very charitable reading.
I support states making the decision. I think that Chuck Schumer would say the same thing. And if anyone ever tried to use our words in any way, we’ll review that. Because I think that it should be in the political process and people make a decision and if our governor and our Legislature support marriage in New York, I’m not going to be against that.
HRC is the Human Right's Campaign, which is another group that sponsored Hillary. And for that group as well, Hillary is much more proactive on LGBT issues than Bernie is, to the point it seems as if she is more likely to help their cause.
Hillary Clinton
proactive on LGBT issues
who fought for DOMA
the woman who is documented to be against gay marriage at least as recently as 2010
no
that dog won't hunt, sir
She stayed out of politics in her time as Sec State, she was opposed to gay marriage in 2008 but came out in favor almost immediately after leaving her gov posting. I don't recall her saying she was opposed in 2010, and I'm not finding anything, either.
But let's look at the two pre-Clinton's time as sec state.
-Hillary Clinton says she's personally opposed to gay marriage, but thinks it should be a state decision and fought for the right of states to make that decision (see DOMA, which was meant to prevent an actual constitutional amendment). In 2006, when asked about her state, New York, passing a law legalizing gay marriage, she supported it.
-Bernie Sanders says he's personally in favor of gay marriage, but thinks it should be a state decision and fought for the right of states to make that decision. In 2006, when asked about his state, Vermont, passing a law legalizing gay marriage, he opposed it.
Lip service aside, Clinton was the one who went to bat when the issue came home and was concrete action rather than a nebulous value.
Are we just talking about who dun it first? Bernie as Mayor signed a Gay Pride Day proclamation in 1983. He came out for gay marriage in 2009 and yes he chose to hedge on it in 2006 but in comparison to Clinton he was way ahead of his time. Clinton announced her support for gay marriage in 2013 quite publicly on youtube. Gay marriage may have been a failure of Sanders to address sooner but whatever failure he had in coming to it sooner Clinton waited and waited.
Lip service? I think he has a public record beyond lip service extending back to 1983.
If by aim, you mean getting Hillary elected, then sure, that's what endorsements are for.
But claiming that they are trying to takedown Bernie, is downplaying any possibility that they might actually just think of Hillary as the better candidate.
It is both things. It does not downplay Hillary at all that she was chosen by PP. Even if you do believe that as a Hillary supporter you do not care that the Sanders campaign is trying to save face.
Right, i'm a Hillary supporter, that's all there is to it.
Nothing at all about Sanders deciding to make allegations about PP's integrity, or tying PP to wallstreet, or his campaign (and him) accusing PP of trying to get him.
At first i thought he had mispoke, then he doubled down on it.
Whether this will be a political winner for him, remains to be seen, though i doubt it (how is Sanders doing with women atm?).
But whether it's a winning move or not, it is one i disapprove of, not only because of how slimy it is. but who the target (PP) is.
they aren't some bystander in this, they did deliberately do this to help hillary/hurt bernie
which is a gamble for them but we're pretty sure Hillary's going to win so not much of one
They calculated that Sanders would accuse them of corruption for endorsing Hillary?
Their opinion of Sanders must have been lot lower than mine was.
Why are you one of the harder people to talk to in this thread? The bolded.
And you are all reason and understanding?
So what's the issue with the bolded?
I was, legitimately, surprised when Bernie came swinging at PP, i would not have expected that of him, when he did it, i assumed he had fumbled the answer.
But he did it, and it seems to have been calculated move on his part.
Anyone that would predict that he might do that, will have to have had lower opinion on Bernie than i did.
Hell, i did not even go into the accusation that they were deliberately trying to hurt Bernie.
Its extreme hyperbole on a false premise. You asked why some people are viewed with disdain in this thread and I answered you.
How is that extreme hyperbole?
He said PP had calculated this.
And i'm saying that nobody who had as high an opinion on Sanders as i had could calculate it.
HRC is the Human Right's Campaign, which is another group that sponsored Hillary. And for that group as well, Hillary is much more proactive on LGBT issues than Bernie is, to the point it seems as if she is more likely to help their cause.
Hillary Clinton
proactive on LGBT issues
who fought for DOMA
the woman who is documented to be against gay marriage at least as recently as 2010
no
that dog won't hunt, sir
If we want this conversation again, Clinton supported the DOMA for the same stated reasons many Democrats did: to get states rights to marriage accepted federally and prevent a blanket amendment. Sanders didn't vote for it on States Rights grounds and declined to work towards gay marriage in Vermont due to being "divisive" until it passed over a governors veto with a 90% approval from citizens.
Neither campaign has a perfect record with LGBT rights, and I don't give a shit about old positions on an issue with such massive public perception change over the past decade. Hillary has been more active for promoting LGBT rights than Sanders, and maybe that's just a function of her being Sec State, but that activism is why she got endorsed.
no, she was personally opposed to the entire idea and only expressed her support of it after it didn't matter anymore
this is documented, dude
when she was secstate she took umbrage with changing the language in passport applications from Mother and Father to Parent 1 and Parent 2
You're either omitting or ignoring the well publicized fact that she took this position, not because she had anything against the LBGT community, but because she didn't want to have to deal (personally and the Obama administration by extension) with a FOX fabricated "scandal" about the changes.
HRC is the Human Right's Campaign, which is another group that sponsored Hillary. And for that group as well, Hillary is much more proactive on LGBT issues than Bernie is, to the point it seems as if she is more likely to help their cause.
Hillary Clinton
proactive on LGBT issues
who fought for DOMA
the woman who is documented to be against gay marriage at least as recently as 2010
no
that dog won't hunt, sir
Compared to stalwart LBGT champion Bernie Sanders who's staff categorized his vote against DOMA as a vote on "states rights" grounds and who in 2006 said he was "comfortable" with allowing Civil Unions in Vermont for gay couples, but not full marriage.
This door swings both ways, Sanders does not have the spotless record he claims when you look back on his positions.
yeah, and honestly, the sum total of their past and current positions put them about on the same level to me
which means HRC picked the candidate who's tighter with the power structures they want to work with
why is this controversial
That's not controversial.
But that is not what Bernie camp has said.
According to them (implied with various degrees of sublety), it's not that Hillary is a better champion (for whatever reason), but that they are trying to take Bernie down.
Posts
But he did not just bring up Clintons ties to money (which would be not really clean, unless he has specific allegations, but it would be appropriate).
He accused PP of corruption in their endorsement.
And then his campaign went on the claim that PP is trying to take Bernie down.
Come on Clinton and Sanders, do something new we can talk about~~
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bernie-sanders-takes-risky-shot-the-establishment
Negative political tactics don't become non-negative because the speaker believes it to be true or important.
If the Democratic nominee calls Trump an incompetent bigot, is that suddenly non-negative? If Rick Santorum was running against Barney Frank, would be attacks on Frank's sexuality be similarly clean because Santorum made "the gay agenda" a central part of his campaign?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Ok so in your view Bernie is actively against PP. Okay we can move on.
You know he's like 95% in line with the establishment in voting right? He's not out to destroy the establishment, he's not Ron Paul.
Just because he thinks he'd a better president than Hillary because of his perspective doesn't mean he thinks she's Sarah Palin
At worst Bernie is passive supporter in general order of things.
But when PP endorsed Bernie, he decided to, for whatever reason, to paint them as out to get him.
Why?
I'd guess because he saw it as a way to mitigate whatever damage it might do, and activate his supporters.
Or maybe he really thinks PP is out to get him.
Can't be sure on that, not a mind reader.
From what I gather, it seems PP wants Mrs. Clinton to win and everybody's saying that. I don't know how that will affect Mr. Sanders' policies apart from the campaign strategy of, "welp. No help there" which is my takeaway from what's been said.
When "enemy" comes into the mix I expect at least a strong hint of "raaagh we're going to take them apart raaagh." Instead I'm seeing the campaign staff playing Eeyore which is hardly malevolent against PP.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
No, of course he's not against PP.
But he, and members of his staff are doing a lot of work to establish the idea that PP is against them seemingly because they endorsed Clinton over him
Yeah, def a solid ad.
Ummm, yeah, that's why they endorsed her...
That's not what people are talking about here.
What we're debating about is Bernies response to PP endorsing Hillary.
Which have been, directly from Bernie "They're establishment and i'm fighting against establishment" (paraphrased, there's an actual quote earlier in the thread).
And from his campaign "The Establishment, including PP, are trying to take Bernie down".
Also, why did they endorse her.
Do they think she'd be the best champion of their cause? (mine, and many others take on the issue)
Or did they endorse her because she hired PP CEO's daughter?
OR are they trying to take down Bernie? (as Bernies campaign seems to suggest)
But claiming that they are trying to takedown Bernie, is downplaying any possibility that they might actually just think of Hillary as the better candidate.
It is both things. It does not downplay Hillary at all that she was chosen by PP. Even if you do believe that as a Hillary supporter you do not care that the Sanders campaign is trying to save face.
Of course the timing was calculated. People will begin voting in just a couple weeks, if her campaign staff didn't try to get the maximum effect possible out of the endorsement they should be fired.
Nobody ever got close to the notion that the timing wasn't calculated.
they aren't some bystander in this, they did deliberately do this to help hillary/hurt bernie
which is a gamble for them but we're pretty sure Hillary's going to win so not much of one
Right, i'm a Hillary supporter, that's all there is to it.
Nothing at all about Sanders deciding to make allegations about PP's integrity, or tying PP to wallstreet, or his campaign (and him) accusing PP of trying to get him.
At first i thought he had mispoke, then he doubled down on it.
Whether this will be a political winner for him, remains to be seen, though i doubt it (how is Sanders doing with women atm?).
But whether it's a winning move or not, it is one i disapprove of, not only because of how slimy it is. but who the target (PP) is.
They calculated that Sanders would accuse them of corruption for endorsing Hillary?
Their opinion of Sanders must have been lot lower than mine was.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Why are you one of the harder people to talk to in this thread? The bolded.
Hillary Clinton
proactive on LGBT issues
who fought for DOMA
the woman who is documented to be against gay marriage at least as recently as 2010
no
that dog won't hunt, sir
not because they feel that she personally is good on LGBT issues, because that's insane
this doesn't even have to be a criticism--clearly they felt this was the best way to get their policy enacted
I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable but that's politics
If we want this conversation again, Clinton supported the DOMA for the same stated reasons many Democrats did: to get states rights to marriage accepted federally and prevent a blanket amendment. Sanders didn't vote for it on States Rights grounds and declined to work towards gay marriage in Vermont due to being "divisive" until it passed over a governors veto with a 90% approval from citizens.
Neither campaign has a perfect record with LGBT rights, and I don't give a shit about old positions on an issue with such massive public perception change over the past decade. Hillary has been more active for promoting LGBT rights than Sanders, and maybe that's just a function of her being Sec State, but that activism is why she got endorsed.
And you are all reason and understanding?
So what's the issue with the bolded?
I was, legitimately, surprised when Bernie came swinging at PP, i would not have expected that of him, when he did it, i assumed he had fumbled the answer.
But he did it, and it seems to have been calculated move on his part.
Anyone that would predict that he might do that, will have to have had lower opinion on Bernie than i did.
Hell, i did not even go into the accusation that they were deliberately trying to hurt Bernie.
Its extreme hyperbole on a false premise. You asked why some people are viewed with disdain in this thread and I answered you.
She stayed out of politics in her time as Sec State, she was opposed to gay marriage in 2008 but came out in favor almost immediately after leaving her gov posting. I don't recall her saying she was opposed in 2010, and I'm not finding anything, either.
But let's look at the two pre-Clinton's time as sec state.
-Hillary Clinton says she's personally opposed to gay marriage, but thinks it should be a state decision and fought for the right of states to make that decision (see DOMA, which was meant to prevent an actual constitutional amendment). In 2006, when asked about her state, New York, passing a law legalizing gay marriage, she supported it.
-Bernie Sanders says he's personally in favor of gay marriage, but thinks it should be a state decision and fought for the right of states to make that decision. In 2006, when asked about his state, Vermont, passing a law legalizing gay marriage, he opposed it.
Lip service aside, Clinton was the one who went to bat when the issue came home and was concrete action rather than a nebulous value.
no, she was personally opposed to the entire idea and only expressed her support of it after it didn't matter anymore
this is documented, dude
when she was secstate she took umbrage with changing the language in passport applications from Mother and Father to Parent 1 and Parent 2
Politifact (I know) just rated her claim that she created a debate schedule "to maximize the opportunity for voters to see our candidates" as False.
Which, yeah, no matter how you slice it, if you buy her statement then I have some excellent waterfront property to sell you.
Compared to stalwart LBGT champion Bernie Sanders who's staff categorized his vote against DOMA as a vote on "states rights" grounds and who in 2006 said he was "comfortable" with allowing Civil Unions in Vermont for gay couples, but not full marriage.
This door swings both ways, Sanders does not have the spotless record he claims when you look back on his positions.
If Sanders gave interviews on NPR talking about how he fought to make government work more friendly to Transgendered individuals, or said that gay rights are human rights to the UN human rights council, I'd be more inclined to think he was a strong activist. And if Hillary had not done those things, I'd be more willing to believe she still secretly doesn't like gay marriage. But as it stands I think that old positions and that email are rather weak tea.
yeah, and honestly, the sum total of their past and current positions put them about on the same level to me
which means HRC picked the candidate who's tighter with the power structures they want to work with
why is this controversial
This is like a Lions/Browns game. No winners.
If we're thinking about the same quote, that's a very charitable reading.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/
Are we just talking about who dun it first? Bernie as Mayor signed a Gay Pride Day proclamation in 1983. He came out for gay marriage in 2009 and yes he chose to hedge on it in 2006 but in comparison to Clinton he was way ahead of his time. Clinton announced her support for gay marriage in 2013 quite publicly on youtube. Gay marriage may have been a failure of Sanders to address sooner but whatever failure he had in coming to it sooner Clinton waited and waited.
Lip service? I think he has a public record beyond lip service extending back to 1983.
How is that extreme hyperbole?
He said PP had calculated this.
And i'm saying that nobody who had as high an opinion on Sanders as i had could calculate it.
You're either omitting or ignoring the well publicized fact that she took this position, not because she had anything against the LBGT community, but because she didn't want to have to deal (personally and the Obama administration by extension) with a FOX fabricated "scandal" about the changes.
That's not controversial.
But that is not what Bernie camp has said.
According to them (implied with various degrees of sublety), it's not that Hillary is a better champion (for whatever reason), but that they are trying to take Bernie down.