Nooooo, Bernie, don't go more negative against Hillary. It doesn't suit you *and* it makes your followers more likely to vote against Hillary because internet Bernie supporters are crazy.
He also did not mention that the "white working class Americans" that he is referencing also see minorities as the enemy, in addition to immigrants and gay people.
Yeah, it got better as it went on since it was clear he was saying "these are the people Democrats are losing," but it isn't the right way to phrase that.
I ate an engineer
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Man there is some contortion going on here about what Bernie said.
I understand your position on the shouting comment, even if I don't agree.
I have no idea how you don't think starting the answer to a question with "engage white working class Americans" and not referencing how those specific people are not voting Democrat is not a poor way to answer a question as a candidate with already limited minority appeal.
I ate an engineer
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Anyone who honestly thinks Bernie's line about stopping the shouting is anything but political gamesmanship from Clinton is out of their mind. It's just as ridiculous as claiming the man was racist.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I understand your position on the shouting comment, even if I don't agree.
I have no idea how you don't think starting the answer to a question with "engage white working class Americans" and not referencing how those specific people are not voting Democrat is not a poor way to answer a question as a candidate with already limited minority appeal.
He started out poorly on that question I agree.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Told wall street to cut it out in 2007, preventing a global financial cri...oh wait
Told wall street to cut it out in 2007, preventing a global financial cri...oh wait
No idea what would possess her to use that line again.
Internal polling? It just sounds so... weak.
Psn:wazukki
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited November 2015
shouldnt have people immediately going into industries that have business before the federal government, but scores 600,000 for three speaking fees from a single ibank the year after leaving office.
As much as I dislike Hillary's answer on the question, I have to give her props for actually answering the question rather than dodging. O'Malley and even Bernie did pivot a bit on some of the tough questions.
Hillary is a much better natural politician than the other two candidates. And her mastery of detail/memory is tremendous, even when I disagree with her.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I was hoping she would point out that it was, at the time, much better than what we had even if it seems awful now, but I agree she answered it pretty well.
I was hoping she would point out that it was, at the time, much better than what we had even if it seems awful now, but I agree she answered it pretty well.
It was probably enough to tie it to what Rove was planning and what Republicans did; putting the issue on state ballots as constitutional amendments.
It doesn't make sense though. The Defense of Marriage Act was in 1996. The "Karl Rove tactics" didn't exist then. Here is her position on marriage equality in 2004.
It doesn't make sense though. The Defense of Marriage Act was in 1996. The "Karl Rove tactics" didn't exist in then. Here is her position on marriage equality in 2004.
I guess people deserve some brownie points for being for gay marriage before it was cool but mostly I only care how they feel about it now that it is cool.
But obviously the "Gay marriage: no, because political capital shouldn't be wasted on gays" people went on a list. That list isn't going away, though it has been filed away for posterity rather than being a hot topic.
It doesn't make sense though. The Defense of Marriage Act was in 1996. The "Karl Rove tactics" didn't exist in then. Here is her position on marriage equality in 2004.
There were pushes to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment in the mid-late 90s.
According to wikipedia:
The original proposed Federal Marriage Amendment was written by the Alliance for Marriage with the assistance of former Solicitor General and failed Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork, Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University, and Professor Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School.[7] It was introduced in the 107th United States Congress in the House of Representatives on May 15, 2002, by Representative Ronnie Shows (D-Miss.) with 22 cosponsors,[8] and read:
I cant find anything about a push for a Federal Marriage Amendment pre 1996.
It doesn't make sense though. The Defense of Marriage Act was in 1996. The "Karl Rove tactics" didn't exist in then. Here is her position on marriage equality in 2004.
It doesn't make sense though. The Defense of Marriage Act was in 1996. The "Karl Rove tactics" didn't exist in then. Here is her position on marriage equality in 2004.
There were pushes to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment in the mid-late 90s.
According to wikipedia:
The original proposed Federal Marriage Amendment was written by the Alliance for Marriage with the assistance of former Solicitor General and failed Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork, Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University, and Professor Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School.[7] It was introduced in the 107th United States Congress in the House of Representatives on May 15, 2002, by Representative Ronnie Shows (D-Miss.) with 22 cosponsors,[8] and read:
I cant find anything about a push for a Federal Marriage Amendment pre 1996.
Did you even listen to her response to the question tonight?
Psn:wazukki
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
It doesn't make sense though. The Defense of Marriage Act was in 1996. The "Karl Rove tactics" didn't exist in then. Here is her position on marriage equality in 2004.
Hawaii and Alaska used constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage in 1998. So I guess those tactics did exist then
DOMA was signed into law two years before either of those amendments. Hell, DOMA kind of enabled those amendments.
It doesn't make sense though. The Defense of Marriage Act was in 1996. The "Karl Rove tactics" didn't exist in then. Here is her position on marriage equality in 2004.
Hawaii and Alaska used constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage in 1998. So I guess those tactics did exist then
DOMA was signed into law two years before either of those amendments. Hell DOMA may have enabled those amendments.
Yes it absolutely did. But it also ensured an amendment to the US Constitution would not happen
wazilla on
Psn:wazukki
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Did you even listen to her response to the question tonight?
Is there anything you would like to highlight? My take away was that there were private conversations and she insisted that she was preventing something worse (despite being against gay marraige at the time per the video)
Deebaser on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Though his official political position was against same-sex marriage, Clinton criticized DOMA as "unnecessary and divisive",[27] while his press-secretary called it "gay baiting, plain and simple".[28][29] However, after Congress had passed the bill with enough votes to override a presidential veto,[29] Clinton signed DOMA. Many years later, he claimed that he did so reluctantly in view of the veto-proof majority, both to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage, and to defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[29][30] Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996; he refused to hold a signing ceremony for DOMA and did not allow photographs to be taken of him signing it into law.[31] The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation".[31]
You can go to the link for the sources and the general history but it's important to understand that this was already an issue at the time. In part because the amendment in Hawaii at the least was a response to a court case working it's way through the system that would have likely made Hawaii legalize gay marriage. Anti-gay people in the US were goddamn terrified of this kind of thing becoming a trend. Hence the build up to passing the ban in Hawaii and the various other efforts at work, including DOMA. Basically all the people in federal politics talking about it at the time say DOMA was probably the least bad idea floating around Congress for how to deal with it and it's support in Congress was widespread enough many were scared what they could accomplish if they set their sights higher.
Yes it absolutely did. But it also ensured an amendment to the US Constitution would not happen
There's pretty scarce evidence of that beyond her assurances. The clip above from 2004 lines up with principles of DOMA pretty neatly.
And the assurances of multiple other people on the issue? This is basically the story everyone tells about the issue and as you can see above with Bill Clinton's reaction, it ain't like they were jumping at the bit to pass the thing so the story is consistent with their handling of it. That's basically what I've always read on the issue.
Just finished watching, haven't watched/read any reaction.
Martin O'Malley : Excellent. Charming and warm, seemed substantial and smart. A legitimate/worthy candidate even at like 5%.
Bernie Sanders: Did better in this format than I expected but no big moves. The "don't yell" argument about guns was particularly grating for me because he yelled in every other answer. Answers about ISIS/foreign policy and and Southern issues (willfully ignoring black issues and claiming Vermont's issues and the South's issues were the same right after Maddow pointed out Vermont was totally white) were weak IMO
Hillary Clinton : Commanding and controlling both on the issues and presence. Serious, gravitas, likable (and I'm not someone who likes her personality that much) and smart. Didn't punch down
I always thought o'malley was a pretty good potential candidate, but baltimore catching on fire probably hurt him a lot. this is a tough primary to vote in because all 3 of them are good, what are the odds.
I still think my favorite answer was OMalley's answer to "You're at 2%. How can you win?" I mean he's obviously practiced it, but the delivery and argument was pretty great (and yes, you could probably rebut with "presidential elections are probably slower moving" but that'd be too brutal).
Posts
Good. Fuck that craven misrepresentation. It was slimyand the people that defend that sort of attack are gross
ooooooook
What the fuck? That... that had to be a gaffe, right?
E: NOOOOOOOPE, doubled down. That's... not good.
In what sense?
I have no idea how you don't think starting the answer to a question with "engage white working class Americans" and not referencing how those specific people are not voting Democrat is not a poor way to answer a question as a candidate with already limited minority appeal.
He started out poorly on that question I agree.
No idea what would possess her to use that line again.
Internal polling? It just sounds so... weak.
That's totally without substance but it's true.
It was probably enough to tie it to what Rove was planning and what Republicans did; putting the issue on state ballots as constitutional amendments.
It doesn't make sense though. The Defense of Marriage Act was in 1996. The "Karl Rove tactics" didn't exist then. Here is her position on marriage equality in 2004.
There were pushes to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment in the mid-late 90s.
But obviously the "Gay marriage: no, because political capital shouldn't be wasted on gays" people went on a list. That list isn't going away, though it has been filed away for posterity rather than being a hot topic.
According to wikipedia:
I cant find anything about a push for a Federal Marriage Amendment pre 1996.
Hawaii and Alaska used constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage in 1998. So I guess those tactics did exist then
Did you even listen to her response to the question tonight?
DOMA was signed into law two years before either of those amendments. Hell, DOMA kind of enabled those amendments.
Yes it absolutely did. But it also ensured an amendment to the US Constitution would not happen
Is there anything you would like to highlight? My take away was that there were private conversations and she insisted that she was preventing something worse (despite being against gay marraige at the time per the video)
There's pretty scarce evidence of that beyond her assurances. The clip above from 2004 lines up with principles of DOMA pretty neatly.
You can go to the link for the sources and the general history but it's important to understand that this was already an issue at the time. In part because the amendment in Hawaii at the least was a response to a court case working it's way through the system that would have likely made Hawaii legalize gay marriage. Anti-gay people in the US were goddamn terrified of this kind of thing becoming a trend. Hence the build up to passing the ban in Hawaii and the various other efforts at work, including DOMA. Basically all the people in federal politics talking about it at the time say DOMA was probably the least bad idea floating around Congress for how to deal with it and it's support in Congress was widespread enough many were scared what they could accomplish if they set their sights higher.
And the assurances of multiple other people on the issue? This is basically the story everyone tells about the issue and as you can see above with Bill Clinton's reaction, it ain't like they were jumping at the bit to pass the thing so the story is consistent with their handling of it. That's basically what I've always read on the issue.
Martin O'Malley : Excellent. Charming and warm, seemed substantial and smart. A legitimate/worthy candidate even at like 5%.
Bernie Sanders: Did better in this format than I expected but no big moves. The "don't yell" argument about guns was particularly grating for me because he yelled in every other answer. Answers about ISIS/foreign policy and and Southern issues (willfully ignoring black issues and claiming Vermont's issues and the South's issues were the same right after Maddow pointed out Vermont was totally white) were weak IMO
Hillary Clinton : Commanding and controlling both on the issues and presence. Serious, gravitas, likable (and I'm not someone who likes her personality that much) and smart. Didn't punch down
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
All three comported themselves civilly, charmingly and like adults.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+