I think portraying PP as something you are fighting against, especially these days, is a pretty shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing.
Then it's a shitty thing for them to try and pick sides in a left-wing primary. If they didn't want to open themselves up to accusations of bias and attacks then they shouldn't have gotten involved in politics.
It's like UNICEF started picking candidates or something. It makes them look really really bad.
Why should they be the one whose at fault? They picked a candidate to endorse, that's politics. Considering what they've been through lately I can see the logical with that decision. Since Bernie isn't going to defund them in office nobody loses. They definitely wouldn't be doing this in the other primary, this is the only one in town. This hurts Bernie more than it hurts them, when it didn't have to. He can't afford to look petty right now, not them. They're not running for president, he is. His campaign should have been neutral (saying nothing or giving the reason highlighted) or complimented them both on the endorsement. The last thing is important since he's meant to be running a clean campaign. This gives the appearance that his campaign is worried the endorsement for your reasons, only that it's spiteful they didn't endorse Bernie.
Sanders has been pretty openly calling not only Clinton but the entire Democratic establishment corrupt. That's pretty indisputable and its why pretending Sanders has been running some kind of clean race so bizarre. He included PP and Human Rights Campaign in that and as Clinton pointed out in the last debate, Obama.
If the whole system is fundamentally corrupt and "Wall Street regulates Congress" etc etc, you can't pretend he's not attacking anyone he says is part of that corrupt establishment. You can dance around it all you want its a central theme to his campaign.
Being nice to everyone has nothing to do with running a clean campaign. Neither of these statements are 'nice'.
"Hilary Clinton is not the same as me, she is supporting policies X,Y and Z based on her close ties to Lexcorp. And even though she claims that she isn't, she admits to taking $4 billion from them. If someone gave you $4 billion could you be objective about them? I don't work like that, and think thats why I will do a better job"
"Hilary Clinton is not the same as me, she is fickle woman who can't be trusted. After all, I am a man, and can thus be trusted with money and safety! The presidency isn't all about cooking dinner. And Hilary isn't even good at that... ask Bill! He certainly when elsewhere when he wanted 'Good Cooking', if you know what I mean!"
But one of them is a perfectly reasonable part of a clean campaign.
Except Sanders didn't do the former, he implied the latter - or his campaign did. His campaign staff has had an annoying tendency to implode, which is not good for Bernie's optics. He doesn't need to get that nasty with Hillary's campaign, all he needs to do is give his base enough of a hook to attack her on, and they'll fill in the rest.
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.
As much as I agree with those goals, that's all they are - goals. Having nice goals are not a shield against incompetency or fucking up, which Sanders does. This has not been a smooth campaign for him this primary. He's using the DNC when his own staffers got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, for god's sake. And I remain unconvinced he's the man for the job to accomplish this.
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.
No one argued otherwise. But it's weird for someone to say that they believe Clinton regards LGBT issues as a hill she will die on, and the next sentence being that it's perfectly understandable that she took a position that was detrimental to the LGBT community because she didn't want to end up on FOX News.
+9
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
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.
someone who is afraid of fox news is not someone I want as the goddamn president
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
Indeed, and he did it to himself by painting himself as someone who is above petty politics, and stupid pledges. Which he and his campaign continue to break with alarming regularity as of late. Politics is a blood sport, so it's no surprise that he's getting a beating when he's got one hand behind his back.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered 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
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.
So LGBT issues were not, in fact, a hill she would die on. Got it.
@Harry Dresden Ok Im taking you to task specifically about this pledge because no one else is even trotting it out anymore. There is nothing I can find that says anything like what you are describing. Please specifically link me to something that says otherwise.
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.
someone who is afraid of fox news is not someone I want as the goddamn president
She's not afraid of FOX news, in her role as Secretary of State she didn't want to cause a needless headache for the Obama administration if she didn't have to. She was all in favor of letting gay couples identify their family any way they wanted on the forms, she didn't didn't want to deal with the silly bullshit they would have had to by. Hanging the forms to parent 1 and parent 2
A bunch of democrats arguing over which candidate really hates Planned Parenthood and LBGT rights more.
There's not much daylight between the Hillary and Bernie on either issue, and which one you think is better / worse is subjective and probably based solely on where you fall on the pragmatism - idealism scale.
Both candidates have flaws but are otherwise fall about the same place on both scales.
As another note, endorsing one candidate is not the same as attacking the opposing candidate.
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.
someone who is afraid of fox news is not someone I want as the goddamn president
She's not afraid of FOX news, in her role as Secretary of State she didn't want to cause a needless headache for the Obama administration if she didn't have to. She was all in favor of letting gay couples identify their family any way they wanted on the forms, she didn't didn't want to deal with the silly bullshit they would have had to by. Hanging the forms to parent 1 and parent 2
See, this? This is where you lose the right to call Sanders out on how he doesn't phrase things perfectly.
It's not a needless headache, it's LGBT rights. And if Hillary felt like supporting them would create a "needless headache"...
I think Hillary certainly has a better handle on how to make every issue she speaks about "THE ISSUE". It's one of her greatest campaigning strengths. Some people find it a virtue to be equally engaged in every issue. I think others (maybe rightly so) think that if everything is equally THE ISSUE then really none of them are. Even if it's a great pragmatic approach that lets you capitalise on any progressive possibility, it gives the perception of being calculated instead of genuine and passionate.
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.
someone who is afraid of fox news is not someone I want as the goddamn president
She's not afraid of FOX news, in her role as Secretary of State she didn't want to cause a needless headache for the Obama administration if she didn't have to. She was all in favor of letting gay couples identify their family any way they wanted on the forms, she didn't didn't want to deal with the silly bullshit they would have had to by. Hanging the forms to parent 1 and parent 2
Do you know how offensive it is to ask a same-sex couple "So, which one of you is the mom?" The fact that you consider it a needless headache displays no small amount of priviledge.
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.
No one argued otherwise. But it's weird for someone to say that they believe Clinton regards LGBT issues as a hill she will die on, and the next sentence being that it's perfectly understandable that she took a position that was detrimental to the LGBT community because she didn't want to end up on FOX News.
I would love for you to point out exactly where I said that in any and all cases she would die on a hill for the issues.
Unfortunately nobody can take perfect action in every instance and sometimes you need to pick your battles. In this one, very specific, case Hillary decided to not wage war. I would have preferred if she did, but I can understand why she didn't.
If we're thinking about the same quote, that's a very charitable reading.
"Went to bat" might be an exaggeration, but she was certainly actively fighting for state's abilities to legalize. She was helping to create an environment where New York could get marriage equality. It's not as good a position as if she were actively and openly in favor of gay marriage, calling up legislators to ensure that the bill passed (not that it would've in 2006 even with her intervention), but even when she was still "evolving" she was working to move things farther left, and helping others push even harder.
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.
No, we're not just talking about who came first. We're talking about what actual action they've taken, since that's what matters. Sanders took easy steps. A gay pride day proclamation is great. Normalization is not just a good thing, it was a requirement to future progress. But that was in a far left town in a far left state. No sacrifices had to be made. When there was actual cost and risk involved, he faltered and threw his gay constituents under the bus.
And honestly, that's a totally fine position. A politician can only get so much done, and it's not only possible but probably that it was a calculated move because he recognized opposition was harmful but felt it was balanced in other ways.
But when we're talking about who is the one "proactive on LGBT issues", well... We know Hillary is heavily in favor of gay rights now, so her failing is gone. How do we know Sanders won't throw gay or trans people under the bus again?
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
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.
No one argued otherwise. But it's weird for someone to say that they believe Clinton regards LGBT issues as a hill she will die on, and the next sentence being that it's perfectly understandable that she took a position that was detrimental to the LGBT community because she didn't want to end up on FOX News.
word
if I were in charge of the HRC through some ridiculous means, I would have endorsed nobody and said that of the two and uh also what's his face I guess, none of them have demonstrated that they believe LGBT issues are a priority, because they aren't, by any reasonable measure
instead they chose to align with the candidate who's a) most likely to win by most educated guesses and b) already the most well-connected in DC
and I can't really fault them for that if they felt it was the best way to achieve their political goals
@Harry Dresden Ok Im taking you to task specifically about this pledge because no one else is even trotting it out anymore. There is nothing I can find that says anything like what you are describing. Please specifically link me to something that says otherwise.
This was covered pages ago, what his staff does reflects on him.
Todd: Do you believe that Planned Parenthood and Human Rights Campaign—that these are part of the Democratic establishment that's trying to defeat you?
Devine: I do, Chuck. I think the leadership of Washington-based groups—and it's not just those two—are part of a political establishment here in Washington.
I don't recall Sanders' telling this staffer to knock if off.
This is more than the pledge, that's more of a symptom of the image he's selling to win this race. Which is being the anti-establishment outsider (he isn't as much of an outsider as billed) who is not your typical politician. Attacks like this are typical politician stuff. If he was selling himself as a pragmatist and does what he needs to make things happen this would not be a thing. It's be business as usual in politics. This is not the standard Bernie holds himself to in this election.
Bernie Sanders: This fight for gay marriage is too divisive right now after what we went through just trying to pass civil unions
Thread: "NOT STRONG ON GAY RIGHTS"
Clinton: Change this passport form back to mother and father because I don't want Sarah Palin raising a stink about this on Fox News. Other wise, I guess "I could live w letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father"
Thread: "Oh that's perfectly understandable I wouldn't want to fight fox news over the dignity of gay people either if it was Sarah Palin and the rest leading the charge. Perfectly pragmatic. She'll be a fine leader on this issue."
+8
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
yeah....sanders has not been well-served by his staff
Here's Sanders on why he was going to run and why it was a good political idea, and an article discussing his possible run and worldview.
In recent months, Sanders has indicated he’s willing to use his fire-and-brimstone act not simply to influence a presidential election, but also to lay the groundwork for something of a “political revolution.” “Let me ask you,” he says, his gangly frame struggling to contain itself to our couch, “what is the largest voting bloc in America? Is it gay people? No. Is it African-Americans? No. Hispanics? No. What?” Answer: “White working-class people.” Bring them back into the liberal fold, he figures, and you’ve got your revolution.
...
“How do you have a party that created Social Security lose the senior vote?” Sanders asks me. The answer, he believes, is that seniors have been distracted from the pocketbook issues that should matter most in politics. The Left, in turn, can win them back, along with other white working-class voters, by downplaying the culture wars — what Ralph Nader once called “gonadal” issues — and instead focusing on economic populism.
Of course, Sanders supports gay marriage and abortion rights; he just puts far less emphasis on those questions than he does on economics. “He has an overarching view that transcends our racial and gender differences,” says Tom Hayden, the Students for a Democratic Society hero and former California legislator. “It’s the older view of the socialists who thought class issues could unite all. To ask him to drop that is asking him to change his identity.”
Sanders’s worldview owes something to the Marxist idea of false consciousness — the notion that poor Americans are being tricked into voting against their own economic interests. Not everyone on the Left buys this analysis. “It assumes when people pound cultural passion, they are derivative, that they’re being deceived,” says Columbia University social scientist Todd Gitlin, another veteran of the New Left. “They’re not being deceived. In fact, they feel more passionate about abortion than they do about a wealth tax, and that’s who they are.”
...
“He doesn’t have a gun,” says his close friend Richard Sugarman, a religion professor at the University of Vermont, when I asked how Sanders — a University of Chicago graduate from Brooklyn — became a Second Amendment guy. “He doesn’t really care about guns. But he cares that other people care about guns. He thinks there’s an elitism in the antigun movement.”
I suggest to Sanders that his vision for a new progressive base of old white guys runs somewhat counter to the conventional wisdom, but he cuts me off. “Who told you that?” he scoffs. “I’m talking from a little bit of experience. I did get 71 percent of the vote in my state. And despite popular conception — with all due respect to my friends in California, Northern California, where you have wealthy liberals who support me and I appreciate that — Vermont is a working-class state. So I’m glad you raised that, because your analysis is incorrect. And I’m right and everybody else is wrong. Clear about that?”
...
I ask him how exactly he plans to convince millions of disaffected Reagan Democrats to stop voting Republican, and he answers by telling a story about his unsuccessful 1986 gubernatorial run. On the ballot that year was a referendum on the Vermont Equal Rights Amendment. “When they came up with the votes, they found a very interesting thing,” Sanders says, softening his booming, Brooklyn-inflected voice to emphasize the point. “They had people who were voting ‘no’ on equal rights and ‘yes’ for Sanders. And my point is, look: You have a country split on abortion, a country split on gay rights, you have many of these social issues, split on marijuana legalization. But what I believe very strongly is, working (people will) say: ‘I disagree with him on abortion rights, I disagree with him on gay rights, but you know what, he’s fighting for my kids and I support him.’ “
That's not a hit piece. That's Sanders and his allies arguing his case. And it includes reducing in importance non-economic issues, such as those that are important to Planned Parenthood, or Human Rights Campaign or the League of Conservation Voters or Black Lives Matter. Its not an accidental, its central tenet of his political philosophy, which is old school democratic socialism (which did hold those positions quite centrally).
But when we're talking about who is the one "proactive on LGBT issues", well... We know Hillary is heavily in favor of gay rights now, so her failing is gone. How do we know Sanders won't throw gay or trans people under the bus again?
So when hillary throws them under the bus to not give other people headaches its ok. When Bernie does it suddenly its a constant threat?
@Harry Dresden Ok Im taking you to task specifically about this pledge because no one else is even trotting it out anymore. There is nothing I can find that says anything like what you are describing. Please specifically link me to something that says otherwise.
This was covered pages ago, what his staff does reflects on him.
Todd: Do you believe that Planned Parenthood and Human Rights Campaign—that these are part of the Democratic establishment that's trying to defeat you?
Devine: I do, Chuck. I think the leadership of Washington-based groups—and it's not just those two—are part of a political establishment here in Washington.
I don't recall Sanders' telling this staffer to knock if off.
This is more than the pledge, that's more of a symptom of the image he's selling to win this race. Which is being the anti-establishment outsider (he isn't as much of an outsider as billed) who is not your typical politician. Attacks like this are typical politician stuff. If he was selling himself as a pragmatist and does what he needs to make things happen this would not be a thing. It's be business as usual in politics. This is not the standard Bernie holds himself to in this election.
But when we're talking about who is the one "proactive on LGBT issues", well... We know Hillary is heavily in favor of gay rights now, so her failing is gone. How do we know Sanders won't throw gay or trans people under the bus again?
So when hillary throws them under the bus to not give other people headaches its ok. When Bernie does it suddenly its a constant threat?
You know there are multiple Hillary supporters in this thread, right?
The last time I said anything about the passport issue was when the email first came out, and at that point I said it was disappointing.
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.
someone who is afraid of fox news is not someone I want as the goddamn president
She's not afraid of FOX news, in her role as Secretary of State she didn't want to cause a needless headache for the Obama administration if she didn't have to. She was all in favor of letting gay couples identify their family any way they wanted on the forms, she didn't didn't want to deal with the silly bullshit they would have had to by. Hanging the forms to parent 1 and parent 2
Do you know how offensive it is to ask a same-sex couple "So, which one of you is the mom?" The fact that you consider it a needless headache displays no small amount of priviledge.
She is on record saying that she is in favor of LBGT couples choosing whatever descriptor they wish. It is in extremely bad faith for you to try and put this back on me as some sort of issue of privilege
Here's Sanders on why he was going to run and why it was a good political idea, and an article discussing his possible run and worldview.
In recent months, Sanders has indicated he’s willing to use his fire-and-brimstone act not simply to influence a presidential election, but also to lay the groundwork for something of a “political revolution.” “Let me ask you,” he says, his gangly frame struggling to contain itself to our couch, “what is the largest voting bloc in America? Is it gay people? No. Is it African-Americans? No. Hispanics? No. What?” Answer: “White working-class people.” Bring them back into the liberal fold, he figures, and you’ve got your revolution.
...
“How do you have a party that created Social Security lose the senior vote?” Sanders asks me. The answer, he believes, is that seniors have been distracted from the pocketbook issues that should matter most in politics. The Left, in turn, can win them back, along with other white working-class voters, by downplaying the culture wars — what Ralph Nader once called “gonadal” issues — and instead focusing on economic populism.
Of course, Sanders supports gay marriage and abortion rights; he just puts far less emphasis on those questions than he does on economics. “He has an overarching view that transcends our racial and gender differences,” says Tom Hayden, the Students for a Democratic Society hero and former California legislator. “It’s the older view of the socialists who thought class issues could unite all. To ask him to drop that is asking him to change his identity.”
Sanders’s worldview owes something to the Marxist idea of false consciousness — the notion that poor Americans are being tricked into voting against their own economic interests. Not everyone on the Left buys this analysis. “It assumes when people pound cultural passion, they are derivative, that they’re being deceived,” says Columbia University social scientist Todd Gitlin, another veteran of the New Left. “They’re not being deceived. In fact, they feel more passionate about abortion than they do about a wealth tax, and that’s who they are.”
...
“He doesn’t have a gun,” says his close friend Richard Sugarman, a religion professor at the University of Vermont, when I asked how Sanders — a University of Chicago graduate from Brooklyn — became a Second Amendment guy. “He doesn’t really care about guns. But he cares that other people care about guns. He thinks there’s an elitism in the antigun movement.”
I suggest to Sanders that his vision for a new progressive base of old white guys runs somewhat counter to the conventional wisdom, but he cuts me off. “Who told you that?” he scoffs. “I’m talking from a little bit of experience. I did get 71 percent of the vote in my state. And despite popular conception — with all due respect to my friends in California, Northern California, where you have wealthy liberals who support me and I appreciate that — Vermont is a working-class state. So I’m glad you raised that, because your analysis is incorrect. And I’m right and everybody else is wrong. Clear about that?”
...
I ask him how exactly he plans to convince millions of disaffected Reagan Democrats to stop voting Republican, and he answers by telling a story about his unsuccessful 1986 gubernatorial run. On the ballot that year was a referendum on the Vermont Equal Rights Amendment. “When they came up with the votes, they found a very interesting thing,” Sanders says, softening his booming, Brooklyn-inflected voice to emphasize the point. “They had people who were voting ‘no’ on equal rights and ‘yes’ for Sanders. And my point is, look: You have a country split on abortion, a country split on gay rights, you have many of these social issues, split on marijuana legalization. But what I believe very strongly is, working (people will) say: ‘I disagree with him on abortion rights, I disagree with him on gay rights, but you know what, he’s fighting for my kids and I support him.’ “
That's not a hit piece. That's Sanders and his allies arguing his case. And it includes reducing in importance non-economic issues, such as those that are important to Planned Parenthood, or Human Rights Campaign or the League of Conservation Voters or Black Lives Matter. Its not an accidental, its central tenet of his political philosophy, which is old school democratic socialism (which did hold those positions quite centrally).
Oh let me see this reasonable article that you linked.
But when we're talking about who is the one "proactive on LGBT issues", well... We know Hillary is heavily in favor of gay rights now, so her failing is gone. How do we know Sanders won't throw gay or trans people under the bus again?
So when hillary throws them under the bus to not give other people headaches its ok. When Bernie does it suddenly its a constant threat?
You know there are multiple Hillary supporters in this thread, right?
The last time I said anything about the passport issue was when the email first came out, and at that point I said it was disappointing.
Thank you for saying that!
It's good sometimes to realize that candidates make mistakes, and we don't need to go to bat for every single one of them. Politicians are people! They fuck up, too.
It's why I can still support Bernie in the primary despite his multiple missteps, and it's why I'll vote for Hillary in the general even though she's made several bad moves over the course of her career!
Here's Sanders on why he was going to run and why it was a good political idea, and an article discussing his possible run and worldview.
In recent months, Sanders has indicated he’s willing to use his fire-and-brimstone act not simply to influence a presidential election, but also to lay the groundwork for something of a “political revolution.” “Let me ask you,” he says, his gangly frame struggling to contain itself to our couch, “what is the largest voting bloc in America? Is it gay people? No. Is it African-Americans? No. Hispanics? No. What?” Answer: “White working-class people.” Bring them back into the liberal fold, he figures, and you’ve got your revolution.
...
“How do you have a party that created Social Security lose the senior vote?” Sanders asks me. The answer, he believes, is that seniors have been distracted from the pocketbook issues that should matter most in politics. The Left, in turn, can win them back, along with other white working-class voters, by downplaying the culture wars — what Ralph Nader once called “gonadal” issues — and instead focusing on economic populism.
Of course, Sanders supports gay marriage and abortion rights; he just puts far less emphasis on those questions than he does on economics. “He has an overarching view that transcends our racial and gender differences,” says Tom Hayden, the Students for a Democratic Society hero and former California legislator. “It’s the older view of the socialists who thought class issues could unite all. To ask him to drop that is asking him to change his identity.”
Sanders’s worldview owes something to the Marxist idea of false consciousness — the notion that poor Americans are being tricked into voting against their own economic interests. Not everyone on the Left buys this analysis. “It assumes when people pound cultural passion, they are derivative, that they’re being deceived,” says Columbia University social scientist Todd Gitlin, another veteran of the New Left. “They’re not being deceived. In fact, they feel more passionate about abortion than they do about a wealth tax, and that’s who they are.”
...
“He doesn’t have a gun,” says his close friend Richard Sugarman, a religion professor at the University of Vermont, when I asked how Sanders — a University of Chicago graduate from Brooklyn — became a Second Amendment guy. “He doesn’t really care about guns. But he cares that other people care about guns. He thinks there’s an elitism in the antigun movement.”
I suggest to Sanders that his vision for a new progressive base of old white guys runs somewhat counter to the conventional wisdom, but he cuts me off. “Who told you that?” he scoffs. “I’m talking from a little bit of experience. I did get 71 percent of the vote in my state. And despite popular conception — with all due respect to my friends in California, Northern California, where you have wealthy liberals who support me and I appreciate that — Vermont is a working-class state. So I’m glad you raised that, because your analysis is incorrect. And I’m right and everybody else is wrong. Clear about that?”
...
I ask him how exactly he plans to convince millions of disaffected Reagan Democrats to stop voting Republican, and he answers by telling a story about his unsuccessful 1986 gubernatorial run. On the ballot that year was a referendum on the Vermont Equal Rights Amendment. “When they came up with the votes, they found a very interesting thing,” Sanders says, softening his booming, Brooklyn-inflected voice to emphasize the point. “They had people who were voting ‘no’ on equal rights and ‘yes’ for Sanders. And my point is, look: You have a country split on abortion, a country split on gay rights, you have many of these social issues, split on marijuana legalization. But what I believe very strongly is, working (people will) say: ‘I disagree with him on abortion rights, I disagree with him on gay rights, but you know what, he’s fighting for my kids and I support him.’ “
That's not a hit piece. That's Sanders and his allies arguing his case. And it includes reducing in importance non-economic issues, such as those that are important to Planned Parenthood, or Human Rights Campaign or the League of Conservation Voters or Black Lives Matter. Its not an accidental, its central tenet of his political philosophy, which is old school democratic socialism (which did hold those positions quite centrally).
Oh let me see this reasonable article that you linked.
oh god really?
Since you clearly didn't take the time to read either the article or my quoted portion, the title is a direct Sanders quote. But thanks for your contribution.
But when we're talking about who is the one "proactive on LGBT issues", well... We know Hillary is heavily in favor of gay rights now, so her failing is gone. How do we know Sanders won't throw gay or trans people under the bus again?
So when hillary throws them under the bus to not give other people headaches its ok. When Bernie does it suddenly its a constant threat?
You know there are multiple Hillary supporters in this thread, right?
The last time I said anything about the passport issue was when the email first came out, and at that point I said it was disappointing.
Thank you for saying that!
It's good sometimes to realize that candidates make mistakes, and we don't need to go to bat for every single one of them. Politicians are people! They fuck up, too.
It's why I can still support Bernie in the primary despite his multiple missteps, and it's why I'll vote for Hillary in the general even though she's made several bad moves over the course of her career!
You guys are being far too reasonable for the thread at this stage.
And, well, this is neither stump speach or ad, so, great i guess...
Interviews are not ads or speeches, and nothing was really said about staffers/strategists opening their mouths on tv...
This is what I am suppose to be reading? I think you have stewed in your own circles for too long if you think anyone approaching that believes that will be a reasoned article.
And, well, this is neither stump speach or ad, so, great i guess...
Interviews are not ads or speeches, and nothing was really said about staffers/strategists opening their mouths on tv...
Granted some of the things his staffers/strategists have said have been less than great.
This is still an incredibly civil primary, you guys.
And speaking to the topic that keeps coming up about how Hillary/Bernie supporters are hyperbolic and unfair towards the other, I can't say I'm surprised when even in this thread we're steadily spiraling towards knifin' each other over our personal bugbear issues.
Aaaaand that's a wrap on this thread for a couple days. The discussion has become 90% snark and outrage by weight, and I think we could use a bit of time to find our collective happy place and mellow for a bit.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Except Sanders didn't do the former, he implied the latter - or his campaign did. His campaign staff has had an annoying tendency to implode, which is not good for Bernie's optics. He doesn't need to get that nasty with Hillary's campaign, all he needs to do is give his base enough of a hook to attack her on, and they'll fill in the rest.
As much as I agree with those goals, that's all they are - goals. Having nice goals are not a shield against incompetency or fucking up, which Sanders does. This has not been a smooth campaign for him this primary. He's using the DNC when his own staffers got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, for god's sake. And I remain unconvinced he's the man for the job to accomplish this.
No one argued otherwise. But it's weird for someone to say that they believe Clinton regards LGBT issues as a hill she will die on, and the next sentence being that it's perfectly understandable that she took a position that was detrimental to the LGBT community because she didn't want to end up on FOX News.
someone who is afraid of fox news is not someone I want as the goddamn president
Indeed, and he did it to himself by painting himself as someone who is above petty politics, and stupid pledges. Which he and his campaign continue to break with alarming regularity as of late. Politics is a blood sport, so it's no surprise that he's getting a beating when he's got one hand behind his back.
So LGBT issues were not, in fact, a hill she would die on. Got it.
She's not afraid of FOX news, in her role as Secretary of State she didn't want to cause a needless headache for the Obama administration if she didn't have to. She was all in favor of letting gay couples identify their family any way they wanted on the forms, she didn't didn't want to deal with the silly bullshit they would have had to by. Hanging the forms to parent 1 and parent 2
A bunch of democrats arguing over which candidate really hates Planned Parenthood and LBGT rights more.
There's not much daylight between the Hillary and Bernie on either issue, and which one you think is better / worse is subjective and probably based solely on where you fall on the pragmatism - idealism scale.
Both candidates have flaws but are otherwise fall about the same place on both scales.
As another note, endorsing one candidate is not the same as attacking the opposing candidate.
See, this? This is where you lose the right to call Sanders out on how he doesn't phrase things perfectly.
It's not a needless headache, it's LGBT rights. And if Hillary felt like supporting them would create a "needless headache"...
Do you know how offensive it is to ask a same-sex couple "So, which one of you is the mom?" The fact that you consider it a needless headache displays no small amount of priviledge.
I would love for you to point out exactly where I said that in any and all cases she would die on a hill for the issues.
Unfortunately nobody can take perfect action in every instance and sometimes you need to pick your battles. In this one, very specific, case Hillary decided to not wage war. I would have preferred if she did, but I can understand why she didn't.
"Went to bat" might be an exaggeration, but she was certainly actively fighting for state's abilities to legalize. She was helping to create an environment where New York could get marriage equality. It's not as good a position as if she were actively and openly in favor of gay marriage, calling up legislators to ensure that the bill passed (not that it would've in 2006 even with her intervention), but even when she was still "evolving" she was working to move things farther left, and helping others push even harder.
No, we're not just talking about who came first. We're talking about what actual action they've taken, since that's what matters. Sanders took easy steps. A gay pride day proclamation is great. Normalization is not just a good thing, it was a requirement to future progress. But that was in a far left town in a far left state. No sacrifices had to be made. When there was actual cost and risk involved, he faltered and threw his gay constituents under the bus.
And honestly, that's a totally fine position. A politician can only get so much done, and it's not only possible but probably that it was a calculated move because he recognized opposition was harmful but felt it was balanced in other ways.
But when we're talking about who is the one "proactive on LGBT issues", well... We know Hillary is heavily in favor of gay rights now, so her failing is gone. How do we know Sanders won't throw gay or trans people under the bus again?
word
if I were in charge of the HRC through some ridiculous means, I would have endorsed nobody and said that of the two and uh also what's his face I guess, none of them have demonstrated that they believe LGBT issues are a priority, because they aren't, by any reasonable measure
instead they chose to align with the candidate who's a) most likely to win by most educated guesses and b) already the most well-connected in DC
and I can't really fault them for that if they felt it was the best way to achieve their political goals
This was covered pages ago, what his staff does reflects on him.
http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/panic-time-for-democratic-establishment-605252163874
I don't recall Sanders' telling this staffer to knock if off.
This is more than the pledge, that's more of a symptom of the image he's selling to win this race. Which is being the anti-establishment outsider (he isn't as much of an outsider as billed) who is not your typical politician. Attacks like this are typical politician stuff. If he was selling himself as a pragmatist and does what he needs to make things happen this would not be a thing. It's be business as usual in politics. This is not the standard Bernie holds himself to in this election.
Thread: "NOT STRONG ON GAY RIGHTS"
Clinton: Change this passport form back to mother and father because I don't want Sarah Palin raising a stink about this on Fox News. Other wise, I guess "I could live w letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father"
Thread: "Oh that's perfectly understandable I wouldn't want to fight fox news over the dignity of gay people either if it was Sarah Palin and the rest leading the charge. Perfectly pragmatic. She'll be a fine leader on this issue."
That's not a hit piece. That's Sanders and his allies arguing his case. And it includes reducing in importance non-economic issues, such as those that are important to Planned Parenthood, or Human Rights Campaign or the League of Conservation Voters or Black Lives Matter. Its not an accidental, its central tenet of his political philosophy, which is old school democratic socialism (which did hold those positions quite centrally).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
So when hillary throws them under the bus to not give other people headaches its ok. When Bernie does it suddenly its a constant threat?
Specifically the pledge. Where is that?
You know there are multiple Hillary supporters in this thread, right?
The last time I said anything about the passport issue was when the email first came out, and at that point I said it was disappointing.
She is on record saying that she is in favor of LBGT couples choosing whatever descriptor they wish. It is in extremely bad faith for you to try and put this back on me as some sort of issue of privilege
Oh let me see this reasonable article that you linked.
oh god really?
Thank you for saying that!
It's good sometimes to realize that candidates make mistakes, and we don't need to go to bat for every single one of them. Politicians are people! They fuck up, too.
It's why I can still support Bernie in the primary despite his multiple missteps, and it's why I'll vote for Hillary in the general even though she's made several bad moves over the course of her career!
Since you clearly didn't take the time to read either the article or my quoted portion, the title is a direct Sanders quote. But thanks for your contribution.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You guys are being far too reasonable for the thread at this stage.
Work on that rhetoric and give it another shot!
Only mentions of it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/14/politics/bernie-sanders-negative-ad/
"Des Moines, Iowa (CNN)Bernie Sanders launched his presidential campaign in 2015 by promising not to go negative -- either on the stump or in ads -- against Hillary Clinton."
And, well, this is neither stump speach or ad, so, great i guess...
Interviews are not ads or speeches, and nothing was really said about staffers/strategists opening their mouths on tv...
This is what I am suppose to be reading? I think you have stewed in your own circles for too long if you think anyone approaching that believes that will be a reasoned article.
Granted some of the things his staffers/strategists have said have been less than great.
This is still an incredibly civil primary, you guys.