2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders speaks to Club for Growth, seeks to find common ground on LGBT rights and abortion.
No, of course that didn't happen. Why? Because what Bernie really cares about are economic issues. He considers social issues divisive, identity politics, distractions from what's truly important.
Which is why he will speak to a bunch of homophobes who think women are breeding apparatuses, in an attempt to put their differences aside and come together on economic issues, but he would never dream of doing the same thing with a group of free market fundamentalists, hoping to come together to protect choice and gay marriage.
Yes, economic issues are important, and if all you care about is redistribution of wealth, then Bernie's your candidate. Well, no, actually he's not, because he can't win the GE, so nominating him would make economic inequality a lot worse. And even if got elected, he wouldn't be able to get much done about it with the GOP in congress.
But still, believe it or not, there are people who care about things besides Glass-Steagall. It's not very hard to figure out which candidate would fight harder against the GOP's war on Planned Parenthood, for example. Most people on DU seem to have exactly the same priorities (with Hillary's email server at the top of the list) and disinterests, but Democrats in general are a much more diverse group.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)When Bernie kicked off his campaign in Burlington Vermont, he didn't mention immigration once.
Not once.
His focus is economic issues and that's what attracts Bernie supporters to him.
It's why minorities and overwhelmingly backing Hillary.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Clinton supports economic policies that have impoverished millions. Goldman-Sachs, her sponsor, doesn't care about poverty. Poverty has grown for the last 30 years of conservative rule and is both an economic issue as well as a social justice issue.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Oh, I get it, you're just making things up. Never mind.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)contributions limited by law, but actual money for her personal account. Businesses consider giving money to politicians an investment on which they hope to get a great return.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "sponsored". This is yet another false anti-Hillary smear.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And these speeches probably didn't emphasize solving the growing wealth inequality. In fact I'm betting she made them feel that she would do good by them if elected and that's why they keep asking her back.
I am not sure you understand the meaning of the expression "quid pro quo".
If her tax plan doesn't include increasing the tax on the wealthy then all her social programs will get funded by taxing the middle class. That will only exacerbate the wealth inequality problem.
Isn't she against raising the cap on social security?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)She gets more money than almost everyone else doing it because she's a big effing deal, of course. In the same way that LeBron James makes a lot more money than some guy in D-league. You want the best, you pay for the best. Your allegations that payments for service are some kind of bribe are a completely unfounded right-wing smear.
As far as tax plans, none of the Dem candidates have released specific income tax rates. She's in favor of raising capital gains and closing the carried interest loophole, both of which will affect the wealthy primarily. And her economic plans, as I've said, have won praises from liberal economists.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)return is not like LeBron James anything. The political process is broken and we need change. H.Clinton is not for that change.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yes, the political process is broken. Nobody understands this more than Hillary, who has proposed new campaign finance reform laws and has pledged to only nominate SCOTUS judges that will overturn Citizens United.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)can be against it. LOL. H. Clinton uses the current political process to her advantage. No debates because DWS, her personal friend says so. She is taking money from corporations (or their executives, wink-wink). She doesn't fool anyone. She loves the political process.
This is a class war. I know that conservatives don't like it hedged that way, but that's what it is. I side with the 99% and Sen Sanders while it looks like you support the 1% side. And I understand your reasoning. You don't want to rock the boat and fight for those living in poverty. It's a moral issue. Goldman-Sachs doesn't want to solve the poverty problem. Think about it. The billionaires don't care about the poor, our vets, our seniors, yet you choose to side with them.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Really? Get a life...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)One minor point of information: calling people trolls and telling them to "get a life" is generally frowned upon.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)And posting things like what you did in the OP. I've seen your posts on this forum, and it's pretty clear you have it out for Bernie Sanders. It doesn't matter what the topic is, you will find a way to "criticize" him, and it's usually in a derogatory and condescending manner. That, to me, is evidence of a troll.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Personally, I like Bernie Sanders a lot. But it's obvious that he cares a lot more about economic issues than social issues.
As for repeatedly calling me a troll, again, that's frowned upon here. Try to keep it civil.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)of Bernie Sanders who has supported LGBT persons and rights for his entire career. What you are doing is offensive.
TM99
(8,352 posts)If you call the obvious flamebaiting OP's 'trolls', they will hide your post.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)On Wed Sep 30, 2015, 06:57 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
You really took the time to create a thread specifically to troll people?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=635513
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Personal attack. Also a disparaging remark of "get a life."
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Sep 30, 2015, 07:02 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: DUers who have been here for a long time - based on number of posts, in this case - should not be called trolls. And, yes, one should rebut instead of calling names. Or just ignore the post.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "get a life" interesting comment but not worth a hide.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ffs....
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh, rather pedestrian for GDP.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)are always devoid of facts. There are never any links.
They are opinion pieces where you pretend that your thoughts are reality. No more.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)"Bernie is so great OMG" considered flamebait? I guess it is in some circles.
Response to DanTex (Reply #20)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to DanTex (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DanTex
(20,709 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Everything in this OP is made up, that could be why.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Here's another recent one you might like.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/1251629757
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)"He considers social issues divisive, identity politics, distractions from what's truly important" - Please link to where Bernie said or implied the above. Thanks in advance.
He never did. Pants on fire? Sanders is running on racial Justice.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)True, after two separate debacles with BLM he finally decided he needed to say something about racial justice. But his heart's just not in it like with economic inequality.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Taking snippets out of context. It's gotta suck to have so little to go on.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)economic issues.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)You annoy the hell out of me, but I still like you for some strange reason.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Hilarious!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The Democratic Party umbrella is huge. The party welcomes people whom the GOP and the MSM dismiss as "fringe" ---even though taken altogether the "fringes" make up a larger part of the democracy than the so called "norms"--you know the white , male, heterosexual, not disabled non Muslims. There are many different sections of the Democratic Party base. Some people belong to more than one. Here is a summary of some of the most important (in terms of numbers and votes).
1. Unions. This should be numbers 1 through 3, but I will just limit it to one. So far, All Your Union Base Are Belong to Clinton. Except for National Nurses United, which has given its support to Sanders. In 2000, NNU supporter Nader over Gore. All the other unions that have declared so far ( including teachers, machinists, plumbers) have declared for Clinton. I am going to go out on a very short, very sturdy limb at this point and predict that if Sanders does not get some more union support, his chances of being the party nominee are close to zero. So, his number one job is win over the unions.
2. Women. Women vote for both parties. But women lean heavily Democratic while men are more evenly split. Making women an important part of the Democratic Base. All Your Female Base Are Belong to Clinton (and Will Always Belong to Clinton). Period. That is not to say that some women will not vote for Sanders. Some women will also vote for the GOP nominee. Some would vote for David Dukes if given the option. But if given a chance to vote for another woman, turnout of women will be higher and GOP women will cross over. Here lies the mathematical key to Clinton's victory. No man will be able to separate her from her base. No voter suppression will be able to suppress the enhanced turnout of giddy women who are finally ready to have their day in the sun.
3. Blacks. As Toni Morrison said, Bill Clinton was the first Black president--until Obama was the first Black president. Hillary is married to one of these man, and she was Secretary of State for the other. In addition, she is Obama's anointed successor, and in 2008 she very graciously buried the hatchet at the Convention and campaigned for her primary opponent in a way that other Democratic nomination losers (see Ted Kennedy 1980) did not. Can Sanders peel away Clinton's Black support? Maybe. But people who live in fear of being shot by the police for no reason at all take politics pretty seriously. They are not likely to give up a "sure thing" in order to take a chance with something new
Hillaryous!
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)
RussBLib
(9,003 posts)rather than fabricating BS about those you don't prefer?
novel concept I know
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bernie's email habits would be much more in keeping with DU's general theme these days.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Almost none of them do. Why is that?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
DanTex
(20,709 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But these are only very recent developments. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be champions of same-sex marriage now, but you dont have to go far back to find a time when they werent. And hey, were happy to have their evolved support.
Not only did Sanders vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton an unpopular position then a look back at Sanders political career shows consistent support of the gay rights movement. Even when it was more than just unpopular, it was downright controversial.
In our democratic society, it is the responsibility of government to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights especially the freedom of speech and expression, Sanders wrote later in a memo. In a free society, we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyle.
...
It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped but to the gay community as well.
http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719
Of course, Clinton has since evolved on LGBT rights, as many have. That's wonderful. But the problem is, she only came out in support of marriage equality after it was not politically risky to do so. In fact, by 2013 - the year Clinton announced her full support for marriage equality - Democratic support for same-sex marriage was the norm, not the exception.
On such an important moral issue that affects my life and the lives of thousands of other Americans, making decisions in this manner is rather despicable. Additionally, Clinton's habit of doing what polls deem politically popular is the reason why so many voters find her inauthentic. Now, if Clinton were the only option for the Democratic presidential nomination, I would understand why we should support her despite these flaws.
But she isn't the only option.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, is also running for the nomination. And unlike Clinton, his record on LGBT rights is historically excellent.
Sanders voted against DOMA, one of the few members of Congress to do so, at a time when such a stance was not politically popular. Four years after DOMA passed, Sanders helped champion Vermont's decision in 2000 to become the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions. This set a national precedent for LGBT equality achieved via legislative means. In 2009, when Vermont became the first state to allow marriage equality through legislative action rather than a court ruling, Sanders expressed his support once again. Truly, Sanders has been a real leader on LGBT rights, even if this leadership isn't recognized in the way that Clinton's current support is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-novak/on-lgbt-rights-bernie-lea_b_7662682.html
Todays Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.
Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.
There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
In a letter he published in the early 1970s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday he has been waiting for the nation to catch up to his support for same-sex marriage.
Sanders remarks come a day after Fridays landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
He argued he was well ahead of the historic decision, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.
...
Sanders at the time served in the House of Representatives, which voted 342-67 in favor of DOMA. The Senate voted 85-14 in favor, before former President Bill Clinton signed it into law.
That was an anti-gay marriage piece of legislation, he added of the law that defined marriage at the federal level as the coupling of one man and one woman.
Sanders on Saturday praised Americans for creating greater opportunities for same-sex couples. Fridays Supreme Court ruling, he charged, was not possible without national pressure for gay rights.
No one here should think for one second this starts with the Supreme Court, Sanders said.
It starts at the grassroots level in all 50 states, he said. The American people want to end discrimination in all its forms.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246370-sanders-i-was-ahead-of-the-curve-on-gay-rights
Most Americans now support legally allowing gay and lesbian relationships, same-sex marriage, and personal marijuana use after decades of shifting public opinion. But one Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was calling for many of these changes decades ago.
In a 1972 letter to a local newspaper which was recently resurfaced by Chelsea Summers at the New Republic Sanders wrote that he supported abolishing "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" as part of his campaign for Vermont governor:
These stances were far removed from public opinion at the time, according to Gallup surveys on marijuana and gay and lesbian rights. In 1972, 81 percent of Americans said marijuana should be illegal which suggests even more would favor the prohibition of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. In 1977, the earliest year of polling data, 43 percent of Americans said gay and lesbian relations between consenting adults should not be legal, while 43 percent said they should be legal.
...
But it took decades for the American public to come around to majority support on these issues: It wasn't until 2013 that a majority of Americans supported marijuana legalization, the early 2000s that most consistently responded in favor of legal gay and lesbian relations, and 2011 that a majority first reported backing same-sex marriage rights.
Sanders has carried many of these positions to this day. He was one of the few federal lawmakers to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal ban on same-sex marriages, in the 1990s. And while he told Time's Jay Newton-Small in March that he has no current stance on marijuana legalization (but backs medical marijuana), he characterized the war on drugs as costly and destructive.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-rights
Now that he's officially announced he will seek the Democratic nomination for president and challenge Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will be talking about his positions on major issues on the campaign trail, and one very big issue he has championed for years is gay marriage. Sanders, unlike some of his potential Republican opponents, seems like he would not turn down an invitation to a gay wedding (and he might actually get invited to one).
In 1996, then-Representative Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred recognition of gay marriage at the federal level (DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013). Sanders' and his home state of Vermont were the first to legalize same-sex unions in 2000, at first recognizing them as civil unions. Gay marriage has been legal in Vermont since 2009, and as The New York Times reported, Vermont was the first state to pass legislation in support of same-sex marriage, rather than in reaction to a court ruling.
On Tuesday, as the Supreme Court took up the issue of gay marriage, Sanders issued a statement on his website reaffirming his support, saying gay Americans in every state should be allowed to marry.
Of course all citizens deserve equal rights. Its time for the Supreme Court to catch up to the American people and legalize gay marriage.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/79951-bernie-sanders-views-on-gay-marriage-show-hes-been-a-supporter-for-a-long-time
Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving independent member of Congress, is officially seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, the Vermont senator announced in an email to supporters this morning.
"People should not underestimate me," Sanders told the Associated Press in an interview that broke the news of his candidacy Wednesday night. "I've run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country."
The self-described "Democratic socialist" wants to challenge the business-as-usual trend of big money in politics that he says dominates the current candidates including Hillary Clinton.
The thrust of Sanders's campaign thus far like his political career as the mayor of Burlington, Vt., 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the past seven in the U.S. Senate has focused on supporting working-class Americans through elevated taxes on the wealthy and correcting income inequality "which is now reaching obscene levels," he told the AP.
But Sanders has also been a steadfast and reliable supporter of LGBT equality, supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act when it passed the Senate in 2013 and even calling on President Obama to evolve already and support marriage equality in 2011. He's a cosponsor of the federal LGBT-inclusive Student Non-Discrimination Act and has consistently voted against bills seeking to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, while cosponsoring a bill that would repeal the remaining portions of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Sanders has a perfect score of 100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign's latest Congressional Equality Index.
http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-most-lgbt-friendly-candidate
think
(11,641 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Using women and minorities as pawns in the primaries is disgusting.
We know who has our back.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)now he doesn't care about women and lgbt people.
I wonder who he won't care about next week?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Are you ok with the poverty levels? The status quo will continue the widening of the wealth gap and that means more poverty. But some how you rationalize that that isn't important.
There is zero chance of advancing or even retaining gains made in social justice in the last decades if we no longer live in a democracy. Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street have a great deal of control of our government. The status quo will allow them to tighten their control and eliminate our democracy.
Your status quo has brought us militarized police forces that are killing unarmed AA males. Clinton and Goldman-Sachs will not change that for the better.
You can't have social justice without economic justice and economic justice doesn't mean much if you don't have social justice. They go hand in hand. Attempts to separate the two are intended to disrupt the Democratic Party.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)important. Just saying, there are other important issues as well.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)justice claiming, without evidence, that they don't care about social justice. Nothing can be farther from the truth. So what possibly be your motive for such claims. And claims like this:
There is no truth to this whatsoever.
And H. Clinton, while giving us rhetoric about social issues, is clearly the favorite of Wall Street because they know she doesn't care about fixing the growing economic disparity. The poverty rates have continued to grow with our government under the control of Wall Street and the billionaires. Sen Sanders wants the wealthy to pay their fair share. H. Clinton is wealthy and has only offered to tax the middle class to pay for social justice.
And one of your talking points is that if elected, Sen Sanders wouldn't be able to get legislation thru the Republicons in Congress. What a weird logic. I agree H. Clinton will be able to get a lot thru a Republicon Congress because she agrees with them on many issues, like: Fracking, The TPP, the XL Pipeline, Arctic Drilling, foreign intervention, NSA/CIA domestic spying, the Patriot Act, for profit prisons, etc. She would be a great help to their agenda.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bernie is great when it comes to economic justice, which as I said is an important issue. But trying to deny that he puts social issues secondary to economic ones is silly. His stump speech is almost entirely about economic issues. He doesn't try to reach out to people who agree with him socially but not economically, but he does the other way around. And so on.
The other thing that is absurd is to suggest that Hillary doesn't care about fixing economic disparity. Utterly insane. She talks about that all the time, and her economic proposals have won wide praises from liberal economists like Krugman and Stiglitz. While neither has come out with detailed income tax plans, Hillary has proposed raising capital gains taxes and closing the carried interest loophole. She also supports raising the minimum wage, and the employee free choice act, and so on. To say "she doesn't care" about economic disparity is crazy.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)for telling them that she thinks it's a mistake to villianize bankers. Multi-millionaires and billionaires are expected to donate between 1 and 2 billion with a B to her campaign. That doesn't count the money she gets directly from corps like Goldman-Sachs.
I would be interested in specific proposals. Just saying she wants to raise the min wage doesn't mean much. Even Obama doesn't really want to raise min wage (the $10.10 raise for a handful of government contractors was an insult).
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bernie's congressional salary puts him in the 2% in terms of salary.
She gets paid a lot for speeches because she is Hillary effing Clinton, one of the most intelligent, knowledgable, and admired people in the world. A lot of people get paid for speeches, but if you want someone like Hillary as opposed to, say, Dennis Kucinich, you have to pay more. If you have any evidence of corruption or quid-pro-quo, you should present it, but of course you don't.
And, as I'm sure you know, it is illegal for corporations to donate to political campaigns.
As far as minimum wage goes, she spoke in favor of the bill to raise it to $12, which would be a historical high, adjusted for inflation. Obama raised the minimum wage for government contractors because that's all he was able to do without congress. He supported raising the wage for everyone, but the GOP didn't go for it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)group that gets most of their wealth from the rest of us.
I believe it is naive to think that Goldman-Sachs thinks that what Clinton says is worth $200,000 a pop. It's a blatant way for a corp to give a politician money. And it's naive to think there isn't any quid pro quo involved. And it's not a campaign contribution. The money $400,000 goes to expand her personal wealth.
As far as it being illegal for corporations to donate to political campaigns, what a joke. They get around it very easily.
From the sound of your posts it sounds like you like the political status quo that has the oligarchy running our government to the point that 22% of our children live in poverty. While the 1% get wealthier the 99% slide into poverty.
Without economic justice, social justice will not be possible.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)that gets most of his wealth from the rest of us. Literally, in his case, our taxes are paying him $174,000 per year.
As far as paid speeches, Goldman is far from the only organization that paid her. She's spoken at tech companies, public affairs councils, women's conferences, even the American Camping Association. Like many many other people, she's on the public speaking circuit.
No only is their no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your smear that she is "sponsored by Goldman Sachs" (or sponsored by the American Camping Association), the strongest evidence against it is that she is running a highly progressive campaign.
It's very disconcerting that you would accuse me if liking child poverty. In fact, child poverty is one of the reasons why I think Clinton would be a great president. She's been advocating for disadvantaged children her entire career and is highly regarded by organizations like the Children's Defense Fund dedicated to that cause.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)wealthiest and Sen Sanders is not. Her and Bill have over $100,000,000.
She is advocating for children in poverty? What specifically does she do? She certainly doesn't ask her wealthy friends to pay their fair share of taxes. Maybe she wants the 99% to solve the poverty process. You know, the middle class help the poor. I think you are living in lala land. She is one of the wealthy. She may pretend to "advocate" but it won't help unless the wealthy 1%, like her and Bill, pay their fair share of taxes.
mcar
(42,278 posts)I'm thinking the DU reaction would be just a mite different.
artislife
(9,497 posts)like usual.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)What you said in your post is an obvious lie. You know it's a lie. We all know it's a lie.
So why do it? Do you get a thrill from having people argue with your obvious lie, wasting their time on you instead of something more important or productive?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)issues divisive, identity politics, distractions from what's truly important." Total fabrication.
" if all you care about is redistribution of wealth, then Bernie's your candidate. " Again total fabrication.
And this, "but he would never dream of doing the same thing with a group of free market fundamentalists, hoping to come together to protect choice and gay marriage. " DanT has no idea what Sen Sanders would dream of and I bet Sen Sanders would speak to just about anyone.
Here is a big difference between the people's candidate and the Wall Street candidate. Sen Sanders is speaking to lots and lots of different groups. Large and small audiences mostly of ordinary everyday people. While Clinton has tea with those that pay $2000 a plate and Goldman-Sachs for $200,000 a speech.
Sen Sanders has always given a high priority to both social justice issues and economic issues as he knows they go hand in hand.
Not sure why Clinton supporters are down on economic equality. I guess millions of American children living in poverty is not important.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)He has fought hard for LGBTQ rights for years, and earned a lot of respect for that. To see people (many of whom are straight) tar those efforts to gain points in a political campaign tells me they either want to just troll Sanders supporters or have their own disturbing views on the worth of the people affected by those issues.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)It's gross and feels exploitative.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)I suppose it will be yet more proof of martyrdom when you inevitably flame out from this stuff.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I think a diversity of opinions is a good thing.
jfern
(5,204 posts)He noted that he's pro SSM, gave a good defense for being pro-choice, and said that this country was founded upon racist principles.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)of economic opponents in order to reach common ground on social issues. Because he puts more priority on economic issues.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Does the Club for Growth even care the slightest about social issues?
Salviati
(6,008 posts)of suckers who wouldn't otherwise vote for their economic policies. The club for growth folks are the users, the religious zealots are the used. The club for growth folks are not interested in coming together to find a solution on the social issues, because that would take a big tool out of their electoral toolbox, but the religious zealots may be interested in common ground on economic issues.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Remember what Woodsy The Owl said: Cut off the bark and the tree will die.
Give a hoot, don't pollute.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)supporter of the LGBT community his entire career and life. The OP should stick to making petty devices out of his own community.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)"He considers social issues divisive, identity politics, distractions from what's truly important." Why would he have a long record of taking stands on social issues if he viewed them as "divisive" and a "distraction from what's truly important"?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You're welcome!