Support NeoGAF

[Crayons]

HRC and Planned Parenthood absolutely are apart of the democratic establishment.

HRCs own website gave Bernie a 100% rating and Hillary Clinton a 89% rating - yet they endorsed Hillary Clinton, the candidate who only began supporting gay marriage when it became in her favor to do so. Meanwhile, Bernie has been fighting for gay rights since way before it was politically advantageous to do so. But Hillary got the endorsement due to some backroom deal. The candidate who supported DOMA and only started supporting gay marriage a few years ago is their endorsement? Talk about fishy.

 

[Not]

Bernie should've said Mexicans were rapists first, then no one would've batted an eye at this

technical statement overblown by media by hilary's tweet to put it in her context.

the thing is bernie is for planned parenthood and has stated many times before how ridiculous it is that republicans wanna tear it away, etc.

this is a non issue.

That won't stop the people who will capitalize on literally anything, sadly

 

[Suikoguy]

HRC and Planned Parenthood absolutely are apart of the democratic establishment.

HRCs own website gave Bernie a 100% rating and Hillary Clinton a 89% rating - yet they endorsed Hillary Clinton, the candidate who only began supporting gay marriage when it became in her favor to do so. Meanwhile, Bernie has been fighting for gay rights since way before it was politically advantageous to do so. But Hillary got the endorsement due to some backroom deal. The candidate who supported DOMA and only started supporting gay marriage a few years ago is their endorsement? Talk about fishy.

So much wrong with this post. Most of which has already been covered in this thread. Bernie supporters never cease to amuse me.

 

[ant1532]

Bernie should've said Mexicans were rapists first, then no one would've batted an eye at this



That won't stop the people who will capitalize on literally anything, sadly

yeah but it's weak and ingenuous and won't gain traction to actually effect votes opinions. hilary will bring it up in a debate and bernie can make it a non issue in one response.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

So much wrong with this post. Most of which has already been covered in this thread. Bernie supporters never cease to amuse me.

That's one thing they're good for.

 

[lednerg]

That's one thing they're good for.

Is that necessary?

 

[Crayons]

So much wrong with this post. Most of which has already been covered in this thread. Bernie supporters never cease to amuse me.

I have been reading the thread. If the HRC is to go by their own metric, then Bernie is the candidate they ought to endorse.

 

[ant1532]

So much wrong with this post. Most of which has already been covered in this thread. Bernie supporters never cease to amuse me.

That's one thing they're good for.

The neogaf consistency of pretentious patronizing against bernie supporters here is remarkable.

I hop in these threads to spot out who the dicks are.

 

[Suikoguy]

The neogaf consistency of pretentious patronizing against bernie supporters here is remarkable.

Perhaps it's because so much of this has already been addressed, like the Gay Marriage lie.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...riage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

 

[Tesseract]

Is that necessary?

been seeing a lot of fallacious denigration lately, not sure where it's coming from

 

[Particle Physicist]

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/41ubtw/hillary_clinton_endorsed_by_uss_largest_lgbt/

Human Rights Campaign had previously rated Sanders with a perfect score, and much higher than Clinton, for his stance and polices on human rights. But then endorsed Clinton anyway. The CEO of HRC is close to both the Clintons

Planned Parenthood endorsed Clinton without polling its members. The daughter of PP's CEO works on Clinton's campaign team.

I don't see any surprise or controversy why Sanders would call this out. That's what the 'establishment' is, and what Sanders is condemning. Helping people due to who they are. Nepotism and money.

Do you have a non-reddit link? Also are you surprised that PP supported Hillary Clinton when she has been one of their biggest proponents?

EDIT

I found the HRC score card: http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-eas...urces/113thCongressionalScorecard_web_REV.pdf

They only scored congress members. Clinton is not on the list. So while Bernie has a 100 score, Clinton was not scored. So I guess a 100 is greater than N/A. Unless they scored her separately?

 

[A More Normal Bird]

But Sanders has taken contributions (not sure about endorsements) by organizations that would qualify as establishment by any measure by which PP or HRC would also qualify. That's the inconsistent part.

Calling something "establishment" is certainly a criticism, however strong you may personally find it. Other people use the term "elites," Cruz uses "Washington cartel." It's a fairly negative image to conjure up.

I disagree that that's an inconsistency. He's not saying that Clinton is corrupted by receiving an endorsement from PP like he implies when he criticises her Wall Street connections, he's criticising the institutions for backing the establishment candidate.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Perhaps it's because so much of this has already been addressed, like the Gay Marriage lie.

So two wrongs make a right? Some of y'all are petty.

 

[Suikoguy]

So two wrongs make a right? Some of y'all are petty.

What wrong did I do? that link was posted ON THE LAST PAGE.
It was one of the two pillars of his post, the other being a conspiracy theory with no proof.

 

[Not]

The neogaf consistency of pretentious patronizing against bernie supporters here is remarkable.

I hop in these threads to spot out who the dicks are.

People like categorizing and easily choosing targets. "Bernie supporters" are just the latest rising group that some people feel need to be shut down with a generous portion of cynicism-to-go.

 

[ant1532]

Perhaps it's because so much of this has already been addressed, like the Gay Marriage lie.

how irrelevant.



the thing about this is, there is actually no "lie" (false statement from bernie).

 

[excelsiorlef]

I disagree that that's an inconsistency. He's not saying that Clinton is corrupted by receiving an endorsement from PP like he implies when he criticises her Wall Street connections, he's criticising the institutions for backing the establishment candidate.

He's not entitled to their support just because.

Once again PP painstakingly explained why they chose Hillary and were super respectful and complimentary towards Sanders.

 

[metalslimer]

Some of the lies to spin his record are embarrassing. There is no need to belittle his supporters though. In the end its crazy how we all forget we pretty much want the same things.

 

[Dead Man]

What wrong did I do? that link was posted ON THE LAST PAGE.
It was one of the two pillars of his post, the other being a conspiracy theory with no proof.

'Bernie supporters never cease to amuse me'. Yeah, real good intentions there. Clinton and Sanders supporters are each a diverse group.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

He's not entitled to their support just because.

Once again PP painstakingly explained why they chose Hillary and were super respectful and complimentary towards Sanders.

I never said he was entitled to their support or in fact make any comment on the merits of their decision, as I do not feel informed enough to do so. I explained why I felt that his criticism of their endorsement of Clinton did not make him a hypocrite.

 

[Suikoguy]

how irrelevant.



the thing about this is, there is actually no "lie" (false statement from bernie).

Other then both candidates have not been all that supportive till it was politically feasible?
I don't buy the states rights excuse from Sanders, the guy who wants to implement programs like Single Payer healthcare.

'Bernie supporters never cease to amuse me'. Yeah, real good intentions there. Clinton and Sanders supporters are each a diverse group.

It's a drive by post that was already covered in this thread, on the last page no less. So yes, it's amusing. There have been many posts in this thread, by Sanders supporters, that did not fall into that same trap.

 

[HylianTom]

I have been reading the thread. If the HRC is to go by their own metric, then Bernie is the candidate they ought to endorse.

Again.. some voters or orgs make their choice not solely by positions, but also by perceived probability - correct or incorrect - of winning the general election. Their endorsement does include a statement that she'd be a suitable champion in November, which suggests confidence her in ability to win.

 

[Dead Man]

It's a drive by post that was already covered in this thread, on the last page no less. So yes, it's amusing. There have been many posts in this thread, by Sanders supporters, that did not fall into that same trap.

And yet you felt the need to make a generalised statement about Sanders supporters rather than that one post. It's not any sort of way to encourage honest discussion. You generalised a group from an individual and then wonder why they might be offended by that?

Edit: And drive by post? After the guy replied to your reply? Yours was more driveby than his lol.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Stuff.

Sup, Dead Man!

 

[Pizoxuat]

I don't have any personal insight into the HRC's decision, but I can speculate that it might be similar to PP's reasoning. If Bernie gets in he is going to be 100% focused on pushing his economic policy. He's one of the most reliable vote for progressive social issues, but not a policy or law maker for them, really. While they may see Clinton as an multi-issue canidate who will give more time to promoting social equality issues.

I could see there being some pragmatism in that choice. I want to vote Bernie as a vote to yank the Overton window back left. Please don't let him make more statements about PP that can be spun as an attack on them, because I am absolutely more loyal to them and they do not need bad press right now.

 

[Suikoguy]

And yet you felt the need to make a generalised statement about Sanders supporters rather than that one post. It's not any sort of way to encourage honest discussion. You generalised a group from an individual and then wonder why they might be offended by that?

Oh there are other posts, do you need me to go and pick them all out for you?
The comment was directed at a subset of Sanders supports with posts just like that one.

I guess technically I could have said: "Sanders Supporters Like That", but it's implied. By the way, you could have also read through my replies in this thread before generalizing me.

I think several people have unfairly twisted this into a Sanders attack on Planned Parenthood, when I viewed it more as his mentality on establishment.

 

[Dead Man]

Sup, Dead Man!

LOL, not much mate, not much.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I never said he was entitled to their support or in fact make any comment on the merits of their decision, as I do not feel informed enough to do so. I explained why I felt that his criticism of their endorsement of Clinton did not make him a hypocrite.

Didn't say you did. I'm saying Sanders is acting like he is. Hence the whole implication of PP backing Clinton because of "establishment" which ignored their nuanced reason for supporting Clinton

 

[FoneBone]

If nothing else, this gaffe has brought us the HRC calling itself an anti-establishment organization, which is probably the most hilariously absurd thing I've heard from anyone in politics not named Sarah Palin this week.

 

[Dead Man]

Oh there are other posts, do you need me to go and pick them all out for you?
The comment was directed at a subset of Sanders supports with posts just like that one.

I guess technically I could have said: "Sanders Supporters Like That", but it's implied. By the way, you could have also read through my replies in this thread before generalizing me.

I think several people have unfairly twisted this into a Sanders attack on Planned Parenthood, when I viewed it more as his mentality on establishment.

I haven't generalised you. I criticised a specific post.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Again.. some voters or orgs make their choice not solely by positions, but also by perceived probability - correct or incorrect - of winning the general election. Their endorsement does include a statement that she'd be a suitable champion in November, which suggests confidence her in ability to win.

So did HRC, who by the way, voted unanimously to endorse Hillary. So the whole CEO crap is garbage.

HRC today announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President. HRC’s Board of Directors, comprised of 32 community leaders from across the nation, unanimously voted to endorse Secretary Clinton

...


Secretary Clinton has made LGBT equality a pillar of her campaign and recently unveiled the most robust and ambitious LGBT plan any candidate for president has ever laid out. She has vowed to fight for the Equality Act -- a bill that would finally offer explicit, clear, and permanent non-discrimination protections for LGBT people at the federal level -- and her detailed LGBT policy platform specifically calls for dropping the ban on open transgender military service, outlawing dangerous “conversion therapy” for minors, ending the epidemic of transgender violence, and supporting HIV prevention and affordable treatment, among other proposals that would advance equality and support the LGBT community.

Clinton also has a long record as a champion for LGBT rights both in the U.S. and, notably, around the globe. As Secretary of State, Clinton became the first in her position to robustly advocate for LGBT equality throughout the world, making a historic and forceful speech to the United Nations declaring that “gay rights are human rights.” In the Senate, she helped lead on bills to protect LGBT workers from employment discrimination, and had a strong record on key votes and legislation that mattered to LGBT Americans.

...

HRC’s endorsement criteria include support for issues of concern to the community, demonstrated leadership on LGBT issues, and viability. As part of that process, all candidates -- on both sides of the aisle -- were asked to fill out a candidate questionnaire. Secretary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Governor Martin O’Malley provided answers, while no Republican candidates for president returned HRC’s questionnaire. HRC has, however, compiled a detailed look at each of the Republican candidates’ records and those assessments can be found here.

But let's ignore all of that.

 

[Rastafarian42]

Aren't they all establishment, the candidates included.

Yeah that's what I was thinking.

 

[Dude Abides]

I disagree that that's an inconsistency. He's not saying that Clinton is corrupted by receiving an endorsement from PP like he implies when he criticises her Wall Street connections, he's criticising the institutions for backing the establishment candidate.

He's doing more than that. He's saying PP and HRC are themselves establishment, and the establishment is what he's running against. I.e. there's something bad about being establishment and PP and HRC are establishment (ignoring the money he takes from establishment institutions - the inconsistency). That's why people are giving him shit for this.

 

[gutter_trash]

He's doing more than that. He's saying PP and HRC are themselves establishment, and the establishment is what he's running against. I.e. there's something bad about being establishment and PP and HRC are establishment. That's why people are giving him shit for this.

this is why 70 year olds should not run for President anymore

Spoiler

yeah, I know, Hillary is almost 70 too

"you are establishment!!!!!" old man voice

jeez

That single payer stuff was great, I relate but the old man yelling at cloud? not so much

really, think about it. if he gets elected, he will break records = oldest President ever elected

 

[rjinaz]

I just wish we could all get along and respect each other especially since our discussions here have no bearing on who is going to win the election but you'd never guess that. I get people are passionate about their candidate of choice but It just seems like these topics always turn so ugly and they shouldn't and yes it's on both sides. When I watch the Republican debates, I thank God for both of them.

I think these topics should be discussed because getting information about candidates is important but I'm just not sure why they always have to turn so hostile. It's actually kind of ironic that a lot of us spend time mocking the Republican candidates for the way they behave in the debates and see it as a shit show, while we all tear at each other's throats. Both Hillary and Bernie would be embarrassed to read these threads if they ever did.

 

[Crayons]

Again.. some voters or orgs make their choice not solely by positions, but also by perceived probability - correct or incorrect - of winning the general election. Their endorsement does include a statement that she'd be a suitable champion in November, which suggests confidence her in ability to win.

I'd like to respond with a post from earlier

There's a reasonable expectation for head scratching when PP not only breaks tradition by endorsing a candidate at all, but these organizations didn't arrive at this via its members and they rate politicians, and Bernie actually is rated higher. Then you start to head toward tinfoil when their leaders have history with Hillary.

SOMEONE is going to ask "wtf".

MoveOn.org endorsed Bernie, and their name is even a reference to moving on from Bill's scandals - but the difference is they arrived at that via vote. That endorsement was created in a democratic way.

PP's and HRC's were not. Pushback is inevitable, especially in a race where one candidate has had one hell of an uphill (and unprecedented) climb.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Didn't say you did. I'm saying Sanders is acting like he is. Hence the whole implication of PP backing Clinton because of "establishment" which ignored their nuanced reason for supporting Clinton

Well I don't really see the relation between your posts and my more pedantic point, but ok. I don't think Sanders is ignoring their reasoning or their complimentary statements about him. He obviously isn't going to say "well these organisations have laid out their reasoning and have decided that Clinton is the superior candidate, so who am I to disagree?" Just as obviously, if these organisations view both Clinton and Sanders as supportable candidates but decide to only endorse Clinton due to her being the "establishment" choice, they're not going to publicly state that as their main reasoning. If Sanders is asked why PP (for example) endorsed Clinton ahead of him, it's not unreasonable for him to claim that they made the safer choice, especially if, as you said, they were respectful and complimentary towards him and thus there's no substantive criticism for him to address (perhaps there is, as I've said, this isn't really an argument I'm informed about).

He's doing more than that. He's saying PP and HRC are themselves establishment, and the establishment is what he's running against. I.e. there's something bad about being establishment and PP and HRC are establishment (ignoring the money he takes from establishment institutions - the inconsistency). That's why people are giving him shit for this.

Ok. If they're endorsing his opponent then in some ways he is running against them, but I get that it sounds a bit confrontational. I'm not here to defend Sanders choice of words or the timing of his remarks to the death. I just pointed out the error in assuming that he's being hypocritical/inconsistent for receiving contributions/endorsements himself, which I feel doesn't hold up as he's not criticising his opponent in this instance or stating that he would refuse these endorsements, just that certain institutions may have chosen the safer/"establishment" candidate due to being establishment institutions themselves.

 

[HylianTom]

I'd like to respond with a post from earlier

Is it head-scratching.. or whining? Be honest.

If they'd endorsed your preferred candidate, would you have batted an eye? Or would you have celebrated? Again.. be honest.

I'm not surprised by pushback. It's political season. Everything will be used as a football.

PP's decision to jump in at this point might be compelled by unusual circumstances; they haven't been threatened to such an extent by the GOP. And I'll note that you rather conspicuously dodged my entire point about ratings not being the only consideration.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Is it head-scratching.. or whining? Be honest.

If they'd endorsed your preferred candidate, would you have batted an eye? Or would you have celebrated? Again.. be honest.

PP's decision to jump in at this point might be compelled by unusual circumstances; they haven't been threatened to such an extent by the GOP.

Yep they're basically gone if a member of the GOP is elected President

 

[excelsiorlef]

Well I don't really see the relation between your posts and my more pedantic point, but ok. I don't think Sanders is ignoring their reasoning or their complimentary statements about him. He obviously isn't going to say "well these organisations have laid out their reasoning and have decided that Clinton is the superior candidate, so who am I to disagree?" Just as obviously, if these organisations view both Clinton and Sanders as supportable candidates but decide to only endorse Clinton due to her being the "establishment" choice, they're not going to publicly state that as their main reasoning. If Sanders is asked why PP (for example) endorsed Clinton ahead of him, it's not unreasonable for him to claim that they made the safer choice, especially if, as you said, they were respectful and complimentary towards him and thus there's no substantive criticism for him to address (perhaps there is, as I've said, this isn't really an argument I'm informed about).


Ok. If they're endorsing his opponent then in some ways he is running against them, but I get that it sounds a bit confrontational. I'm not here to defend Sanders choice of words or the timing of his remarks to the death. I just pointed out the error in assuming that he's being hypocritical/inconsistent for receiving contributions/endorsements himself, which I feel doesn't hold up as he's not criticising his opponent in this instance or stating that he would refuse these endorsements, just that certain institutions may have chosen the safer/"establishment" candidate due to being establishment institutions themselves.

He reminded Maddow that he is fighting the establishment and then called PP the establishment. Remember he's trying to convince people to support him. Again PP laid out their reasons, he should've taken on those reasons and explained why he's better instead of going well PP is the establishment as if that's why they're backing Clinton

Btw if PP had endorsed him by his logic he'd have gotten support of the establishment...

 

[Dude Abides]

I just pointed out the error in assuming that he's being hypocritical/inconsistent for receiving contributions/endorsements himself, which I feel doesn't hold up as he's not criticising his opponent in this instance or stating that he would refuse these endorsements, just that certain institutions may have chosen the safer/"establishment" candidate due to being establishment institutions themselves.

It's because he's suggesting there's something suspect about those orgs that led them to endorse Clinton, because she is suspect in the same way. So what does it say about him that similarly suspect organizations have essentially endorsed him?

 

[Damaniel]

Again.. some voters or orgs make their choice not solely by positions, but also by perceived probability - correct or incorrect - of winning the general election. Their endorsement does include a statement that she'd be a suitable champion in November, which suggests confidence her in ability to win.

And not just this, but the likelihood that their interests will be addressed. Honestly, Bernie would be spending far too much time bashing his head against the wall trying to break up Goldman Sachs or dismantle the ACA or whatever else he wants to do. He's a one trick pony, and the presidency requires someone who cares about more than just one thing. In that analysis, PP and HRC have decided that Hillary will spend time actually advocating for their causes as part of her Presidency, and that Bernie probably won't quite as much.

Honestly, I don't mind if all of these organizations are part of the establishment. Why should a non-establishment candidate get any help from the establishment anyway, and how could a President Bernie work with all of these organizations after spending so much time calling them out as part of the problem?

(Also, to all the pro-Bernie people around who think he's better on women's issues - please just stop. Making those kinds of blatantly incorrect claims is no better than when Ron Paul's supporters spent their time doing in 2008/2012).

 

[Cow Mengde]

He's a one trick pony, and the presidency requires someone who cares about more than just one thing.

You are the perfect example of why uninformed people shouldn't vote.

 

[excelsiorlef]

And not just this, but the likelihood that their interests will be addressed. Honestly, Bernie would be spending far too much time bashing his head against the wall trying to break up Goldman Sachs or dismantle the ACA or whatever else he wants to do. He's a one trick pony, and the presidency requires someone who cares about more than just one thing. In that analysis, PP and HRC have decided that Hillary will spend time actually advocating for their causes as part of her Presidency, and that Bernie probably won't quite as much.

Honestly, I don't mind if all of these organizations are part of the establishment. Why should a non-establishment candidate get any help from the establishment anyway, and how could a President Bernie work with all of these organizations after spending so much time calling them out as part of the problem?

I found an interesting article thatvI think highlights exactly why PP gravitated towards Clinton.

This is how the two of them reacted to the Flint Water Crisis

On Saturday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called on Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) to resign over the lead poisoning crisis in Flint.

Three days later, Snyder remains in office, and Sanders has moved on after generating a fair amount of media attention.

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton went on national television and chastised Snyder for refusing to ask for federal assistance in order to help the affected residents.

Two hours after that interview aired on "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC, the governor did just that.

Clinton had also already dispatched two of her top aides -- including one with years of experience working for a Michigan senator -- to the state to assist Flint Mayor Karen Weaver (D) with whatever she needed.

The different approaches are emblematic of the ways the two Democratic presidential candidates respond to problems -- and would perhaps continue to do so if they win the presidency. Sanders goes big, not always worrying about whether what he's proposing is politically realistic. Clinton, meanwhile, focuses on the pragmatic instead of the aspirational, using her experience as a guide to what can get done.

...

Since October, officials have told Flint residents not to drink the brown stuff coming out of their taps, which they had previously been assured was safe even though it caused rashes. The state admitted it made a mistake when a local pediatrician reported unusually high lead levels in Flint children's blood.

The former secretary of state's approach has won over Weaver, who came out and endorsed Clinton during a conference call with reporters Tuesday morning.

As far as what Hillary Clinton has done, she has actually been the only -- the only -- candidate, whether we're talking Democratic or Republican, to reach out and talk with us about, 'What can I do? What kind of help do you need?'" Weaver said.

Amanda Renteria is the Clinton campaign's national political director and one of the staffers who went to Flint last week to talk with the mayor. She has experience in the state, having previously served as chief of staff to Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D- Mich.).

"When this came about and [Clinton] read about it, her immediate response has been, 'Let's see what's going on, and what can we do to help?'" Renteria told reporters during Tuesday's conference call.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/hillary-clinton-flint_us_569e66c3e4b04c8137617f05?1tgfogvi=And that was exactly PP's argument, Clinton is proactive, Sanders is not.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

He reminded Maddow that he is fighting the establishment and then called PP the establishment. Remember he's trying to convince people to support him. Again PP laid out their reasons, he should've taken on those reasons and explained why he's better instead of going well PP is the establishment as if that's why they're backing Clinton

Btw if PP had endorsed him by his logic he'd have gotten support of the establishment...

I addressed that in my post; you said they were fairly complementary of him, from which I assumed there were no substantial criticisms for him to rebut. If there were and he instead focussed on the establishment line of reasoning then that's on him. To reiterate, I'm not trying to defend every aspect of Sanders' answer or attack these institutions choice of candidate. The thing about him receiving establishment support from PP is something I've addressed in every one of my posts in this thread; if you think that would make him a hypocrite then I think you've misread the situation. I think if they endorsed him he would have said that it's great that even established political organisations are willing to take a chance and break from the mould.

It's because he's suggesting there's something suspect about those orgs that led them to endorse Clinton, because she is suspect in the same way. So what does it say about him that similarly suspect organizations have essentially endorsed him?

I don't consider "establishment" suspect. I think there's a disconnect here between our views on the severity of Sanders' response. I consider his statement a fairly inconsequential return to one of the key themes of his campaign, almost a non-answer. He distinguished between the political establishment and the economic establishment and said he had friends and supporters in the political establishments in question but that they stuck with the safe choice. I think if you're trying to see some big hypocrisy or inconsistency here you're reaching, because beyond the more logic/pedant oriented points I made earlier, he freely admitted to a positive association with the group that endorsed Clinton, which I don't think a candidate would do if they were trying to paint them as some irredeemable organisation.

 

[brainchild]

It seems like the majority of people think he fucked up and put his foot in his mouth. Which leads to worrying about what gaffes he might make in the general. I have to say this one did make me raise an eyebrow, though I don't believe for a second that Sanders is anti-PP or anti-women's health in general.

I wouldn't have a problem with that if they didn't simultaneously neglect similar concerns for any potential gaffes that Hillary might make in the general. But of course, Hillary is wise in all of her ways and her prudence does not falter; the very thought of Hillary Clinton making a statement that is less than total perfection is inconceivable, right?

The concern trolling is old-hat and tired, and I'm not buying it for one second.

 

[Holmes]

Really? He's running for President, he doesn't have to go back to the senate to cast a vote that wouldn't have mattered. There are reasons for PP to support Clinton over him, but this isn't one of them.

It's all about optics, just like this quote that's gotten him in hot water. Why do you think Rubio takes so much heat for not doing his job and going to the Senate to vote anymore?

 

[Hazmat]

It's all about optics, just like this quote that's gotten him in hot water. Why do you think Rubio takes so much heat for not doing his job and going to the Senate to vote anymore?

To be fair, Rubio has missed a ton of votes and Sanders really hasn't. I'll agree that this might be bad politics, but to try and pretend that Sanders doesn't care about PP or his senate job is just silly.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I just wish we could all get along and respect each other especially since our discussions here have no bearing on who is going to win the election but you'd never guess that. I get people are passionate about their candidate of choice but It just seems like these topics always turn so ugly and they shouldn't and yes it's on both sides. When I watch the Republican debates, I thank God for both of them.

I think these topics should be discussed because getting information about candidates is important but I'm just not sure why they always have to turn so hostile. It's actually kind of ironic that a lot of us spend time mocking the Republican candidates for the way they behave in the debates and see it as a shit show, while we all tear at each other's throats. Both Hillary and Bernie would be embarrassed to read these threads if they ever did.

I don't think that's true.

The problem is that the civilian left is splitting wide open, almost as much as the right is, as much as people say that the lefties are not as polarized as the right is.

There are two different visions for the country on the left side that are completely contradictory to each other.

One vision wants actual change and reform in the political and wider system, and will take many risks to attempt that, even potentially dooming the democrat party's hold on the Presidential seat, by splitting the base. They are loud, disorganized, can be prone to fits and are definitely not considered mainstream by people whom might disagree. They even back candidates that are not vetted and don't have huge endorsements and political clout behind them,and are more concerned about sending messages and letting people know they are there than actually organizing together, you could also group the disenfranchised voting block underneath this too.

And the other vision wants the status quo because its presumably easier to hold onto(presumably) with the mentality of maybe someone somewhere will do something about whatever is wrong with our country at some point, even though they themselves can probably see the issues, but refuse to acknowledge them unless it is a GOP labeled opponent, and only vote for 'moderate' people who have 'pragmatism' about the sorry state of affairs going on, even though that candidate they support is in large part representative of those same issues.

And so we get threads like this, with a lot of attempts at character assassination for representatives of both sides.

I don't belong to a party officially on my voter ID, i consider myself an independent politically, but in regards to the horrible two party system we have in this country who have monopolies on all the viewpoints, the liberal wing of the democratic party are usually the only ones who speak any sense to my eyes in regards to criminal justice, racial justice, rights for all individuals, and actual fiscal solvency and efficient governance, so to see the party turn inward onto itself and smash down their own party platforms because they are scared of what might happen is very saddening.

 

[Aztechnology]

Bernie no... what are you saying?

I have to imagine this is just a misunderstanding, I can't understand why he would say or mean something so foolish.