Sanders did cross a line when he forcefully and repeatedly said that Clinton was not qualified to be President. Really hard to walk that one back.
Hillary Clinton said:
I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
He also put out a press release accusing Clinton of money laundering.
That's not unfair. Clinton raised money for her own campaign from state party coffers, which, while not technically against the rules, was
a massive subversion of them.
The rule is (and I would argue that this is a rule that both Clinton and Obama followed in 2008) you don't say anything that would keep you from supporting your opponent if you lose.
Are you really inviting me to dig the archives for shitty things Clinton said in '08? Because boy oh boy are there lots of them.
That combined with the fact that Sanders actively questioned and undercut the validity of the election
Quite fairly, as we later found out.
and I think he did provide a ton of cover for Trump.
Again, only as much as any other Democratic challenger would have done. Clinton implicitly called Obama unqualified in 2008. The charge that Clinton was benefiting her campaign through local state parties was true and absolutely needed to be called out. The DNC was consistently biased towards the Clinton campaign to the point the DNC chair had to resign as a result.
Sanders did not do anything that any other Democratic challenger would not have done. Moreover, and more importantly at that, even if he did, enough of his supporters a) think he didn't, and b) are shaky about Clinton, that bringing attention to it does you no good anyway. So even if you think I'm wrong... why go on about it? What did it do? You need them millenials, man.
You seem to be a great person to ask about this. I have seen it argued that Trump's maternity leave plan would actually be a net negative for women because it doesn't offer paternity leave as well. The thinking being that employers would have a clear incentive to hire men over women. This would lower women's employment opportunities and wages.
Do you think it's possible for a poorly considered maternity leave plan to have such drastic knock on effects?
I don't think so? I'm not an expert on unemployment insurance in the US and it varies state by state so generalizations might not always hold true, but usually the unemployment insurance is paid by the state, I think, with contributions from employers that are effectively just a tax. If every single company co-ordinated and agreed not to hire women, then the state would have to pay out unemployment insurance less, and so presumably would be able to decrease contributions; but I don't think that's a realistic picture. As is, states will levy from companies however much they need to fund insurance, which depends on who companies on aggregate hire and is unlikely to be heavily influenced by any individual company, so you get the free-rider problem, only it isn't a problem here!