Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

And you didn't really get the point of my post either.

So your point is that Sanders is somehow a "better proponent of gay rights" in spite of the fact that the issue has demonstrably been a priority for him for less time, in spite of the fact that Clinton held a supportive position on civil unions seven years before he expressed one, and in spite of the fact that she expressed non-opposition for state-level marriage equality in New York in 2006 while he was still being wishy-washy about CIVIL UNIONS? In addition to everything else she did for the movement in the aftermath of DOMA?

Because that point is dumb.

In any event, I'm outta here until Sunday - I have a convention to attend.

 

[JesseEwiak]

polls seem to indicate that Bernie is the more electable candidate. Bernie is the best candidate to beat Trump. Bernie is the best candidate to beat Cruz. the stakes are too high this election to risk going with Hillary imo.

Yes, polls today. Not polls after six months of all of the GOP money machine dropping ad after ad against Bernie using his own words against him in Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.

I saw the GOP successfully turn John Kerry, an actual fucking war hero, into a deserter against a guy who spent the Vietnam War doing coke and banging girls in Texas. Turning the country against Bernie would be child's play.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Don't "dude" me.

I don't think what you provide me gives any answer to why Bernie fans are just OKAY with my original point:



How is Bernie not guilty of the same thing we're now holding against Hillary Clinton? Why are we just collectively ignoring this?????

Getting snarky without understanding the point of what I was even positing and now moving goal posts. I don't have to answer for anyone else's post and that's another discussion.

 

[Team Alucard]

Hillary's faced down 20 years of constant attacks from the Right with every dirty trick in the book is still standing. Bernie hasn't been attacked one bit despite tons of stuff, and there's literally billions of dollar ready to do so. Get back to me in six months when every suburban Mom in Florida knows Bernie personally went to gulags while on his honeymoon in the USSR.

"Still standing"

 

[Hellwarden]

How is Bernie not guilty of the same thing we're now holding against Hillary Clinton? Why are we just collectively ignoring this?????

Bernie is guilty of the same thing, but Bernie has the advantage of not appearing to be a career politician. He is, but he doesn't appear to be because he's been characterized as an outsider.
(Though to be fair, Bernie did vote against Defense of Marriage Act.)

It's not fair per se, but it's how the political machine works.

 

[Maengun1]

Yes, polls today. Not polls after six months of all of the GOP money machine dropping ad after ad against Bernie using his own words against him in Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.

I saw the GOP successfully turn John Kerry, an actual fucking war hero, into a deserter against a guy who spent the Vietnam War doing coke and banging girls in Texas. Turning the country against Bernie would be child's play.

Yeah, I really believe the GOP will absolutely destroy Bernie just with clips of him talking about "democratic socialism." Not because democratic socialism is actually bad, but because most Americans are super ignorant and think it's the worst thing ever.

The reason Bernie does so well in hypothetical polls NOW is that most people still have no idea about all that. Because....they're super ignorant. Right now he's just "guy who isn't Hillary" to 90% of voters.

The destruction of Kerry's war hero record by the Bush people is still chilling.

 

[Your Entertainer]

So your point is that Sanders is somehow a "better proponent of gay rights" in spite of the fact that the issue has demonstrably been a priority for him for less time, in spite of the fact that Clinton held a supportive position on civil unions seven years before he expressed one, and in spite of the fact that she expressed non-opposition for state-level marriage equality in New York in 2006 while he was still being wishy-washy about CIVIL UNIONS? In addition to everything else she did for the movement in the aftermath of DOMA?

Because that point is dumb.

In any event, I'm outta here until Sunday - I have a convention to attend.

Idiotic response - my point was clear in my original post and was even blatantly restated in the response. Read what I responded to again. My view (which is what you're referring to) is something else entirely which I can discuss more when I'm not on my phone.

 

[EatinOlives]

It's your right to vote for whomever you want in the primary. The main concern is really not the primary so much as the general election; if Hillary is the nominee, and she still doesn't represent your beliefs as well as her Republican opponent, well then the issue wouldn't really be Hillary Clinton.

What has been objectionable to me these past few months is the sheer amount of lies about and vilification of Hillary because she happens to be the opponent of who many GAF posters support. There's all sorts of subtle, unconscious sexism that just slips by and is not called out because other posters support the same arguments of fakeness, of corporate puppetry, of corruption, of whatever that they don't pull out proof for. It's largely based on the passion and emotion of investment into a competition. Hillary could put out a good idea (she recently revealed a plan for autism that was praised by the autism community, yet on GAF there are threads about her social media outreach instead) and either no one notices or if there are threads, there would be drive bys with the same old arguments listed above.

It's exhausting to see ignorant post after ignorant post ("She's a 180 from Obama" "How is she more liberal than Obama?") to idiot post after idiot post ("She's not cool" "She's fake") to posts that are just plain bitter about Hillary, because she planned and worked out her run and campaign earlier and better than her opponents did, and therefore it's been difficult for her opponents to gain on her. They blame the system, they blame the party, they blame Hillary, they blame everyone but themselves for not voting in 2010 or 2014, for their own apathy. If the only way one can vote for a candidate is if they are enthused by said candidate, what makes them better than the people who voted for George Bush because they wanted someone they could have a beer with?

The absolute worst thing about all of this is that I thought the left was above the petty shit that the right does when it comes to Obama and Hillary. After all these years of shit piled on Obama by conservatives, you would think that they're able to recognize such poor behavior and media issues, and be above it all.

Indeed.

It's tiring to see some Bernie supporters try to paint Hillary as nothing short of evil incarnate to prop up their candidate of choice, some even going so far as to say they'll vote for Trump just because Hillary is truly that evil/establishment/corrupt. It's clear they have a fleeting interest in politics if they legitimately think Hillary is the worstest most awfulest candidate EVERRR, because there's been tons of far worse candidates through the years.

Is Bernie a better presidential candidate? In my opinion yes, absolutely. Does that mean Hillary is straight up evil? No, I'm not childish enough to shout such hyperbole just to make my preference look better.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Idiotic response - my point was clear in my original post and was even blatantly restated in the response.

Apparently it's not as blatant as you think it is, considering there are now at least three separate people expressing confusion as to how the hell Bernie actually comes off as better unless you're (e: this is a general "you") a Johnny-come-lately to the LGBT rights movement - and especially considering that your post is responding to someone wondering why there's a double standard on the issue to begin with.

 

[jackissocool]

How are you fighting against capitalism?

I started and ran a socialist student group educating students on capitalism and socialism. We did a lot of activism in my city - marches against police, fighting anti-choice organizations, delivering water to people who had theirs shut off,etc. I always make an effort to educate people on the nature of capitalism and what alternatives there are. I'm a member of the IWW organizing work places. I'm hoping to get involved in community support organizations to build independence from capitalism. My job is in refugee resettlement.

 

[phanphare]

Yes, polls today. Not polls after six months of all of the GOP money machine dropping ad after ad against Bernie using his own words against him in Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.

I saw the GOP successfully turn John Kerry, an actual fucking war hero, into a deserter against a guy who spent the Vietnam War doing coke and banging girls in Texas. Turning the country against Bernie would be child's play.

does that same logic apply to Hillary's poll numbers? also have you seen Hillary's unfavorable rating? how about how she does with independents vs. Bernie? or how she fares against the republicans in swing states vs. Bernie?

if winning the general election is what it's all about then Bernie is the better candidate

 

[ivysaur12]

Getting snarky without understanding the point of what I was even positing and now moving goal posts. I don't have to answer for anyone else's post and that's another discussion.

You responded to me in the discussion I was having about why Hillary is being attacked on this issue when Bernie is not. I'm not moving goal posts.

The post I was responded to was:

Bernie sanders has supported gay rights long before it was even an in thing. And as for gun control, i give him the benefit of a doubt as him as being pragmatic in his state yes, because he actually has given me the sincerity in every other issue to give him the benefit of a doubt.

Clinton on the other hand, has never given me a reason to think she was sincere in anything she has done from every angle and issue.

The entire time I have been trying to figure out -- for the life of me -- why Hillary Clinton's change on gay marriage is such a negative against her when Bernie's similar evolution is never really talked about.

It's patently false that Bernie has "supported gay rights long before it was even a thing". That is not a defense for his evolution.

So again: Why are we not holding Bernie to the same standard that we are holding Hillary?

EDIT: Here is every post I've posted on the matter. Please point to where I've moved goalposts.

So are you cool with Bernie's wishy-washy support for gay marriage that you seem to agree with in regards to "all of this"? And then his attempt to handwave it away as just being pragmatic?

And you're against reasonable gun control?

Sanders has supported gay rights long before it was a thing????

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



What a long time champion!

Or how about how Bernie Sanders voted against DOMA because he wanted to protect a minority, as he so claimed?



Oh, he didn't? It was a pure federalism issue?

Or how about in 2006 when Bernie said that marriage is a states's rights issue?

My point is not to simply point out one issue -- my point is that I hate that the gay rights have been co-opted by the left who had little to do with the movement in general, yet now Obama, Bernie, and Hillary are all trying to take credit for something such as gay marriage.

But only one of them has been attacked for flip flopping on the issue.

It's almost like you missed this:

I did, and think it's just as patently ridiculous to complain about Hillary flip flopping on gay rights when Bernie has done the same exact thing!

How about in 2006 when Bernie called it a states's rights issue? How about how he wasn't actually in support of gay marriage until after Vermont passed it, and even said that they shouldn't try to pass gay marriage in Vermont? What courage.

He's just as bad as Hillary is on the issue and yet no one cares.

Don't "dude" me.

I don't think what you provide me gives any answer to why Bernie fans are just OKAY with my original point:



How is Bernie not guilty of the same thing we're now holding against Hillary Clinton? Why are we just collectively ignoring this?????



He went from "I'm not a supporter of a non-discrimination bill" to "Gay marriage is great! (once it's already passed my state legislature and up until recently I was saying how the state legislature should not push for gay marriage)". I'm not saying Hillary is better, but it's ridiculous to hold someone as some sort of monster on the issue while ignoring that their own candidate was just as shitty in their own ways.

Not to mention Hillary's actual record in state is probably leagues about anything Sanders has done for gay rights, even if she has a really shitty history with gay marriage.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Bernie is guilty of the same thing, but Bernie has the advantage of not appearing to be a career politician. He is, but he doesn't appear to be because he's been characterized as an outsider.
(Though to be fair, Bernie did vote against Defense of Marriage Act.)

It's not fair per se, but it's how the political machine works.

But he is one and he should be held to the same standard some of you like to hold Hillary to. He been in office for 30+ years. He aint no saint. He aint no outsider either.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I don't much care for Hillary at all and think she is a pretty classic example of an egotistical politician who basically just values power and adulation and will attune herself to whatever position best achieves that for her, but I also think that quality would probably translate into a pretty decent presidency because the people she needs to keep her place will be the people who demand of her at least as much liberal social progress as Obama.

Almost ALL politicians are basically just tools. There will be some maverick leaders that emerge throughout history, but most are just there to keep the plates spinning a little longer.

 

[RedSparc]

Exactly. If he doesn't win the nomination, the most liberal candidate should win and not get screwed by the spoiler effect. That's why it's baffling why Bernie supporters WON'T vote for Clinton if Bernie doesn't win.

Do you think that all HRC supporters will back a Sanders nomination? It's somewhat hypocritical to assume that a very small minority of Sanders supporters who have taken said stance does not equate to HRC supporters also following suit.

The majority of HRC support comes on the back of her being the perceived nom. If that narrative changes, as it did in 2008 and now in 2016, support will decline as it has already started to.

HRC is to the right of Sanders, that is indisputable. She has no credible path for attack that does not harm herself and how the progressive democratic base will perceive her. Just look at her failed attempt this week to attack Sanders stance on universal health care and how badly it had gone for her and Chelsea who has a PHd in public health and was caught blatantly lying. The PB has scoffed and exposed the conundrum HRC is in trying to stave off Sanders.

If Sanders wins NH & Iowa the following races will become a lot closer then what they are polling today because her perception as the nominee will diminish.

The Moveon endorsement speaks volumes about where the enthusiasm for the progressive base stands.

I wouldn't be too obsessed with what Sanders supporters might do if HRC gets the nom and instead be worry about the real lack of support from the progressive base that thinks the 2.8 million dollars she made speaking to the health care industry 13 times between 2013-2015 has influenced her positions, as exemplified by her failed attack on Sanders this week.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

does that same logic apply to Hillary's poll numbers? also have you seen Hillary's unfavorable rating? how about how she does with independents? or how she fares against the republicans in swing states vs. Bernie?

if winning the general election is what it's all about then Bernie is the better candidate

Lol. Neither Hillary nor the GOP have even REALLY attacked Bernie yet. Of course he's going to poll better than she is.

 

[JesseEwiak]

does that same logic apply to Hillary's poll numbers? also have you seen Hillary's unfavorable rating? how about how she does with independents? or how she fares against the republicans in swing states vs. Bernie?

if winning the general election is what it's all about then Bernie is the better candidate

Hillary's Hillary. She'd been hit by them for 20 years. Her polls numbers are shitty right now because she's been off the air basically and being painted by Bernie and the GOP field. Get back to me after Diamond Joe, Barack, and Slick Willy pump her up for 3 straight nights in front of millions.

And if you look at the actual average of polls, Hillary's doing fine in swing states. Independents are basically Republican's who are ashamed of being in the party, but are still conservative these days.

 

[SneakersSO]

Indeed.
Does that mean Hillary is straight up evil? No, I'm not childish enough to shout such hyperbole just to make my preference look better.

I have to agree that I have seen a plethora of views on Hillary Clinton from Bernie supporters that paint her in varying hyperbolic shades of bad. Personally, the reason she is a deal-breaker in terms of a candidate for me is her extensive history with pushing corporate interests & agenda over the public interests, at least since the turn of the century or so. And the absolute last thing I want in a Presidental candidate is someone that will concede even an iota to corporate interests.

 

[AlphaDump]

it's been like 25 years of pure anti-clinton rhetoric going on. this shit runs deep. it even birthed the existence of the Drudge Report. People have made careers out of making the Clintons look bad.

Anyone who has watched the debates knows she is by far the strongest contender. She wanted a public hearing for the Benghazi committee because the partisian committee only wanted to do it in private. She humiliated the guy for almost 11 hours straight, and she did it the hard way to prove a point.

the media is at fault of this to keep it a horse race. Bernie had an actual email scandal and no one really gave a shit.


Clinton is built into talking points. The last election was the same shit, the all ambigious "i dont trust" excuse. Whether it be Obamas certificate or the Clinton name. It becomes this giant paint brush of an excuse.

She is the only person who has the Republicans actually shook, so that should tell you something.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Exactly. When McGovern lost to Nixon did the Democrats go to a another liberal firebrand? No. They went to Carter. When Reagan clobbered Carter+Mondale & his VP clobbered Dukakis did the Democrats turn to another liberal firebrand? No they turned to Bill Clinton.

Why even bring this up?

It happened 30+ years ago, a different America. It wouldn't have mattered what the DNC threw at Reagan because it was a lost cause.

A lot of Americans drank the bootstrap Kool-Aid during that time.

Times have changed, and using fear mongering to support your candidate seems like you lack confidence in Hillary.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Why even bring this up?

It happened 30+ years ago, a different America.

So, ahead of time I'm just gonna say I don't disagree that a lot of what was being passed in the '90s fuckin' blew (and that some of it even could've been avoided - chiefly DOMA)

But you do realize how weaksauce this argument is, right? We could say it would've been a lost cause for Clinton to have veto'd [x garbage bill], that a lot of Americans would've been drinking the [x garbage bill] Kool-Aid.

 

[Xe4]

"Still standing"

You love that graph, even when it's been explained to you several times why it's misleading.

 

[SneakersSO]

I have a question for the Hillary supporters, especially now in light of more recent polls in early primary states. Lets say the shoe is on the other foot, and Bernie winds up winning the nomination - are many of you going to vote for Bernie regardless? I have a gut feeling that many of the people chiding Bernie supporters for refusing to vote in the general should he not win will say they'd rather for a democrat than see a republican get in office.

I'm actually jealous, in a way - I wish I could comfortably get out there & vote for Hillary without reservation should she be the Democratic Nominee in the general, but I just can't do it. If you're willing to do so, or even go the reverse way and vote for Bernie if Hillary doesn't win the primary, then that means you have a candidate you feel confident enough to vote for. I, unfortunately, don't.

 

[noshten]

polls seem to indicate that Bernie is the more electable candidate. Bernie is the best candidate to beat Trump. Bernie is the best candidate to beat Cruz. the stakes are too high this election to risk going with Hillary imo.

Hillary is a very risky candidate - basically she needs big donors to raise money, barely gets people out to her rally's, cannot seem to keep things positive in the race and has allowed her campaign staff to once again tumble down negative rhetoric. Sanders would fair far better against the like of Trump or Cruz in a GE. I'm worried about what type of voter turnout we can expect from a race between Cruz and Clinton for example people being motivated to go out and vote is key and it appears Clinton lacks the capability to make people enthusiastic about her campaign.

 

[EatinOlives]

I have to agree that I have seen a plethora of views on Hillary Clinton from Bernie supporters that paint her in varying hyperbolic shades of bad. Personally, the reason she is a deal-breaker in terms of a candidate for me is her extensive history with pushing corporate interests & agenda over the public interests, at least since the turn of the century or so. And the absolute last thing I want in a Presidental candidate is someone that will concede even an iota to corporate interests.

And I think that's perfectly fair as well. I'm not saying that people can't think of her as a worse candidate than Bernie, and their reasoning for her having that deal-breaker can be perfectly acceptable (her heavy involvement in corporate interests, for instance). It just turns sour when there's people trudging up every possible thing to trash her on and pretending she's evil, going full ham on the exaggerations and hyperbole. It's like people are pretending this is the General Election and Hillary is running as a Republican.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Do you think that all HRC supporters will back a Sanders nomination? It's somewhat hypocritical to assume that a very small minority of Sanders supporters who have taken said stance does not equate to HRC supporters also following suit.

The majority of HRC support comes on the back of her being the perceived nom. If that narrative changes, as it did in 2008 and now in 2016, support will decline as it has already started to.

HRC is to the right of Sanders, that is indisputable. She has no credible path for attack that does not harm herself and how the progressive democratic base will perceive her. Just look at her failed attempt this week to attack Sanders stance on universal health care and how badly it had gone for her and Chelsea who has a PHd in public health and was caught blatantly lying. The PB has scoffed and exposed the conundrum HRC is in trying to stave off Sanders.

If Sanders wins NH & Iowa the following races will become a lot closer then what they are polling today because her perception as the nominee will diminish.

The Moveon endorsement speaks volumes about where the enthusiasm for the progressive base stands.

I wouldn't be too obsessed with what Sanders supporters might do if HRC gets the nom and instead be worry about the real lack of support from the progressive base that thinks the 2.8 million dollars she made speaking to the health care industry 13 times between 2013-2015 has influenced her positions, as exemplified by her failed attack on Sanders this week.

As a HRC supporter, I am 1000% fully ready to vote for Sanders assuming he is the nominee. I will (again) wait three hours in line in podunksville, Arkansas to vote for someone who has no chance of winning the state because it's that important. If someone is currently a Democrat and/or liberal and currently supports HRC but won't support Sanders (and instead abstains), then they are an idiot. Straight up.

In response to the rest of your post- yes, that's how politics works. Things CAN change quite easily (although in this case, it's unlikely to happen). Why do people care about what Sanders supporters do? Because most of us are essentially on the EXACT SAME SIDE and EVERY VOTE MATTERS. This isn't a game. It's pretty fucking important who the next President of the US is. Personally, I don't give a shit if I absolutely despise a candidate. I'm not trying to vote for someone that I can have a beer with. I want someone who represents my beliefs and will fight for them. If I have to vote for the "best case scenario" candidate, then I will. Refusing to vote and letting the absolute worst case scenario candidate win isn't heroic. It's how we end up barely losing to George W. Bush.

 

[User 463088]

Do you think that all HRC supporters will back a Sanders nomination? It's somewhat hypocritical to assume that a very small minority of Sanders supporters who have taken said stance does not equate to HRC supporters also following suit.

I am as hardcore a Hillary supporter as you will find, and I have never, ever met a Clinton supporter who would not support Bernie. I've never heard a Hillary supporter say they'll vote for Trump over Sanders. If they said it, I'd be as annoyed as I am with a Bernie supporter who says they won't vote for Hillary should she get the nomination. Either position is asinine. PUMAs are not a real thing.

The majority of HRC support comes on the back of her being the perceived nom. If that narrative changes, as it did in 2008 and now in 2016, support will decline as it has already started to.

No it doesn't. It comes from members of the Democratic party actually preferring her to Bernie Sanders. You can go through numerous polls and take a look at questions like "Who do you trust more on economics/foreign policy/terrorism/healthcare." She, more often than not, wins nearly all of these categories. Democrats just like her more than we like Bernie. Even among Bernie supporters, though, they believe Hillary is more likely to beat the GOP candidate than Bernie.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I started and ran a socialist student group educating students on capitalism and socialism. We did a lot of activism in my city - marches against police, fighting anti-choice organizations, delivering water to people who had theirs shut off,etc. I always make an effort to educate people on the nature of capitalism and what alternatives there are. I'm a member of the IWW organizing work places. I'm hoping to get involved in community support organizations to build independence from capitalism. My job is in refugee resettlement.

I'm no Marxist and expressed my incredulity toward the whole ideology to you not too long ago, but good for you, and I mean that. Whether I agree with you or not, it sounds like your beliefs have driven you to do good, and I appreciate that.

 

[AlphaDump]

I have a question for the Hillary supporters, especially now in light of more recent polls in early primary states. Lets say the shoe is on the other foot, and Bernie winds up winning the nomination - are many of you going to vote for Bernie regardless? I have a gut feeling that many of the people chiding Bernie supporters for refusing to vote in the general should he not will say they'd rather for a democrat than see a republican get in office.

I'm actually jealous, in a way - I wish I could comfortably get out there & vote for Hillary without reservation should she be the Democratic Nominee in the general, but I just can't do it. If you're willing to do so, or even go the reverse way, and vote for Bernie if Hillary doesn't win the primary, then that means you have a candidate you feel confident enough to vote for. I, unfortunately, don't.

he hasn't given specifics on how he will actually pay for his plan. it will explode the deficit.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I have a question for the Hillary supporters, especially now in light of more recent polls in early primary states. Lets say the shoe is on the other foot, and Bernie winds up winning the nomination - are many of you going to vote for Bernie regardless? I have a gut feeling that many of the people chiding Bernie supporters for refusing to vote in the general should he not will say they'd rather for a democrat than see a republican get in office.

I'm actually jealous, in a way - I wish I could comfortably get out there & vote for Hillary without reservation should she be the Democratic Nominee in the general, but I just can't do it. If you're willing to do so, or even go the reverse way, and vote for Bernie if Hillary doesn't win the primary, then that means you have a candidate you feel confident enough to vote for. I, unfortunately, don't.

I'll happily for any Democrat who is the general election nominee. I'm much closer to Bernie's views than Hillary on any number of issues, but I understand you don't build Rome in a day. Over half the country basically still buys into the right wing framing on way too many issues.

Hillary is a very risky candidate - basically she needs big donors to raise money, barely gets people out to her rally's, cannot seem to keep things positive in the race and has allowed her campaign staff to once again tumble down negative rhetoric. Sanders would fair far better against the like of Trump or Cruz in a GE. I'm worried about what type of voter turnout we can expect from a race between Cruz and Clinton for example people being motivated to go out and vote is key and it appears Clinton lacks the capability to make people enthusiastic about her campaign.

The enthusiastic base for Clinton include the women who will turn out to vote for her now that she supports the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, minorities who understand how many programs stand on the brink of extinction under a Republican President, and yes, fiscally moderate suburban voters who don't want massive tax hikes, but don't hate social programs. Those people don't post often on Reddit.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

So, ahead of time I'm just gonna say I don't disagree that a lot of what was being passed in the '90s fuckin' blew (and that some of it even could've been avoided - chiefly DOMA)

But you do realize how weaksauce this argument is, right? We could say it would've been a lost cause for Clinton to have veto'd [x garbage bill], that a lot of Americans would've been drinking the [x garbage bill] Kool-Aid.

Why are you talking about the 90s when I'm talking about the 80's when Reagan won by a landslide?

Nice triple edit btw.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I started and ran a socialist student group educating students on capitalism and socialism. We did a lot of activism in my city - marches against police, fighting anti-choice organizations, delivering water to people who had theirs shut off,etc. I always make an effort to educate people on the nature of capitalism and what alternatives there are. I'm a member of the IWW organizing work places. I'm hoping to get involved in community support organizations to build independence from capitalism. My job is in refugee resettlement.

*reads bolded*

*checks your profile*

"Student at Cleveland State"

...Why do I have the feeling I actually know you IRL?

Why are you talking about the 80s when I'm talking about the 90's when Reagan won by a landslide?

Nice triple edit btw.

I'm talking about the '90s because none of those policies happen without Reagan-Bush absolutely demolishing the Democratic Party at a national level three times in a row.

 

[eBay Huckster]

e: double post

 

[Dixon's Jet]

So your point is that Sanders is somehow a "better proponent of gay rights" in spite of the fact that the issue has demonstrably been a priority for him for less time, in spite of the fact that Clinton held a supportive position on civil unions seven years before he expressed one, and in spite of the fact that she expressed non-opposition for state-level marriage equality in New York in 2006 while he was still being wishy-washy about CIVIL UNIONS? In addition to everything else she did for the movement in the aftermath of DOMA?

Because that point is dumb.

In any event, I'm outta here until Sunday - I have a convention to attend.

Sanders voted against the Clinton defense of marriage act.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Sanders has supported gay rights long before it was a thing????

Yes, and i said gay rights, which is different from gay marriage, which many times was not even apart of the national conversation.

He has supported gay rights for decades.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessa...cotus-decision-sanders-backed-gay-pride-march

And as for gay marriage, at most you could say he didn't fight fights when he didn't feel it was 'worth the political capital', and thus was not a priority, which is at the very worst, a reflection of a politician just like they all are.

But in the end, he ended up making the right votes while in the senate, and thusly ended up with an 100% voting record from the Human Rights Congressional Equality Index.

http://www.hrc.org/elected-officials/profile/senate/92#.Vpl_yFJ9lXV

Again, i don't claim Bernie is a perfect candidate, there is no such thing in this country.

But he's the only one to talk about fundamental systemic issues facing this country at any point.

And if your going to bring up gay marriage, at least you could make the argument that Bernie just didn't fight hard enough in certain cases, which didn't leave him a spotless record.

Its a far cry from a neoliberal conservative like Hillary who was proud of voting for the DOMA and saying on live TV that she was against gay marriage because it should be for a man and a woman specifically..

Context is what matters, and the attacks on Bernie, at the very least compared to every one else in this race is complete weaksauce.

By the liberal wing, you're including Hillary "11th most liberal Senator" Clinton in that, right? Also, the party of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is more liberal than the party of Robert Byrd and Tip O'Neill.

But, yup. She obviously just came out against the Hyde Amendment to make herself look better.

"Liberal" in the senate unfortunately is compromised of only a small handful of people to begin with. So yeah, whatever metric your using to meter her as liberal is pretty darn faulty i'd say.

I'd expect every democrat in congress to have voted for atleast one bill in congress that they oould claim was a democratic initiative apart of their party platform, but yeah, that's not saying much.

 

[jackissocool]

I'm no Marxist and expressed my incredulity toward the whole ideology to you not too long ago, but good for you, and I mean that. Whether I agree with you or not, it sounds like your beliefs have driven you to do good, and I appreciate that.

Hey man, you should take a look into what Marxists and other radlefts actually advocate. It's nothing like American propaganda would have you believe. It's about fighting systems that create and maintain poverty, racism, sexism, and all other forms of oppression. The whole point is to have an analysis of those and find out what causes them and how they can be fixed.

*reads bolded*

*checks your profile*

"Student at Cleveland State"

...Why do I have the feeling I actually know you IRL?

Look at my profile picture. I'm the guy who stood in the Innerlink and handed out communist flyers for a year. Had real long hair till a few weeks ago. Do you know me, comrade? PM if you'd like!

 

[SneakersSO]

he hasn't given specifics on how he will actually pay for his plan. it will explode the deficit.

He's spent countless time discussing several aspects of his economic plan. I agree, that almost all of his economic initiatives rely on closing tax loop holes corporations have used to evade paying for decades now.

Even if he is only ever able to enact legislation that closes some of those loop holes & puts that taxable money back in states hands, i'd rather have him go in and do that at the very least, then risk a President who may turn around and continue supporting corporate interests going forward.

 

[docbon]

*reads bolded*

*checks your profile*

"Student at Cleveland State"

...Why do I have the feeling I actually know you IRL?

what a twist

 

[GetLucky]

I have a question for the Hillary supporters, especially now in light of more recent polls in early primary states. Lets say the shoe is on the other foot, and Bernie winds up winning the nomination - are many of you going to vote for Bernie regardless? I have a gut feeling that many of the people chiding Bernie supporters for refusing to vote in the general should he not win will say they'd rather for a democrat than see a republican get in office.

I'm actually jealous, in a way - I wish I could comfortably get out there & vote for Hillary without reservation should she be the Democratic Nominee in the general, but I just can't do it. If you're willing to do so, or even go the reverse way and vote for Bernie if Hillary doesn't win the primary, then that means you have a candidate you feel confident enough to vote for. I, unfortunately, don't.

Are you serious? That literally happened in 2008 and by all accounts Hillary supporters voted in droves of Obama.

And for the record, yes, I'd happily vote for Bernie.

 

[eBay Huckster]

what a twist

Eh, I'm just curious - I know a few Wobblies in the area (and one of them is the primary reason why I wasn't seduced into ancap fuckery, though that one actually lives near Akron)

Look at my profile picture. I'm the guy who stood in the Innerlink and handed out communist flyers for a year. Had real long hair till a few weeks ago. Do you know me, comrade? PM if you'd like!

I'll throw one your way once I'm back from that convention I'm totally not delaying leaving for

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

I have a question for the Hillary supporters, especially now in light of more recent polls in early primary states. Lets say the shoe is on the other foot, and Bernie winds up winning the nomination - are many of you going to vote for Bernie regardless? I have a gut feeling that many of the people chiding Bernie supporters for refusing to vote in the general should he not win will say they'd rather for a democrat than see a republican get in office.

I'm actually jealous, in a way - I wish I could comfortably get out there & vote for Hillary without reservation should she be the Democratic Nominee in the general, but I just can't do it. If you're willing to do so, or even go the reverse way and vote for Bernie if Hillary doesn't win the primary, then that means you have a candidate you feel confident enough to vote for. I, unfortunately, don't.

I'm voting for Bernie in the primaries and if he loses, then Clinton it is.

Clinton can be voted out in 4 years if a better democrat to take office pops up, but I'm looking at this in the grand scheme of things, and that is the SCOTUS.

The last thing you want is a trump or Cruz or whoever appointing 2 to 3 new Supreme Court justices. That is why I will vote for Clinton In the general if she gets the nomination.

That is why anybody that considers themselves remotely liberal should do the same.

We aren't talking about short term influence here, we are talking about long term, decades long, effects we will have to deal with if one of the current republican candidates take the white house.

You think America is conservative right now, what do you think will happen when most of the justices are conservative far right? Last thing this country that has moved super right needs.

 

[exmachina64]

It's your right to vote for whomever you want in the primary. The main concern is really not the primary so much as the general election; if Hillary is the nominee, and she still doesn't represent your beliefs as well as her Republican opponent, well then the issue wouldn't really be Hillary Clinton.

What has been objectionable to me these past few months is the sheer amount of lies about and vilification of Hillary because she happens to be the opponent of who many GAF posters support. There's all sorts of subtle, unconscious sexism that just slips by and is not called out because other posters support the same arguments of fakeness, of corporate puppetry, of corruption, of whatever that they don't pull out proof for. It's largely based on the passion and emotion of investment into a competition. Hillary could put out a good idea (she recently revealed a plan for autism that was praised by the autism community, yet on GAF there are threads about her social media outreach instead) and either no one notices or if there are threads, there would be drive bys with the same old arguments listed above.

It's exhausting to see ignorant post after ignorant post ("She's a 180 from Obama" "How is she more liberal than Obama?") to idiot post after idiot post ("She's not cool" "She's fake") to posts that are just plain bitter about Hillary, because she planned and worked out her run and campaign earlier and better than her opponents did, and therefore it's been difficult for her opponents to gain on her. They blame the system, they blame the party, they blame Hillary, they blame everyone but themselves for not voting in 2010 or 2014, for their own apathy. If the only way one can vote for a candidate is if they are enthused by said candidate, what makes them better than the people who voted for George Bush because they wanted someone they could have a beer with?

The absolute worst thing about all of this is that I thought the left was above the petty shit that the right does when it comes to Obama and Hillary. After all these years of shit piled on Obama by conservatives, you would think that they're able to recognize such poor behavior and media issues, and be above it all.

This is my favorite post on GAF today.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yes, and i said gay rights, which is different from gay marriage, which many times was not even apart of the national conversation.

He has supported gay rights for decades.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessa...cotus-decision-sanders-backed-gay-pride-march

And as for gay marriage, at most you could say he didn't fight fights when he didn't feel it was 'worth the political capital', and thus was not a priority, which is at the very worst, a reflection of a politician just like they all are.

But in the end, he ended up making the right votes while in the senatet, and thusly ended up with an 100% voting record from the Human Rights Congressional Equality Index.

http://www.hrc.org/elected-officials/profile/senate/92#.Vpl_yFJ9lXV

Again, i don't claim Bernie is a perfect candidate, there is no such thing in this country.

But he's the only one to talk about fundamental systemic issues facing this country at any point.

And if your going to bring up gay marriage, at least you could make the argument that Bernie just didn't fight hard enough in certain cases, which didn't leave him a spotless record.

Its a far cry from a neoliberal conservative like Hillary who was proud of voting for the DOMA and saying on live TV that she was against gay marriage because it should be for a man and a woman specifically..

Context is what matters, and the attacks on Bernie, at the very least compared to every one else in this race is complete weaksauce.

Again -- why did Bernie say he wouldn't support anti-discrimination bill in 1990 when he was Mayor of Burlington? Why did he say that gay marriage was a states's right? Why did he tell the Vermont legislature they shouldn't pass gay marriage? Why did he only become supportive of gay marriage in the twilight of the fight in Vermont?

That's not to say that Hillary Clinton is perfect on the issue. She's not! I've said that! But you're holding her to a higher standard than Bernie's fairly blemished record on the same issue when she's also done more for gay rights as Secretary of State than anything that Bernie has done in Congress. That's fine. I'm not necessarily voting on gay rights, but it's important to note that for a lot of gay people, they don't just see Hillary words, but her actions since then.

It's your right to vote for whomever you want in the primary. The main concern is really not the primary so much as the general election; if Hillary is the nominee, and she still doesn't represent your beliefs as well as her Republican opponent, well then the issue wouldn't really be Hillary Clinton.

What has been objectionable to me these past few months is the sheer amount of lies about and vilification of Hillary because she happens to be the opponent of who many GAF posters support. There's all sorts of subtle, unconscious sexism that just slips by and is not called out because other posters support the same arguments of fakeness, of corporate puppetry, of corruption, of whatever that they don't pull out proof for. It's largely based on the passion and emotion of investment into a competition. Hillary could put out a good idea (she recently revealed a plan for autism that was praised by the autism community, yet on GAF there are threads about her social media outreach instead) and either no one notices or if there are threads, there would be drive bys with the same old arguments listed above.

It's exhausting to see ignorant post after ignorant post ("She's a 180 from Obama" "How is she more liberal than Obama?") to idiot post after idiot post ("She's not cool" "She's fake") to posts that are just plain bitter about Hillary, because she planned and worked out her run and campaign earlier and better than her opponents did, and therefore it's been difficult for her opponents to gain on her. They blame the system, they blame the party, they blame Hillary, they blame everyone but themselves for not voting in 2010 or 2014, for their own apathy. If the only way one can vote for a candidate is if they are enthused by said candidate, what makes them better than the people who voted for George Bush because they wanted someone they could have a beer with?

The absolute worst thing about all of this is that I thought the left was above the petty shit that the right does when it comes to Obama and Hillary. After all these years of shit piled on Obama by conservatives, you would think that they're able to recognize such poor behavior and media issues, and be above it all.

I really don't know who I'm voting for, but I love this.

 

[AlphaDump]

He's spent countless time discussing several aspects of his economic plan. I agree, that almost all of his economic initiatives rely on closing tax loop holes corporations have used to evade paying for decades now.

Even if he is only ever able to enact legislation that closes some of those loop holes & puts that taxable money back in states hands, i'd rather have him go in and do that at the very least, then risk a President who may turn around and continue supporting corporate interests going forward.

"loophole" isn't really a specific. neither is "less than 90%" taxes on the rich.


Either way, if bernie does win, he needs congress support. Republicans refuse to increase taxes for any reason. They just want to reduce the deficit.

 

[Xe4]

I have a question for the Hillary supporters, especially now in light of more recent polls in early primary states. Lets say the shoe is on the other foot, and Bernie winds up winning the nomination - are many of you going to vote for Bernie regardless? I have a gut feeling that many of the people chiding Bernie supporters for refusing to vote in the general should he not win will say they'd rather for a democrat than see a republican get in office.

I'm actually jealous, in a way - I wish I could comfortably get out there & vote for Hillary without reservation should she be the Democratic Nominee in the general, but I just can't do it. If you're willing to do so, or even go the reverse way and vote for Bernie if Hillary doesn't win the primary, then that means you have a candidate you feel confident enough to vote for. I, unfortunately, don't.

There may be a few Clinton supporters who are liberal enough to support her but won't support Sanders if he wins. I don't agree with it, bit it makes sense. They are simply choosing the candidate that fits their views better. 99% of Clinton supporters, especially the more vocal ones would absolutely support Sanders if he won. I as a Clinton supporter absolutely will, and would love Sanders as a president, I just can't risk a Republican in the White House. Too much damage would be done.

Sanders supporters not voting for Clinton, however makes absolutely no sense. One would figure they would prefer any Democrat to a Republican, but apperently they don't care enough to vote for a good option if their favorite doesn't win. It really shows how some Bernie supporters don't really care about the country making progress, and just support him cause he's the underdog or something like that. It's a very irrational position to hold.

 

[Nickle]

If Bernie doesn't win then I'm voting for Ron Paul.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Hey man, you should take a look into what Marxists and other radlefts actually advocate. It's nothing like American propaganda would have you believe. It's about fighting systems that create and maintain poverty, racism, sexism, and all other forms of oppression. The whole point is to have an analysis of those and find out what causes them and how they can be fixed.

Point blank, I am not a political radical and cannot imagine myself ever being one, because I don't think history well supports the necessity of radicalism, if you accept that change DOES come, but comes slowly, and painfully. I don't see any dearth of evidence of wrongs being combated under the very systems damned as exploitative and broken, don't see any evidence that capitalism's ills cannot be reined in and tempered by smart policy, roll my eyes a bit at the radical left's nearly complete denial of human nature (I favor Pinkerian nativism, myself), and cannot countenance people "trying again" to achieve a political system that, in previous attempts of implementation, resulted in human rights abuses, blunders, and imperialism on par with or worse than their capitalist counterparts. I think that something like a kind of communism will probably one day be something we lurch into, as a result of technology and necessity, but I'm not in favor of a violent uprising to achieve it, because revolutions are so easily hijacked by charismatic power-seeking.

 

[damisa]

I'd really like to know the ages of all the Bernie-or-bust posters. I'm guessing all of them are under 30, probably under 25.

They don't really remember the horrors of the Bush years or all the hard work progressives have been doing for decades. Not voting is the reason Obama has had 6years with almost nothing getting done and Republicans dominating pretty much all of government but he White House.

 

[Hellwarden]

I think it's fine for people to dislike Hilary Clinton as a person.

She's not particularly likable and she's running for an office that, in some regards, requires charisma.

I say that as a person who will probably vote for her.

 

[rjinaz]

I really don't know who I'm voting for, but I love this.

How is this even possible? I only ask because I've seen you say it a few times the last few days. Is it just a "leaving my mind open" kind of thing? Because I would consider you one of the most enthusiastic Hilary supporters on GAF. Don't think I have ever seen you take the side of Sanders in discussion once. Or is it somebody else you may vote for? Genuinely curious.