| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jpow
Bernie supporters in this thread have told us over and over that Slate is not a good reference when it was being used about Bernie's gay vote in 2006, yet all of a sudden it's great to use because it has something anti-Hillary on it  |
Not even that, the piece doesn't even at all relate to or reference the document I just posted.
It's just a generic opinion piece trying to defend Bernie's stance on same-sex marriage.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Oh @ Bloo never mind I think you're right when you say Kentucky is probably Clinton Country. I forgot just how conservative it is (and how moderate the democrats are). At least she has one state to break up a trio of wins Sanders will get from winning IN, WV, and OR  |
I'm not sure to be honest. They have a relatively low African-American population. Sanders is also doing well in polls in W.V., which the two states are pretty similar. Then again KY is closed, so that plays nicely for Clinton.
Either way it will probably be close. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Here are the facts:
Quote:
Fact #1: This is a resolution of the Board of Aldermen (which essentially is their city council) of Burlington, Vermont. A resolution is a statement supported by at least a majority of a governing body.
Fact #2: A mayor routinely signs proclamations and resolutions proffered by legislative bodies on a wide number of topics and subjects. Such proclamations are not bills and do not become law. Rather, they are official statements supported by a majority of the governing body.
Fact #3: This particular resolution supports “We Believe in Marriage Week,” a nation-wide attempt to stem the rising tide of divorce and single parenthood sweeping the nation, which other boards of aldermen supported via similar resolutions declaring the week from February 14-20, 1982 as such.
Fact #4: The rising divorce rate and increase in the number of out-of-wedlock children being born were of particular unilateral, bipartisan concern, according to Henderson. Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan (whom Clinton replaced when she ran for Senator in New York in 2000) issued a report in 1965 essentially decrying a condemnation into poverty, particularly of minority families, who were being broken apart due to divorce and single-parenthood.
Fact #5: The terms “family values” and “traditional marriage” did not have the anti-LGBTQ meaning in 1982 that they do today. They were, instead, concerns over the family unit falling apart due to an increase in divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth.
In 1982, nobody in the LGBTQ community was fighting for the right to marry. “In an interview in the 1970s, when asked about the prospects for gay marriage, Frank Kameny laughed and dismissed the notion. He said it was something gay men would never ask for,” recalled David Wallace, an LGBTQ activist, historian, and videographer.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/7/2014
Posts: 4,178
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jpow
Bernie supporters in this thread have told us over and over that Slate is not a good reference when it was being used about Bernie's gay vote in 2006, yet all of a sudden it's great to use because it has something anti-Hillary on it |
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
Here are the facts:
|
The facts are that the only people that bring up same-sex marriage regarding Hillary and Bernie are the Bernie supporters in and outside of this thread. Honestly, I'm sick of talking about it. Both candidates are for it now. I don't care about it further. However, Bernie supporters (like yourself and others in the past few pages) like to say Bernie has been a lifelong advocate for same-sex marriage. You cannot use the argument of, "Well, in 1982 no one was really for it" to retort your claim that he's been a lifelong advocate for it when he signed a definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman.
He has not been a lifelong advocate, and that's okay. Who the hell cares?
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
I'm not sure to be honest. They have a relatively low African-American population. Sanders is also doing well in polls in W.V., which the two states are pretty similar. Then again KY is closed, so that plays nicely for Clinton.
Either way it will probably be close. |
WV is only similar to Eastern Kentucky, which is entirely different from the rest of the state of Kentucky.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,726
|
Trump is such a ****ing dumbass
Quote:
On CNBC this morning Trump suggested that one strategy he'll use for reducing the national debt is having bond holders accept "haircuts". To be clear what that means, he'll try to get people who own US Treasury bonds and are owned X to accept X/2, or some reduced amount of what they are owed.
That's called defaulting on a debt obligation.
In other words, he wants to put the US through something like bankruptcy. Now, to be clear, in the world of business this is not at all uncommon. In a bankruptcy proceeding almost everyone takes a haircut. Many lose everything. You were owed $7 million and you have to accept $2 million. It often happens in simple business negotiations too. Things aren't going great. Debt has to be restructured to help the company survive. A creditor thinks they might lose everything so they'll accept 50 cents on the dollar.
So all good, except the United States is not a struggling casino. It's a sovereign nation with sovereign debt.
It is not too much to say that centuries of American prosperity have been undergirded by the "full faith and credit of the United States." In other words, the US always pays its debts in full and on time. Indeed, it's black letter text in the US constitution that the country's debt can never even be questioned. Defaulting on the national debt would clearly be unconstitutional.
That's the constitution part, which is a weighty matter. But the entire architecture of the global economy and the United States place in it rests on the certainty and basic risklessness of US government debt obligations. It's as simple as that. (This has actually allowed the US to in effect have people pay the Treasury to hold on to their money since 2008.) Introducing the idea that the US might pay back only a portion of the returns on Treasury bonds would basically disrupt the entire global economy, have massive and traumatic knock-on effects on the US economy and its ability to service its own debt. It would be catastrophic, an entirely self-inflicted wound.
To be clear, this will never happen. But the fact that Trump is proposing it shows that when it comes to macro-economics and global economics Trump is a huge ignoramus who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Treasury. It's amazing suggestion. Not just stupid but someone who simply knows nothing about how the economy works.
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/this-is-astounding
The fact that this idiot is the GOP nominee is ****ing sad!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Only on ATRL is voting against the Defense of Marriage Act, against Don't Ask Don't Tell (votes in the 1990's), voting for a Vermont bill in 2000 to legalize same-sex unions and in 2009 to legalize same-sex marriage, being one of the first people to call on the president to join supporting marriage equality is not enough advocacy for gay rights because he was only against it because it was a state right!!!111!!!!11!!
If you want to judge by the reasoning behind each vote, then bear in mind that opposing such anti-marriage-equality bills because they're considered states rights (which is true, back then they weren't considered equal protection rights) is far better and more impressive than supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, supporting Don't Ask Don't Tell, and being against same-sex marriage because it's a "sacred bond between a man and a woman".
The facts don't like, and the voting record is clear. Bernie is a big legislative and outspoken champion for same-sex partnerships. I'm sorry the right-wing of the Democratic party sees this as a non-issue and wants you to move on, but Bernie had the right judgement on DOMA, the right judgement on DADT, the right judgement on explaining disapproval of same-sex marriage in Vermont because it would have stirred controversy and caused major divisiveness (instead of the reasoning being a "sacred bond between a man and a woman"), the right judgement on supporting that law three years later, etc.
I'm glad Bernie is a champion for this great cause, I'm glad the facts are (again) on his side, I'm glad we can now move on while fully acknowledging that Bernie is a consistent champion for same-sex marriage and same-sex rights, whether we like to delusionally deny it based on pure bias that goes against the very mere and basic facts or not.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 6,778
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
|
adjhksdd 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 3,011
|
Do you think that Republicans will start going to open primaries to vote against Hillary y supporting Bernie
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
|
OH DAMN, Bloo!! **** it up!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Zayn Malik
Do you think that Republicans will start going to open primaries to vote against Hillary y supporting Bernie
|
No. There are two open caucuses: Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands and one open primary: Montana.
Two states she will win, the other won't effect her at all. Republicans aren't worried about stopping Hillary at this point. They have bigger issues on their hands.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Only on ATRL is voting against the Defense of Marriage Act, against Don't Ask Don't Tell (votes in the 1990's), voting for a Vermont bill in 2000 to legalize same-sex unions and in 2009 to legalize same-sex marriage, being one of the first people to call on the president to join supporting marriage equality is not enough advocacy for gay rights because he was only against it because it was a state right!!!111!!!!11!!
If you want to judge by the reasoning behind each vote, then bear in mind that opposing such anti-marriage-equality bills because they're considered states rights (which is true, back then they weren't considered equal protection rights) is far better and more impressive than supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, supporting Don't Ask Don't Tell, and being against same-sex marriage because it's a "sacred bond between a man and a woman".
The facts don't like, and the voting record is clear. Bernie is a big legislative and outspoken champion for same-sex partnerships. I'm sorry the right-wing of the Democratic party sees this as a non-issue and wants you to move on, but Bernie had the right judgement on DOMA, the right judgement on DADT, the right judgement on explaining disapproval of same-sex marriage in Vermont because it would have stirred controversy and caused major divisiveness (instead of the reasoning being a "sacred bond between a man and a woman"), the right judgement on supporting that law three years later, etc.
I'm glad Bernie is a champion for this great cause, I'm glad the facts are (again) on his side, I'm glad we can now move on while fully acknowledging that Bernie is a consistent champion for same-sex marriage and same-sex rights, whether we like to delusionally deny it based on pure bias that goes against the very mere and basic facts or not.
|
Hacking, the only people that bring up same-sex marriage are individuals trying to diminish Hillary's stance on it. Argue all you want that Bernie has been a lifetime advocate for LGBTQ rights, which he has, however he has not been a lifetime advocate for same-sex marriage, hence the document I just provided. He has been a great ally in LGBTQ issues, as well as Hillary.
Before anyone challenges this by saying she voted for DADT, bear in mind that the alternative legislation was to entirely ban LGBTQ individuals from serving in military at all. DADT, while looking back at it was a terrible thing, but it was the quickest way to ensure that LGBTQ individuals could serve in the military if they chose to in some capacity. Hillary later went on to fight for trans people to serve in military and has fought for LGBTQ rights as well. Attacking Hillary's record to promote Bernie's in this issue is tactless and worthless and I (and many others) are tired of it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
Hacking, the only people that bring up same-sex marriage are individuals trying to diminish Hillary's stance on it. Argue all you want that Bernie has been a lifetime advocate for LGBTQ rights, which he has, however he has not been a lifetime advocate for same-sex marriage, hence the document I just provided. He has been a great ally in LGBTQ issues, as well as Hillary.
Before anyone challenges this by saying she voted for DADT, bear in mind that the alternative legislation was to entirely ban LGBTQ individuals from serving in military at all. DADT, while looking back at it was a terrible thing, but it was the quickest way to ensure that LGBTQ individuals could serve in the military if they chose to in some capacity. Hillary later went on to fight for trans people to serve in military and has fought for LGBTQ rights as well. Attacking Hillary's record to promote Bernie's in this issue is tactless and worthless and I (and many others) are tired of it.
|
It's all they have left! Let them get their last few licks in.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Only on ATRL is voting against the Defense of Marriage Act, against Don't Ask Don't Tell (votes in the 1990's), voting for a Vermont bill in 2000 to legalize same-sex unions and in 2009 to legalize same-sex marriage, being one of the first people to call on the president to join supporting marriage equality is not enough advocacy for gay rights because he was only against it because it was a state right!!!111!!!!11!!
If you want to judge by the reasoning behind each vote, then bear in mind that opposing such anti-marriage-equality bills because they're considered states rights (which is true, back then they weren't considered equal protection rights) is far better and more impressive than supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, supporting Don't Ask Don't Tell, and being against same-sex marriage because it's a "sacred bond between a man and a woman".
The facts don't like, and the voting record is clear. Bernie is a big legislative and outspoken champion for same-sex partnerships. I'm sorry the right-wing of the Democratic party sees this as a non-issue and wants you to move on, but Bernie had the right judgement on DOMA, the right judgement on DADT, the right judgement on explaining disapproval of same-sex marriage in Vermont because it would have stirred controversy and caused major divisiveness (instead of the reasoning being a "sacred bond between a man and a woman"), the right judgement on supporting that law three years later, etc.
I'm glad Bernie is a champion for this great cause, I'm glad the facts are (again) on his side, I'm glad we can now move on while fully acknowledging that Bernie is a consistent champion for same-sex marriage and same-sex rights, whether we like to delusionally deny it based on pure bias that goes against the very mere and basic facts or not.
|
It's not a I supported it first, no me, no me situation - it's the fact that they hold Hillary to such a high standard yet NONE of the presidential candidates left has a perfect record on the issue.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
Hacking, the only people that bring up same-sex marriage are individuals trying to diminish Hillary's stance on it. Argue all you want that Bernie has been a lifetime advocate for LGBTQ rights, which he has, however he has not been a lifetime advocate for same-sex marriage, hence the document I just provided. He has been a great ally in LGBTQ issues, as well as Hillary.
Before anyone challenges this by saying she voted for DADT, bear in mind that the alternative legislation was to entirely ban LGBTQ individuals from serving in military at all. DADT, while looking back at it was a terrible thing, but it was the quickest way to ensure that LGBTQ individuals could serve in the military if they chose to in some capacity. Hillary later went on to fight for trans people to serve in military and has fought for LGBTQ rights as well. Attacking Hillary's record to promote Bernie's in this issue is tactless and worthless and I (and many others) are tired of it.
|
You failed to address the part that doesn't include DADT (the vast majority of the post).
Quote:
Originally posted by Eros
It's all they have left! Let them get their last few licks in.
|
What do you mean it's all we have left? This issue isn't going to magically change the public stance in regards to Hillary and I have consistently said I would be happy to see Hillary as the Democratic nominee. I'm sorry you're wrong about the reasoning behind this.
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
It's not a I supported it first, no me, no me situation - it's the fact that they hold Hillary to such a high standard yet NONE of the presidential candidates left has a perfect record on the issue.
|
You don't have to have someone with a 'perfect record' in order to hold other people accountable for the things they've supported and the reasoning they gave behind their support.
-
Still glad the facts are by Bernie's side, even if you exclude DADT for being part of a compromise: you know, the bill that said that the presence of homosexuals "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability".
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
|
If he was an advocate, he wouldn't have been saying it's just a states issue.
|
Quote:
|
Argue all you want that Bernie has been a lifetime advocate for LGBTQ rights, which he has.
|
Woo lord 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 14,942
|
Bernie's not winning so the "facts" being on his side doesn't matter. Either gear up to vote for Hil or for Trump, the ONLY candidates worth debating opposing policies for or against and stop wasting time typing **** that no longer matters in the grand scheme.
HRC or Trump.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 6_INCH_HEELS
Bernie's not winning so the "facts" being on his side doesn't matter. Either gear up to vote for Hil or for Trump, the ONLY candidates worth debating opposing policies for or against and stop wasting time typing **** that no longer matters in the grand scheme.
HRC or Trump.
|
"Not winning" doesn't mean we shouldn't be clearing up his record that in fact is comparable to Clinton's and should rightfully be compared to Clinton's. "Winning" doesn't pull you down to lower standards of judgement. If anything, it makes the standards higher.
Repeatedly saying that someone is "winning" is a terrible counterargument, "winning" doesn't clear your record, "winning" doesn't mean you shouldn't be held accountable for the things you've supported, "winning" only means more delegates have been awarded to you based on votes. That's it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
We will talk about the issues that matter to us whether somebody is "winning" or not. Enough with the mocking, suppression, degrading comments and disregard to various issues just because the candidate you support is "winning". What a horrible way to handle debates.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
I'm here for a Donald Trump/ Bernie Sanders ticket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
