February 6, 2016

Why did Sanders evolve on gay marriage?

I see quite a few people attacking Hillary over her evolving on Gay Marriage, yet no one seems to remember the fact that Bernie evolved on that same subject.

People like pushing Bernie as some sort of lifelong defender of LGBT rights, when he isn't.

He stood against marriage equality in Vermont in 06 - Know why? Because he felt that the LGBT community didn't need full marriage equality because civil unions were 'good enough for now' because Vermont had seen enough change for one decade. (Basically, he didn't want to rock the boat in Vermont with such drastic changes... hmmmmmm...)

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/10/27/sanders-defends-2006-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/

At the time, Sanders was opposed to the amendment, but is quoted as saying when asked if Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, “Not right now, not after what we went through.” Sanders defended his 2006 opposition to same-sex marriage to Maddow by recalling Vermont had legalized civil unions just six years ago in 2000.

Although Sanders and Clinton both have undertaken an evolution on the issue of same-sex marriage, both have come to support marriage rights for same-sex couples.

And, ofc, lets not forget about his votes against DOMA - They were NEVER because he felt the LGBT community deserved equal rights to marry, they were because he felt marriage - and the stripping of a persons right and freedom to marry - should be a states issue.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

...Explaining his vote in 1996, Sanders’ chief of staff declared that it was motivated by a concern for states’ rights, not equality.

...Perhaps Sanders’ team used this states’ rights rationale to limit backlash from anti-gay voters. That would be a perfectly acceptable tactic, since his vote—not his explanation of it—is what matters most. Still, if that’s the case, then Sanders should be honest about it.

... But in his statements to the press at the time, Sanders defended states’ rights and made no mention of gay Americans’ dignity. His vote may have been brave. But it was hardly a full-throated cry for equality.

...Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions.

...Earlier in his political career, Sanders was even more indifferent toward gay rights: As mayor of Burlington in 1990, Sanders told an interviewer that LGBT rights were not a “major priority” for him. Asked if he would support a bill to protect gays from job discrimination, Sanders responded, “probably not.”

This is, really, the difference between the two candidates. Hillary took stances that were against LGBT equality. She has outright admitted that she was wrong to have done so, and that she never should have done so. Bernie took stances that were against LGBT equality, and he REFUSES to admit that he was wrong to do so.

People are flawed. People make mistakes. Hillary and Sanders both made wrong choices, and terrible mistakes, in the past when they stood against LGBT equality. But of the two, Hillary is the only one courageous enough to admit that she was wrong. Sanders? He's still pushing that his vote against LGBT equality was a GOOD thing.

Sanders had a opportunity in 06 to push for progressive ideals. But he didn't. He felt that Vermont had 'changed enough' and that it wouldn't be a good idea for force such a 'drastic' of change in such little of time.

...Come to think of it, that's another area he evolved on. He wasn't willing to push drastic changes in short amounts of time (6 years) in 06, but he now he wants to push even more drastic of changes in four?

December 19, 2015

And with this lawsuit, Republicans have a extremely good chance of winning 2016.

That lawsuit serves to do nothing but further divide the Democratic base then it already is. Given the scope of data taken by Bernie staffers - Data that was, from various reports, the result of millions of dollars of spending and thousands of hours of work - that the DNC would restrict database access until a full audit to determine the full scope of the breach - And to determine if others, besides Democrats, were able to access the data - is no real surprise.

Bernie had a choice today. He had a choice to stand up for his past calls to run a clean and honest campaign. Given the scope of the data stolen, even if he won the election his legitimacy would always be in doubt - Did he really beat out Hillary because by his own merit, or did he win because he had a copy of a significant portion of HRCs early state plans?

For a man who prides himself on honesty, he should have stepped down. He desired a clean and honest campaign. With his campaign staff stealing confidental, and critical data, from Hillaries campaign his campaign lost any honesty it had.

For a man who prides himself on honesty, he should have allowed a full audit, to determine the scope of his staffers mistakes. He should have let the DNC do their audit and find him clean of any wrongdoing.

For a man who supposedly wanted to run a clean and honest campaign, his choice is anything but.

Rather then do either of these, to restore honesty back to his campaign, he has decided that he will file a lawsuit that, even if it comes out in his favor, will do NOTHING but divide the party and set the stage for a Republican win in 2016.

Congratulations Bernard Sanders. You've gotten your wish - Hillary won't be our next President. I can only pray that our nation will be able to recover from whatever Republican wins the next election. It's going to be a long 4 years, and right now none of the top picks from the Republican party will do anything to better our nation.

November 7, 2015

re: Confessions from a Hillary Shill

Decided to split this off from it to prevent it from getting buried on the topic, but boy does that link have some good stuff in it.

Like, a admission - From one of SFP's Mods - that the 'confession' is - more then likely - to be completely bogus.

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

I'm going to single this out, because it's somewhat important...

[img][/img]

And of course, lets not forget this prime example of sexism...

[img][/img]

So, a question to Sanders supporters... Is this REALLY the kind of stuff you want to jump behind, to push as fact, and to support?