2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Hillary Clinton Has the Best Track Record on Women's Issues
Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 08:45 AM - Edit history (1)
So true. Thank you Hillary
"The best predictor of future performance is past performance, and when it comes to women's issues, the record is clear..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-dew-steele/why-hillary-clinton-has-t_b_8073982.html
Andrea Dew Steele
Why Hillary Clinton Has the Best Track Record on Women's Issues
Posted: 09/01/2015 7:04 pm EDT Updated: 09/01/2015 7:59 pm EDT
HILLARY CLINTON
"Women's rights are human rights." This simple sentence declared by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 resonated around the world. Millions of women heard this as a declaration that they mattered, that their daughters mattered. The issue of women's rights and equality has persisted as the cornerstone of Hillary's political career. Over and over again, she has reinforced her famous speech with concrete actions -- as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State -- fighting for women's rights domestically and internationally. Hillary Clinton's record on women's rights speaks for itself. While other candidates may have progressive proposals and ideas, I urge their supporters to cite tangible policy changes that have benefited women in this country and abroad.
If we are to honestly consider the issues that affect women and families, Hillary has consistently and passionately advocated for gender equality and family friendly policies. Throughout her time in the Senate, she championed gender equity legislation and used her status in the world to shine a light on issues of importance to women and girls.
In terms of family planning and reproductive rights, Hillary has unwaveringly supported a woman's right to choose and has fought for access to family planning resources that would empower women to make their own decisions about their bodies. Her historic refrain that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare" should be the mantra for all leaders who want to make sure birth control is easily accessible for all women. She has publicly condemned the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling limiting birth control access for employees and strongly supports Planned Parenthood's work. Hillary has spoken in no uncertain terms in defense of Roe v. Wade, and sponsored legislation to reduce the number of abortions through access to birth control and sex education.
Globally, no candidate has done more for women's rights than Secretary Clinton. In her time as Secretary of State, she appointed the first-ever Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues at the State Department; oversaw the creation of the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security; and introduced the Global Health Initiative (GHI), investing $63 billion to help partner countries provide robust maternal and infant health services. Secretary Clinton has worked tirelessly to elevate women's rights as the key towards economic prosperity and global stability. Her public and private initiatives have appropriated millions of dollars towards providing secondary education to young girls around the world, and tackling the obstacles that face at-risk youths..................
..................
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I can't trust someone who needed to evolve on civil rights to support mine.
Bernie has always supported equality for all women.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She called on abortion rights advocates and anti-abortion campaigners to form a broad alliance to support sexual education -- including abstinence counseling -- family planning, and morning-after emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault as ways to reduce unintended pregnancies.
"We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," Mrs. Clinton told the annual conference of the Family Planning Advocates of New York State. "The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place."
...
Mrs. Clinton supported a proposed ban on late-term abortions as long as it included an exception to protect the health of the mother; in turn, she has opposed such a ban when it lacked that exception. She has also supported some state parental notification laws under which a teenager must involve at least one parent in the decision -- but only when there is an exception in the laws that allows the judge to bypass the law and let the teenager obtain an abortion on her own -- a process known as "judicial bypass," which Mrs. Clinton has also supported before.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/nyregion/clinton-seeking-shared-ground-over-abortions.html?_r=0
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, which has protected a woman's constitutional right to privacy for over 40 years. The bill follows a dangerous trend we are witnessing across the country. In just the first three months of 2015, more than 300 bills have been introduced in state legislatures on top of the nearly 30 measures introduced in Congress that restrict access to abortion.
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/hillary-clinton-scolds-us-house-for-banning-late-term-abortions
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Not Voting
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
i knew i was going to have to post this every couple days. you lack facts and it misrepresents.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Q: Are there circumstances when the government should limit choice?
LAZIO: I had a pro-choice record in the House, and I believe in a womans right to choose. I support a ban on partial-birth abortions. Senator Moynihan called it infanticide. Even former mayor Ed Koch agreed that this was too extreme a procedure. This is an area where I disagree with my opponent. My opponent opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions.
CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. Ive met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course its a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a womans choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You said "you lack facts and it misrepresents" and I posted the facts.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are we done yet?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)not, i am
only to go thru this dance in another couple days.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 3, 2015, 09:22 AM - Edit history (1)
CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. Ive met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course its a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a womans choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Didn't your Grandma ever tell you that?
And are you a male?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)But words will never hurt me!
earthside
(6,960 posts)In the end for Hillaryites it always comes down to your identity on any controversial or difficult question.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)If not....why are you telling females what to believe
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Point it out.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Posting some bullshit opinion piece from some idiot woman.
So dont tell me you dont have a history...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Were we supposed to think you posted it because you disagreed with it?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Thanks for telling us!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Do you tell that to follks on DU that are Black, Hispanic or Gay too?
White Hetero males always seem to want to tell the rest of us what is good for us....or who is better for us...why is that? And it always seems to be particularly easy when its women's issues.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Men have no business telling women which candidates are better for them......I think we can think for ourselves dont you?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Too "buddy"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)It doesnt suit you...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Go back to telling men who to vote for...your peers. I think we women can sort out who has our nacks without your help...thanks..
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I work with mostly men, is that what you meant?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Andvthe proof is in the pudding!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You are a male arent you?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)She voted nay
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Voted Nay..
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Of course.....but didnt being the appropriatve action....
Buh bye male telling females about thier lady parts..
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. Ive met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course its a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a womans choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)And left out the caveat....health of the mother...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Cant you keep up with your own arguments?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Have you been taking lessons in debate from MADem?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Edit a definition....as if saying you "can" do something means you necessarily would do so....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)So it proves that the words didnt mean what you are claming they did when they were made....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You're not making any sense.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Perhaps you should tell us...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You're the one making claims, back them up.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)And the point you are trying to make with them...
Or are you just playing games as was suggested?
Was I supposed to read your mind?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Maybe because you thought I was a guy and we know how they lie about stuff, amirite?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)That was never implied....and actions proved otherwise...and remember they speak louder....
Taking things out of context also doesnt suit you....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Bovine feces that needs shoveling on this thread.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You haven't proved that I edited or posted anything false.
But keep trying.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)She voted nay
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Explain.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Because she voted nay...
I can eat a gallon of Rocky Road ice cream....but I won't
And I can "beam you up scottie" and I believe I will!
Nonsensical
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #132)
Post removed
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Ah, that was fun.
Apparently Vanilla thinks facts are aren't facts if they're posted by men.
Seems kind of sexist to me...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)until the next game.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Seems to think that they know better..
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You denied.....and "the fact" that she didnt......there are your facts...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Autumn
(44,985 posts)you are indeed correct.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's like I was speaking Swahili or something.
Autumn
(44,985 posts)a far better woman.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)And she didnt.....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)didn't
[did-nt]
1.
contraction of did not.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)What word are you arguing about then?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The caveat.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Her words and actions match entirely...
To paraphrase "I can"...but "I didn't"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I never said she voted for it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)It doesnt...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)There you go. .
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Do tell.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Because old shit is always relevant!!!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She was for a ban on late term abortions as late as 2000.
A 42 year old essay on gender stereotypes that Bernie regrets writing certainly qualifies as "old shit" though.
Like I said, Bernie Sanders has always supported equal rights for all women.
Perhaps you would like to explain why Hillary didn't do the same?
MADem
(135,425 posts)He still doesn't quite get it--he's still speaking in the present tense when he discusses that train wreck of a work of 'fiction.' Obviously, with those attitudes, he didn't always "support equal rights for all women." He spoke of them as being "dependent." That's hardly "equality" in my book.
Women have the feeling they have to be dependent. It was very poorly written in a way I certainly would not write it now. But if you read it, what you find is that is a bad situation for both people: women shouldnt be dependent. Men should not be oppressors. We want a society where people are equal. That was what it was about.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And I agree with what Aerows had to say about the essay that you're so outraged over:
Which also Which also means I have an education and enough political savvy to know that the "rape fantasy story" was just that - a story in someone's fantasy attempting to discredit him as a politician.
"Nobody honestly believes that Bernie Sanders is a sexual pervert or that he is a misogynist or that he intends to do women any harm. Nobody suspects that he harbors a secret desire to pass intrusive legislation or to cut gang rapists a break. Really, there is only one reason that anyone would make hay of this story, and that is to damage the man politically."
The loony Right Wing National review agrees.
This article states it plainly.
Parroting talking points that have been repeatedly debunked (OMG, Obama is a Muslin! OMG, Obama was born in Kenya!1one1!) helps no one in the political sphere, because it sullies the debate down to character assassination, outright lies and phony stories designed to take swipes at a candidate while keeping a politicians "hands clean".
But you keep clutching those pearls for me, MADem. I sure do appreciate you excusing one candidate's lack of support for my rights while repeatedly trying to paint another who has always supported them as a misogynist.
Keep mansplaining it to me, this is fascinating.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Keep mansplaining it to me, this is fascinating.
You are incapable of having a conversation without resorting to bizarre and meaningless personal invective.
You trot out the "pearl clutching" AND the "mansplaining".... all in one post?
The candidate in question, to whom you object, supports your rights--and never wrote any stupid essays about rape or multiple partner fantasies--or worse, thought they were good enough to allow them to be published. That's probably the greatest failure of judgment in this entire scenario!
You keep bringing up old news, you're gonna get old news--sorry if you don't like it, but one lousy, cheap shot turn does deserve another.
Have a nice day, now!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Most people who read it are adult enough to understand the intent and get past it.
Honestly the way you keep bringing up "rape fantasies" to women on DU is creepier than the essay itself.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Honestly the way you keep bringing up her "old views" is creepy and lame.
See how that works?
I only bring it up to point out what you're doing.
As I've said previously.
Not sure why you are suddenly "wondering" about it since I've made it very plain that if you're going to bring up ancient history, I'm going to return the favor. It's not a secret.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bringing up her record of wanting to ban late term abortions and not supporting lgbt rights is not "creepy".
The fact that you can't tell the difference between that and repeatedly bringing up rape fantasies to women is even more disturbing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You keep playing that disturbing little game--it all comes back on YOU. You show us all that you have no interest in facts, you simply want to stir the pot.
And I'll keep bringing up Bernie's big adventuresome essay every time you pull that cheap shot. I only do it because YOU keep misrepresenting. If you don't want to hear about stupid shit that "Bernie didn't really mean," then stop misrepresenting Clinton's positions.
Yeah, talk about "disturbing" ...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Her record on civil rights is very important to me and if Bernie had lobbied against same sex marriage or supported the abortion ban HC supporters would have every right to bring it up.
Hillary actively sought to restrict the rights of women and lgbt people and Bernie didn't.
When considering which candidate with "the Best Track Record on Women's Issues" that matters.
Your opinion that it doesn't won't change that fact.
MADem
(135,425 posts)along with all that other not-terribly-polite stuff, is fair game, too.
His record on his attitudes towards women (to say nothing of his understanding, or better still LACK OF understanding with regard to them) has plainly undergone an evolution.
If you're going to whine on about views that CLINTON DOES NOT HOLD, then we have a right to know about how Sanders' views on the "dependency" of women (and all those unsavory images he described in his lousy fiction) have evolved over time.
You don't like it? Too bad. You brought up old material that isn't operative, don't think you're the only one who gets to indulge in cheap shots. Because that is what you're doing.
When considering what candidate is best for women, that matters.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)From Hillary Clinton's changing views on gay marriage:
Yes, her need to evolve on civil rights matters a great deal.
Bernie always supported lgbt rights.
Of course, Clinton has since evolved on LGBT rights, as many have. That's wonderful. But the problem is, she only came out in support of marriage equality after it was not politically risky to do so. In fact, by 2013 - the year Clinton announced her full support for marriage equality - Democratic support for same-sex marriage was the norm, not the exception.
On such an important moral issue that affects my life and the lives of thousands of other Americans, making decisions in this manner is rather despicable. Additionally, Clinton's habit of doing what polls deem politically popular is the reason why so many voters find her inauthentic. Now, if Clinton were the only option for the Democratic presidential nomination, I would understand why we should support her despite these flaws.
But she isn't the only option.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, is also running for the nomination. And unlike Clinton, his record on LGBT rights is historically excellent.
Sanders voted against DOMA, one of the few members of Congress to do so, at a time when such a stance was not politically popular. Four years after DOMA passed, Sanders helped champion Vermont's decision in 2000 to become the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions. This set a national precedent for LGBT equality achieved via legislative means. In 2009, when Vermont became the first state to allow marriage equality through legislative action rather than a court ruling, Sanders expressed his support once again. Truly, Sanders has been a real leader on LGBT rights, even if this leadership isn't recognized in the way that Clinton's current support is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-novak/on-lgbt-rights-bernie-lea_b_7662682.html
Todays Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.
Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.
There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
In a letter he published in the early 1970s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday he has been waiting for the nation to catch up to his support for same-sex marriage.
Sanders remarks come a day after Fridays landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
He argued he was well ahead of the historic decision, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.
...
Sanders at the time served in the House of Representatives, which voted 342-67 in favor of DOMA. The Senate voted 85-14 in favor, before former President Bill Clinton signed it into law.
That was an anti-gay marriage piece of legislation, he added of the law that defined marriage at the federal level as the coupling of one man and one woman.
Sanders on Saturday praised Americans for creating greater opportunities for same-sex couples. Fridays Supreme Court ruling, he charged, was not possible without national pressure for gay rights.
No one here should think for one second this starts with the Supreme Court, Sanders said.
It starts at the grassroots level in all 50 states, he said. The American people want to end discrimination in all its forms.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246370-sanders-i-was-ahead-of-the-curve-on-gay-rights
Most Americans now support legally allowing gay and lesbian relationships, same-sex marriage, and personal marijuana use after decades of shifting public opinion. But one Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was calling for many of these changes decades ago.
In a 1972 letter to a local newspaper which was recently resurfaced by Chelsea Summers at the New Republic Sanders wrote that he supported abolishing "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" as part of his campaign for Vermont governor:
These stances were far removed from public opinion at the time, according to Gallup surveys on marijuana and gay and lesbian rights. In 1972, 81 percent of Americans said marijuana should be illegal which suggests even more would favor the prohibition of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. In 1977, the earliest year of polling data, 43 percent of Americans said gay and lesbian relations between consenting adults should not be legal, while 43 percent said they should be legal.
...
But it took decades for the American public to come around to majority support on these issues: It wasn't until 2013 that a majority of Americans supported marijuana legalization, the early 2000s that most consistently responded in favor of legal gay and lesbian relations, and 2011 that a majority first reported backing same-sex marriage rights.
Sanders has carried many of these positions to this day. He was one of the few federal lawmakers to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal ban on same-sex marriages, in the 1990s. And while he told Time's Jay Newton-Small in March that he has no current stance on marijuana legalization (but backs medical marijuana), he characterized the war on drugs as costly and destructive.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-rights
MADem
(135,425 posts)And everytime you do that, I will mention Bernie's pervy essay.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not nice to deliberately misrepresent a candidate's current stance on issues.
When people realize that is what you have been doing, it affects your reputation.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Start there.
Point it out.
MADem
(135,425 posts)See, you're caught dead to rights, right there.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Needed to evolve = evolved.
FAIL.
Next.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You were what is called "deliberately obtuse" and your words were sufficiently ambiguous so as to leave Clinton's actual positions unclear.
Thus "Man - and Woman" as a retort to that. A charming essay about dependency, rape, submission, and some horrible Freudian psychology. Poorly written drivel!
You're right that you failed with that bit of business. Big time.
Next, indeed. Better still: Just don't do it anymore.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I can't trust someone who needed to evolve on civil rights to support mine.
Hillary didn't support marriage equality until 2013.
She was for a ban on late term abortions as late as 2000.
Unlike Bernie she opposed equal rights for lgbt people and wanted to ban late term abortions.
And like I said neither 2013 or 2000 is ancient history.
Bringing up her record of wanting to ban late term abortions and not supporting lgbt rights is not "creepy".
Citing her civil rights record is not "misrepresenting" her position.
Her record on civil rights is very important to me and if Bernie had lobbied against same sex marriage or supported the abortion ban HC supporters would have every right to bring it up.
Hillary actively sought to restrict the rights of women and lgbt people and Bernie didn't.
Old material - she only started supporting marriage equality 2 years ago:
I'm glad she evolved and I give her credit for that as well as for her support of other women's issues.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Every time you do that, I'll be there with an essay.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Every time someone tells me Hillary has the best track record on women's rights I'll be there to cite the facts.
But nice back pedaling on the claim that I "misrepresented her current views."
I'll take that as an admission that you were wrong.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Like I said it's creepy that you need to keep doing that every time facts about Hillary's lack of support for civil rights are posted.
It's exactly what the right wing nut jobs do, they focus on sex instead of discussing the actual issues.
Hillary's track record on women's rights is inferior to Bernie's.
Period.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Oh, and calling ME a "right wing nut job?" Because I happen to think being accurate about a person's record matters?
There you go, getting PERSONAL yet again.
You are incapable of discussing the issues without tossing in some personal garbage. You should work on that. You should also work on accurately reflecting a candidate's POV if you want to be taken seriously. I've pretty much concluded that you don't really prioritize that, though.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If you don't like the comparison don't keep focusing on "rape fantasies" in a thread about Hillary's track record on women's rights.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)To be a gish gallop he'd need to throw out a basically random assortment of topics and demand you answer all of them.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Or are you saying that once those laws were removed, most women immediately stop feeling like they were still dependant? Do you also disbelieve PTSD?
You definitely do not want to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/My-Secret-Garden-Womens-Fantasies/dp/0704332949
MADem
(135,425 posts)You need to read the essay--he wasn't talking about "laws." He wasn't talking about PTSD.
And ya know what? He didn't write 'that' book, either.
smh. You're working overtime to defend something he thinks sucks.
It's Silly Putty season up in here! Stretch it to the max!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)didnt say a peep as others spoke
easy to choose a position when ones choice is silence.
he never uttered the word marriage equality until 2009.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He did choose a position: he voted against same sex marriage bans, that is his voicing his support of marriage equality.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Now that he's officially announced he will seek the Democratic nomination for president and challenge Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will be talking about his positions on major issues on the campaign trail, and one very big issue he has championed for years is gay marriage. Sanders, unlike some of his potential Republican opponents, seems like he would not turn down an invitation to a gay wedding (and he might actually get invited to one).
In 1996, then-Representative Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred recognition of gay marriage at the federal level (DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013). Sanders' and his home state of Vermont were the first to legalize same-sex unions in 2000, at first recognizing them as civil unions. Gay marriage has been legal in Vermont since 2009, and as The New York Times reported, Vermont was the first state to pass legislation in support of same-sex marriage, rather than in reaction to a court ruling.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/79951-bernie-sanders-views-on-gay-marriage-show-hes-been-a-supporter-for-a-long-time
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)voted against because it singled out gays.
because sanders stayed quiet does not give him credit for advocating for marriage equality. he did not speak those words until 2009.
snip
Obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth...from a rhinoceros. Last month, shortly after the decision of the Amestoy Court was issued, Mr. Sanders publicly tried walking the tightrope applauding the courts decision and the cause of equal rights without supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples.
This week we were no more successful getting a straight answer. All we did get was a carefully crafted non-statement statement via e-mail from Washington D.C. And Bernies statement wins him the Vermont congressional delegations Wishy-Washy Award hands down.
Once more he applauds the court decision but wont go anywhere near choosing between same-sex marriage and domestic partnership. By all accounts the legislature is approaching this issue in a considered and appropriate manner and I support the current process.
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/fuggedaboudit/Content?oid=2291039
2000 when asked he refused to answer and this was only on civil marriage. not even the step to marriage equality.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)In fact the reporter was pissed because Bernie wouldn't talk to him so he posted that hit piece.
Bernie didn't talk to him, sea.
I'll make this simple for you:
Not saying something is not the same thing as saying something.
Try again.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Does that mean Hillary supports barbecuing puppies because she never said she didn't?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I sent her an email asking if she would voice her opposition and she never replied.
Using your logic until she actually speaks out about bbq pups she supports it.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)And that would be why I can not take certain posters seriously.
Well, no, not really. The fact that Hillary was the standard bearer of triangulation on civil rights for decades is the elephant in this particular room. If there is a worse Democrat on civil rights issues, I can not think of who it could be. Some have certainly voted worse than her. But as president of the DLC she actively encouraged Democrats to soft peddle civil rights issues.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She panders to the right wing when she needs their votes, how are we supposed to trust her?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Of course, when we "go back in the archives" to talk about some of Sanders' views on things like "what women want" the howling and screeching is unrelenting. UNFAIR UNFAIR!!!!
riversedge
(70,092 posts)But many will never be satisfied.
The amateurish baiting is something to see!
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Instead of trying to tear down Hillary....
Why not just say both are great when it comes to women's issues? Because that's the truth.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm glad she evolved and I give her credit for that as well as for her support of other women's issues.
And citing Hillary's record is not "tearing" her down.
MADem
(135,425 posts)when I mention that Sanders said some dumbass shit in his past, too.
Please. You fool no one. If you were so GLAD you'd stop highlighting the old, and only mentioning the new when you get shoved into a corner.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The op also says
And her record on civil rights for women and lgbt people IS part of that past performance.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie never lobbied to restrict anyone's rights, instead he was speaking out about full equality 40 years ago:
Todays Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.
Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.
There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
In a letter he published in the early 1970s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:
Notice that not only did Sanders call for gay equality and an end to the drug war, he also talked about the need to tax corporations, end unjust overseas wars, heal the environment, and empower working people. If nothing else, Sanders has been extremely consistent.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
Let's abolish all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc).
What he said 40 years ago about equality matters more than an essay about gender stereotypes.
MADem
(135,425 posts)and he has disavowed.
Saying that women are "dependent" and they like to be raped is not a good civil rights look. YMMV but that's how I view it.
Now certainly, his views have changed over time, and that is a good thing.
The only reason I bring it up, and will continue to bring it up, is if you continue to mischaracterize Clinton's current views on issues. You can't be the only one who uses outdated material in an effort to "characterize."
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Needed to evolve = evolved.
Next.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Or I can mention that essay.
Next?
Just don't misrepresent candidates' positions, and you won't have any trouble.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And we'll be done.
I'll help, pick out which one misrepresented her current views:
I can't trust someone who needed to evolve on civil rights to support mine.
Hillary didn't support marriage equality until 2013.
She was for a ban on late term abortions as late as 2000.
Unlike Bernie she opposed equal rights for lgbt people and wanted to ban late term abortions.
And like I said neither 2013 or 2000 is ancient history.
Bringing up her record of wanting to ban late term abortions and not supporting lgbt rights is not "creepy".
Citing her civil rights record is not "misrepresenting" her position.
Her record on civil rights is very important to me and if Bernie had lobbied against same sex marriage or supported the abortion ban HC supporters would have every right to bring it up.
Hillary actively sought to restrict the rights of women and lgbt people and Bernie didn't.
Old material - she only started supporting marriage equality 2 years ago:
I'm glad she evolved and I give her credit for that as well as for her support of other women's issues.
MADem
(135,425 posts)you brought up old information (e.g. the YT clip) without any caveats.
You can gish gallop all day--anyone reading this can see what you are trying to do.
I can play that game, too:
Dependency, subservience and masochism--that's a real "hear me roar" characterization....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie Sanders 40 years ago:
Let's abolish all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc).
Todays Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.
Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.
There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
In a letter he published in the early 1970s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:
Notice that not only did Sanders call for gay equality and an end to the drug war, he also talked about the need to tax corporations, end unjust overseas wars, heal the environment, and empower working people. If nothing else, Sanders has been extremely consistent.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
MADem
(135,425 posts)present views with your old text and video.
One bad turn merits another.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You didn't like it so you brought up rape fantasies.
jfern
(5,204 posts)She fully supports it today, but in early 2013, when a majority of Americans were in favor, she was an opponent. And just a year ago, she thought it should be left up to the states. Most of the states got SSM because of federal courts, so being left up to the states would mean that most states, including even California, wouldn't have it now.
Sanders, O'Malley, Chafee, and Biden all supported SSM before her.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The state-by-state approach is what made the Supreme Court decision possible. Some state legislations passed SSM law, and other times, it came via court order, but in each and every case, the battle ground was at the STATE level. As each state fell and bans were lifted, it became more and more difficult for the Supreme Court to even be able to pretend that a preponderance of citizens weren't on the SSM side of things, and, more to the point, that they could mount an argument that the states had somehow made an error in granting marriage rights to all their citizens.
State-by-state is slower, but it usually sticks. Many leaders favored this approach because it's a Strength In Numbers strategy, and it's harder to undo. There is a graphic at this link that illustrates the concept very nicely:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/advancements-in-same-sex-marriage/
jfern
(5,204 posts)the ruling this year were because of federal courts because of the 2013 Hollingworth v. Perry Supreme Court case. So the Supreme Court was already involved.
MADem
(135,425 posts)imposing this upon those states; the states were active actors in the process. It was only when the tipping point was reached that the Supremes lowered the final boom on the fundies (and we see that at least one is having a fit of pique over it).
I think that helps a case, when the states have activists pushing to either enact or protect existing law.
jfern
(5,204 posts)At the time of the 2013 Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry rulings, these 13 states plus DC had SSM. And I'm counting ones that hadn't taken effect yet.
The 6 New England states
NY
PA
MD
DE
IA
MN
WA
These 2 states legalized legislatively after the 2013 rulings.
IL
HI
The 3 states had their Supreme Court legalize SSM, but cited the SCOTUS 2013 rulings, so the federal court rulings are still relevant.
NM
CO
NJ
The remaining 32 states, including California, got it directly because of federal court rulings.
MADem
(135,425 posts)any action or impetus on their part. The SC iced the cake, as well.
Cha
(296,875 posts)Do you have a link?
Thanks riversedge!
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Or Iranian women, or Honduran women or Saudi women etc etc. Try seeing outside the bubble.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)sure brought equality to Afghanistan women and children and men.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Neither women's rights nor human rights seem to apply when people are sitting on top of resources that imperialists want to manage for themselves. See also ISIS.
Guess what? Women never, ever win in the war of each against all.
reddread
(6,896 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)majority Democratic.
The rights of women and children are her strength.
The catch is that Republicans unfairly accuse her of all kinds of crazy things, and if the Republicans have the majority in Congress, they will not work with her or get things done if she is negotiating with them.
She speaks really well on women's and children's issues.
I think Bernie is more likely to be able to work with Republicans. He was an independent for years and worked well with Republicans when he was the mayor of Burlington, Vermont apparently.
He wins elections by appealing to both Republican and Democratic voters.
It's great that Hillary feels so deeply about the issues that are important to us women and to our children, but, and I realize this is a matter of opinion, I just don't think that a Republican Congress that does not like women's and children's issues anyway, would support her proposals for women and children.
If we elect Hillary, we will look back on Obama's eight years as a time of relative harmony between the parties.
If we elect Bernie, he will get the American people on his side on issue after issue and the Republicans will be voted out of Congress. I know that sounds impossible, but that is the way it will work.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--on issues.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and with some hundreds of widows, mothers, sisters, and daughters left after the Facusses' macheteros are done with the menfolk, with the rule of law shoved into the dirt and increasingly buried, her policies have propelled women's activism to new heights! brava!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)you might want to reboot