-
“that the Democratic Party passes the most progressive platform in its history” I’d rather we win vs Trump.
-
*we must ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons, * Useless and political grandstanding.
-
*end the gun show loophole * there is no such loophole.
-
- making public colleges and universities tuition free *- No. Make them reasonable so that no one has to incur a huge debt, yes. But not free.
Then you should have no objection if we ban it?
Depends on how you look at it, I guess. I agree that the PP thing was all about the fact that they didn’t support him, and he was looking for an excuse to denigrate their choice of Hillary. To me their endorsement was a no-brainer anyway, but it was a slap in the face to him that it was the first time they’ve ever done it in a primary.
The ‘unqualified’ thing was a joke, and goes more to show the socialist fantasy world that Bernie lives in. When you add in the debate, it definitely didn’t look good. I remember the talking heads making the point that it could be seen as misogynist.
Ultimately, I think it was more about Bernie being all about Bernie than any sexism. Consciously he didn’t want to alienate anyone; he needed every possible vote he could get. But there could be a component in there; he is, after all, from a far less tolerant time.
It bears remembering that the ‘60s counterculture that formed Sanders’ politics was, for all its egalitarian aims, deeply chauvinistic. The men decided what got done and made the plans; the gals were expected to agree and pitch in. The more I observe of Sanders, the more he strikes me as an anachronism of the '60s activist left, from his casual, unthinking gender bias to his belief in the charismatic individual (Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy) as the most powerful agent of change, as opposed to diffuse, grassroots organizing that he talks about but doesn’t actually seem to know how to do.
I can agree with someone on everything, but if he tells me that is opinion is *obviously *right and that I *have *to agree with him, then he can go fuck himself.
If its Bernie being Bernie, then perhaps Bernie is sexist?
I say this because a lot of this behavior from men in my professional life has been excused by other men as “oh, that’s just Dave” - but its not “just Dave” Its “Just Dave around women.” And the women see it, Dave interrupts them and other women, steals their ideas, and the ideas of other women, insinuates (or states) that the women are unqualified or unknowledgeable, not the men. And, of course, there is the “not quite sexual harassment” that is oh so darn effective. References to emotion, clothing, or appearance. Granted Dave is often an asshole to men- but he is a more respectful asshole - he disagrees on merits. He gives credit. He’s unpleasant and obstructionist - but not insulting.
Yes, since I’d have a objection if you banned Unicorns too. Especially if that definition of unicorns was so broad as to include horses.
Define it first, show that it’s an issue next, then you can ban it.
Open primaries also expose the Democrats to this, as such a candidate, if they got traction, could conceivably do very well with centrist and right-of-center unaffiliated voters, especially if that year’s Republican candidate was god awful (like say, this year.)
Bernie’s May fundraising numbers are out. While his rallies may have drawn crowds, the $27 folks certainly tapered off in May.
He raised substantially less than Clinton, bringing in 15.6 million compared to Clinton’s 26.2 million. However, as critical as I’ve been of Sanders, I will give him credit for not going in debt up to his eyeballs. His campaign has 9.2 million in cash at the end of May. This means he won’t need to make a deal to help retire campaign debt.
From here…
“Background checks are not required under federal law for intrastate firearm transfers between private parties.”
When people say they want to close the gun show loophole this is what they are referring to. A reasonable person could believe that gun show loophole is a poorly word term for this, but it is certainly well defined.
It’s not a loophole and it doesn’t necessarily (and in fact at least out here-never) occurs at gun shows. ego, there’s no “gun show loophole” It’s just another made up phrase like “Assault Weapon”.
Ps, let’s stick with the OP, from here on it. This isnt quite a hijack, but it could become one. and we have a zillion threads about this.
No one noticed, but Bernie certainly seemed today to admit he’s lost.
Yeah, he seems to have dropped into irrelevance pretty quickly - faster than I’d thought he would, actually.
Sanders gets a small amount of coverage on the political blogs, but the interview where he admits he probably won’t be the nominee was aired on C-span. Everyone has moved on from Sanders except for some die hards on social media and the random ‘activist group planning a protest at the convention.’
Perhaps it’s because the country has taken a more conservative turn with the rise of the Tea Party, coupled with the economic problems that surfaced under Bush and have not fully recovered under Obama, combined with the dissatisfaction arising in the Occupy Wall Street movement, showing that maybe there’s a segment of the population that is open to a more progressive platform than Hillary, or really any mainstream Democrat, was going to provide. Maybe this is the first time he thought he had a chance to be a player on the big stage. I mean, he possibly felt like it 4 years ago but realized with Obama the sitting President, he didn’t have a chance.
Calling Planned Parenthood “establishment” was a bit dunderheaded.
While finger-stabbing motions are generally a bad form for a politician (too easily misconstrued or misrepresented by opposition), I thought interrupting your opponent was a highly frequent behavior all around this election cycle. I certainly didn’t notice him doing it more than she did.
First off, Obama, Kerry, and other male Democrats weren’t running at the time he made that comment. Second, that comment was in response to a comment where he was asked what he thought about Hillary saying that he was unqualified, so he was just trying to flip her term back on her by describing the things he thought were her flaws and qualification issues.
I can’t argue that it isn’t used more frequently as a criticism towards women, but this doesn’t seem like a justified example of that.
While it does seem like projection to me, I will admit to being male and therefore not having the same perspective, and less likely to notice those slights.
It’s all past the point, but no it wasn’t.
It was in a speech to supporters at Temple University part of his prepared remarks, in which he made up a quote that Clinton had never said: “We have won, we have won seven out of eight of the recent primaries and caucuses. And she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president. Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don’t believe that she is qualified …”
I thought he was responding tothis Washington Post article.
Presumably that article was the excuse. But again, no, he did not say it “in response to a comment where he was asked what he thought about” what she said; he brought it up unprompted. And in fact the article had no quote of her saying he was “quote unquote, not qualified to be president.” He made that quote up. (The actual interview was the interviewer trying hard to get her to say he was not qualified, after his flubbed interview in which he appeared to be lacking any meat to his plans, and her refusing to do so.)
Really a minor point by now, just a clarification of something inaccurately stated.
Sanders has an editorial in the Washington Post today about what he, oops his ‘revolution,’ wants.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/23/bernie-sanders-heres-what-we-want/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
A bunch of big words and big dreams without a lot of specifics. However, although he mentions universal voter registration, there’s not a word about changing the Democratic electoral process. I guess he’s been told in no uncertain terms that eliminating super delegates is off the table , since the Congressional Black Caucus supports them. Perhaps he was told that the more likely reform is to reduce the number of caucuses?
There is also not a word about the Democratic Party Chair.
I thought he made a very aggressive physical move (a “power play”, as you say) against a diminutive young political reporter who asked a question he didn’t like. It was caught on camera by the Showtime political documentary show The Circus. His wife Jane was there, and seemed to be nervous/tense about it: she sort of grimaced and said “Calm down”. I posted about it here at the time, but everyone seemed to dismiss it completely.
Right, and the irony is that traditionally it was progressive Democrats who resisted open primaries. I guess we’ve seen a shift in terms of the youngest left wingers not feeling it’s cool to register with the party; but who knows, as you point out, how that might shake out in the future.