Are you having snideness or not having snideness? Make up your mind. Hillary has never been a presidential candidate, only a candidate for the democratic nomination for president. That’s the factual truth. You still haven’t told me which idiom you’d prefer I use for your ignorance, so I’ll go with “slept through that.”
Come on mate, this canard is false and you should know that. He “honeymooned in the USSR” because Burlington was a sister city with Yaroslavl, a city in the USSR. He was to visit the city on a set date, and he decided to get married just before his departure because he didn’t want to hold off his marriage any longer.
This entire thread has been silly, and the fact that you’re now giving out GOP-tier propaganda is not helping your case.
Is this a whoosh or for real?
If you’re asking whether its true or not, on a pedantic level, yes.
If you’re asking if he’s being serious, I certainly hope not.
Actually, I think I’ve made up my mind to not waste any more time on someone who refuses a direct request to stop insulting me. Have a nice day. I’m going back to sleep.
I’m sorry, but pointing out things you don’t know is not an insult. Actually, suggesting that you slept through it is the politest way I could have expressed it. If you find that bruises your ego too much, you should thank me for offering you an excuse to slink away from this thread after such a poor showing. I hope your candidate is made of tougher stuff.
Sure I’m serious. Mind you, I think it’s cool to have honeymooned in the USSR, as long as you did so knowing you have foreclosed any chance of becoming president. I have done plenty such things with no regrets.
Then you acknowledge that implying he was eager to honeymoon in the Soviet Union (which is what saying “Bernie Sanders honeymooned in the USSR” does) is disingenuous at best?
Only people who would never vote for him anyway are gonna care that Bernie once, right after he got married, and while Mayor of Burlington, went ahead as planned with his scheduled official visit to his city’s sister city.
Wow, it took you all of two simple sentences to completely demolish that attack and make the people advancing it look ridiculous. Exactly how much contempt would you have to have for the American people to fear that this is too much detail for them to grasp?
You’re losing track of what’s being discussed. You claimed that your position that government basically works was radical. When I pointed out that that’s the opposite of radical, you tried to claim radical centrism as a defense. When someone points out that, according to your own link, radical centrism requires “fundamental reform of institutions,” you defend it by offering other, completely unrelated views that might correctly be identified as radical.
Sure, okay–on fossil fuels and on guaranteed basic incomes, you might be the raddest dude in all Radicalville. But that’s not what we were talking about. We were talking about your silly claim that supporting the status quo in government institutions is radical.
Nope, don’t acknowledge anything in your leading question. What I said is what I said. There are definitely voters (say, suburban married Boomer women) who would choose Hillary over Rubio but flip the other way when they discover the avowed socialist has said in his own words that he honeymooned in the Soviet Union.
I note as well that he is now trying to demur and take it back and say he was joking, while admitting that he did travel there with his wife the day after their wedding. That, and comments like those from his defenders here, will just reinfotce that it would apparently be a seditious and regrettable thing to do. If it then becomes an endless argument on cable news as to whether he actually technically honeymooned in the USSR or not, then you have already lost.
The better of two bad options would be to agree that he honeymooned there and insist there is nothing wrong with it.
Aaaand, apparently you both slept through the whole Obama birth certificate truther thing, as well as the Obama secret Muslim thing. Please explain to me how it could possibly be true that you are aware of these two phenomena, yet think the Bernie the Commie Honeymooner would not be a goldmine attack vector for the opposition.
I believe you have overlooked the portion of that same post in which I cited the dictionary definition of “radical” as representing something unusual, out of the ordinary. My support of our political institutions as they are absolutely qualifies.
Wow. I thought you were kidding. This is totally full of shit, buddy. He went on a diplomatic trip right after his wedding. Will your hypothetical boomer wife remember Glasnost? Would she think a honeymoon in Jamaica means Sanders is a pothead?
He has a simple answer. “Even though I was just a mayor, I had international thoughts. So I was visiting my town’s sister city. It was about 3 years before the Berlin wall came down”.
Again: he himself has said many times that he honeymooned there. To take it back now sounds shifty and weaselly, which is not his brand.
Again, it is a trip they took right after their wedding. With 10 other people. To Burlingtons sister city. So it was a working honeymoon.
I’m fascinated to repeatedly hear this insistent clarification. What is it about the trip that you think is damaging when described simply as a honeymoon but which then evaporates as a concern when it is described as a working honeymoon or coincidental honeymoon in combination with the sister city trip? How is it that this explanation is seen as so crucial as to outweigh the inherent defensive sounding nature of it?
I did not overlook it; rather, I had trouble believing you expected me to take it seriously, so I treated it like a lame joke instead of like a serious attempt at making a point.
Seriously?
Okay. I’ll take it as given that you admit the “radical centrism” thing was a canard, and that your claim is reduced to claiming that your views are “radical” as in “unusual.”
Two which I have three responses:
- There’s nothing at all unusual about someone in a mainstream political party thinking that the government basically works. The very idea is ludicrous. Consider that a majority of the general public have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in the federal government’s commission of its duties, you’ve precious little evidence that the politicians responsible for those duties believe anything less on balance.
- The word “radical” may have a meaning of “unusual,” but surely anyone who’s taken a semester of polisci knows that it’s got a more specific meaning in a discussion of politics. Were you seriously unaware of that specific meaning when you made your claim, or were you deliberately choosing a word choice that obfuscated your meaning?
- This is an amazingly trivial point to hoist your own petard on. Why on earth can’t you just admit you made a foolish claim, and move on? Your politics, in this regard, are about as radical as Barry Manilow eating a vanilla cone at McDonald’s. That’s fine, nothing to be ashamed of, but applying the “radical” label to yourself in this respect is just silly.