Bernie Sanders for President

789 posts / 0 new
Last post
monty1

voice of the damned wrote:
monty1 wrote:

* I never use the word in anything other than it's true definition. No US bullshit.

 

So what's the true definition of "progressive" in Canada? Among other things, it refers to a political ideology rooted in agrarianism, which found a following in the party bearing the same name.

See the dictionary.com for the meaning of progressive. I reject it for any other use because it's been coined in the US and they now own it for it's political purposes. That definition, as they define it, is not suitable to be used to define a political agenda in Canada. For a complete understanding of what that means you will have to access their news media to discover all the ways they've abused the word. 

You may want to start with Fox News to find how they use it in a derogatory way.

monty1

For example: 1.favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially inpolitical matters

How can anybody in their right mind use the word in a derogatory way???

 

voice of the damned

monty1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
monty1 wrote:

* I never use the word in anything other than it's true definition. No US bullshit.

 

So what's the true definition of "progressive" in Canada? Among other things, it refers to a political ideology rooted in agrarianism, which found a following in the party bearing the same name.

See the dictionary.com for the meaning of progressive. I reject it for any other use because it's been coined in the US and they now own it for it's political purposes. That definition, as they define it, is not suitable to be used to define a political agenda in Canada. For a complete understanding of what that means you will have to access their news media to discover all the ways they've abused the word. 

You may want to start with Fox News to find how they use it in a derogatory way.

<

Well, the fact that Fox uses it in a derogatory way doesn't neccessarily mean that the definition is different, just that their opinion of the ideology described is different.

Fox might also scream "Government health-care is Socialism!!", and expect their audience to seethe in hatred when they hear it. But I'm not gonna stop calling myself a socialist just because Fox doesn't like the content behind the word.

monty1

voice of the damned wrote:
monty1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
monty1 wrote:

* I never use the word in anything other than it's true definition. No US bullshit.

 

So what's the true definition of "progressive" in Canada? Among other things, it refers to a political ideology rooted in agrarianism, which found a following in the party bearing the same name.

See the dictionary.com for the meaning of progressive. I reject it for any other use because it's been coined in the US and they now own it for it's political purposes. That definition, as they define it, is not suitable to be used to define a political agenda in Canada. For a complete understanding of what that means you will have to access their news media to discover all the ways they've abused the word. 

You may want to start with Fox News to find how they use it in a derogatory way.

<

Well, the fact that Fox uses it in a derogatory way doesn't neccessarily mean that the definition is different, just that their opinion of the ideology described is different.

 

Fox might also scream "Government health-care is Socialism!!", and expect their audience to seethe in hatred when they hear it. But I'm not gonna stop calling myself a socialist just because Fox doesn't like the content behind the word.

Nonsense! As the definition of the word said, progress, change, improvement, can't be used in a derogatory way by people who have hung onto their sanity. Don't be so contrary.

And don't try to confuse the issue by bringing the word 'socialism' into it. 

voice of the damned

monty1 wrote:

For example: 1.favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially inpolitical matters

How can anybody in their right mind use the word in a derogatory way???

 

Well, the dictionary definition you give is a tautology. Obviously, favouring change or reform, at least of bad things, is good. And if that's all it meant, yes, no one could possibly dislike the word.

But that definition would include something like "Putting up a stop sign on a street where there have been a lot of accidents". Who could possibly be against that? But if that were the generally-used political definiton of the word, I think you know there wouldn't be much point to using it.

When people call themselves "progressive", in a political context, what they usually mean is left-wing, just like when people call themselves "conservative" what they mean is "right-wing"(not "I just want to keep the good things from the past). So, while I'm happy to call myself left-wing and/or progressive, I'm not gonna pretent that saying you're anti-progressive is the same thing as saying "I'm against changing things for the better".

monty1

voice of the damned wrote:
monty1 wrote:

For example: 1.favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially inpolitical matters

How can anybody in their right mind use the word in a derogatory way???

 

 

Well, the dictionary definition you give is a tautology. Obviously, favouring change or reform, at least of bad things, is good. And if that's all it meant, yes, no one could possibly dislike the word.

 

But that definition would include something like "Putting up a stop sign on a street where there have been a lot of accidents". Who could possibly be against that? But if that were the generally-used political definiton of the word, I think you know there wouldn't be much point to using it.

 

When people call themselves "progressive", in a political context, what they usually mean is left-wing, just like when people call themselves "conservative" what they mean is "right-wing"(not "I just want to keep the good things from the past). So, while I'm happy to call myself left-wing and/or progressive, I'm not gonna pretent that saying you're anti-progressive is the same thing as saying "I'm against changing things for the better".

Yeah that's why I only use it in it's proper sense. Too mundane for my liking to continue.

voice of the damned

monty1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
monty1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
monty1 wrote:

* I never use the word in anything other than it's true definition. No US bullshit.

 

So what's the true definition of "progressive" in Canada? Among other things, it refers to a political ideology rooted in agrarianism, which found a following in the party bearing the same name.

See the dictionary.com for the meaning of progressive. I reject it for any other use because it's been coined in the US and they now own it for it's political purposes. That definition, as they define it, is not suitable to be used to define a political agenda in Canada. For a complete understanding of what that means you will have to access their news media to discover all the ways they've abused the word. 

You may want to start with Fox News to find how they use it in a derogatory way.

<

Well, the fact that Fox uses it in a derogatory way doesn't neccessarily mean that the definition is different, just that their opinion of the ideology described is different.

 

Fox might also scream "Government health-care is Socialism!!", and expect their audience to seethe in hatred when they hear it. But I'm not gonna stop calling myself a socialist just because Fox doesn't like the content behind the word.

Nonsense! As the definition of the word said, progress, change, improvement, can't be used in a derogatory way by people who have hung onto their sanity. Don't be so contrary.

Yes, but as I say, if that's your definition of "progressive", there is no point in using it in a political discussion, because it is so generic as to be without meaning. It's not like there is anyone who describes themselves "anti-improvement".

NorthReport

Thanks for your comments lagatta

Quote:
Steinem apologizes

Feminist writer Gloria Steinem has apologized for her remarks made this weekend about young women who support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton.

On Sunday Steinem posted to her Facebook page that she “misspoke” and did not mean to imply “young women aren’t serious in their politics”.

In a case of talk-show Interruptus, I misspoke on the Bill Maher show recently, and apologize for what’s been misinterpreted as implying young women aren’t serious in their politics.

What I had just said on the same show was the opposite: young women are active, mad as hell about what’s happening to them, graduating in debt, but averaging a million dollars less over their lifetimes to pay it back. Whether they gravitate to Bernie or Hillary, young women are activist and feminist in greater numbers than ever before.  

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/feb/07/rubio-trump-clinton-...

voice of the damned

monty1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
monty1 wrote:

For example: 1.favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially inpolitical matters

How can anybody in their right mind use the word in a derogatory way???

 

 

Well, the dictionary definition you give is a tautology. Obviously, favouring change or reform, at least of bad things, is good. And if that's all it meant, yes, no one could possibly dislike the word.

 

But that definition would include something like "Putting up a stop sign on a street where there have been a lot of accidents". Who could possibly be against that? But if that were the generally-used political definiton of the word, I think you know there wouldn't be much point to using it.

 

When people call themselves "progressive", in a political context, what they usually mean is left-wing, just like when people call themselves "conservative" what they mean is "right-wing"(not "I just want to keep the good things from the past). So, while I'm happy to call myself left-wing and/or progressive, I'm not gonna pretent that saying you're anti-progressive is the same thing as saying "I'm against changing things for the better".

Yeah that's why I only use it in it's proper sense. Too mundane for my liking to continue.

Well, sorry, but it seemed pretty obvious to me that you were using it in a political context...

"They will when they find that they are out of step with the left and not before. Socislism, the word, is now hanging on the balance beam of public opinion. Is it a bad word or has it become an acceptable word in that country. Likely it is still a bad word because they aren't nearly as *progressive as we in Canada."

But, this was an apolitical usage, just meaning that Americans don't generally make as many improvements in their lives as Canadians do? Okay, sure.

monty1

Ya know, and not alluding to you right now, but I know what causes a lot of the problems between me and some others on this board. Some people think they own an ideology and when a new person comes along and tries to trump that in another person, the other person becomes offended. You see, some of the others are posting stuff that may seem extremist but to which I can only commend. For example, one poster puts up a picture of Chomsky which suggests that all US presidents since Nuremburg should be hung. It's 100% correct fwiw.  Right out of the blue to demonstrate to others that he/she owns the left's extreme and to make it clear that nobody else owns it. While I personally know that I own as much as anyone, our leftist bent and I'm in competition to claim it from somebody else. Does that make sense to you? 

voice of the damned

monty1 wrote:
Does that make sense to you? 

No, I'm simply disagreeing with your implied strictures around the use of the word "progressive", not to your overall posting style or whatever agenda you are alleged to have. I think I've even been with you on one or two issues, haven't I(eg. Ms. Geroire's perfromance at MLK day)?

And I'm not sure what you're example of the Chomsky image is meant to illustrate. Are you saying that someone posted it to "claim ownership of the left"? Or that someome objected to it for that purpose?

Personally, I've heard the "Nuremberg" critique of US presidents dozens if not hundreds of times, so posting an image like that probably wouldn't have whatever shock effect is supposed to make me think that the poster is a righteous dude who owns the left. People can post it all they want, of course, though it's not really my style of debate.

monty1

voice of the damned wrote:
monty1 wrote:
Does that make sense to you? 

 

 

No, I'm simply disagreeing with your implied strictures around the use of the word "progressive", not to your overall posting style or whatever agenda you are alleged to have. I think I've even been with you on one or two issues, haven't I(eg. Ms. Geroire's perfromance at MLK day)?

 

And I'm not sure what you're example of the Chomsky image is meant to illustrate. Are you saying that someone posted it to "claim ownership of the left"? Or that someome objected to it for that purpose?

 

Personally, I've heard the "Nuremberg" critique of US presidents dozens if not hundreds of times, so posting an image like that probably wouldn't have whatever shock effect is supposed to make me think that the poster is a righteous dude who owns the left. People can post it all they want, of course, though it's not really my style of debate.

All I was saying is that some people don't want to be challenged by someone else on their agenda. Some people need to impress others by owning an agenda and don't like it when another appears who owns it just as much. 

I have to try to sit back a bit and re-evaluate the positions of many of the posters on this board. We got started off on the wrong foot and it was the huge amount of animosity being displayed for me because I am a Trudeau supporter. Now that is softening with some but with others it's not. 

My positions are becoming more clear here every day and so the one that left and is still regularly lurking in the background every day should have come to understand that I'm not the enemy. I can't imagine any reasonable explanation for that. Old bad feelings aside, things will get better with nearly everybody but NOT with a few. Go figure?

NorthReport

Sanders' sway over millennials is more of a 'dangerous moment' for Clinton

Goldman Sachs’ CEO Lloyd Blankfein inadvertently pushed young people closer to Democratic underdog who speaks their language of ‘economic angst’

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-money-blog/2016/feb/07/bernie-sand...

lagatta

Brava to Steinem for admitting that she misspoke. At least she realised that saying young women follow this or that candidate to meet boys is highly patriarchal and stereotypical.

In political and social movements, young people do hook up. There is nothing much sexier than shared ideals and working together. This is true of young women and young men, whether they are gay or straight. As we get older, alas we have more baggage... One could feel the energy - and the libido, in 2012 with the student movement. That is a good thing. It doesn't mean that they are a bunch of airheads.

NorthReport

Everyone is welcome to their point of view. 

Bernie Sanders will not be president

http://theweek.com/articles/599975/bernie-sanders-not-president

voice of the damned

NorthReport wrote:

Everyone is welcome to their point of view. 

Bernie Sanders will not be president

http://theweek.com/articles/599975/bernie-sanders-not-president

And from what I just skimmed, it's a pretty well-reasoned point of view. One thing, though...

"The problem is that Bernie Sanders isn't Barack Obama — and no, I'm not just talking about Obama's presumably much greater ability to mobilize the African-American vote."

I think that in the 2008 primaries, black voters were originally pretty skeptical about Obama, and only started to move into his corner when it became obvious that he enjoyed significant popularity among other demographics.

NorthReport

Bernie Sanders, the shape of things to come: Why his popularity is no fluke — and his way is the future

Whether or not he wins the nomination — and he very well might not! — Bernie represents something bigger than 2016

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/04/bernie_sanders_the_shape_of_things_to_co...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

For example, one poster puts up a picture of Chomsky which suggests that all US presidents since Nuremburg should be hung. It's 100% correct fwiw.  Right out of the blue to demonstrate to others that he/she owns the left's extreme and to make it clear that nobody else owns it. While I personally know that I own as much as anyone, our leftist bent and I'm in competition to claim it from somebody else. Does that make sense to you? 

You promised you were not going to engage me anymore. If you don't use my name do you really think it makes it any less of a personal attack. I don't want to engage you in any conversation because I have no time for your style of posting. So go away.

By the way there are many posters on this board who share views that are similar and we have never gotten into any pissing contest over who is the best leftist. I have been posting my views here for nearly 15 years so its not like I woke up this morning and decided that I had to prove that my views are left wing.

Here is a song that says what you are talking about but David does it well and with humour and I love it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvlWSnLxrrc

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta wrote:

Brava to Steinem for admitting that she misspoke. At least she realised that saying young women follow this or that candidate to meet boys is highly patriarchal and stereotypical.

In political and social movements, young people do hook up. There is nothing much sexier than shared ideals and working together. This is true of young women and young men, whether they are gay or straight. As we get older, alas we have more baggage... One could feel the energy - and the libido, in 2012 with the student movement. That is a good thing. It doesn't mean that they are a bunch of airheads.

Well said and I am also glad to hear that Steinem was able to admit her mistake.

I doubt if Madeleine Albright will do the same. I think that Clinton is showing her true colours when she has a war monger like Albright speaking on her behalf. The young people of both sexes who are being drawn to Sanders most likely view her as part of the problem not part of the solution.

Quote:

Maybe it wasn't such a great idea for Hillary Clinton to invite Madeleine Albright to campaign for her in New Hampshire.

During a campaign event in Concord on Saturday, the former Secretary of State declared: "Young women have to support Hillary Clinton. The story is not over!"

"They’re going to want to push us back," she continued. "It’s not done and you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you. And just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/07/rebuke-swift-after-albright-...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I liked this commentary and especially liked the embedded chart showing the real differences between Hillary and Bernie.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isaac-saul/i-despise-hillary-clinton-gende...

NorthReport

That's great.

And the energetic rallies for Sanders show no signs of abating.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is an ad on youtube that I quite liked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP7GVngc-bM

Brachina

lagatta wrote:

Brava to Steinem for admitting that she misspoke. At least she realised that saying young women follow this or that candidate to meet boys is highly patriarchal and stereotypical.

In political and social movements, young people do hook up. There is nothing much sexier than shared ideals and working together. This is true of young women and young men, whether they are gay or straight. As we get older, alas we have more baggage... One could feel the energy - and the libido, in 2012 with the student movement. That is a good thing. It doesn't mean that they are a bunch of airheads.

 

 Bullshit, Gloria meant what she said, every word of it because she was using a mental project fallacy, she's only sorry people called her on it.

 Gloria has a history with the CIA and wealthy rightwing men and their money, she's as much as servant of wall street as Hillary. Only Bernie can break America's shackles.

NorthReport

Well if underdogs Denver can do it maybe so can Bernie.

It appears Bernie had a good day today holding a rally earlier with 3,000 supporters

Clinton wasn't even in New Hampshire today

NDPP

 Democratic Establishment Starts To Gang Up on Bernie Sanders

http://hill.cm/j2H92Hy

"Democratic lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol are turning their fire on Bernie Sanders as he marches toward a big win in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary."

NorthReport

t’s almost over for Hillary: This election is a mass insurrection against a rigged system

Sanders has ended the coronation and fired up the grass roots. Now Clinton's electability argument is crumbling too

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/07/its_almost_over_for_hillary_this_electio...

-----------------------

Bill Clinton, After Months of Restraint, Unleashes Stinging Attack on Bernie Sanders  Laughing

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/bill-clinton-after-months-...

NorthReport

It sure appears now Sanders won the popular vote in Iowa. 

lagatta

Yes, supporting Albright for "feminist" reasons is pretty much like supporting Maggie T. At least no feminists did that!

I liked the "I'm a better anarchist" song - and I don't always enjoy Rovics. Of course his character could have been a Marxist, an ecologist or many other lefty subspecies. But I really don't "get" someone supporting the Fiberals and at the same time playing more leftist than though. It doesn't compute... The whole schtick infuriates me because I live so close to Trudeau's riding, where there are huge social and economic problems that aren't going to be solved by sunny ways.

NDPP

Given his expanded commitment to the US-led ME coalition of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and his determination to complete the multi-billion dollar arms sale to Saudi, maybe what he  really meant was 'Sunni, Sunni ways'..

NorthReport

New England lawyers mobilize to ensure fair vote

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/02/06/new-england-law...

NorthReport

Insiders: Bernie Sanders is winning the economic argument

'Clinton's message is a laundry list of center-left specific proposals, with little universal theme,' said one New Hampshire Democrat. 'Sanders is the opposite.'

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/insiders-bernie-sanders-is-winning...

NorthReport

Why we think Bernie Sanders is the best choice for president: panel

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/08/bernie-sanders-best...

NorthReport

Americans must be getting to know Bernie now as he has almost pulled even with Hillary in the Democratic national polls.

Bernie Sanders may win big this week. Our panelists share why he has their vote

The senator from Vermont is an idealistic truth teller who wants to rebuild our society’s faulty foundations

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/08/bernie-sanders-best...

Brachina

http://tinyurl.com/zxycefp

 Some info on Gloria & her CIA and rich rightwing money ties.

Aristotleded24

Can someone please explain to me why Clinton is even worried about New Hampshire? All things considered, Sanders can expect to have an edge as his home state is next door, and there aren't that many votes to be had there. And already pundits are dismissing Sander's expected victory in New Hampshire on those grounds. I think a more tactically sound approach would have been to pull out of New Hampshire entirely and focus on winning states like Florida, the Carolinas, etc. As it is, she is showing panic, and a lack of confidence is not good for campaigns, as evidenced by the antics of Madeline "vote-for-Hillary-or-burn-in-hell" Albright.

monty1

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Can someone please explain to me why Clinton is even worried about New Hampshire? All things considered, Sanders can expect to have an edge as his home state is next door, and there aren't that many votes to be had there. And already pundits are dismissing Sander's expected victory in New Hampshire on those grounds. I think a more tactically sound approach would have been to pull out of New Hampshire entirely and focus on winning states like Florida, the Carolinas, etc. As it is, she is showing panic, and a lack of confidence is not good for campaigns, as evidenced by the antics of Madeline "vote-for-Hillary-or-burn-in-hell" Albright.

It's easy to understand. Clinton will start to look like a loser when she loses bigtime in N.H. It's the same reason why she had to win big in Iowa. We are at the appearance stage of the whole thing right now and the big wins that are coming are dependent to a large degree on these small ones.

Think of it being absolutely for Bernie to have a chance. He won't lose N.H. but if he did then he would be finished.

Gustave

monty1 wrote:
It's easy to understand. Clinton will start to look like a loser when she loses bigtime in N.H.

I think this is indeed the main reason.

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I liked this commentary and especially liked the embedded chart showing the real differences between Hillary and Bernie.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isaac-saul/i-despise-hillary-clinton-gende...

Sanders' record on gay-rights is a little more complicated than that chart makes out.

It's true that he advocated repeal of all anti-homosexuality laws when running for governor in the 1970s, but that was as a candidate for a fringe party that didn't have a hope in hell of coming anywhere near a victory, so he wasn't exactly sticking his neck out there. Plus, at the time, that position simply meant repealing "sodomy laws", not implementing anti-discrimination or marriage equality measures.

His record as a professional, elected politician is a little more mixed...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders#LGBT...

Still pretty good overall, but not quite the "Lifelong Supporter Of Full Equality" that his campaign is now trying to project.

monty1

voice of the damned wrote:

 

 

Sanders' record on gay-rights is a little more complicated than that chart makes out.

 

It's true that he advocated repeal of all anti-homosexuality laws when running for governor in the 1970s, but that was as a candidate for a fringe party that didn't have a hope in hell of coming anywhere near a victory, so he wasn't exactly sticking his neck out there. Plus, at the time, that position simply meant repealing "sodomy laws", not implementing anti-discrimination or marriage equality measures.

 

His record as a professional, elected politician is a little more mixed... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders#LGBT...

 

Still pretty good overall, but not quite the "Lifelong Supporter Of Full Equality" that his campaign is now trying to project.

We're going to see whether 'full equality' is a winning issue in that country. I very much doubt it but it's only part of his agenda. They still hate France and I know they hate "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" as I've found on other forums where one can turn an American into a frothing at the mouth rage by mentioning that that is what they lack. 

It's now teetering on the knife edge on popularity between the two nationally. Elizabeth Warren's handlers are guaging it very closely for her, as she herself is undoubtedly doing. When Elizabeth endorses then I would say it's a done deal for Bernie. While she doesn't, it's still Clinton has it in the bag.

That's my political read. Agree?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

VoD that is very true. 

It isn't as bad as Tommy Douglas who during his time in politics believed homosexuality, even though decriminalized, should be “recognized for what it is — a mental illness, a psychiatric condition, which ought to be treated sympathetically by psychiatrists and social workers?”‘ Of course that was not his view at the end of his career.

Your objection is valid and its like my objection, as an advocate for people with disabilities, to the cult of Nellie McClung.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is Bernie's response to Albright's special place in hell comment.

https://www.facebook.com/Women4Bernie/videos/1711442132402292/?fref=nf

NorthReport

Sweet! Smile

voice of the damned

monty1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

 

 

Sanders' record on gay-rights is a little more complicated than that chart makes out.

 

It's true that he advocated repeal of all anti-homosexuality laws when running for governor in the 1970s, but that was as a candidate for a fringe party that didn't have a hope in hell of coming anywhere near a victory, so he wasn't exactly sticking his neck out there. Plus, at the time, that position simply meant repealing "sodomy laws", not implementing anti-discrimination or marriage equality measures.

 

His record as a professional, elected politician is a little more mixed... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders#LGBT...

 

Still pretty good overall, but not quite the "Lifelong Supporter Of Full Equality" that his campaign is now trying to project.

We're going to see whether 'full equality' is a winning issue in that country.

Well, let's put it this way. Obama announced his support for marriage equality in May 2012, and managed to win the next election with only a slightly reduced majority. Not that most of his supporters were neccesaarily voting FOR marriage equality, just that they obviously weren't voting AGAINST it.

So, I'm not sure why the issue would suddenly become a Democrat-killer this time around. I dunno, MAYBE with the SCOTUS decision last year, you might have right-wingers who were living in "non-equality" states outraged that they're suddenly being forced to live in an "equality" state, and might vote for a Republican who somehow plans to reverse Obergefell v. Hodges(Cruz would be the best bet). But the vast majority of those people would probably have voted Republican anyway.

NorthReport

Oh, oh, more trouble for the Clintons.

Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Well, let's put it this way. Obama announced his support for marriage equality in May 2012, and managed to win the next election with only a slightly reduced majority. Not that most of his supporters were neccesaarily voting FOR marriage equality, just that they obviously weren't voting AGAINST it.

Before Svend became the first openly gay MP by announcing the obvious many of his advisers said it would cost him votes and they needed his voice so don't take the chance. The next election he increased his winning margin because people like politicians who are willing to stand for what they believe in even if it is not the majority view.

monty1

voice of the damned wrote:
monty1 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

 

 

Sanders' record on gay-rights is a little more complicated than that chart makes out.

 

It's true that he advocated repeal of all anti-homosexuality laws when running for governor in the 1970s, but that was as a candidate for a fringe party that didn't have a hope in hell of coming anywhere near a victory, so he wasn't exactly sticking his neck out there. Plus, at the time, that position simply meant repealing "sodomy laws", not implementing anti-discrimination or marriage equality measures.

 

His record as a professional, elected politician is a little more mixed... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders#LGBT...

 

Still pretty good overall, but not quite the "Lifelong Supporter Of Full Equality" that his campaign is now trying to project.

We're going to see whether 'full equality' is a winning issue in that country.

 

Well, let's put it this way. Obama announced his support for marriage equality in May 2012, and managed to win the next election with only a slightly reduced majority. Not that most of his supporters were neccesaarily voting FOR marriage equality, just that they obviously weren't voting AGAINST it.

 

So, I'm not sure why the issue would suddenly become a Democrat-killer this time around. I dunno, MAYBE with the SCOTUS decision last year, you might have right-wingers who were living in "non-equality" states outraged that they're suddenly being forced to live in an "equality" state, and might vote for a Republican who somehow plans to reverse Obergefell v. Hodges(Cruz would be the best bet). But the vast majority of those people would probably have voted Republican anyway.

Look at the whole picture. Just because 'marriage equality' was supported by Obama doesn't mean it was a part of his winning strategy. It 'could' have been. Any politician who is worth  his salt will throw in a few of his own personal priorities or his party's priorities even if they aren't going to capture the imagination of the whole electorate. Obamacare? 

So we support Obama for getting marriage equality in there but we can still understand that it could have been very risky. 

Equate that thinking to Trudeau and his accomplishments so far. The hate for Harper became so great that nearly anything that opposed Harper was safe ground for Trudeau. You could say that it's the reason why he's going to get away with bringing the 6 bombers home when 70% of the people are opposed to him doing that. And a lot of NDP'ers are making it transparently obvious that they are among the opposers now. Just listen to them!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is Gloria Steinem and other feminists supporting Bernie in 1996 when he first ran for Senator against a woman.

http://usuncut.com/politics/watch-gloria-steinem-endorse-bernie-sanders-...

NorthReport

I wish.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Have Defeated Hillary Clinton's Political Machine

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-and-elizab_1_b_...

voice of the damned

Monty: If you read my post again, I explicitly stated that supporting SSM may very well NOT have been a reasoon for Obama's 2012 victory.

The point was, however, that it didn't hurt him. That is, very few people switched from Democrat to Republican over that issue.

monty1

voice of the damned wrote:
Monty: If you read my post again, I explicitly stated that supporting SSM may very well NOT have been a reasoon for Obama's 2012 victory.

 

The point was, however, that it didn't hurt him. That is, very few people switched from Democrat to Republican over that issue.

O.K. Votd, you've got it!

Pages