fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Does it really matter who threw the softball? Warren felt she needed to be on record on this issue.
By the way, the guy in the audience who asked the question was Morgan Cox, one of Elizabeth Warren's corporate megadonors. In other words, it was staged. Welcome back to 2016.
Citation?1983 if not earlier
NYT said:On June 24, 1983, Mr. Sanders approved a resolution proclaiming June 25 to be Gay Pride Day, writing, “In a free society we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyles.”
NYT said:In November 2000, just before Election Day, Mr. Sanders and the state’s two senators accompanied Robert T. Stafford, the 87-year-old Republican elder statesman, to a news conference where Mr. Stafford asked, “What is the harm?” in allowing gay unions. When it came time for Mr. Sanders to speak, he deplored the demonization of gay people but complained that the virulent opposition to civil unions diverted attention from prescription drug costs, health care and other economic issues.
“There are a dozen other issues out there that are as important or more important as that issue,” he said.
[...]
In 2006, Mr. Sanders, trying to make the leap into the Senate, seemed to shy away from the issue. Asked in a debate against his Republican opponent whether the federal government should overturn laws on same-sex marriage, he argued that it was a states’ rights issue. When asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, he said, “Not right now, not after what we went through.”
As Gay Rights Ally, Bernie Sanders Wasn’t Always in Vanguard
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/...-bernie-sanders-wasnt-always-in-vanguard.html
He liked his gay friends in 1983,
NYT said:On June 24, 1983, Mr. Sanders approved a resolution proclaiming June 25 to be Gay Pride Day, writing, “In a free society we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyles.”
But it wasn’t a full-throated roar for gay marriage, by any stretch. Because later,
NYT said:In November 2000, just before Election Day, Mr. Sanders and the state’s two senators accompanied Robert T. Stafford, the 87-year-old Republican elder statesman, to a news conference where Mr. Stafford asked, “What is the harm?” in allowing gay unions. When it came time for Mr. Sanders to speak, he deplored the demonization of gay people but complained that the virulent opposition to civil unions diverted attention from prescription drug costs, health care and other economic issues.
“There are a dozen other issues out there that are as important or more important as that issue,” he said.
[...]
In 2006, Mr. Sanders, trying to make the leap into the Senate, seemed to shy away from the issue. Asked in a debate against his Republican opponent whether the federal government should overturn laws on same-sex marriage, he argued that it was a states’ rights issue. When asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, he said, “Not right now, not after what we went through.”
1983 if not earlier
Really? I’d be very interested in a link demonstrating that.
As Gay Rights Ally, Bernie Sanders Wasn’t Always in Vanguard
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/...-bernie-sanders-wasnt-always-in-vanguard.html
He liked his gay friends in 1983,
But it wasn’t a full-throated roar for gay marriage, by any stretch. Because later,
Those are articles I found as well. I don't fault Sanders for not being with the present day times 36 years ago. We all know him as a progressive. As far as I can remember, there was no talk of gay marriage in the 80's by anyone.
HRC voted for DOMA. It's not about LGBTQ issues.By the way, the guy in the audience who asked the question was Morgan Cox, one of Elizabeth Warren's corporate megadonors. In other words, it was staged. Welcome back to 2016.
Morgan Cox is on the board of HRC. It would make sense that he would donate to candidates who he felt were supportive of LGBTQ issues.
Probably nothing because he's rich? Is that some kind of gotcha?BTW, how much did Cox donate to Bernie, that champion of LGBTQ rights?
Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.
I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.
Competence over ideology every time.
Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.
I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.
Competence over ideology every time.
Either way, coming from a liberal, it's a pathetically lukewarm response. #appeasement
Fundy: "Real MarriageTM is between a (real) man and a (real) woman.
Warren : "That's nice"
It's a perfect response that frame the issue the only way it should be framed, a matter of personal choice where no one has any say on anyone's marriage but their own.
If you believe marriage is X, they you should make your own marriage X and that is the only relevance your belief has.
Yes, it's become the standard goto rebuttal used by the liberal left for everything.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like same sex marriage? Don't have one.
But notice how this doesn't work in both directions.
Don't think climate change is a problem? Fine. Ignore Greta Thunberg.
Gun stockpiling? Where's the problem. Nobody is forcing you to own guns.
Uncomfortable with fluid gender theory? Easy - you don't have to accept non-binary pronouns.
On literally every issue you people claim to care about as "progressives", there is no comparison to be made between Bernie and Liz that doesn't put Bernie miles ahead and decades before Liz and everybody else. If you really care about these issues, join the movement that backs the most consistent and principled advocate for them.
...I realize that authoritarians (aka Theists) like yourself have no concept of morality based upon causing harm to other person
Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.
I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.
Competence over ideology every time.
On literally every issue you people claim to care about as "progressives", there is no comparison to be made between Bernie and Liz that doesn't put Bernie miles ahead and decades before Liz and everybody else. If you really care about these issues, join the movement that backs the most consistent and principled advocate for them.
You've provided zero evidence that Bernie is at all ahead of Liz on LGBT issues. Plus, any person who actually cares about those issues and the people impacted wouldn't give flying fuck which one went on record first as being pro gay marriage. What matters is their actual policies and the sincerity of their current stated views. And like almost all other issues, Liz's LGBT platform is at least if not more thorough, thought out, and sensible than what Bernie has presented. And Liz has fought consistently for the LGBT community since she entered political office.
Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.
I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.
Competence over ideology every time.
How does the public benefit by "reigning them in again"? Most people need loans to buy a house, buy a car, finance working capital for a company, and etc. How does it help to make it more difficult to get loans? Would it be better to prevent another banking collapse. Absolutely. But she seems to be more intent on just hurting banks. And that will hurt all of us.
Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.
I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.
Competence over ideology every time.
I fully support the violent disruption of the health insurance industry. They have been rent seeking on human lives since the industry first started.
This said, I agree that Warren is generally the most competent.
To make an analogy here, I have a friend. Let's call him S. S has, all his life, been pretty far left. He was left when we were kids, and he's now involved in politics as a democrat. I think he may have even won an election or two. The point is, he has more "experience" in politics than I do, and bangs on the same drum as Bernie, at about the same volume.
Thing is, S is, and always has been, an idiot. He doesn't think things through, and his arguments often go into spin and talking points. I do not respect his political positions, correct as they may be, because he believes them religiously rather than coming to them with hard-fought reason through the battlefield of doubt.
Bernie strikes me as much the same: he has always echoed the message of the far left, which is a correct message... But he comes to it with his heart, only seeing the destination he believes in.
Warren, well, she's more like me. She had some beliefs, positions, and actions that she started to doubt. As a product of that doubt, did her best to ask what right really looked like. She moved left, and kept moving. And as a result of that movement, she learned and understands her position. She has not been in her position as long, but she understands it much better. She sees that it isn't just about where you think you should be, but also about making a real plan to get there.
To that end, I support Warren. Because I think Bernie is blinded in his own beliefs, much like my friend S. Warren is clearly not blinded by belief, but sees with eyes of doubt.