2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFraDon
(519 posts)Talks the talk ~ Walks the walk. Heartfelt constancy throughout his public life.
We ask for the support of all people who are disgusted with the status quo and who demand basic social change in this state and country.
Response to FraDon (Reply #1)
moobu2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)TBF
(32,160 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)If you want OP you can edit your letter and use this one.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Just setting up a point of comparison. No need to get emotional.
Did she have an opinion? If so, did she express it? If so, what was it?
George II
(67,782 posts)It's really getting tiresome seeing this site being flooded with Sanders 40+ year old positions.
What matters is where the candidates stand on issues TODAY, not generations ago.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)As a general rule, politicians lie during campaigns. They are most likely to be lying when they have a "newly-evolved" position. Many, many times the new position arises only because it polls well. Since the candidate doesn't actually believe it, they will only be providing lip service while in office.
Showing that Sanders has campaigned on equal rights since at least 1972 shows that he is very unlikely to be lying about his position on this issue. First, he's been doing it for a very long time. Second, it probably really hurt in 1972.
thesquanderer
(12,002 posts)but this kind of thing is helpful to Sanders because it goes right to the heart of many people's critical perceptions of HRC, that she is something of a "whichever way the wind blows" politician.
In 2008, I supported John Edwards, despite thinking he was a "whichever way the wind blows" candidate... I doubted he had much in the way of sincere convictions, but he was saying the things I was most in favor of, and I hoped that, even if he wasn't genuinely so deeply committed to them, if those were the positions that got him elected, those would be the positions he would govern from (especially since he would presumably have wanted to be re-elected four years later). But my support was not entirely enthusiastic because of that perception... I'd rather have supported someone who I thought really felt deeply about these things, but such a candidate was not to be found. I think this may be an important factor for Sanders, this consistency over 40+ years says something, so I do not think it is irrelevant.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...40 years later, when it was politically expedient to do so. She gets credit for that. But...always a follower, never a leader.
dsc
(52,175 posts)There is no way in Hell that Sanders meant in that letter to extend marriage equality to gays. The context of those times would have been to end anti sodomy laws (which is why he put it next to adultery). And no, Hillary Clinton didn't favor laws against sodomy until 2012. And it is a flat out lie to say she did.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)She did admit (sort of) her IRW vote was a mistake a decade later. Sanders opposed it from the beginning. It's the difference between knowing what is right, and political triangulation.
dsc
(52,175 posts)or lie about gay history. I was alive in 1972. I know god dammed good and well what a plank such as that would have referred to back then. There is no way in Hell that such a plank applied to marriage equality. It was all about anti sodomy laws which people were trying to get off the books. Again, that is why adultery is linked with homosexuality in the platform (both were illegal under many state laws). If you don't know that, you have literally no business discussing these issues. If you do know that and typed what you typed then you are being dishonest.
George II
(67,782 posts)....reading the context of that letter, he never addressed marriage equality - he addressed "laws dealing with.....sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)"! He parenthetically lumped adultery in with homosexuality, and the catch-all "ETC."!!!
There is no indication of his position on gay marriage whatsoever - to extrapolate what he said in that blanket statement into saying he was in favor of gay marriage is ludicrous. Many who believe(d) in so-called "equal rights" for gays still were against gay marriage.
Also ludicrous is the question "anyone know where Sec. Clinton was on this issue in '72"! As a matter of fact, she was still in law school earning her law degree, not running for public office.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)He died of AIDS. And my first college roommate was gay, in 1974. I know the issue. Sanders was far ahead of Clinton on the issue. It's too bad a simple fact causes your head to explode.
dsc
(52,175 posts)There is no way in Hell he was calling for marriage equality back then. It is nothing short of a lie to say he was. Yes he was good on the issue (though I have no idea if she was in favor of removing those laws (against adultery and sodomy) back then or not). She might well have been in favor of doing so. BTW Arkansas made sodomy a misdomeaner while Bill Clinton was AG reducing it from a felony. Surely not perfect but it is Arkansas for crying out loud.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)The focus at the time may have been elsewhere, but his statement is a sweeping one.
dsc
(52,175 posts)that was also part of the statement. He didn't mean marriage back then because no one meant marriage back then.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Orrex
(63,297 posts)Consistency and integrity like we don't often see. Bravo Senator Sanders (well, Mr. Sanders, back then)!
karynnj
(59,511 posts)No triangulating there!
valerief
(53,235 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Has this consistency of her or his conscience. For more than 40 years, more than many of us have been alive, Bernie has not just been talking the talk, but he has been walking the walk, doing what he can to change things.
This shall ring true in our country once people hear him, and hear his story.
This shall gain him the nomination of the Democratic Party as president.
This shall gain him the presidency in a landslide like never before seen here in the US.
Mark my words!
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)Bernie is the real deal, always has been, the anti triangulation guy.
After seeing how Bill Clinton and Obama caved to the Wall Street mob I'm so much more confident that Bernie will not cave then I am with HRC. Of course HRC is already in a bind after all those $200,000 speeches she did for Goldman and other Wall Street behemoths.
dsc
(52,175 posts)care to find some inconsistency.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)I'd favor Brown because he has shown to be the real deal and can when and do so with consistency in a large swing state and he is around a decade younger.
dsc
(52,175 posts)but he has no interest in doing so. His wife is abundantly clear on that (I follow her on Facebook).
kentuck
(111,111 posts)Great find!