Clinton campaign wants Sanders to change his tone

[mmm 879]

1 hour ago, TiphEret said:

what does that even mean? So being a feminist or a progressive automatically acting like Hillary? because I am sure many feminist don't want to be compared to her. I don't see how she is especially feminist.

I honestly did not read the article as I thought the article was about Hilary wanting Sanders to change his tone in the way he debates her specially after sanders was accused of being a sexist because he speaks over Hilary in the last debate. I did not compare feminists to Hilary, I compared the action of Hilary in the article to feminists and said that its not a surprise because shes a feminist and most feminists act this way.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

25 minutes ago, Legalize Chris said:

While I agree with some of your points (last paragraphs), for me it's Bernie's integrity coupled with Hillary's lack of integrity that makes me like him so much. While his idealism may not be practical now, it's something that I do think we need more of in politics. Hillary has been on a much larger stage than Bernie ever has, but that's no reason for her to sell out. She changes her opinions constantly, and that's where I think Bernie's integrity is further highlighted. Just because Hillary has had to "deal with foreign affairs" doesn't mean she needs to sacrifice morality in other places. 

She can evolve on her opinions – that's great, I love that. But we're electing a person, not a figurehead, and I want the president to have the foresight and morality to make decisions correctly the first time. I want them to have a concrete platform so that you know exactly what you're getting when you vote for them. You more or less have that with Hillary, give or take some things, but Bernie's ideology is pretty clear.

I honestly could not tell you if Hillary is liberal, moderate, or conservative, because she truly has been all three throughout her career. 

I fail to see how evolution is bad in any shape or form, especially when it serves the best interests of the nation and its people at the time.

Hillary doesn't lack integrity. What she lacks is consistency throughout her entire career, but like I said that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Selling out is a relative term really. When someone switches to a pro-LGBT stance for example, that can be viewed as selling out the anti-LGBT ones. So would you call "selling out" a bad thing in this regard to you? In this case one wonders when and where "selling out" is a bad thing. Also it's important to remember that your ideals are not necessarily shared with others, and despite them being the correct thing to you, it's a politicians place to work with everyone at the same time... even your political enemies. 

And trust me... you've got a lot of political enemies. Hillary can't afford to stick to principles all the time when managing foreign affairs. Do you suggest cutting all ties with India because they are anti-LGBT and have horrendous work ethics? Where do you draw the line? I think you're viewing things too simply. Sometimes you have to step on one principle to achieve one that's currently more important. While doing so, and further down the line, one can revise positions when one has more leverage. Influence plays an important part too. Over time, principles become more aligned and nations change. That's how cultural influence works after all.

You say that someone should get things right "the first time". First of all, that's as silly as saying that someone should get an essay right on the first try. In politics there are dozen of drafts, collaborations and reviews, opinions and criticisms. All of these need to be addressed. You can't ever get things right the first time.

I'm not going to get into detail here as this would involve a deeper conversation regarding his policies.

Bernie also really falters in the field of diplomacy. He immediately shuts out anyone who doesn't agree with him, including those that he's cooperated with in the past. He has no political friends, and is basically considered a Messiah by the populace for being so hardlined. It's not inaccurate to compare Bernie to Trump in political terms. Bernie's democrat to Trump's republican. This is only proven by how zealous their supporters are. 

The main issue here, and this addresses your last point, is that Hillary is a centrist. She's basically at the center, and any deviation from that center can be seen as a breach of consistency. 

So Hillary, just like Bernie, is not a stereotypical member of a party. She's simply one that is a moderate, with policies that don't qualify her as a model image for any party.

Still, she identifies as a democrat because ultimately that's how she views herself. I don't think it's anyone's place to try to tag her as something. One can be a democrat who is anti-LGBT, pro-abortion, etc... Obviously, one that wants to represent the party needs to share those values that society has evolved to.

So how does that happen? Through personal evolution. I'm not claiming that Hillary does not see the political opportunities in her policies. However, trying to hold someone's past against them is a little harsh. The past is important, but the future more so. 

[TiphEret 1,320]

1 hour ago, faysalaaa1 said:

I honestly did not read the article as I thought the article was about Hilary wanting Sanders to change his tone in the way he debates her specially after sanders was accused of being a sexist because he speaks over Hilary in the last debate. I did not compare feminists to Hilary, I compared the action of Hilary in the article to feminists and said that its not a surprise because shes a feminist and most feminists act this way.

I don't follow their battle, I don't know if Sanders has said anything considered sexist to her but if he did it doesn't really matter if she is a feminist or not, it's still unacceptable and honestly sexists comments don't have their place in politics, but we know already the US political debate is not known for its high standards. The way you speak about it it sounds like feminists are a problem, why would it be a problem to denounce someone if he/she indeed made sexist comments toward women? 

[MJHolland 12,725]

You all know I'm not a fan of Sanders, but Hillary you can f*ck right off. More power to ya, Bern.

[mmm 879]

41 minutes ago, TiphEret said:

I don't follow their battle, I don't know if Sanders has said anything considered sexist to her but if he did it doesn't really matter if she is a feminist or not, it's still unacceptable and honestly sexists comments don't have their place in politics, but we know already the US political debate is not known for its high standards. The way you speak about it it sounds like feminists are a problem, why would it be a problem to denounce someone if he/she indeed made sexist comments toward women? 

He did not say anything sexist, he just interrupted her and feminists, social media and the media (like the new york times) went crazy accusing him of being sexist because he was "mansplaining" his male privilege on a woman! now shes asking him to change his tone! Hilary is actually a feminist. here is a video of it: 

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said:

I fail to see how evolution is bad in any shape or form, especially when it serves the best interests of the nation and its people at the time.

I stopped reading there. I don't think you can call it "evolution" when Hillary Clinton was anti-gay her entire life and then "evolved" less than a freaking month (I swear to go I'm not making this up, you can google it) after Pew published the first poll ever that had the majority of Americans in favor of same sex marriage.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

On that same note, so did President Obama. On the other hand, Trump has been a lifelong supporter of gay rights, even saying that gay people should be amended into the civil rights act to prohibit any type of workplace or consumer discrimination and in the same here Clinton denounced even civil unions of same-sex couples. Funny how that works...

[FATCAT 60,967]

**** off, Clinton.

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

6 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I stopped reading there. I don't think you can call it "evolution" when Hillary Clinton was anti-gay her entire life and then "evolved" less than a freaking month (I swear to go I'm not making this up, you can google it) after Pew published the first poll ever that had the majority of Americans in favor of same sex marriage.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

On that same note, so did President Obama. On the other hand, Trump has been a lifelong supporter of gay rights, even saying that gay people should be amended into the civil rights act to prohibit any type of workplace or consumer discrimination and in the same here Clinton denounced even civil unions of same-sex couples. Funny how that works...

Yeah her and Obama are the same in that aspect. It's funny how people can't see right through their BS. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

2 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

**** off, Clinton.

we don't always agree, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend 

[FATCAT 60,967]

2 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

we don't always agree, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend 

 love ya

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

18 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I stopped reading there. I don't think you can call it "evolution" when Hillary Clinton was anti-gay her entire life and then "evolved" less than a freaking month (I swear to go I'm not making this up, you can google it) after Pew published the first poll ever that had the majority of Americans in favor of same sex marriage.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

On that same note, so did President Obama. On the other hand, Trump has been a lifelong supporter of gay rights, even saying that gay people should be amended into the civil rights act to prohibit any type of workplace or consumer discrimination and in the same here Clinton denounced even civil unions of same-sex couples. Funny how that works...

Hillary was never anti-gay... she was against marriage equality but was pro-civil unions.

Sure she was supportive of her husband's policies, but those are still fiercely debated among even LGBT people regarding their importance, so it's not anybody's place to label her anti-gay for that.

She made the landmark UN speech regarding LGBT rights in 2011...way before marriage equality became the norm. 

So..let's not OK... evolving to marriage equality from civil unions is not as much as a leap as you're making it out to be.

...Also don't use one issue to defend Trump in some sort of comparison. Sure Trump is pro-LGBT compared to his Republican competitors, but he makes up for it by being anti-"insert demographic here".

[MJHolland 12,725]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Hillary was never anti-gay... she was against marriage equality but was pro-civil unions.

Sure she was supportive of her husband's policies, but those are still fiercely debated among even LGBT people regarding their importance, so it's not anybody's place to label her anti-gay for that.

She made the landmark UN speech regarding LGBT rights in 2011...way before marriage equality became the norm. 

So..let's not OK... evolving to marriage equality from civil unions is not as much as a leap as you're making it out to be.

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but Hillary never even said a word about civil unions until 2003. And President Clinton's lgbt policies are debated amongst gay people are being positive?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHA

Even in the f*ckin UN speech she never supported marriage. The jump from civil unions to full marriage equality isn't a big one, you're right. But Mrs. Clinton sat on that public policy question until it was absolutely politically expedient for her to come out in support of it. THAT is the big deal here. 

Idk buddy, almost every time we've debated on this site you've seemed pretty in touch with reality. I hope you come around on this...

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

19 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but Hillary never even said a word about civil unions until 2003. And President Clinton's lgbt policies are debated amongst gay people are being positive?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHA

Even in the f*ckin UN speech she never supported marriage. The jump from civil unions to full marriage equality isn't a big one, you're right. But Mrs. Clinton sat on that public policy question until it was absolutely politically expedient for her to come out in support of it. THAT is the big deal here. 

Idk buddy, almost every time we've debated on this site you've seemed pretty in touch with reality. I hope you come around on this...

Why are you laughing? Many LGBT people hold the idea that defensive action was necessary. This issue is still debated today, so let's not assume a correct stance alright?

Also why would Hillary talk about civil unions out of nowhere? Hillary has never said anything against LGBT people, so claiming that she is anti-gay because she started speaking about civil unions when the issue came up is delusional.

Bernie wasn't pro marriage equality either until recently. This viewpoint is pretty much common among people of the older generation. It's understandable, if ultimately wrong by today's standards.

Oh and...neither is Trump ... he's already stated he's pro-traditional marriage.

Don't call me out of touch with reality when I'm the one giving you the facts with a straight face. 

Being against marriage equality does not make someone anti-gay. I'm not sure why you continue to stress this point as if it holds any merit. Besides, I'm sure some people have their viewpoints. You're so happy about Trump. Don't you think he has reasons for being anti-"insert demographic here" even if they're downright douche-y? I fail to see why you're trying to lord that fact over me.
 

Oh and 

[MJHolland 12,725]

11 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Why are you laughing? Many LGBT people hold the idea that defensive action was necessary. This issue is still debated today, so let's not assume a correct stance alright?

Also why would Hillary talk about civil unions out of nowhere? Hillary has never said anything against LGBT people, so claiming that she is anti-gay because she started speaking about civil unions when the issue came up is delusional.

Bernie wasn't pro marriage equality either until recently. This viewpoint is pretty much common among people of the older generation. It's understandable, if ultimately wrong by today's standards.

Oh and...neither is Trump ... he's already stated he's pro-traditional marriage.

Don't call me out of touch with reality when I'm the one giving you the facts with a straight face. 

Being against marriage equality does not make someone anti-gay. I'm not sure why you continue to stress this point as if it holds any merit. Besides, I'm sure some people have their viewpoints. You're so happy about Trump. Don't you think he has reasons for being anti-"insert demographic here" even if they're downright douche-y? I fail to see why you're trying to lord that fact over me.
 

Oh and 

There are only two reasons someone would be pro-civil unions but against marriage equality. 1) you don't think gay people deserve equal rights and treatment a la the separate but equal argument for segregated schools or 2) you're trying to get reelected or elected to a higher office in the future. BUDDY!

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

I stopped reading there. I don't think you can call it "evolution" when Hillary Clinton was anti-gay her entire life and then "evolved" less than a freaking month (I swear to go I'm not making this up, you can google it) after Pew published the first poll ever that had the majority of Americans in favor of same sex marriage.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

On that same note, so did President Obama. On the other hand, Trump has been a lifelong supporter of gay rights, even saying that gay people should be amended into the civil rights act to prohibit any type of workplace or consumer discrimination and in the same here Clinton denounced even civil unions of same-sex couples. Funny how that works...

He has been wishy-washy...and he currently opposes legal rights to marry:

Trump Said He Would “Strongly Consider” Appointing Judges To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Decision. Asked on Fox News Sunday “WALLACE: But -- but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?” TRUMP: “I would strongly consider that, yes.” [Fox News Sunday, 1/31/2016]