Gaga votes for Clinton

[Bebe 16,696]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

As First Lady:

-in 1993, she invited openly-gay couples to the White House.

-in 1997, she was the first First Lady to march in Pride (she also marched multiple times as NY Senator).

-from 1998-1999, First Lady Hillary Clinton's aides began working to defeat the ban on gay adoptions (at her instructions).

-from 1993-2000, as First Lady Hillary pushed to increase AIDS research funding, which had been ignored and insufficient during the Reagan/Bush administrations.

-in 1999 she backed domestic partnerships to ensure benefits for all Federal employees.

-in December 1999, as First Lady, she spoke out against DADT, in disagreement with her husband, Bill Clinton.

-in 2000, the First Lady's Policy Aid pushed for a presidential order banning federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

-in 2000, the First Lady's Policy Aid pushed for a presidential order banning federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

As Senator:

-in 2000, she was the only national politician to march in the LGBT sponsored St. Patrick's day parade.

-from 2001/2003, she cosponsored ENDA.

-in 2004, she voted against the federal constitutional amendment and was instrumental in helping LGBT lobbyists fight against it.

-in 2006, she fought to preserve HIV/AIDS funding in New York Stare, with the Ryan White Care Act.

-in 2006, she supported NY passing Marriage Equality.

-in 2007, she cosponsored the Matthew Shepard Act.

-in 2008, she advocated for the lifting of gay adoption bans.

Not to mention her work to expand LGBT rights in the State Department and to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

 

 

 

Jeez, the amount of misinformation and political twisting in this is too much for me to respond to. Here is a couple of responses though:

-in 1993, she invited openly-gay couples to the White House. *Bill Clinton invited them. Same year as DADT. Pandering.

-in 1997, she was the first First Lady to march in Pride (she also marched multiple times as NY Senator). Fabulous! But doesn't compare to Bernie's record.

-in December 1999, as First Lady, she spoke out against DADT, in disagreement with her husband, Bill Clinton. LATE! Bernie opposed it from it's inception and you just got linked to the video in 1995 of him criticising DADT. Hillary started opposing DADT after Bernie when she was running for the open Senate seat from New York in 1999, but only after she realized she was losing support from LGBT voters to Republican Rudy Giuliani.

-From 1998-1999, First Lady Hillary Clinton's aides began working to defeat the ban on gay adoptions. In 1999, Bernie voted against an amendment that would have prevented same-sex couples in Washington D.C. from adopting children.

Hillary on gay adoption:

"Last October, when Clinton's emails were released to the public, the LGBT community was dismayed to learn that in 2010 Clinton opposed a pretty simple change to the State Department's policy about listing parents on passports. The legislation, which never passed, would have allowed same-sex parents to list their relationship to children as Parent 1 and Parent 2. Clinton wrote to her staff, in 2010, that she "could live" with "letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father.""

 

-in 2000, she was the only national politician to march in the LGBT sponsored St. Patrick's day parade. Really? Bernie defends the LGBT community in 1972 and as Mayor of his city Bernie backed the city’s first-ever pride march. You think Hillary get's credit because she marched in a St. Patricks day parade? She was pandering to the Irish Catholics who Bill Clinton admitted where an important demographic to them. You actually have the facts a little skewed too.

"In 2000, when Hillary Clinton was running for the U.S. Senate in New York, she marched in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade.  But that didn’t sit too well with gay activists who blasted her for marching in a parade that excludes gays from marching under their own banner.  Indeed, Christine Quinn, now the City Council Speaker and then a councilwoman, told the Daily News in 2001 that she was ‘very disappointed and critical of Mrs. Clinton’s decision to march last year.’  And the Journal News reported that Clinton ‘was roundly criticized by her gay supporters for marching in last year’s parade.’ "

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/gay-rights-st-patricks-day-parade.html

THE ST. PATRICK'S DAY MARCHES DISCRIMINATED AGAINST LGBT PEOPLE. SHE WAS WIDELY CONDEMNED BY LGBT ACTIVISTS

 

Bernie has long co-sponsored and voted for legislation that supports the LGBTQ community’s equal rights in schools, the workplace, and the military.

Bernie signed the Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2011 and co-sponsored the Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2013.

Bernie voted in favor of the Employment Discrimination Act in 2009.

Bernie has been an outspoken ally of LGBT rights since the 1970's.

 

Bernie has been an outspoken LGBT ally FAR before Hillary Clinton and has been more progressive than her on LGBT rights. From the perspective of LGBT issues, I trust the candidate who has been supportive since 1972 during a period where gay rights were almost unheard of and hugely unpopular over the candidate who came out for gay marriage in 2013.

I'd prefer the candidate who fought against DADT and DOMA from the very beginning over the candidate who supported and now claims that DADT and DOMA where 'defensive measures' bringing fire from gay activists who call it revisionist history.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/28/hillary-clintons-claim-that-doma-had-to-be-enacted-to-stop-an-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-to-the-u-s-constitution/

[SlaeUrAnus 15,504]

11 hours ago, SKANK said:

It's great that she is using her platform to encourage people to vote.

But really, a fur wearing millionaire who grew up in a wealthy Republican household, who has performed for an authoritarian regime (Imagine in Baku,) choosing to vote for a "moderate" war hawk establishment candidate isn't shocking.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately I agree with this. I cannot imagine Gaga knowing what poor/working class families go through everyday in America.

[Yves 1,891]

[brendablethyn 536]

3 hours ago, Whispering said:

No way that will happen.

Why would he even want to do it? To possibly run in eight years? Lol

He will probably get some position, if she wins. 

Bernie can use his position as VP to promote left wing causes.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

13 hours ago, BadMetalRomance said:

I can't believe that people still think Bernie has a chance at the nomination. Like not with Hillarys current lead . And for all the people who are so pro Bernie and against Hillary read this article : https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.ktgkv31ur 

Holy mother of God this is incredible. Even I didn't know many of these points. I even spent the last hour verifying them and they're more or less all true. This is most thorough well-researched article about US politics I've ever read. It's so long I had to take breaks 

Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite and a liar who has seduced many young people who have ideal goals. He lacks any functional integrity and is nothing more than a glorified protester.

If only more Sanders supporters' read this. I truly feel sorry for them supporting him because they mean well. 

I doubt they would. The rose-tinted glasses are too deep.

It doesn't mean I won't be on his side if he won given the alternative, but frankly I'm lost for words on how to justify him anymore. I kinda feel ashamed of having been so ignorant as to have lowkey supported him. 

Actually I hope his supporters don't read this article. Better for them to be delusional than have their idealism shattered, especially since he won't win.

I have a headache now..

[venusfly 17,885]

I only hope that this is her own decision and she is not taking paid endorsements like her counterparts.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, LG said:

I only hope that this is her own decision and she is not taking paid endorsements like her counterparts.

She has been supporting Clinton for a long time now  

[Bebe 16,696]

42 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Holy mother of God this is incredible. Even I didn't know many of these points. I even spent the last hour verifying them and they're more or less all true. This is most thorough well-researched article about US politics I've ever read. It's so long I had to take breaks 

Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite and a liar who has seduced many young people who have ideal goals. He lacks any functional integrity and is nothing more than a glorified protester.

If only more Sanders supporters' read this. I truly feel sorry for them supporting him because they mean well. 

I doubt they would. The rose-tinted glasses are too deep.

It doesn't mean I won't be on his side if he won given the alternative, but frankly I'm lost for words on how to justify him anymore. I kinda feel ashamed of having been so ignorant as to have lowkey supported him. 

Actually I hope his supporters don't read this article. Better for them to be delusional than have their idealism shattered, especially since he won't win.

I have a headache now..

 
"I even spent the last hour verifying them and they're more or less all true. This is most thorough well-researched article about US politics I've ever read. It's so long I had to take breaks "

https://medium.com/@thatsnotquiteaccurate/on-reading-on-becoming-anti-bernie-part-1-840d16480f8e#.v4wch86cv

Here is the response exposing the first half of misinformation they spread.

Highlights:

In response to: I concluded that the fact that Sanders only got three bills through Congress (two of which were for naming post offices)

"Did Hillary Clinton have her name on only three laws in eight years?

S. 1241: A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York. Bush signed the bill Dec. 3, 2004.

S. 3613: A bill to name a post office the “Major George Quamo Post Office Building.” Bush signed the bill Oct. 6, 2006.

S. 3145: A bill to designate a highway in New York as the Timothy J. Russert highway. Bush signed the bill July 23, 2008.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jun/23/jeb-bush/did-hillary-clinton-have-her-name-only-three-laws-/

According to https://www.govtrack.us, Bernie Sanders cosponsored 203 bills that were signed by the President and enacted, compared to 73 bills cosponsored by Hillary Clinton.

With all due respect, some of that research time would perhaps have been better spent on the author’s candidate of choice."

In response to: Rejection of compromise is not intellectually honest. Nor is it a workable strategy. It is intellectually dishonest because in the absence of a supermajority, legislation cannot be passed without compromise. As a Congressman, Sanders knows this, and, actually, compromise is not a bad thing.

"As the so-called “Amendment King”, it would seem Sanders knows a thing or two about compromise

Bernie Sanders was the roll-call amendment king from 1995 to 2007
(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/)

From that same article: “In comparison, Hillary Clinton passed zero roll call amendments during her tenure as a senator from New York from 2001–09.”"

In response to: Sanders accepts money from PACs.

"Debunking the big “Bernie Sanders has a SuperPAC” lie
(http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/debunking-the-big-bernie-sanders-has-a-superpac-lie/)

New York Times Gets it Wrong: Bernie Sanders Not “Top Beneficiary of Outside Money 
(https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/)”


It's worth reading the entire thing though. The original article linked is just full of misinformation

Can't wait for part 2 of the response

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

7 minutes ago, Bebe said:

*snip*

You're discussing co-sponsored bills. That's not what was mentioned.

Sanders also has a career three times as long, which means that they have more or less an equal rate if that is taken into consideration, so I don't see why you're bringing up Hillary as a defense.

What do amendments have to do with it? The author wasn't implying he did nothing at all. He simply spent more time protesting other peoples' proposals than making his own. That's exactly what the author was saying.

Also the articles linked are irrelevant. It's clear he doesn't have a super PAC. He simply receives money from groups like unions which are PACs by everything but name.

The article is clearly discussing Bernie not Hillary, so there's no need to attack motive.

Thanks for your reply though. Stick to defending Bernie. I have no interest in Hillary right now.

[Bebe 16,696]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

You're discussing co-sponsored bills. That's not what was mentioned.

Also the articles linked are irrelevant. It's clear he doesn't have a super PAC. He simply receives money from groups like unions which are PACs by everything but name.

I mentioned co-sponsored bills (the response mentioned it actually). It didn't form the whole discussion. Hillary passed 3 bills through congress.... Did you miss that part?

This person doesn't understand how Congress works, apparently, and didn't bother to check that the only bills that Hillary Clinton passed were the naming of a post office, an overpass, and one other thing, I think a monument. Actually looking at what bills a Senator or Representative wrote is a ****ing awful way to judge their record, because nothing survives the committee process anyway unless it's as stupid as naming a post office. You need to look at what committees they were on, which committees they led, and what amendments they passed, and in these regards Bernie is by far the more experienced and successful legislator than Hillary. 

As for super pacs the original article you posted literally wrote "Sanders accepts money from PACs." and that's what the text and articles was a response too.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Bebe said:

I mentioned co-sponsored bills (the response mentioned it actually). It didn't form the whole discussion. Hillary passed 3 bills through congress.... Did you miss that part?

This person doesn't understand how Congress works, apparently, and didn't bother to check that the only bills that Hillary Clinton passed were the naming of a post office, an overpass, and one other thing, I think a monument. Actually looking at what bills a Senator or Representative wrote is a ****ing awful way to judge their record, because nothing survives the committee process anyway unless it's as stupid as naming a post office. You need to look at what committees they were on, which committees they led, and what amendments they passed, and in these regards Bernie is by far the more experienced and successful legislator than Hillary. 

As for super pacs the original article you posted literally wrote "Sanders accepts money from PACs." and that's what the text and articles was a response too.

Why are you talking about Hillary? Please stick to Sanders. We're discussing his merits (or lack thereof) here, not hers. I'm not interested in discussing her right now.

Don't nitpick parts of the article to try to make a point either. The author didn't say he lost faith due to one issue only. It was a whole slew of issues which you are glossing over. The author didn't imply that Hillary had a better Senate career, but since that was all Sanders did, it speaks worse of him than her.

And yes...the article says "Sanders accepts money from PACs" but it's not literal. The author is making a metaphorical comparison that interest groups like unions and organizations are PACs in everything but name.

[Bebe 16,696]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Why are you talking about Hillary? Please stick to Sanders.

Don't nitpick parts of the article to try to make a point either. The author didn't say he lost faith due to one issue only. It was a whole slew of issues which you are glossing over. The author didn't imply that Hillary had a better Senate career.

And yes...the article says "Sanders accepts money from PACs" but it's not literal. The author is making a metaphorical comparison that interest groups like unions and organizations are PACs in everything but name.

Because it's a nomination process between two candidates? You can't just trash talk Bernie's record and use it as a reason not to support him when Hillary's record is clearly worse...

The article is literally pages long.... I posted highlights and encouraged you to read part 1 of the response article
I'm not going to sit here and clarify 5 pages of misinformation

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Bebe said:

Because it's a nomination process between two candidates? You can't just trash talk Bernie's record and use it as a reason not to support him when Hillary's record is clearly worse...

The article is literally pages long.... I posted highlights and encouraged you to read part 1 of the response article
I'm not going to sit here and clarify 5 pages of misinformation

Why are you generalizing misinformation? You're taking your own interpretation of what is said.

And no..you can discuss the merits of one character while refraining from mentioning the other.

I wasn't even asking you to clarify anything so no need to be grandstanding. Given that you haven't provided much of anything so far, why should I assume you would for everything else?

I have read the article, but it's using tangential points as a defense. I'm not interested in those.

Thanks for responding though. Appreciated.

[Bebe 16,696]

15 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Why are you generalizing misinformation? You're taking your own interpretation of what is said.

And no..you can discuss the merits of one character while refraining from mentioning the other.

I wasn't even asking you to clarify anything so no need to be grandstanding. Given that you haven't provided much of anything so far, why should I assume you would for everything else?

I have read the article, but it's using tangential points as a defense. I'm not interested in those.

Thanks for responding though. Appreciated.

lol

The merits of a democratic nominee is surely determined by comparing records and determining who is better on the issues... It's hypocrisy when you criticise your opponent for one thing while ignoring that your side's record is worse.

I highlighted how "looking at what bills a Senator or Representative wrote is a ****ing awful way to judge their record" which was the first major criticism of the article you liked.

I highlighted that criticism over Bernie's ability to compromise is foolish and provided links to his accomplishments when compromising and working with both Democrats and Republicans to pass legislation.

I've also provided links to an article (that also includes links to many other credible sites) that debunk a whole range of misinformation in the original article which I can continue sharing?

Original article: I looked at analyses on left-leaning blogs that have long advocated for universal health care to see what they thought, sites I respect and whose authors I have relied on for years for their basic objectivity within their admitted points of view. And I could find none who believed Sanders’ numbers added up.

Response: Not sure where the author was looking, but I found a few people that think the numbers are quite alright. “None” is a bit of an understatement.

In Fact, Argue Experts, Sanders’ Medicare-for-All Numbers “Do Add Up”
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/12/fact-argue-experts-sanders-medicare-all-numbers-do-add)

More About Bernie Sanders’ Taxes
(http://datatitian.com/more-about-bernie-sanders-taxes/)

On Kenneth Thorpe’s Analysis of Senator Sanders’ Single-Payer Reform Plan
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/kenneth-thorpe-bernie-sanders-single-payer_b_9113192.html)

Single Payer Projections Spreadsheet
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qAsfv-so8q2qWrQVkE8EFjfMvtYI60EI4rYntA4Iyik/edit#gid=945279281)

Cherry-picking Statistics to Bash Sanders’ Medicare-for-All Plan
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steffie-woolhandler/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all_b_9385012.html)

Original article: It would be so much more productive to have a national dialogue about what we learned as a nation from these mistakes, the role of systemic racism in mass incarceration, and a proposed set of recommendations and legislation to correct it now

Response:
Bernie Sanders on Racism and Racial Injustice
(https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/)

Bernie Sanders speaks out forcefully against mass incarceration and abusive policing in America
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/14/1393108/-Bernie-Sanders-speaks-out-forcefully-against-mass-incarceration-and-abusive-policing-in-America)

in fact, go back and watch the clips of his speeches on the 1994 crime bill again. He’s been fighting against mass incarceration this entire time.

(On this, it's not in the article I linked - but this is also relevant to this discussion: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-ban-private-prisons_b_9297568.html)


These are not "tangential points" these are responses to the exact criticisms the original article brings up

As for: "Given that you haven't provided much of anything so far, why should I assume you would for everything else?" 

I have provided links upon links to different articles. My posts are littered with links to articles and your posts are just littered with defensive, snarky posts...

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

12 minutes ago, Bebe said:

*snip*

Thanks again. I appreciate the articles.

It's important to note that the author of the article did not claim that Bernie Sanders' plans CAN'T happen in theory. The author said that in practice, experts agree that believe that he can't possible make them come into fruition is without merit and they don't add up when realistic expectations are made. Also the article you linked is cherry-picking and assuming a lot.

Also the author did not say that Bernie claimed that he was for racism and incarceration so I'm not sure why you are linking those articles at the end. The author said that Bernie had said one thing and acted in another way hypocritically. Do you want to justify those or just use his talking points as a defense?

He can speak out forcefully all he want. Hillary speaks forcefully too. Both voted for the same bills that he is now denouncing her for.

The only difference is that she isn't the one attacking him for his past as her entire campaign.

I'm sorry if you think that the only way to justify Bernie is to put down Hillary. That's unfortunate.

You aren't defending his integrity. That's what the author has been discussing.

I will concede about the compromise bit. While I don't believe he was compromising for anyone's sake but his own given his glorified protester status, this is up to interpretation of his motives.

Oh and I'm not being snarky. Sorry if you're so used to speaking with imbeciles that you can't tell the difference (this is snark).