Sanders ruined the Veterans Administration

[LibraLove 1,281]

4 hours ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Which state is Sanders leading in again? Asking for a friend. 

You mean fraudulent as in lying on bank statements for a loan like Mrs. Sanders.

Whose campaign paid it's workers so poorly they had to seek help from their union?

Whose campaign had women complain about harassment?

But yeah Buttigieg is running a fraudulent campaign.

He's leading in Iowa and trading places for the top spot in California, New Hampshire, and Nevada in many polls. Pete is leading in one poll from Iowa that sampled 500 Democrats who plan to caucus in the Dem caucus and 502 Republicans who do not plan to caucus in the Dem caucus...

[LibraLove 1,281]

4 hours ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Which state is Sanders leading in again? Asking for a friend. 

You mean fraudulent as in lying on bank statements for a loan like Mrs. Sanders.

Whose campaign paid it's workers so poorly they had to seek help from their union?

Whose campaign had women complain about harassment?

But yeah Buttigieg is running a fraudulent campaign.

I only responded to the first line and didn't bother to read the rest of your misinformation until now. Wow. You are uninformed. Receipts for #2 that come from a credible source (not "military new . com"), every campaign in 2016 had issues and every campaign has issues (Clinton's had them - even from top staffers that were never fired, just reassigned. He made amends and makes his new hires go through harassment training), he didn't pay his workers so poorly they had to seek a union - they were already in the process of unionizing and renegotiated the bargain which now includes a minimum of $15/hr, days off, and full dental and vision coverage at no cost to employees (unlike other campaigns who are not unionized even though the candidates claim to be so pro union, and offer "fellowship" internships that don't pay at all. Bernie pays his interns. Nobody works for free on the campaign). Do your research. Your bias is showing.

[Ziggy 14,143]

2 hours ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Honestly I chuckled and didn't even give it a second thought.  I knew it was just a joke.

But the point is would that same joke be made about a straight male candidate and his wife? No, it never has, nor for a straight woman and her husband. But because Buttigieg is gay we can make jibes about his sex life. Like I said, I know it was a joke, but it’s our responsibility to be aware of the discourse we carry out when talking about his candidacy. Even if we are not fans of his policies (or are), this is the first major gay candidate running for the presidency. He is already a target for homophobic rhetoric (I’ve read plenty since before he even announced his formal candidacy), so the onus is on us as a community to raise the bar for discussion. It’s a burden, and an unfair one for minority populations, but them’s the brakes, as it were.

It’s similar to how Obama and his family had to also be on their absolute best behavior. The standard is higher for minorities just to be regarded as equal to the majority. We don’t have to love, like, or agree with Buttigieg, Lord knows I don’t, but we can’t add to the lower discourse that is already swirling around.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

7 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

But the point is would that same joke be made about a straight male candidate and his wife? No, it never has, nor for a straight woman and her husband. But because Buttigieg is gay we can make jibes about his sex life. Like I said, I know it was a joke, but it’s our responsibility to be aware of the discourse we carry out when talking about his candidacy. Even if we are not fans of his policies (or are), this is the first major gay candidate running for the presidency. He is already a target for homophobic rhetoric (I’ve read plenty since before he even announced his formal candidacy), so the onus is on us as a community to raise the bar for discussion. It’s a burden, and an unfair one for minority populations, but them’s the brakes, as it were.

It’s similar to how Obama and his family had to also be on their absolute best behavior. The standard is higher for minorities just to be regarded as equal to the majority. We don’t have to love, like, or agree with Buttigieg, Lord knows I don’t, but we can’t add to the lower discourse that is already swirling around.

I understand and I agree. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

2 hours ago, HorusRa2 said:

Just gotta post that this is hilarious and that certain people on here can’t contain themselves now that Bernie has the momentum to win. 

I don’t have the time right now to get into this but I’ll be back to address this more substantively. 

So , now that I have a few moments, all there is to say about this subject (in my view) is that the the content of this article is criticizing something that's much like the way unionized teachers are protected. It is designed to make certain that the employee is not abused, retaliated against, and protect them from discrimination. Yes, it makes the removal of people in these positions more bureaucratic but it's the cost to pay to ensure workers are protected. This is a common complaint about government workers at the local level as well. As someone who worked for a local county government where unions were a huge factor in personnel issues, there's a lot that can happen. As an example: I had a police officer pull out his taser at me because  I didn't want to issue an additional payroll check to resolve a payroll error that the human resource director had e-mailed me about within the hour preceding the event. I didn't want to issue the check because my boss was out for the day and she had previously said that she had to authorize such actions. The officer was only put on administrative leave without pay for 1 pay period before coming back to work for pulling a taser out on a fellow employee (albeit he says he was only joking--the fact is according to state legislature, officers aren't to pull guns/tasers out of their harnesses in a government building without an ACTUAL reason to do so). That's a huge ethical mistake that one could argue should warrant losing his position, but because of his union he was protected. Same principle applies here.