General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe all know about Sanders' economic justice positions. What about Social issues?
In 2006, he voted against HJ resolution 88 which would have prevented states from allowing same sex marriage.
Clinton now claims that only after leaving the SoS position on February 1, 2013, she could take an unambiguous stand for marriage equality.
On the losing side of a 2:1 vote, Sanders voted against partial birth abortion ban of 1995. If you find the phrase "safe, legal and rare" to be problematic, then there may be better people to support than the ones who coined it.
My priority is economic justice and inequality, but I'd be interested to hear of any social issues on which Clinton holds a superior policy from Sanders, AND can demonstrate that it is reflective of a long term personal conviction.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.
Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC.
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.
Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender.
Rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record.
Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.
Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery.
ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays.
Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools.
Endorsed as "preferred" by The Feminist Majority indicating pro-women's rights.
Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender.
Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools.
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment.
Here are his ratings on a vast array of issues: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bernie_Sanders_SenateMatch.htm
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The same can't be said for Clinton.
NotoriousRBG
(44 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and marched on Washington in the famous 1963 march?
On LGBT rights he has a score of 100% from the Human Rights Campaign
On civil rights and voting rights he has a score of 93% from the NAACP
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)He could use a comb, maybe, but not a haircut.
LeftInTX
(25,565 posts)If he gelled his fly-aways, the press would come up with a bunch of b-4 and afters - LOL
MADem
(135,425 posts)endured down the years.
He doesn't have to gel anything--a comb wouldn't be amiss, though.
That "absent minded professor" look is great if you're trying out for the lead in the stage production of "Goodbye, Mr. Chips." His message is more effective if people aren't distracted by overly messy hair. I mean, at his worst, it's not as off-putting as Donald Trump, but it can be off - putting. He doesn't lose any "authenticity" by taking the time to look presentable.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but then that is more economic justice really.
as he campaigns, please do show me him stepping up addressing social justice. i think that would be a good thing and more inclusive.
all the dems vote the same on social issues. social justice, like economic justice, would take a voice and be an advocate, like he is with economic justice.
now. the expected reply to a sincere post to strengthin sanders would be...
bullshit.
done iwth this thread.
i am hardly sittin with two men that have spent three years dismissing social justice issues in insignificance and scorn.
cali
(114,904 posts)He's long been a leader on social justice issues, and no all dems sure as shit do not vote the same on social issues.
I can't deal with the odd stuff from you anymore
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)At least it's a reason, I suppose.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The entire premise of the OP is more of this flawed binary 'social vs economic' bullshit. Then you want to use politics that are not your own, LGBT and women's issues, not as a way to advance Bernie but as a bat to bash Hillary with. When most of this Party was still anti gay, Hillary Clinton was taking the heat for supporting us. Before Bill even got elected, the Republican Party was calling them radical feminist friends to the militant homosexuals. You know who was in that Republican Party then? Liz Warren, Lincoln Chaffee, Jim Webb. But you make it about Hillary being somehow behind on your straight white male timeline of LGBT equality?
Jesus.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Sanders is the social issues champion. He was one of only 67 representatives who voted against the DOMA law that the Clinton administration signed.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But I truly don't understand what you're trying to say, except that you've had enough of this thread now that it's reached post #4.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)LOL...really? That is just awesome!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I sincerely hope someday you can move beyond such things.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Remember Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Hillary is still in the squirmy position of waiting for the evidence.
So is O'Malley. He is in the fine for Colorado, not for Maryland camp.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)WA Democrats including our Governor are trying to kill off the medical marijuana market and force sick people to buy medicine from recreational shops and pay increased prices and taxes on their medicine. Screw the Democrats that are in bed with the greedy capitalist pigs. I will never again vote for a Democrat that puts profit before helping sick people. I am definitely voting for Sanders, not for Hillary.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I wouldn't be surprised to find many of his seemingly contradictory votes aimed at amendments, add-ons, riders etc.
And so I'd withhold my judgments until I better understood those votes.
I don't expect Sanders is 'perfect', none of them are.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Last edited Sun May 3, 2015, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)
They never even lead on those issues. And why would they? Their goal isn't to advance any policy, per se, only to use those issues for maximum political leverage for as long as they possibly can. That's why they're always the last ones to the party.
I mean, it was the centrists-- some of the very same ones who are now crowing about how liberal Hillary is because of social issues-- that were telling gays to shut-up about marriage equality just a few short years ago, because it wasn't 'pragmatic'.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Without their seeming liberality on social issues, "centrists" in both parties would just be plain garden variety Rockefeller Republicans and Chickenhawks.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)No question about it.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)of DUers. But whatever credibility they may once have had they have utterly shredded all by themselves. Which is surely some kind of karmic justice.