Interesting Double Standard Here

[berni_mccoy]

Sanders has never said he opposed same-sex marriage. Despite this, Hillary supporters are raving about a "fact check" that claims because he didn't shout his support from the mountain tops, he has had a "wishy-washy" stance on the issue. And that's despite fact that the same article notes that Sanders has ALWAYS been a staunch supporter of LGBT rights.

However, the same Clinton supporters look past the fact that Hillary ACTUALLY OPPOSED same-sex marriage and supported (and still defends DOMA).

Seriously, Hillary SuperFANS..

[Bluenorthwest]

2. They have no answer. They know if they try to explain they will betray their own bigotry.

nt

[Bubzer]

47. I find it odd that "wishy washy" is the term being applied here.

That's a term I'd apply to Hillary. She's the one who has a long history of checking political winds and changing her position to suit. She's the one who flip flops on her positions for political expediency in order to be on the right side of an argument. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has always been right on the issues. Hillary just can't match that, record for record.

"Evolving" to be right on an issue is not a good primary trait for a president.

[rhett o rick]

94. It's projection. nm

[Fred Sanders]

3. "Staunch supporter of LGBT" rights and supporter of same-sex marriage are two different things,

or had been, if you know your history and can place past political and social positions of major political figures on major public policy issues in their proper context.

[berni_mccoy]

4. You are missing the main point: Sanders has NEVER opposed Same-Sex Marriage. And ONLY supported it.

[Fred Sanders]

6. Yes, I understand and appreciate Sanders consistency and vision on that, but I do not take

offence with folks who came to the same position later on in life and time that may have lacked Sander's vision.

[DianeK]

8. political expedience,

perhaps?

[Fred Sanders]

9. Like I said, I do not take offence to evolution on major issues, but that is an individual choice.

If someone leads with a good idea or position, even pioneers that position, and then others follow, why shoot the followers?

If it is simply a matter of "trust" I am not going to argue about trust - but I trust Clinton will carry on with what Obama has done in 8 years with 8 years of similar policy and I will trust but verify in that.

[DianeK]

10. I just have my doubts

about the sincerity ..seems awfully convenient to me

[stupidicus]

12. in other words, you like those behind the curve on so much

and the guy who's been ahead on it?

not so much

it's not a matter of trust, but rather foresight and the sound/correct judgement it spawns, and an undefinable amount of extra humanity that prompted his curve-riding -- all of which she lacked

SHe's like her rightwing cousins -- she has the political acumen and foresight of an earthworm. ANd like with Palin, etc, get's no intelligence, etc, points, for snowing so many.

[Laser102]

15. I find, as I've aged, my opinions have changed on numerous topics.

Those who never change, evolve or adapt are not living. Life is constant not stagnant. Instead of celebrating the evolution of not only Hillary, but our country, we spend a lot of time pointing to who came to this first. if Bernie came to that realization a long time ago, I might ask, why didn't he do something about it? Being in favor of something and effecting change are two different things.

[frylock]

17. List two major issues that you've evolved on late in life.

Most of my views were shaped in my late 20s and early 30s.

[BeanMusical]

26. +1 Totally agree.

[Laser102]

31. Gay marriage and single parenting.

You said two right? In life you have an opportunity to meet different people from different cultures and countries. Listening to their opinions and understanding their beliefs and points of view has helped me evolve. Perhaps if you venture out a bit more.....

[frylock]

43. Why would you have been against gay marriage or single parents to begin with?

[Laser102]

50. I didn't know much about gay people. Until a show called Are You Being Served.

I came from farm country so it's not like we were exposed to a variety of people. I fell in love with Mr. Humphries and have never been the same since. It wasn't "against" as much as uninformed. As for single parenting, I always felt that two parents were better than one. Until I became that single parent. As you can see, life is constant. You learn and grow.

[LiberalLovinLug]

55. Good answer

And good on you for being honest in this thread. There was a shift in conciseness in America. It was building for years and a lot of it was creative writers on television programs. From Ellen coming out on her sitcom, to Will and Grace to Modern Family. These roles helped to familiarize middle America with this mysterious, secret club kept in the shadows and thus was able to be defined by people like TV evangelists and right wing media hosts.

IMO, I think this pissing match between some Bernie supporters and some Hillary supporters is a useless waste of time. I'm a Bernie supporter but I can totally understand how someone can "evolve" on this issue. I have as well. Never been opposed to same sex marriage per say, probably never even thought about it, but now I understand just how imperative it is if you want to call yourselves a fair and equal democracy.

[Agschmid]

84. Thank you for your honesty, it's refreshing.

Also I'm glad you found a way to change your option on those issues, sometimes it's really hard to do that.

[awoke_in_2003]

61. I'll play

Marriage equality and defense spending. Oh, and the need for a robust social safety net, gun control (on the pro side), now anti- death penalty, now pro choice, and on and on.

[frylock]

62. How old were you when you came around accepting to marriage equality?

[awoke_in_2003]

77. About 40

I went from being anti, to pro civil unions, to full equality. The last was about 7 years ago.

[frylock]

79. I'll keep that in my when deciding whether to vote for you in the Presidential election.

[awoke_in_2003]

83. If people aren't capable

of changing their views after the age of 30, the world will be even stupider than it is now.

[Agschmid]

85. Thank you for your honesty here.

Like I said up thread it's refreshing to see.

[awoke_in_2003]

86. I was a dumb punk

at least up to the age of 35. A little education, experience, exposure, and really sitting down to reflect on what you actually believe can go a long way. I get more liberal with each passing year.

[Agschmid]

87. I think your user name makes sense now.

Again really appreciated, see you around DU.

[awoke_in_2003]

88. It was the build up to the Iraq war...

that really started making me question everything. I got more politically active, and started realizing pretty quick that I didn't agree with republicans on anything. It was during that time that I got directed here by the gateway drug (that is no longer available)- the Top 10 Conservative Idiots. The Hate Mail was pretty good, too. Reading it made me realize just what level of idiocy resides on the other side.

[Agschmid]

89. That's how I got here too.

That and my family (dad and step mom) were die hard DU'ers. My father at some point was a mod, but then he got fed up with it, go figure, can't see why... Haha.

[awoke_in_2003]

92. I did 3 terms as a mod

One of them was during the 08 Primaries. I have seen more civil suit flinging fights in the primate cages

[Marr]

21. And if you wanted to LEAD, people would be justified in noting how often you'd 'evolved' on issues

after your leadership was no longer needed, and the issue in question had become a political winner.

[Laser102]

35. So we agree evolving is a winner?

[Marr]

51. Changing ones position is not, in and of itself, a good thing.

Last edited Tue Nov 3, 2015, 02:30 PM - Edit history (2)

Coming around to a progressive position is a good thing-- but the timing of these 'evolutions' suggest something about their sincerity.

[Kentonio]

63. Precisely

When these 'evolutions' repeatedly coincide with polling numbers, then that is some coincidence..

[AgingAmerican]

90. Evolving shows weakness

...especially when it is done as political expedience three days before a debate.

[JDPriestly]

104. I was very aware of liking boys and being liked by boys in the third grade.

I vividly recall an innocent but clear dream when I was about 5 years old that would have indicated to an objective observer that my sexual orientation was decidedly heterosexual.

But when I was in junior high school, I definitely noticed how attractive boys were to me.

I married fairly young and have been happily married to the same man for many years.

I consider myself to be a strong woman. I worked in what was considered at one time to be a man's field.

But I believe that I was born with a certain sexual orientation. I believe that is the way I was born and that some other people, unlike me, are born with a clear sexual orientation toward people of their own sex. I think that is nature's way. We realize pretty early on who we are and who we are attracted ti, and no one should be ostracized or condemned or made to feel shamed because of their sexual or gender orientation because that is born into us.

I feel that because it is so clear to me with regard to my own life. I think it is probably the same for others.

So I cannot understand that Hilary did not understand this and stick up for LGBTs and their equal rights from the beginning of her career. It is a matter of being honest with yourself about your own sexuality. That is important in my opinion.

[frylock]

16. Hillary gets it right..... eventually.

We can afford to elect a president that doesn't always get things right the first time. Everyone can benefit from a little on-the-job training.

[AgingAmerican]

91. She would be rudderless in the whitehouse

Without Sanders to imitate.

[rhett o rick]

96. Maybe one doesn't "take offense" for evolutions on major issues but faced with a choice

of one candidate always supporting a specific issue and another candidate that only recently switched sides, one really should vote for the former.

Besides some "evolutions" of HRC seem more like triangulations and some are "wishy-washy" like fracking and the TPP.

[Marr]

20. 'Folks who came to the same position later on in life'-- specially, after the fight was over

and it had become a winning political issue.

That's not an 'ally'-- that's an opportunist.

[Fred Sanders]

25. That is not an argument, that is semantics.

[Marr]

30. I can only assume you read that somewhere and thought it sounded cool.

Because it makes zero sense here.

Unless you actually believe there's no difference between a political opportunist and a political ally. The fact is that Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage until it was a political winner. When she was needed, she was counted not among allies, but among the opposition.

[Fred Sanders]

32. I thought it up myself - how insulting! - and it does sound kind of cool. So, dibs!

I may use it again!

[Marr]

39. Again, HRC was counted among the opposition to gay marriage when her support was actually needed.

When it became a political winner, she 'evolved'.

That's not an ally. I understand this is just a joke, or another little word game to you-- but to a lot of people, it actually means something.

[passiveporcupine]

105. Actually, not that far back, he did say he supported civil unions,

but did not vote in favor of marriage. But he also explained that he did that because is was such a controversial issue in his state, to even come out with civil unions, and he said he wanted to give the state more time to accept it. Which was probably necessary. If you try to force people to accept something they are just not ready for, it can cause them to actually hang on even tighter to old standards...and that sometimes makes necessary change a little slower to progress...but it will happen.

I think he has actually been fine with same-sex marriage, but sometime politicians do what is right for their constituents, as long as it is not depriving someone of their civil rights. So to him the civil union gave them the legal rights they needed. But now that society has swung so far in favor of same-sex marraige, he is fully backing it.

[A Simple Game]

60. Yes they are two different things, freedom and equality. You seriously think it is OK

for a candidate to "evolve" on the definitions of freedom and equality and who qualifies for them? You must also realize, that unlike Hillary's arrow, evolving does not always point in the right direction.

[rhett o rick]

95. So you agree with the OP and merely trying to help them with "context"? nm

[Faux pas]

5. Her 'fans' are

totally deaf and blind in their support if her. I thought we lefties were better critical thinkers than that. plus tax!

[LibDemAlways]

14. Truer words. I have a Facebook friend (real life friend of a

Last edited Tue Nov 3, 2015, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

friend) who thinks Hillary walks on water. Posts at least a dozen pro Hillary or anti Sanders articles every day. Nothing substantive on the issues. His entire argument is "Hillary is going to win" so everyone should support her. For a lawyer, this guy has no critical thinking skills at all.

[Faux pas]

22. It's crazy!

To me, it's exactly how the rethugs are blinded by their choices. Group think gone horribly wrong.

[AlbertCat]

58. Egg-zakly

It's like they really haven't compared the candidates... seriously... at all. Processing only things that support your already decided upon conclusion and ignoring and distorting the rest... well, it's not impartial for one thing.

And the things I hear from Sanders are what I've heard from him before. His positions sound like what I'd expect from hearing about him as Senator from VT.... IOW, I usually agreed his stances were common sense and no nonsense before he was running for a national office. (I used to joke about why does VT have to be covered in snow half the year... otherwise I'd love to live there.)

There is consistency there, and insight.

[Faux pas]

113. Bernie is 'real' and true to his core beliefs.

She's been flip flopping, in the national spotlight, for at least 20 yrs. Latches onto whatever she thinks will fly with those who are not really paying attention. Goldwater democrat tells me everything I ever wanted to know.

[arcane1]

57. "His entire argument is "Hillary is going to win" so everyone should support her."

That's the distilled essence of every pro-Clinton post here too

[cui bono]

76. Her fans are not lefties. n/t

[Sheepshank]

7. I think the double standard goes the other way around

Bernie Supporters state that Bernie always supported and backed same sex marriage without hesitation. Yet history and a recent interview on TRMS tells us different. There's nothing wrong with political tactics and expediency, but this is not permitted for anyone but Bernie. No one has doubted that Hillary has evolved....and we are very glad that just like Obama, she listens to her constituency and is responsive.

[Fred Sanders]

11. When did being responsive to evolving public opinion become a bad thing? Did I miss the memo?

One person's maturation and listening to logic is another person's" expediency", I guess.

[zalinda]

18. We are electing a leader

not a follower. If she has to mature to a stance that is a human right, then what good is she as a leader? Does she stick to her unfair human right ideals until those ideals poll well enough? And how well do they have to poll in order for her to verbally change her position?

Z

[Fred Sanders]

27. I think arguing over which came first, the chicken or the egg, is unproductive.

[djean111]

41. Well, unproductive when it comes to seeing how Hillary changes stances to fit what she thinks will

get her the most support. No core to her, and that is pandering, not leading.

[zalinda]

44. Thank you.

You answered the questions as any Hillary supporter would. So, I'm guessing human rights depends on the eye of the viewer? Please tell me which rights are wrong?

Z

[Sheepshank]

40. Our elected officials lead, by following the will of the people

The will of the people changes and evolves and the leaders should be able to grow in a like manner. Leaders should not be pressing their own personal agenda onto their consitituency, unless of course your ideal situation is a dictatorship?

[zalinda]

80. So, you are okay with the will of the people

if they wanted to lock up all Muslims until the Middle East crisis is resolved?

In the past it was for slavery, jailing homosexuals, jailing or killing interracial marriage (you know the black one) and recently against same sex marriage, religious conversions of homosexuals, denying rights for transsexuals, banks stealing property from rightful property owners, etc.

When do you do polls and when do you lead? Do leaders take a poll on when to go to war?

Bernie is a leader, Hillary has her finger in the wind except when it comes to war.

Z

[BainsBane]

102. Why did Bernie oppose marriage equality in VT as late as 2006?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

[mdbl]

106. Interesting analysis

Thanks. Doesn't change my vote for Bernie in the primaries though.

[AgingAmerican]

93. It shows a lack of core convictions

AKA drifting with the prevailing winds. AKA weather vane.

[berni_mccoy]

13. That is complete bullshit. Sanders has never opposed same-sex marriage.

And Hillary supporters know it. This is her biggest change on position. And one must question if she actually has changed position since she recently defended DOMA.

[Amimnoch]

28. perfectly stated!

But we all know who will keep the partisan blinders upon their eyes.

Saint Bernard the flawless couldn't possibly have been anything but the perfect example of love and support his entire life. Hell, he's probably the sole reason that Marriage is now allowed for us, and we just don't know it yet.

[BeanMusical]

36. "But we all know who will keep the partisan blinders upon their eyes."

We sure do!

[oldandhappy]

19. good post, thanks

[NorthCarolina]

23. Because this is a campaign of false meme's and inuendo over facts. The DLC way. eom

[Uncle Joe]

24. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bernie_mccoy.

[MineralMan]

29. Fortunately, public opinion and the Supreme Court have

made marriage equality the law of the land at this point. The point is now moot on that particular issue. There are still many issues of equality that remain to be corrected, however.

[berni_mccoy]

38. It's not moot if she would have conservative stances on other issues

Like TPP and Keystone... wait, what's her position on those? I forget. My head is spinning...http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251761411

[MineralMan]

49. Both remain unresolved, actually.

Opinion remains divided on both TPP and Keystone. I don't know how those will turn out, actually. For now, TPP seems to be something Clinton opposes, and Keystone looks to be on hold for now.

In the meantime, bulk crude oil trains are passing through the city I live in several times a day, each holding over 1 million gallons of volatile crude. My tendency is to favor Keystone, for safety reasons alone. Those oil trains pass through many cities and along our major waterways on a daily basis. I'd prefer that the oil be transported in a safer way and through relatively unpopulated areas.

We apparently disagree on Keystone. I remain undecided on TPP.

[polly7]

42. Like racism is now 'over'?

Gays still face discrimination in many places marriage equality has become law ..... often vicious. Because something is 'fixed' doesn't mean those who don't agree with the law suddenly change their bigot stripes, or that the suffering from their actions is any less damaging.

Imo, it will take decades for there to be 'real' equality, and acceptance of those laws to not make prior actions causing them 'moot'. We've had marriage equality up here for a long time, the bigotry I still see on social media shocks me with how common and unchallenged it is. I'd thought we were better than that.

(Sort of reminds me of 'get over it', I haven't smashed your face for a long time. Really hard to trust when you've been damaged in ways that affect your whole life, no matter how long it's been ........ ya know??)

My apologies to MM, I did forget to include what I'd meant to add in my later post.

[MineralMan]

45. I clearly said that there are other issues of equality

yet to be fixed. Marriage equality is now the law of the land. The rest of the issues remain to be fixed. So, in a way, it is like racism. While the law is clear, the reality remains unclear.

Law is one thing...changing people's prejudices is quite another. We all have to take a role in helping to do that.

[polly7]

46. You clearly said the issue was now moot. That is what I was replying to.

Because you say it's moot, it doesn't make anyone or anything responsible for preventing it for so long or demonizing those who fought for it any less responsible. The people who went through such pain because of it aren't suddenly healed in spirit, nor are those who watched loved ones suffer .... not even beginning to mention all the other issues around it that as we've both stated, still exist. Get it?

[ruffburr]

33. Neither-

Hillary nor her supporters have even the slightest idea of honesty , Typical Third Way hypocritical smear

[BeanMusical]

34. She changed her toon but still believe this:

"I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults."

Hillary Clinton 2004.

[SoapBox]

37. That must be the biased Politifact article from 09/22/15.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/22/fact-checking-viral-graphic-critical-bernie-sander/

They anonymously received a comparison chart of various points between them.

Her crowd here has run with a "nuclear waste" point, another and then this.

Totally dishonest but I guess that is par...it all goes with that TRUST issue.

I don't trust her at all and they simply back up the lack of trust.

[Yallow]

48. More Of This Coming

Hit 'em where you're weak.

Rove et al....

[Prism]

52. DUers defending DOMA

Claiming LGBT discrimination isn't so bad because we can pass.

But, know, Sanders has the problem.

I don't believe these people really care about social justice. At all. It's all about celebrity, the team sport, the Internet message board points.

Hell, I don't think they even care about their own communities. Not really. Not concretely.

[Doctor_J]

74. if human sacrifices polled 51%, Hillary would be in favor tomorrow

And Thu her fan club would be bashing liberals and Sanders for being anti

[oneshooter]

110. Jury Results

On Tue Nov 3, 2015, 07:37 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

if human sacrifices polled 51%, Hillary would be in favor tomorrow
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=763172

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Human sacrifices? This is so divisive and ott that it is indefensible. Hate or love, the comment has no place in a civil discussion. -And calling a candidate's supporters a fan club just adds fuel.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Nov 3, 2015, 07:46 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I suspect I'll be the only Hide vote, because smears against Hillary and her supporters are all the rage at the new DU.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Enh....Not over the line IMO
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Can we TRY to act our age? Please? This kind of thing is so not moving us forward.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enough horseshit flame baiting!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a discussion board.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just the same back and forth from both camps. Grow a thicker skin.

[Enthusiast]

53. Kicked and recommended!

The LGBT community is not dumb enough to fall for this bullshit.

[bowens43]

54. IMO many of the die hard hillary supporers are still pissed that she lost to obama

so anything goes.....win win win win win...to hell with truth and integrity

[arcane1]

59. And many others hated her guts then, but love her now.

Strange days indeed!

[INdemo]

56. The Hillary supporter "sting" is here

Hillsry has been running for President for 21 years or more and one would think she could talk about issues but she has nothing

[azmom]

64. Hillary is no visionary that's for sure.

She follows the polls.

[Fla Dem]

65. Sanders’ evolving and ‘wishy-washy’ stance on same-sex marriage

"Sanders can certainly have bragging rights for having opposed DOMA when it was not a popular step. But his position on same-sex marriage was more nuanced and obscure, and he appears to have evolved on the issue until it was more politically feasible. We can find little evidence he was an “outspoken proponent” of or ahead of the crowd on either Vermont’s 2000 civil-union law or the 2009 gay-marriage law,"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/03/sanders-evolving-and-wishy-washy-stance-on-same-sex-marriage/


Many good progressives have evolved on this issue. When they evolved, why they evolved and whether one evolved before the other lacks importance. What is important is they did evolved. That's why we are better than the Republicans. They never evolve, they are still Neanderthals in every sense of the word.

[berni_mccoy]

66. We get it.

Because Sanders isn't anywhere on record saying he supported it (even though he did support it), he's "wishy washy". But Clinton OPPOSED it and that's ok with the same people who are criticizing Sanders now... ?!?

[Fla Dem]

68. My point, what does it matter.

Bernie evolved because marriage equality was passed in Vermont.

Hillary evolved because it's now the law of the land.

They both support it. One came to Jesus earlier than the other, they're both there now.

I'm not criticizing anyone. I'm glad they're both there now.

[berni_mccoy]

70. Nice Try, but fail.

Sanders never evolved his position on this. Clinton did a 180.

[Fla Dem]

71. Good for him. Good for her. They're both where we want them to be now. nt

[berni_mccoy]

73. Sanders has always been there. Clinton, well...

It's hard to say where she will be on any given day. You know, one day she's a moderate, the next a liberal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251761411

[cascadiance]

107. Just like Sanders has never opposed civil rights for POC...

... and in the days of the sixties when Bernie was actively protesting segregation in Chicago, Hillary was supporting Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act then. Though she herself isn't on record for having opposed civil rights then, she supported those politically then when they did. Some will say she was too young when a high school senior or a college freshman to know that Republicans were on the wrong side of things then, but aren't we entitled a bit of an explanation of how she evolved her thoughts from those periods to what she is now, just like how she evolved on gay marriage and so many other issues that she's evolved on.

And just being young doesn't cut it. Why didn't she oppose TPP just a few months ago when she could have perhaps affected the TPA bills going through congress that perhaps could have been voted down then if she'd taken the time to have not been in a "pre-evolutionary stage" then. Did she and DOES she now really oppose TPP, or are polls telling her it is just the right time to speak up nebulously against it, the same way that Obama SEEMED to speak out against NAFTA and other free trade bills when he said he would "renegotiate it" when running in 2008, but ultimately wanted to put NAFTA on steroids with the TPP and more recent trade bills along with TPA fast track, that he's pushed even harder than what many wanted in Obamacare such as single payer or a public option.

[AzDar]

67. HOW can ANYONE trust her?? Mind-boggling, really...

[randome]

69. And don't get me started on that Elizabeth Warren character! Sheesh!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[bbgrunt]

72. political Heathers doing what they were born to do

[hedda_foil]

75. Dear Berni and Berniacs...They're just trying to keep Bernie's vote suppressed.

Happily, they've misidentified us, just as they did last time. The Hillcampaign and their neatest friends still think we're expecting a leftwing pony, and that we'll be crushed if Bernie isn't absolutely perfect on all issues. Mainly they're just influencing themselves.

I do wonder, though, when they're so far ahead, why they're expending so much energy on this kind of nonsense. It doesn't quite ring true. After all, campaigns aren't supposed to demean themselves by punching down.

[jfern]

78. Exactly

Never once did Bernie oppose SSM. Sure, there are others who were bigger champions of SSM. But he's light years ahead of Hillary, who opposed SSM until after it had 58% support in 2013.

There's always a similar conversation on Iraq. Because Bernie didn't join Barbara Lee in voting against the Afghanistan war he must always be an unrestrained warmonger like Hillary.

[Zorra]

81. So many Dems have been alienated by this type

of thing that Clinton no longer has any possibility of winning the GE.

[cascadiance]

108. When Clinton is now even in polling with Ben Carson, you know we're in trouble...

They cited independents being alienated in this poll to Clinton who support Carson more now.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-clinton-ties-carson-16-matchup-tops-other-gop-candidates-n456776

Note that they say that in the poll matchups they test Bernie with (Trump and Rubio), that he is farther ahead of them than Clinton is in GE numbers too. Kind of curious that the article doesn't mention how Bernie does against Carson. Hmm....

[Agschmid]

82. Some of us say they both need improvement.

Unfortunately someone still isn't running who was ideologically pure on this issue IMO.

Sure sucks.

[L0oniX]

97. K & R

[whereisjustice]

98. Hillary will say whatever is most convenient at the time for her own benefit. Back then it was cool

for Wall Street to be against gays. Now it's not. So Hillary evolved.

Unfortunately for us, its still cool for Wall Street to fuck over the middle class and below.

[Scootaloo]

99. It's not a double standard. You need two standards for a double standard

Instead, sanders is held to an impossible standard, but Clinton is held to no standard at all.

[BainsBane]

100. He is on the record opposing marriage equality in Vermont in 2006

Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

Slate is not the only source. VT newspapers from the time show his opposing the state measure for marriage equality.

Clearly you're upset some voters bother to inform themselves.

[berni_mccoy]

103. That article infers support for civil unions

By Sanders early on to mean he didn't support gay marriage. However he clearly stated he supported gay marriage under Massachusetts standard in the video of the same article you linked. Keep searching for the smoking gun... It's a good way for Clinton supporters to spend their time.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

101. Hillary's campaign will use the kitchen sink to get the LGBT vote

pandering is no exception

[BootinUp]

109. The correct way to evaluate policies in the past

is to compare them to how everyone else stood in the past.

[Doctor_J]

112. so continue on the same path, forever

Sounds great!

[UglyGreed]

111. K/R

[alcibiades_mystery]

114. Post about supporters