He did? D:

(I mean. Not that she doesn't arguably deserve it. But I want him to be above that. :/ )

Called her unqualified to be president.

>,> I wouldn't necessarily call her unqualified. not considering some of her predecessors Just. The wrong choice. 8|

Yeah I mean it's not going to effect the way I vote or anything, considering the fact he'd been running a pretty clean campaign wasn't nearly the only reason I supported him.

(And I mean I already voted in my primary anyway we were a few weeks back.)

Yeah. Like. She is not the best choice. Far as I'm concerned, that's just fact. But in terms of experience/technical qualifications..:: pretty sure she's more qualified than trump, at the very least.

Well I'd argue Trump is actually the least qualified still in the race, so that's not necessarily saying much

Turns out compared to a sitting governor, two sitting senators, and a former senator/sec of state, being a mogul doesn't do much.

But considering how likely he is to be nominated... DX

I don't even think she's a bad choice, personally, I just think she's not the best choice.

I know you want to win, Bernie, but don't smear Hillary too bad - because if she does win, we need her over trump. :/

The best I've really heard about her is that she'll maintain the status quo, tbh.

Right, and maintaining the executive status quo, assuming it comes with the Dems regaining control of the legislative branch, isn't at all a bad thing. I'd definitely like things to move more quickly towards-

the progressive side, hence my support for Bernie, but eight more years of Obama would not be by any means a bad thing.

Not bad, but... I really don't to wait eight years for any profession in my rights as a human being. :/

Obama did a lot, but I want it pushed forward. Not held in place.

I mean... when it's something personal, I can only say so much against your feelings on it, because it turns out that the only real identity I have that lacks a ton of privilege is, as long as I stay out of -

politics, entirely a cultural thing.

But from what I understand-and correct me if I'm wrong-while 100% more needs to be done, Obama has made strides in that regard compared to what comes before?

He did!

And I think strides will continue to be made. I don't know who will make them more quickly, but regardless of which democrat gets it, they will make some amount of positive change. Both candidates would be-

There's been some good growth in recent years - gay people can get married, trans people can't be denied coverage under health care...

elected largely by a youth democratic that overwhelmingly, even among conservative youth, supports lgbtq+ rights.

demographic, not democratic.

BUT. Trans people are also still fighting for the right just to go to the bathroom in certain states, and I'm still looking at a 28,000 dollar surgery that most insurances won't cover.

I recognize that, but what I don't know-and this is a combination of a personal lack of research on the topic and relatively lack of information out there-which of the two is most likely to be better for that-

specific area of rights.

I'd rather see my rights delayed than burned to the ground by trump - but I'd really like to see someone pushing to grow them, and not just. Letting things continue for eight years, because I don't trust

Hillary to make any strides at all.

I see. That's where I really don't know enough about her record, (and I do think one of her biggest combined strengths and weaknesses is that she's such a politician that her record doesn't always mean anyt-

Bernie. By far.

hing) on the subject.

Fair 'nuff.

From what I know - and from what I can see, the general view among trans people - is that he's the only current candidate who even sees us as human beings. :/

Hillary will talk about us if it benefits her campaign, but. With her history, there's very little chance of her trying to make any progress. While Bernie has a solid history of being pro-lgbt

and has a respect for trans needs in terms of just. Being treated like human beings.

A lot of us trust Bernie to make an actual attempt at a difference, for everyone, and make things better instead of just holding them in place.

Part of me still suspects she'll make larger strides than might be expected if elected, but it's certainly not the sort of thing I'd gamble a vote on her for.

Especially were I somebody where it impacted them a lot more heavily than it does, well, me.

Sorry, passionate subject in light of my delayed surgery (my fault) and how many people in the south are dealing with the fact that it's now illegal for them to use a public restroom, more or less

It's definitely a subject you should be passionate about. Hell, it's a subject everybody should be passionate about, as most rights issues are.

I'm glad to hear your thoughts on it, 'cause like I said, I'm legitimately not very aware of how most people in the community feel about the two candidates and why, but what you say makes a lot of sense.

I'm glad too. Been listening.

And I really really hope things get better for you and other trans individuals soon, K

Ugh, my state

I can look forward to it losing tons of businesses because our clown for a governor and a bunch of bigoted constituents can't get their act together

I think he's up for reelection so I can't wait to oust that bastard

Which state?

North Carolina, I'm guessing?

Yes ;__;

I admit, I'm not the most well researched person myself - but. Yeah. He's very supported in the trans community because it feels like he sees us as people, and the others. Not so much.

Man, I have a lot to say here! 1. LGBTQ stuff - Hillary wasn't even for marriage equality until 2013. Bernie was putting on Pride parades in the 80s in Burlington.

So he's pretty ahead of her. The next part requires more explanation, the "not qualified" comment.

So after Bernie won Wisconsin Tuesday, Hillary's team publicly stated they were going to "disqualify and defeat" Bernie, and worry about party unity later.

She started Wednesday morning by going on Morning Joe and basically saying she doesn't know~ if he's qualified to be president, or even if he's a ~real democrat~

Then she really went insane and dropped a Tweet actually telling him to apologize for Sandy Hook.

Oh, obviously the bit about Hilary's team saying that didn't make news at all. Or at least not what I've seen.

Oh god.

I mean, I'm still disappointed that he attacked her, then, but it sounds like it was very well deserved at that point.

Which is by far the nastiest thing said on either side this primary, Trump included.

So no. She will now officially never get my vote, because holy fucking shit did you just blame Sandy Hook on Bernie?!

Oh, and she's also claimed that Vermont is funneling guns into NYC, a claim so fucked up that VT's governor - one of her own superdelegates - is pissed at her.

As a Virginian, I can very well attest that NYC's gun problem is pretty much mostly our fault. Lemme get you links!

>,> I will still vote for anyone up against Trump, but. DAMN. I just hope that she and her party continue acting batshit enough that all her supporters go over to Bernie

Hillary Clinton Using Sandy Hook Victims as Political Props Just ... the Sandy Hook thing

I mean. TBF. If she is acting this crazy during the primaries, maybe she really isn't fit to be president?????????? >,>

I mean, I get that it's swinging back, but it seems unfair to say you won't vote for Hilary after asking for an apology for Sandy Hook when Sanders returned salvo with suggesting she apologize for the Iraq War.

But beyond that, it all does sound pretty damning of her.

A Clinton Superdelegate Just Admitted That Hillary Lied About Ber... here's the guns from Vermont thing!

All this being said, i'm disappointed he even attacked her that much. But his actual statement was a very long if-then statement, listing a lot of her positions and saying those disqualify her.

At this point, he just needs to keep running clean and let her self-destruct like in 08.

I agree, I think she's in the midst of doing just that-but if he keeps slinging mud back, that's trouble.

nods

(I read on the sandy hooks thing that he came under some fire from families by saying he didn't support suing the gun companies in that particular instance?

But even then, he went on to say how he supported suing gun companies that knowingly gave bad people guns....

Yeah that.

The difference between their statements tho is that Hillary actually did vote to send us (literal us there) to Iraq. So... she's actually responsible for that.

(also, I apologize if I sound bitchy. This shit gets me excited)

It's a sensitive issue for a lot of us, let's be honest. :/

But still. All three of us support Bernie, even if our reasonings/exact opinions differ.

And hopefully Hillary will self destruct and more people will join in.

Yes this!

Definitely. I honestly wish I knew more out-and-out Hillary supporters; I frequently find my discussions about politics end up devolving into me wishing other Bernie supporters were as gung-ho as me about-

toeing the party line if he loses, but I'm definitely hoping that his momentum can carry to a strong victory going forward.

basedbase here's one

Oh, I didn't realize. I guess that's because you don't talk about politics as much, at least on plurk, that I notice.

I've been pretty quiet about it yeah

and haven't felt like I could contribute meaningfully to this one much either, sorry

That's fine, there's no overt need for contribution, necessarily. I've just grown comfortable in the assumption that those I talk to online are Bernie supporters.

Part of the problem there is that there's good odds the Bernie supporters you're talking to are Independents and not Democrats.

It's about half and half actually, but it is part of what causes the issue, yeah.

And independents I don't let myself get angry about with the not voting hliary thing, unless it's coupled with the rare but still infuriating 'will vote for Trump over Hillary' thing.

Largely Democrat here. It would be nice to be independent but the GOP is too hostile to minorities to warrant much of their other choices.

I'm in a spot where I don't wish I felt I could be independent but wish there were at least twice as many parties.

I'm still fantasizing about this election splitting each party in two.

But they're so far entrenched they have to both split or they'll reform.

I'm theoretically idnependant, mostly because bernie's supporters failed to tell me that the caucus only lasted an hour so i was too late to shift to democrat...

But i'll still go democrat to avoid Trump

And a lot of dems have been alienated by DWS and the DNC over the past 6 years. They've bungled a lot since then. I'm in this category.

It'll only take eight years of complete democratic presidential/congress control at most for a fractured conservative base to be convinced they have to work together.

Yeah, I get that, too. I'm really not a fan of DWS, or a lot of what the DNC has been doing recently-but the fact of the matter is I think (unfortunately) the office of the president will never be expendable-

enough to use it to make a point by crossing over, or even not voting.

Especially in this primary, we're seeing incredible amounts of corruption and cynicism on the Democrat side. And it's disillusioning.

At least for me personally.

I'm not a hundred peent on what DWS or DNC is

I'm not as invested in politics as I"d like, and haven't had much to do with the democratic party... but... This election is effing important to me, so trying. DX

And here again I will plug Tim Canova and suggest donating to him in his primary against DWS. She has to go. :3

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee!

Thanks for being faster on that, I was looking up spellings and wanted to make sure I had the right 'c.'

(I was initially thinking 'caucus.'

Under her stewardship, the DNC has had massive losses on the state and national level, and she's publicly backed Republican friends over their dem challengers.

I actually haven't had much direct involvement with the party, beyond considering myself a member of it, really, mostly because while I've toyed with the idea of politics as a career in the past, I'm well past

the age of being able to move into them by the 'standard' route now, and I wouldn't want to hide the fact I'm an atheist.

Which means I'd be unelectable to non-local office anyway.

But yeah, DWS is really not great. There's also a lot of allegations, most with pretty strong (though I don't know if there's any 100% concrete? I believe it anyway, but not sure how hard it is) evidence,

that she's been actively biased towards the Hillary campaign.

When she should be remaining neutral.

Yeah, she was Hill's campaign manager in 08. She's not trying to be impartial very hard.

She's also publicly trying to tank Liz Warren's Consumer Protection Bureau and pushing legislation giving breaks to fucking payday lenders.

Those two things alone make her as bad as Republicans.

If Bernie wins, good lord I want DWS rode out of town on the rails and Liz Warren to take her place.

Also: I was talking to my sister about this, and apparently, Hillary did not call for an apology. She replied on twitter to somebody that did-the daughter of the Sandy Hook principal-saying she supporter her-

in the fight against gun violence.

Sandy Hook family member wants Bernie Sanders apolog...

I think more people are pissed at this tweet, which she did on her own:

.BernieSanders prioritized gun manufacturers' rights over the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook.

On top of the morning show where she said the same thing

Doing that went beyond just supporting grieving people. It used them as an attack.

Ah, fair enough.

I hadn't seen that tweet yet.

Like I said, I'm still kind of catching up on this whole exchange.

Video and tweet

I also read an article on the family attacking him - from what i can understand, they're angry, but... Bernie supports gun control much more than Hillary does, in his politics

He just doesn't believe in suing gun companies for every case - only cases where they knowingly allowed dangerous people to get their guns.

(Basically, he's not in any way against gun control, he just. Disagrees on where the blame lies for this incident.)

This article

That's actually the one I just linked, though I hadn't read the article just looked at the tweets.

Ahh

Yeah, while the title is inflammatory the article is relatively balanced.

...what are you reading as the title?

""sandy hook family member wants bernie sanders apology over gun stance"" - it's not the the most scanadalizing title in the world???? It just.

In my opinion, it makes you open the article expecting an attack on Bernie - when the reality of the article is more balanced, as a whole, thanks to the quotes

Huh. I didn't get that expectation, but I can see that.

Also, it looks to me like the immunity difference between Clinton and Sanders for gun control isn't an insignificant difference.

I admit to not knowing much about those policies. :|a'

Basically, there was an... amendment to a bill, I think?

Holding gun manufacturers somewhat responsible for what was done with their guns-mostly, I believe, to put pressure on them to change their policies and the like.

Clinton was for it, Sanders was against it.

I can see benefits to it? But I'd want to know why Sanders was against it. (Like. For me, I would think the sellers are more responsible than the manufacturers?????)

Well, it's not as though the sellers are being excused of responsibility with it.

(And actually, I think at one point Sanders labeled it as essentially and effort to get gun manufacture in America to stop, which is something I'm all for.)

(But that's extreme for a lot of people, obvs.)

Yeah, that's basically it. Also, suing gun manufacturers for making guns sets a really bad precident.

It'd be similar to suing car manufacturers for drunk driving.

Well. I think it would be more like suing the alcohol company, tbh - but in terms of legal precedent....

If a company has policies which they refuse to fix which actively allow people who shouldn't be allowed guns to get guns - then yeah, they should be sued.

But. If they just make guns, and sell them to stores - suing them for who those stores then sell them to is a little much

There might be some precedent for that, because I remember the Camel company got in trouble for targeting teenagers...

That's a little differemtn, in my opinion....

For one thing, I don't see a lot of commercials for guns - i don't think????? Especially not ones recommending them for bad guys.

If anyone's responsible for publicizing "HEY! You can use guns to shoot people!!!!" it's the media, not the manufacturers.

OH YEAH CAME BACK TO SAY

If you guys are interested in alternative media, The Young Turks is the most watched news channel on YouTube and they're very progressive and very real.

They are biased very far left, but they're honest about it.

Also, just got this from Emily's List:

Can you guess which candidate Bernie Sanders and h... (Plurk Paste) So much

tbh I don't hold them supporting Hillary against them. That's literally their core mission - elect pro-choice women, which she is. And they've been pushing down-ticket Dems more.

But this is just a bare attempt at begging.

Please be better than this, Emily's List.

I mean honestly-and this is, in my opinion, them kind of using the soundbites but Bernie made the mistake of using the words he did-without context, what he said does sound sexist to me.

My understanding of the context is that it's not, because he goes on to describe the reasoning he believes she's not qualified in a very specific fashion.

But calling her overambitious and unqualified sounds a lot like sexist language, in a vacuum.

Eehhhh.... I didn't get that assumption, tbh, but...

A man calling a woman unqualified for a job she has the experience for - depending on your level of embitterment, "sexist" could potentially be what you got form t

Yeah, what he said wasn't sexist. It was a series of if-then statements that called back to his typical stump speech.

I don't think "overambitious" was ever even mentioned.

Yeah, I hadn't actually seen the word 'ambitious' used at all until it was mentioned in that post, so Idk.

tbh I think you have to be "overambitious" in some capacity to even run for President.

And like I said, with the full context, I definitely don't think it's sexist. Without it, though, calling a woman unqualified for something when by almost all traditionally held definitions of qualified for it

she is is going to make people see it and think sexism, unless they have the whole quote.

Yup

(And yeah I'm inclined to agree I'm pretty sure everybody running is ambitious.)

to their credit, when I heard this story on the radio this morning, they played the whole quote.

And didn't seem to be condemning him for it, either, which was also nice

God only knows how CNN and MSNBC are running with it, though.