I am glad she, like most Americans, have evolved on this subject.

It is not even worth it to have a conversation regarding the social changes that have taken place throughout the years, in part due to people evolving and changing their beliefs with new information. George W. Bush was big on never changing his mind.

Perhaps someday you too will evolve.

was simply morally wrong and the statement of it was designed to appeal to prejudices and holier-than-thou attitudes.

Hillary's statement in that video shows that she is a follower, either afraid to lead or unable to do so.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is a leader, a moral leader on issue after issue.

Hillary is a nice lady. She means well.

But she failed to lead on the issue of same-sex marriage and on many other issues. She is a politician, but not as morally courageous as a politician as Bernie Sanders is.

I must say, JD, that my post count is low because good folks like you say it by the time I get to the subject.

....sounds to me like she's just being politically expedient. Kind of like that whole Iraq thing. Just what we need in a new President.

Since you're going there, why don't you research his regrets over his ill-advised "rape porn?"

Bernie Sanders--A Much Better Man Than Some Of His Supporters!!!

It is a good statement supporting the rights of women. It discusses that fact that as women struggled to be assertive and left behind the submissive, subservient image and role they had had for centuries, perhaps millenia, men, too had to adjust.

It was a good article in my view. It had very, very, very little to do with rape and a lot to do with affirming women's liberation and recognizing the struggles of men dealing with changing gender roles.

In my view the article expressed a negative view of porn as denigrating to women.

You might want to retract your full throated "endorsement" of something he is disavowing.

UGH!!!!!


Bernie Sanders Talks 1972 'Rape Fantasy' Essay: 'I Learned My Lesson'


http://www.people.com/article/bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-late-night-seth-meyers

I did not find it shocking at all.

He isn't excusing it. Here's his campaign's talking point on the matter:

You compare a piece of poorly written satire that actually supported the ending of rigid gender rolls with Clinton's decades long support of DOMA & DADT?

What is this sorry tactic of trying to put words in people's mouths, and then protest in a weak and craven way over something I never said, did or "compared?"

I think you need to take your angry-sad little insult, look in the mirror, and repeat it to yourself.

I'm quite certain Bernie would not approve of your tactics, here. He's disavowed that essay--time for some of his supporters to listen to what the man says, for a change.

after they are called out.

You are regurgitating lurid talking points. He did not 'disavow' the essay. For pity's sake, go read all that has been discussed on the topic.

And yes, you are comparing one to the other.

Sanders is not my parent or my guardian. Neither are you.

There you go again, making something up, pulling it out of your sorry little ...ear, averring your inventions and fabrications are valid, and declaring victory!



Guess what? I didn't do any of THAT, either! And nor did I "compare" and that will remain the case no matter how often you stomp your foot, cough up another immature bit of rudeness, and try in amateurish fashion to provoke a response as ugly as the stuff you're tossing!




I have some terrible news for you, though--people here on DU are fortunate enough to enjoy the gift of literacy. They can read the horseshit misstatements you've written here, and they can see quite plainly that the things you are claiming are not supported by any facts on offer.

I most assuredly don't want to be your parent or guardian (not sure why you thought that was a cool thing to say, are you looking for a new daddy or mommy, is that it?) --though I do feel sorry for them if you treat them the way you treat strangers on the internet. I rather suspect their hopes and dreams for you didn't include this kind of pathetic behavior.

And I'm quite sure, given your conduct in this thread, which is childish, rude and churlish, that Sanders wouldn't want to adopt you, either!


Since you love his essay so much, pass it out to all your friends--I'm sure he'd love that.

The thread is a video of Clinton's anti-LBGT bigotry on display in 2004, a mere 11 years ago.

You go off on an ill-informed tangent trying to make it about Sanders and his 'sex essay'. When thoroughly debunked, you double down not just with me but with others.

You claim you are not comparing. Why bring him up then? You claim you are not regurgitating and yet you are peddling the same OLD talking point trying to make Sanders look bad for something that actually, while poorly written satire, was not in the least bit anti-women. It was in point of fact, pro women and the breaking down of stereotypical gender rolls.

Your constant attempts to avoid these facts is pretty much a classic definition of weaseling.

And you are right, we are a literate bunch here, and I am quite confident that I am hardly the only one seeing through your tiresome little games.

Pushing back against lies, bullshit, and distortion which you perpetrated in this sub-thread is not being rude or insulting. Nice try though at deflection off of you and back onto me.

Lecturing any of us Sanders supporters on how we must live up to some sort of odd authoritarian perfectionistic ideal is a game you made up in your own head. It is not reality based.

is you. Do you seriously think people can't read the stuff you've written here? There's no cloak of invisibility over your poorly chosen words! In order to participate here, EVERYONE has to be able to read--and they can read what you've written, and marvel at your ... moxie!



The point that whooshed right over your angry, fussy head is that people EVOLVE in their thinking. No one is "comparing" stances--the point that you were just so unable to grasp, so busy you were engaging in "piece of work, etc." name - calling, is that smart people--like Hillary and Bernie--GROW.

Obtuse people don't seem to manage to process that "complex" (cough) concept--they double down, and call scenes of multiple rape "satire." They then try to compare apples and oranges, act like it matters to drag up bullshit stances that candidateS no longer hold, and get upset when no one takes their poorly articulated--and at the end of the day, MEANINGLESS-- point.

You can't walk this back, you've completely shot any hope of having "authority" in this conversation--you put quite a bit of effort into disparaging me, insisting that piece of utter crap Sanders has DISAVOWED is "satire," and when that doesn't go well, NOW you want to try to talk policy?

You've spent all your credibility. You have none. And it's all YOUR OWN FAULT.

Poor Bernie. He's a good man, with a few lousy supporters who do him no good. It's not a "perfectionist ideal" to take your cues from the guy you purport--and I am going to repeat that, PURPORT--to support. In fact, it's what NORMAL supporters do. Yet you proudly tell me you have a problem with that, that it's some kind of "perfectionist ideal, " an unreasonable demand. Hmmmm! Time reveals all!

Anyone who calls scribblings that deal with multiple rape "satire" in this day and age--after the author of the garbage has repeatedly expressed contrition, disowned it, called it stupid, regretted it, etc.--is quite PLAINLY not taking the point at all, has a real problem with tone deafness, is doing a pisspoor job of supporting his candidate, and is in no position to speak with any authority. Why? Because calling that essay anything but "stupid"--which is what Sanders called it--is neither liberal nor "progressive."

Now you toddle along and have a nice day.

SMH!

My god you are fully of it!

You are still doubling down.

Sanders satire was nothing to 'evolve' from because, as has been stated sooooo fucking many times to you, it was not about a rape fantasy!

Clinton, yes, has had to evolve. Sanders has not. Period. Those are the facts. No matter how many arrogant words you dribble out you are still wrong.

Clinton, whether because she sincerely believed as she did in this video or was merely saying it to garner votes, demonstrated that she was an LBGT bigot. Others, like Sanders and myself, did not have to evolve. We opposed DADT, DOMA, etc. from the get go.

You are trying, yet again, to equate his one piece of poorly written satire as being equivalent. Give it up. You have failed horridly.

Now you toddle along with your projections, your insults, your rantings & false equivalencies. You might end up straining something if you keep this bullshit up.

See--I actually listened to Senator Sanders and I paid close attention to the interviews he gave, disavowing this essay and repeating, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, that the thing was "stupid" and "does not reflect his views towards women."

You are so invested in wanting to excuse him, that you can't see that he doesn't want you to do that.

And way to keep missing the essential point! Is English your first language? One more time--as simply as I can say it: This isn't about comparisons, get off that little pony-- it's about the act of EVOLVING.

You're having a hard time with that; Sanders is not.

But hey, keep "helping" him. He'll love ya for it!


And you might want to quit with the -- I don't think it's helping your thought process!

the very real need that Hillary Clinton had to evolve on the issue of LGBT civil rights, sure, let's discuss that.

I am very glad she and others have finally come around. That is excellent.

But by insisting that Sanders somehow has to 'evolve' as well on some issue that only you have made up in your head is sadly a false equivalency. You continue to try and compare the two.

Shall I draw pictures for you to get it. Object A is being discussed. You are trying to make a point about 'evolving' by comparing object A to object B with the false equivalence that his poorly written satire (that did not infringe on anyone, did not betray a bigotry towards anyone, etc.) is EQUAL to object A's video proof of definite bigotry that most assuredly did need to evolve away from.

But you can get trying if you want. I am not interested in playing your games any longer.

And again, you failed to take my point.

It wasn't that he "had" to evolve--it's that he DID evolve--he could have held on to his creepy rape-y views, but he realized that they were (his word) STUPID and he "distanced himself" from the views expressed in that ill-thought-out essay.

Here, let me break it down to three simple sentences:

Smart people learn and grow, and adjust their thinking.

Stupid people don't.

Both candidates are smart.

Last edited Sun Jun 14, 2015, 06:40 AM - Edit history (1)

That is the point. Your entire argument rests on your interpretation that his words were 'rapey'.

He said he writes fiction badly. He has said the satire was not well written. It was a product of the time, etc., etc., etc. He did not say he was writing 'rapey' fantasies and then had to fucking evolve out of that bad behavior.

There were two Mother Jones exposes involving both of these non-issues.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/young-bernie-sanders-liberty-union-vermont

I will edit my original reply with the corrected link. It was not a 'confusion', it was just the wrong link.

I addressed the correct article even though I provided the wrong link.

And your own linked to articles reference the Mother Jones, and they do not support your interpretation that you are continuing to push about the equivalency of Sanders and Clinton's evolution on significant social issues.

Good grief is fucking right!

If you think it's funny, well, I'm not at all surprised.

One more time--the two issues are not about "equivalency" -- they are about evolution. Each issue progresses on its own path, independent of the other. I've been clear on this, why you're playing the "I don't get it" card is entirely on you--but it doesn't reflect well on your ability to process a discussion point.

Sorry--you're not going to get your wish.

Yes, I did read it. Bernie is ABSOLUTELY right. It's DRECK.

It's also very offensive and illiberal. Bernie and his campaign understand this--it's not sinking in with some of his "supporters" though, apparently.

It is completely tone deaf, and that said, I'm sure he's "EVOLVED" over the years and no longer would take that dumb-ass, ham-handed, false paradigm and rather ugly and sexist approach to his subject matter.

I can understand completely why he's ashamed of it and wants to distance himself from it.

Part of EVOLVING is knowing you fucked up, and correcting that.

Would that a couple of rabidly, obsessively clueless people would get the drift....but no--keep doubling and tripling down, keep "defending" that thing that Senator Sanders has disavowed and has said does NOT (get that? NOT) reflect his views on women.

But hey, keep "helping." I'm sure he'll love ya for it!!!! Pass out copies to all your friends and 'explain' to them why this is a GOOD thing, really! Go on, hop to it!!

article offensive. It had to do with a young man's difficulties in dealing with the changing sexual expectations of women. It is quite appropriate. I don't think he should be ashamed of the article. It reflects the confusion that real people went through at that time.

We women were raised to be submissive and to play subordinate roles, to raise children and to serve our spouses. That's the way I was raised. It took a lot of soul-searching and a lot of experience and learning for me to become a strong, fairly assertive woman, an independent person who could become what I had the ability to become.

I'm not going into the details of my story, but the article rang true for me. I don't know whether you are a man or a woman. I'm a woman, and I rather liked the article.

everyone needs to get on board the JDPriestly train, and just "get over it?"

Keep defending the essay that Sanders has called stupid, embarrassing, and that he disavows. Because, really, who can't get behind comments that champion a thesis that men fantasize about rape, and women fantasize about multiple rape--you keep on keeping on with that! Tell all your friends! I'm sure Bernie's staff will really appreciate that. That'll go over really well in the universities with established Women's Studies programs, too!

You know, back in the swinging seventies, when you were going to those meetings, there was no retirement vestment for older workers getting hired into a new job, and you could be "put out to pasture" if you were "too old." The federal minimum wage was a buck sixty, no DNA tests for rape, hell, no DNA tests for paternity! He said, she said! And "she" often lost out. How about we go back to those antiquated standards, as well--I mean, really, why not? It was "cool" back then, why wouldn't people today welcome a return to those viewpoints?

People EVOLVE. Senator Sanders did. So did SoS Clinton.

But hey, keep "helping" the man with your justification, even though his campaign talking points use words like regret, disavow, stupid, and, the money quote: "does not reflect his views towards women." Don't believe me! No skin off my nose..I'm tired of arguing his case--you go along and knock yourself out--tell all your friends about this wonderful essay, and encourage them all to read it....

For me, that was the point of the article that Bernie wrote.

FDR who is put forward and rightly so as a an exemplary liberal, had at least one mistress and treated his wonderful wife rather badly at times.

Women were expected to just tend to the household and take all kinds of abuse back them. That is what Bernie's article was about. The evolution that was taking place and the confusion about gender/sexual roles as that evolution progressed.

We were a long way from Sex and the City in my youth and young adulthood. I'm close to Bernie's age. I was told in the early 1970s by a career counselor very precisely what career I should enter if I wanted to be "happy." The counselor said to me very clearly, "You will never be happy until you are ....." That was after batteries of tests. But I didn't even know what people in that profession did. It was unthinkable to me that I, a woman, could have a profession of that kind that required assertive conduct and strength.

Only when I reached the age of 50 did I gather up the courage to go back to school and enter that profession and discover for myself just how correct the career counselor had been: Finally, I was practicing a profession that made me happy. A profession that makes many, many people miserable and that requires an assertive personality. And that was right to my amazement for me, a girl raised to believe that I should be submissive, quiet and never show my intelligence.

Bernie's article was about the kinds of changes that girls raised like I was had to go through to become the strong, confident women we became. Our daughters are benefiting from the difficult evolution we have gone through. And I am happy about that too.

But Bernie's article is nothing to be ashamed of. It is something that male chauvinists and young people who did not go through that evolution that their parents and grandparents suffered through probably have difficulty understanding.

Engaging in extramarital indiscretions is a personal matter. So long as he wasn't putting his paramours in the Cabinet or on the Supreme Court, I could give a hoot who FDR was schtupping. For that matter, I don't care to know the details of Senator Sanders' transition from Wife Number One to Wife Number Two--it's just not in my wheelhouse of interest. I just don't care about that sort of thing.

I think the point that you took away from that essay isn't the point that Senator Sanders took away--or is disavowing. He doesn't "approve" of the essay and has repeatedly said it does NOT reflect his views. I think he's saying the right thing.

I believe him, too. I'm glad he evolved! I'm not going to shove that essay down his throat, but I'm not going to "defend" it and pretend that it doesn't put forward an antiquated and inaccurate paradigm with regard to women's attitudes toward rape. I accept his comments at face value, I believe him when he says the thing was stupid, ill-advised, embarrassing, etc., and from his comments, it sure sounds like he's plenty ashamed of the damn thing--and he should be. It's AWFUL.

That said, I'm also going to understand that good people can do stupid things and make idiotic choices on occasion. It's what they do when they WISE UP that counts.

was the story of a man, the author, observing the social changes he saw in the relationships between men and women occurring at his time. And that the world was wising up. In the article he expresses his belief that it is good that the relationships and roles of the sexes were changing from the destructive stereotypes that were although the term was not used, basically those more of rape than of respect and love.

When I was in high school, my mother returned from a meeting of religious women to tell the story that the woman with whom she shared a room had always gone into the closet to change her clothes. My mother said that her roommate explained to my mother that no one, not even her husband, had ever seen her without clothing. OK. That sounds unbelievable, but that was the mentality in some circles in the 1950s and early 1960s. Bernie's article is about sexual liberation and women standing up to the stereotypes about their sexual roles. It may be that you were in a more sophisticated environment and did not know about what went on in other social circles. But i assure you that in my experience, Bernie's article expressed social change that was very important for women. A change in attitude toward sexual and social roles of women.

dreck. It's awful, it's boneheaded, it's stupid, it's embarrassing, and it reflects attitudes that should be dead and buried, if they're not already. Bernie has said he doesn't stand behind it, and I take him at his word!

arrow is centered on the bullseye.

Maybe you should get on the Google and find out what he had to say about that before you play the "epic fail" game. He as much as acknowedged it was a huge fuckup on his part and he's embarrassed by it.

I take him at his word and I know he's (cough) EVOLVED on those issues. See, I figure people can and do grow and change when they are exposed to new information and have the opportunity to listen to different points of view.

I think Senator Sanders is a fine man, a good man, and a smart man. Like I say, he's a nicer guy than a lot of his (cough) supporters, many of whom don't do a very good job of supporting him at all.

Talk about the (cough) supporters of many… this is such a false accusation.

Cough, cough… indeed.

Is that what a correction of something false indicates? If speaking truth to lies is a weakness that you deem "can't handle it", then count me weak as grandma's tea, MADem. You see standing up to truth as weakness, and I see a bold face lie.

Yep.

I'd rather vote for someone who got these things right the first time.

And did not need to 'evolve' or check the polls before announcing support

Personal attack snark that Hillary supporters are famous for and which is turning people off. It's Hillary supporters, not her critics, that are her greatest liability.

licking her finger and sticking it up in the air to detect wich way the political winds are blowing...

Now that republicans are evolving on the issue, Hillary is free to agree.

It's really that simple. Calculated. But, simple.

The sad thing is she can cater to the Republicans all she wants and no more than 10 of them will vote for her. The Republicans don't want a woman for President any more than they wanted a black man for President, and most especially this woman.

I'd bet that her evolution happened about 2008, when she was told she needs the gay vote to make it to the white house

Wonder if she really means it, that is why I do not trust her at all.

After all, according to Hillary 2004 the main purpose for marriage is for raising children....

My husband and I have been happily married for twenty-five years with no children, but I'd be willing to bet my marriage is as valid as hers.

2004 is recent to me.

You may have been right in 2004 but you are wrong in 2015, got it. See you can be wrong also.

I'm glad she's "evolved" on the issue but I'll be voting for the guy who had it right all along.

Makes you wonder how "committed " she is on other things, that is when she actually takes a position.

did you vote for him?

DOMA.

If I remember, you could be gay in the military but you couldn't say so, "act" gay or have any gay "relations".

Ya, that worked out great.

But funny how the sky did not fall when it was gone.

...goodbye and good riddance.

Last edited Sat Jun 13, 2015, 08:39 PM - Edit history (1)

If not, I'm prepared to write off the speech as a "youthful indiscretion."

I don't care that it took her so long to evolve. Some people live in more restrictive environments than others and they cope by being more closed minded than is natural for them to be.

My main issue is with her assertion that marriage is a sacred institution, it is not it is a civil contract. And the problem with not seeing it that way leaves the institution open to abuse. It means one partner can feel free to spend above the means of the family and not leave enough to provide for necessities. That actually happened in my family. My father spent far more than he should have on his hobbies to the point we didn't have enough money for food and clothes. Both my parents made more than enough to cover our basic needs, yet my mother had to go begging her relatives to cover some of those needs. If it was a contract situation she could have taken my dad to court to make him stop doing that. Maybe we still wouldn't have had everything we needed, but making him stop buying $200 dollar guns in the 1970's sure would have gone a long ways. And no he didn't take a long time to save up.

The issue that it's between a man and a woman can't be over looked of course. It was freaking 2004. But, I accepted Obama evolving on this issue and I accept it from Hillary. But, I do have an issue with her equating marriage with children. I know of more than one couple who never had children and never will. One is in their late 60's. One I lost track of they might have children now, but they said they weren't ever going to they were in their mid 20's. And my daughter and her girlfriend aren't planning to adopt well bad example they aren't planning to get married either. But, the point is not everyone wants to have children even if they have a partner and even when gay people marry it doesn't follow that they will adopt or opt for invitro fertilization or some other means or that they will hire a surrogate.

The whole thing is messed up from the man and woman thing to the sacred institution thing to it being for the children thing.

Or are too old? Or who just don't have children happen to them? Or they adopt?

I have LONG been offended by the idea that marriage exists just to have kids.

Besides, two men or two women can still have kids, and I don't need to bother to name all the ways they can.

I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but this is not the kind of thing that needs to be brought up. There are other, more substantive and usually more recent things she's said and done that matter.

she changes what she says as she needs to, to get elected (like most politicians). I think that is pretty obvious over the years. This year she is seeing the Bernie Bern and it scares her. She is adopting his progressive direction. Unfortunately, I doubt it will last once she is elected.

I was proud to march with her in the pride parade.

unless that position properly fits with her polls and focus groups...I think she actually believes her concept of marriage and her unfortunate view of history...evolve? Probably not.

"hope these folks don't remember she has changed just like much of America"

I think she was pandering to the conservatives to a degree in 2004, which is in itself distasteful. I don't think this clip offers a valid representation of her current stance on this issue.

I think that it's important to recognize, though, that Bernie Sanders' position on gay rights and marriage equality is easily as-good or better than Hillary's:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-most-lgbt-friendly-candidate

eom

cannot vote for her. she should have been for this in 2004 like the rest of us who aren't right wing BIGOTS! "she has evolved" is a crock of horseshit .

and he evolved. These things do happen.

Clinton - I've evolved

Sanders - We Must

O'Malley - I did - March 1, 2012. January 1, 2013 Maryland became welcoming and affirming.

K/R