So glad to see virulent homophobia is alive and well in this comments section. It almost makes me nostalgic for the 80s and 90s.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
AIDS was riddled with moral judgement, fear and inaction for fucking years.
Consider supporting Bernie. If he loses the nomination, you can still hold your nose and vote for Hillary as a least-worst candidate for president. But stop this "I support both candidates equally!" nonsense.
To help you think about this, here's what Bernie was up to in the 80's during the AIDS crisis. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/ar…
Unlike Clinton, he's not apologizing:
And here's a refresher about how Cuba had been treating LGBT people in the years prior:
Are we actually going to excoriate Clinton and give Sanders a pass for this?
Phew, you do sound young. Social likes and rants on media mean nothing unless it translates to the polls.
While Sanders has done a tremendous job climbing in national awareness, Hillary has outpaced him by 2 million votes. Yeah, millennial power! I am very favorable to the millennial generation (Gen X) but the people are voting and voting for Hillary. And the polls - no matter how much value you give them - show the word socialist is an anathema to a significant portion of the electorate. The millenials are but one cohort with the right to vote, they tend to have low turn out.
I'd recommend hitting some 538 as well as Facebook.
BTW, Hillary apologized for real yesterday: https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/on-th…
Personally I'm done being pissed at her. That apology strikes me as what she should have said the day before, instead of that weak "misspoke" line. (Frankly, it reads like the one floated on Twitter as a model.) I'm still somewhere between feeling perplexed at this flub and annoyed at this baffling attempt to win Reagan Democrats (like they were gonna vote Sanders anyway...). Not pissed anymore. Just wary.
Praising Nancy Reagan for her response to HIV/AIDS is like like praising her for "Just say No" campaign which was in starkly hypocritical contrast to her husbands administrations active policy of importing and selling crack cocaine to US inner cities to fund the Contras.
I know. I reported it last night, but nothing's happened.
No, not red-baiting. My point is not about communism. It is about how Castro treated sexual minorities. Did Sanders "condone" that? Well, in 1985, he definitely ignored it. We can all decide for ourselves whether that constitutes condoning it.
Both Clinton and Sanders have made positive statements about heads of state whose horrific records on LGBT issues resulted in incalculable death and anguish. One of those statements has made people's heads explode; the other is rationalized away. I'm just pointing out the double standard.
Sanders' mild praise of Castro in the '80s for getting his citizens medical care and education vs. Hillary taking millions of dollars from some of the most repressive regimes in the world.
The mental gymnastics are astounding.
First, the absence of evidence is just that, so you don't know whether or not Sanders "ignored" LGBT rights in Cuba (as you claim) and considering a) his pro-LGBT stance for his entire political career and b) his labeling himself a democratic socialist, there is every reason to believe he didn't "ignore" Cuba's homophobic policies.
Second, you are comparing apples to oranges. Clinton praised the Reagans explicitly for addressing the AIDS crisis when in fact they let people die without doing anything for years. The equivalent of what Clinton did would be for Sanders to explicitly praise Castro for his good deeds toward LGBT people.
I also see that you have no comment regarding Clinton's smearing Sanders' human rights record while herself enabling the 2009 Honduran coup d'etat that was followed by the death of hundred of human right campaigners.
@124 For "ignored" read "remained silent on" if that makes you feel better, which it probably will.
Also, i don't see that difference as significant enough to exonerate Sanders on this point. Braeburns to Fujis, at the very most. For an excellent example of apple/orange comparison, btw, see 123's second graph.
@125 I couldn't agree more, which is why this selective outrage is so maddening. Neither side's hands are entirely clean on this point, and I think both Clinton and Sanders deserve censure, but this is being used as yet another my-side-good/your-side-bad wedge issue.
if Bernie Sanders had made such a colossal mistake, I'm sure Dan and many others' outrage would have been the same.
Considering your lack of thinking, one can see how you construe that Clinton saying something clearly wrong and hurtful is equivalent to YOU not having evidence that Sanders said anything.
I also see that you still have nothing to say about Clinton's role in enabling the 2009 Honduran Coup.
You seem to think my point is to defend Clinton from any and all allegations of wrongdoing. It isn’t. It’s to be clear-eyed and honest about the strengths and failures of both candidates—as opposed to picking and choosing, along strictly partisan lines, what to be offended by, and rationalizing away the rest. No selective outrage. No double standards. Is it really not possible to be distressed by BOTH what Clinton said about Nancy Reagan AND about what Sanders said about Castro? Do we have to choose only one?
And if there is, floating around out there somewhere, a statement by Sanders condemning Castro’s treatment of the LGBT community, let’s see if we can dig it up. Probably there are many such condemnations, but Sanders and his staff and his supporters have all for whatever reason decided not to widely publicize them. Still, one shouldn’t assume they don’t exist. To quote you and Donald Rumsfeld, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And LavaGirl, you’re no doubt right--
"We shall overcome the lethal myth of heterosex-supremacy that dominates life and law on Planet Heterosex-Supremacy!" - The Reverend Timmy, Ordained Awestruckian. Welcome VIDEO: https://youtu.be/0GJN5JcjhOQ
Heterosex-supremacist politicians, regardless of their godstyle-choice, that choose to pervert the sanctity of our legal marriage into their political football choose to not earn our votes.
Over 6 million views! Hubby Earl & Rev.Timmy hoofing down 5thAvenue NYC for our freedom to marry! (at minutes 1:27).
As to the Castro remarks, the full interview (the same year Sanders signed an anti-discrimination housing law for Burlington, which included protections for gays, something he praises this explictly in his statement at the time) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1xrAv9c… is all about why the US shouldn't invade Nicaragua, the already desperate situation there, and that such an action would likely send them to the USSR for support. The Cuba remarks contextualize ~10:45, but if you can, watch the whole interview, it's a reminder how little has changed. In it Sanders is all about the nuance; it closes with him saying they'd barely scratched the surface and that despite inviting national press for an extended discussion on his visit there, only one of the sound-bite reporters showed.
I get we can't know all details (is Obama rigging keeping gas low to help Iran the EU and Democrats and hurt ISIS and Venezuela, etc.?) but we can anticipate how people will react based on past actions, and with Sanders-Clinton, we can expect her to be a lot more trigger happy and less interested in other nation's sovereignty than him, and so too a lot less helpful to gay rights and human rights.
ps. Stein2016! #itsinourhands