Women under 35 are supporting Sanders over Clinton!

[Maggie Mae]

39 minutes ago, ShepherdontheRock said:

@Maggie Mae I think the 3 strikes bill and the crime things (which the Clintons I think now admit weren't such a good idea) were actually popular among black communities too. From what it sounds like, they probably thought it'd reduce crime in their communities. 

Fair enough. I do wonder how many of her apologies are genuine and which aren't. For me, her record is not stellar, voting wise. And with such a no mistake type job, it seems like she's made quite a few. 

I probably won't vote for her if she gets the nomination. My state has only been a state for not very long, and I don't think we've ever voted democratic. And I think a lot of it has to do with gun control, resource development, and subsidies. Republican candidates are better for my state in those areas. So I will probably show support to a third-party.  I have been doing that a lot in my life. I'm really not a fan of the two party system. 

[roddma]

Let me try again. When popular public figures say " I don't vote with my vagina it's an insult to women. IF you support Sanders fine, but don't be throwing that around. Sanders seems likable enough, but not someone I feel that would be take seriously. But I would still support Sanders as the Democratic nominee if that made sense. I would support Hillary as a nominee. I wouldn't support Palin as a GOP nominee if she ran.
The popular feminists behind Hillary now werent behind Palin. I wasn't behind Palin because her views didn't align with mine, I never considered her because of gender. Saying "I don't vote with my vagina" is kind of lame and sexist and I need more reason why you vote for who you do.
The more you taut' I don't vote with my vagina" it could mean another vote for GOP. THat may not be the attitude here but it is in the media. If I choose to vote with my vagina, it's no different than the opposite. We owe no one an apology if we do.

[ShepherdontheRock]

@roddma for what it's worth I wouldn't vote for Bernadette Sanders over Hilton Clinton if you know what I mean...

[roddma]

"] @roddma for what it's worth I wouldn't vote for Bernadette Sanders over Hilton Clinton if you know what I mean..."

Exactly my point At first I saw 'Bernie" then reread Ghees I guess eyesight gets bad as you age

This 'voting with vagina' thing reminds me of kids in grade school only voting for class president or other contests based on popularity of those running. In high school we voted on who had on the most red white and blue in the room or red and white -can't recall. (Red and white were school colors and still are). They voted for a poplar cheerleader and she hardly had on anything red white or blue, and she spoke up about it.
ETA I couldnt get quotes to work

[GiggleOfGirls]

I would be giddy over the moon if we had a mainstream candidate with Bernie's views but who was a woman. I'd probably actually consider phone-banking for a female Bernie, which is saying something because I don't talk on the phone if I can at all avoid it. 

[Mama Mia]

One fun thing, for me, about this thread - is it made me go back and look up who ran in every primary in the last 30 years. So I could remember who I supported ;-) .

Roddma, I think the " I don't vote with my vagina " line is just a direct retort to the Steinam and Albright type lines.

I'm actually going to phone bank for Sander's which I haven't done since 1988 when Jackson  ran. And I HATE talking on the phone. 

I think people kind of forget that despite all the demonization by the right towards both Clinton's - politically they are pretty squarely in the middle of the spectrum. They always have been, even in 1992 --despite being young and hip and  having cool music . Actually their whole vibe was VERY similar to Obama's in 2008.

Pro-choice, anti-gun, give the impression of preferring equal opportunity for all - but I think they both more want to " fix" the poor people, and give a mandatory nod to helping the middle class -- rather than actually fix the " system" that is the cause of the poverty and makes it extremely difficult for families to actually live a middle class lifestyle. 

And that's what I think makes people excited about Sander's. Clinton talks about limiting student loan debt - to 20 years of repayment. She talks about lowering the interest rate on the student loans. But she doesn't seem to get that potential student loan debt keeps young people from attending college at all. Or that once they graduate people aren't able to buy homes or start their families - because they are crushed by the debt. She just doesn't get it.

The same with healthcare. She talks about how "90% of people are now covered" but seems genuinely baffled  when people talk about how they have mandatory insurance - but can't afford to use it. 

I'll certainly vote for her if she wins , because even though my state is deep blue I want the popular vote totals to show how many people were against either of the horrific Republican options. I'm sure she'll be a perfectly adequate President. 

 

 

[Alicja]

I'm a huge fan of Sanders because he's addressed a lot of Native American issues, like racism and tribal sovereignty.

[meda]

On March 22, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Alicja said:

I'm a huge fan of Sanders because he's addressed a lot of Native American issues, like racism and tribal sovereignty.

He is on of the few in Congress to do so, and VT has a very small  Native American population 

[Becket70]

I am old and jaded by years of enduring our politics. Cynicism has replaced hope. Skepticism is how I view almost all politicians and their operatives.  However, in my youth I was an anti-war protester during the Vietnam era. I participated in many "Moratoriums" (as they were called back then) against the war and I marched in the streets along with millions (yes, the protesters numbered in the millions across the country) of like-minded young people.  I even worked on the campaign for Eugene McCarthy.  I am a senior citizen now but have not become more conservative....I'm just tired and frustrated and feel I have done my share. The point of this endless screed is that the young people in my family are all supporting Bernie.  It appears lots of people on this Board are also supporting him.  I would like to say how proud I am of all the young people in my family, the folks on this Board and people all across the nation for believing in Bernie and supporting him.  It gives me hope that this nation is not going to hell in a handbasket and that our young people can effect a change, just as the young people of my time effected a change in our nation's position on the Vietnam War. Don't give up.

[Alicja]

He is on of the few in Congress to do so, and VT has a very small  Native American population 

It just makes me so happy to see that he cares about it. I hope he addresses the Cherokee Freedmen and issues with blood quantum.

edit: Hillary also has a platform on native issues which is similar to Bernie's. I like his better but that's just me.

[meda]

36 minutes ago, Alicja said:

 

It just makes me so happy to see that he cares about it. I hope he addresses the Cherokee Freedmen and issues with blood quantum.

edit: Hillary also has a platform on native issues which is similar to Bernie's. I like his better but that's just me.

Well...regarding the Freedmen and blood quantum issues, I hope he stays out of them. They are ugly, but they are tribal government issues. I don't believe you can really support tribal sovereignty and then turn around and interfere in how a tribe determines membership.

[roddma]

Here's a break down of where the candidates stand on student loan debt.
https://studentloanhero.com/featured/2016-presidential-candidates-student-loan-debt-crisis/
PS I refrain from saying 'start families'. We have kids, or not. .

[Maggie Mae]

1 hour ago, roddma said:

PS I refrain from saying 'start families'. We have kids, or not. .

Where did you see that phrasing? I can't find it in that article. 

[Lillybee]

On 3/24/2016 at 7:41 PM, Becket70 said:

I am old and jaded by years of enduring our politics. Cynicism has replaced hope. Skepticism is how I view almost all politicians and their operatives.  However, in my youth I was an anti-war protester during the Vietnam era. I participated in many "Moratoriums" (as they were called back then) against the war and I marched in the streets along with millions (yes, the protesters numbered in the millions across the country) of like-minded young people.  I even worked on the campaign for Eugene McCarthy.  I am a senior citizen now but have not become more conservative....I'm just tired and frustrated and feel I have done my share. The point of this endless screed is that the young people in my family are all supporting Bernie.  It appears lots of people on this Board are also supporting him.  I would like to say how proud I am of all the young people in my family, the folks on this Board and people all across the nation for believing in Bernie and supporting him.  It gives me hope that this nation is not going to hell in a handbasket and that our young people can effect a change, just as the young people of my time effected a change in our nation's position on the Vietnam War. Don't give up.

 

This exactly how I feel.

[roddma]

The phrasing isnt in the article It's in a post above.

[Mama Mia]

That phrasing regarding " starting a family" was me in my post. Okay, I'll re-word it: "The prospect, and reality, of crushing  student loan debt and skyrocketing college costs is often a primary basis  of major life decisions for young adults. The decision of what career to pursue, where to live, whether to have children -and how many, the ability to own a home - are all hugely impacted by our current out-of-control college costs. " We  can't pretend to live in an egalitarian society - or one that even has the goal of offering equal opportunity - if one group of children grows up making life plans based on what interests them, and what they excel at, while the other group makes their life plans based on how much debt they can take on and not be homeless.

Thanks for the link to the candidates positions on higher education financing Roddma.

I still like Bernie Sander's position much better. There is a difference between making education " affordable" , and making public universities tuition free.  I worry that she would have a hard time understanding what " affordable " actually means. I think , in actuality, she would approach it the way she does most things -  she would throw some cash at programs to help the most low-income. Once they reach a ridiculously inadequate definition of " middle class" - all assistance would end. Even though that leaves a gigantic gap between those poor, poor people - and actual affordability. She would expand national service programs - which are great! But she is VERY vague when she talks about it. How MANY hours of work, for how long? Is there a stipend?  in exchange for how much assistance with college costs? I've worked with America-Corp programs in the past - there are some wonderful parts - but the program really only works, in high cost areas, if the participant doesn't need to pay rent or bills. So not realistic for many people. And they have a really, really huge number of ways to disqualify people from completing the program and getting the tuition assistance. One thing that bugged me in her article was her statement about being able to use Pell Grants for living expenses -- umm....yea,....not a new concept. People have AlWAYS done that. Why is she taking credit? 

I really prefer the idea that public universities ( and hopefully that includes vocational programs ) are just another level of public education. I think it's extremely reasonable to assume the majority of young adults will need /want/require education and/or training past high school in this century.

 

Also, sorry about the  phrasing regarding " family " and children. But I have to say, Hillary Clinton is the last person who would take note of that. She STILL uses " single mom's" as one of her preference groups while stumping. She still talks about making sure " women who stayed at home" get full social security benefits. Which is fine - but holy 1985 ! Should she really be singling out one sex when talking about parenting?? Yes, more single parents are women, but there are a large number of single fathers. There are an even larger number of parents who split care and custody of their kids.  And how are people ever going to take equal parenting as the norm - if a potential President talks like father's are just babysitters?

 

 

 

 

 

[GiggleOfGirls]

Two of my good friends are married to each other and the mother works and the father stays home with the children. It's not super common, but it does happen sometimes.

[Maggie Mae]

 

 

On 28/03/2016 at 9:45 PM, Mama Mia said:

I still like Bernie Sander's position much better. There is a difference between making education " affordable" , and making public universities tuition free.  I worry that she would have a hard time understanding what " affordable " actually means.

I so agree. I think it's difficult for most people who haven't lived in poverty to understand how it affects so much of their life choices. We can have two students who go to the same school, get the same grades, and be accepted to the same college. One student has parents that make 100K+ per year and are involved. The other student has parents who make 45K and have medical debt. Neither student is eligible for much aid. Student A, with the involved parents who make 100K+ is able to go to school easily. His parents come with him to school and help him set up his dorm. They go to bed bath and beyond and buy a mini fridge and some decorations. They set up a bank account with money in it. They go and get his text books and meet the roommates and the roommates parents. The parents leave and this student goes to class the next day. He eats his meals in the campus dining hall. He has time to socialize, attend math lab and get extra help. He can show up during office hours and make friends with his professors. He can join an academic society or a fraternity. 

Student B shows up in the dorms, because he had credit problems at 18, and can't pass the credit check for an off campus apartment. He waits until the third week of class to get textbooks, because they are completely unaffordable, and was looking for deals online and a pay check from the off campus job. He works most of the time, leaving very little time to study or socialize. 

Both students manage to graduate. Student A has a bunch of recommendations from professors. Student B has a degree, but no recommendations. The professors don't know him beyond the name. Student A gets a much better job, and makes more money. Student B ends up working in an unrelated field. 

 

 

On 28/03/2016 at 9:45 PM, Mama Mia said:

 

I think , in actuality, she would approach it the way she does most things -  she would throw some cash at programs to help the most low-income. Once they reach a ridiculously inadequate definition of " middle class" - all assistance would end. Even though that leaves a gigantic gap between those poor, poor people - and actual affordability. She would expand national service programs - which are great! But she is VERY vague when she talks about it. How MANY hours of work, for how long? Is there a stipend?  in exchange for how much assistance with college costs? I've worked with America-Corp programs in the past - there are some wonderful parts - but the program really only works, in high cost areas, if the participant doesn't need to pay rent or bills. So not realistic for many people. And they have a really, really huge number of ways to disqualify people from completing the program and getting the tuition assistance. One thing that bugged me in her article was her statement about being able to use Pell Grants for living expenses -- umm....yea,....not a new concept. People have AlWAYS done that. Why is she taking credit? 

As a former Americorp service member, I support the program with some caveats. And there are several different types with different programs and benefits. In a high-cost area, most of us ended up sharing living space. It is possible. But I think that program has been changed quite a bit over the years. 

 

On 28/03/2016 at 9:45 PM, Mama Mia said:

I really prefer the idea that public universities ( and hopefully that includes vocational programs ) are just another level of public education. I think it's extremely reasonable to assume the majority of young adults will need /want/require education and/or training past high school in this century.

I so agree. 

 

On 28/03/2016 at 9:45 PM, Mama Mia said:

Also, sorry about the  phrasing regarding " family " and children. But I have to say, Hillary Clinton is the last person who would take note of that. She STILL uses " single mom's" as one of her preference groups while stumping. She still talks about making sure " women who stayed at home" get full social security benefits. Which is fine - but holy 1985 ! Should she really be singling out one sex when talking about parenting?? Yes, more single parents are women, but there are a large number of single fathers. There are an even larger number of parents who split care and custody of their kids.  And how are people ever going to take equal parenting as the norm - if a potential President talks like father's are just babysitters?

I can not agree more. My dad was a stay-at-home dad and it's annoying to be constantly left out of the narrative or treated like a freak of nature. She should know better by now. But I don't think she's really even a democrat, so it's not like I'm going to really expect her to actually think about equality. 

[PraiseDog]

10 hours ago, GiggleOfGirls said:

Two of my good friends are married to each other and the mother works and the father stays home with the children. It's not super common, but it does happen sometimes.

My thinking is that more families would choose this arrangement if women truly had equal pay for equal work.  All these issues - family leave, equal pay, equal treatment in the workplace, equal and affordable healthcare, childcare, just to name a few - are so tied together that just throwing programs or making legislation about each issue separately is never going to work, or at least won't move us forward very quickly or smoothly.

For example, whenever somebody brings up the equal pay for women issue, somebody else always brings up the argument that women themselves are making choices to have a less high-powered career, because kids, blah blah.  

Which is often true, but let's turn that upside down - say a family decides they want kids - now they have to decide who's going to be the main income earner and who's going to take most of the responsibility for childcare.  Most couples are going to decide that the one who earns more and has more potential for raises and promotions is going to keep working and the one who earns less is going to either stay home (if they can afford to) or make work less of a priority so they can care for the kids.  In addition, the person who gets more paid leave for childbirth (if they're lucky enough to get any at all, because what most workplaces here offer in the way of parental leave is paltry, and few include fathers) is going to stay home.  Why is this usually the woman?

The other common argument blaming women's choices for lower pay, is that women tend to choose careers or industries that traditionally pay less. But let's take a closer look at this ...Why, exactly, do teachers make close to and sometimes less than long-haul truck drivers?  It's certainly not their education, since teachers need education beyond a Bachelor's degree and truck drivers qualify after a six-week course. Why do LPNs make less than car mechanics? Why do home health aides make less than roofers?  Why do customer-service people make less than lawn-care people? 

Because the jobs that have traditionally been done by women, are automatically and institutionally  valued less than the jobs traditionally done by men.

When you look at all these issues as a whole, the result comes out to be a system in which women are paid less and have less opportunities. This system is wrong, unsustainable, wasteful and dare I say, evil.

Hey, it's 2016 and most work (at least in the USA) no longer involves physical labor that commonly kills and injures people. Very few jobs require physical strength beyond the ability to learn how to run a machine.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the only person I know of for real who has power in our government, who really gets this.  I love her and wish she could live forever.     

[GiggleOfGirls]

Mr Gog would definitely be a better stay at home parent than I am, but his earning potential is significantly higher so here we are. 

[Criscat]

im going to say for myself, I don't like any of them this year. I will say that Clinton rubs me the wrong way for a couple reason--she is abrasive and unwilling to listen to anyone, which concerns me greatly. And it'd pretty much continue the Obama presidency, which by now, sort of terrifies me given the world now, at least in a foreign policy way. Her Thinking only she knows the answer and everyone else is a flaming liar--while refusing to ever admit she's wrong--does far more damage than the woman thing. And it's pathological. I get owning what you say/believe, but nobody is right all the time.

**opinions above are mine and only mine**

[Alicja]

Well...regarding the Freedmen and blood quantum issues, I hope he stays out of them. They are ugly, but they are tribal government issues. I don't believe you can really support tribal sovereignty and then turn around and interfere in how a tribe determines membership.

I mean, I don't want him to interfere at all, but ya know, it would be nice for him to at least say something about it.