Sanders is the real feminist in this race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, we've moved from "Bernie is the better feminist" to "Clinton isn't a feminist at all"

How can a person justify that statement?

The title of the thread is "Sanders is the real feminist in this race." I stand by that statement. I believe that Clinton is a feminist only when it suits her politically. You are free to disagree, of course, and the issue is partially one of semantics. How do you define "feminist?" I believe that a "feminist" politician has a responsibility to defend and support poor women and other disadvantaged women of the world. It is not just about when it is politically convenient.

Can you tell us more about what Bernie has done to defend and support poor and disadvantaged women of the world?

What I can say about Sanders is that he has been consistent on women's issues for his entire career which leads me to believe that he would continue in that regard. Clinton, as Secretary of State, had a much larger stage on which to do positive work for women around the world. Sanders has shown that he is not willing to compromise when it comes to legislation that will benefit women. Welfare reform was a big deal which Clinton supporters seem to want to minimize. Are we not interested in poor women? Are we only interested in pay equity for high earning women and in breaking the glass ceiling? In my book, a feminist must not compromise on the interests of impoverished women.

If I have time, i will write a longer post about where the two candidates have differed on women's interests but right now I cannot go into detail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe let this thread die, and start over if you want to have a substantive conversation. Too much bad blood here, on both sides.

- Syd (Hillary supporter)

If there was a way to express an opinion on dcum without starting an argument that eventually results in being insulted, then I might take your advice. But the fact is, my own opinion is that Hillary Clinton is not a feminist and Bernie Sanders is a much better feminist. That statement alone pissed people off but I explained my reasons and posted a good article on the subject. Make of it what you will.

But see, you had to lift up your candidate by dissing the other candidate.

You could've said, "I think Bernie is a great feminist because..."

I could but that would not express my point which is that I believe that Sanders is the real feminist in the race. I thought I was being pretty polite about it compared to my 76 year-old feminist friend who posted on FB this morning that Clinton "makes a mockery of feminism." I didn't want to make a statement like that because I think Clinton is okay on some women's issues and she is certainly better than the Republican alternatives but it is hard for me to see how any feminist (woman or man) can support her over Sanders unless it is all about her gender and not about equality, social justice, and human rights.

Well, then you fail to see some really obvious things. I have pretty great feminist bona fides, and definitely think she's the better feminist. Not just because of gender. [/quote

Certain Bernie Sanders only can post about Hillary is the negative, best to just ignore them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, we've moved from "Bernie is the better feminist" to "Clinton isn't a feminist at all"

How can a person justify that statement?

The title of the thread is "Sanders is the real feminist in this race." I stand by that statement. I believe that Clinton is a feminist only when it suits her politically. You are free to disagree, of course, and the issue is partially one of semantics. How do you define "feminist?" I believe that a "feminist" politician has a responsibility to defend and support poor women and other disadvantaged women of the world. It is not just about when it is politically convenient.

Can you tell us more about what Bernie has done to defend and support poor and disadvantaged women of the world?

What I can say about Sanders is that he has been consistent on women's issues for his entire career which leads me to believe that he would continue in that regard. Clinton, as Secretary of State, had a much larger stage on which to do positive work for women around the world. Sanders has shown that he is not willing to compromise when it comes to legislation that will benefit women. Welfare reform was a big deal which Clinton supporters seem to want to minimize. Are we not interested in poor women? Are we only interested in pay equity for high earning women and in breaking the glass ceiling? In my book, a feminist must not compromise on the interests of impoverished women.

If I have time, i will write a longer post about where the two candidates have differed on women's interests but right now I cannot go into detail.

So, he doesn't meet your own definition of feminism.

Methinks you walked right into that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, we've moved from "Bernie is the better feminist" to "Clinton isn't a feminist at all"

How can a person justify that statement?

The title of the thread is "Sanders is the real feminist in this race." I stand by that statement. I believe that Clinton is a feminist only when it suits her politically. You are free to disagree, of course, and the issue is partially one of semantics. How do you define "feminist?" I believe that a "feminist" politician has a responsibility to defend and support poor women and other disadvantaged women of the world. It is not just about when it is politically convenient.

Can you tell us more about what Bernie has done to defend and support poor and disadvantaged women of the world?

What I can say about Sanders is that he has been consistent on women's issues for his entire career which leads me to believe that he would continue in that regard. Clinton, as Secretary of State, had a much larger stage on which to do positive work for women around the world. Sanders has shown that he is not willing to compromise when it comes to legislation that will benefit women. Welfare reform was a big deal which Clinton supporters seem to want to minimize. Are we not interested in poor women? Are we only interested in pay equity for high earning women and in breaking the glass ceiling? In my book, a feminist must not compromise on the interests of impoverished women.

If I have time, i will write a longer post about where the two candidates have differed on women's interests but right now I cannot go into detail.

So, he doesn't meet your own definition of feminism.

Methinks you walked right into that one.

He absolutely does meet my own definition of feminism because of his consistent policy which supports women. I should not have to explain this but policy makers have a great deal more power than ordinary folks to implement policy which supports women. I can lobby congress. I can work on a grass roots level. I can dedicate my time to organizations which help women and children. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton can do much more than I can because they help make the laws which make or break hundreds of thousands of women. Clinton policy has harmed women. Sanders has come down on the side of women consistently. This is not rocket science. I am not sure why I need to explain this.

[Anonymous]

Certain Bernie Sanders only can post about Hillary is the negative, best to just ignore them.

Before I was a Sanders supporter, I was a feminist who has been extremely disappointed in the Clintons over the years. I have not believed that Clinton was a feminist since she was first lady and I was a young women's studies student. You can certainly ignore me but my thoughts and opinions are not shaped by Bernie Sanders. They are my own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, we've moved from "Bernie is the better feminist" to "Clinton isn't a feminist at all"

How can a person justify that statement?

The title of the thread is "Sanders is the real feminist in this race." I stand by that statement. I believe that Clinton is a feminist only when it suits her politically. You are free to disagree, of course, and the issue is partially one of semantics. How do you define "feminist?" I believe that a "feminist" politician has a responsibility to defend and support poor women and other disadvantaged women of the world. It is not just about when it is politically convenient.

Can you tell us more about what Bernie has done to defend and support poor and disadvantaged women of the world?

What I can say about Sanders is that he has been consistent on women's issues for his entire career which leads me to believe that he would continue in that regard. Clinton, as Secretary of State, had a much larger stage on which to do positive work for women around the world. Sanders has shown that he is not willing to compromise when it comes to legislation that will benefit women. Welfare reform was a big deal which Clinton supporters seem to want to minimize. Are we not interested in poor women? Are we only interested in pay equity for high earning women and in breaking the glass ceiling? In my book, a feminist must not compromise on the interests of impoverished women.

If I have time, i will write a longer post about where the two candidates have differed on women's interests but right now I cannot go into detail.

So, he doesn't meet your own definition of feminism.

Methinks you walked right into that one.

He absolutely does meet my own definition of feminism because of his consistent policy which supports women. I should not have to explain this but policy makers have a great deal more power than ordinary folks to implement policy which supports women. I can lobby congress. I can work on a grass roots level. I can dedicate my time to organizations which help women and children. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton can do much more than I can because they help make the laws which make or break hundreds of thousands of women. Clinton policy has harmed women. Sanders has come down on the side of women consistently. This is not rocket science. I am not sure why I need to explain this.

I highlighted what you said. Again, how has Bernie defended and supported poor and disadvantaged women of the world?

[Anonymous]

(FWIW, I've already stated earlier in this thread that I think Clinton has done more for women. Women's issues are always a priority for her and not something she considers a separate part of her platform.)

That aside, do some people not understand that by merely being president, Clinton will be helping women? Representation matters. If Clinton is president, the most powerful leader in the world will be a woman. All the countries around the world that still consider women second class citizens will have to swallow that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


What I can say about Sanders is that he has been consistent on women's issues for his entire career which leads me to believe that he would continue in that regard. Clinton, as Secretary of State, had a much larger stage on which to do positive work for women around the world. Sanders has shown that he is not willing to compromise when it comes to legislation that will benefit women. Welfare reform was a big deal which Clinton supporters seem to want to minimize. Are we not interested in poor women? Are we only interested in pay equity for high earning women and in breaking the glass ceiling? In my book, a feminist must not compromise on the interests of impoverished women.

If I have time, i will write a longer post about where the two candidates have differed on women's interests but right now I cannot go into detail.

I think this comes to the heart of the difference between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton, particularly as SoS, has been in a position where she has responsibilities to implement and execute, not just design policy. Even as FLOTUS, and very likely a close confidante of her husband, she had to balance getting something done against holding out for the ideological perfect. I spent too long in DC to believe you can get everything you want when making the proverbial sausage...and I respect that Clinton has had to make choices and do things that are less than ideal. I understand that other people feel differently, or they have different lines that they are unwilling to cross than I do, but please recognize that this is the reality of the political and governance process. A lot of people in this country, and the world, disagree with what you think is "right". You can make the choice not to support a candidate who has willingly worked with those people to pass legislation or make policy (domestic and foreign), but you should recognize that not everyone will make the same choice. I view Clinton's ability to find compromises that move policy forward as an asset...others obviously view it as a liability. I just wish, though, that people would stop calling her two-faced and pandering instead of realizing that this is a necessity when making policy. Something I know firsthand from having had to negotiate policies myself and then being excoriating (in a much more insular and private platform, but still) for the compromises I had to make...never being given credit for how much worse it would have been if I hadn't been in the conversation or had refused to negotiate at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


What I can say about Sanders is that he has been consistent on women's issues for his entire career which leads me to believe that he would continue in that regard. Clinton, as Secretary of State, had a much larger stage on which to do positive work for women around the world. Sanders has shown that he is not willing to compromise when it comes to legislation that will benefit women. Welfare reform was a big deal which Clinton supporters seem to want to minimize. Are we not interested in poor women? Are we only interested in pay equity for high earning women and in breaking the glass ceiling? In my book, a feminist must not compromise on the interests of impoverished women.

If I have time, i will write a longer post about where the two candidates have differed on women's interests but right now I cannot go into detail.

I think this comes to the heart of the difference between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton, particularly as SoS, has been in a position where she has responsibilities to implement and execute, not just design policy. Even as FLOTUS, and very likely a close confidante of her husband, she had to balance getting something done against holding out for the ideological perfect. I spent too long in DC to believe you can get everything you want when making the proverbial sausage...and I respect that Clinton has had to make choices and do things that are less than ideal. I understand that other people feel differently, or they have different lines that they are unwilling to cross than I do, but please recognize that this is the reality of the political and governance process. A lot of people in this country, and the world, disagree with what you think is "right". You can make the choice not to support a candidate who has willingly worked with those people to pass legislation or make policy (domestic and foreign), but you should recognize that not everyone will make the same choice. I view Clinton's ability to find compromises that move policy forward as an asset...others obviously view it as a liability. I just wish, though, that people would stop calling her two-faced and pandering instead of realizing that this is a necessity when making policy. Something I know firsthand from having had to negotiate policies myself and then being excoriating (in a much more insular and private platform, but still) for the compromises I had to make...never being given credit for how much worse it would have been if I hadn't been in the conversation or had refused to negotiate at all.

OP here. I want to thank you and the pp above for engaging in respectful, intelligent discussion about the real issue here instead of saying silly things to try to trap me into admitting that I contradicted myself and making ridiculous comments like "methinks you walked into that one." I have no interest in defending myself.

We are discussing who is the better candidate for women. I do agree that having a woman president is a great step for women in and of itself. Nevertheless, I want very much to see a president who is really going to implement pro-woman policy and my trust in Clinton to do that is very low. I worry that she will do more harm than good. I do understand the need for compromise and I really can't say what Sanders would be able to accomplish or what overall effects he mights have on government if he were president. We are all guessing but if you look at his record, it is one that I trust whereas it looks like Clinton could go either way on many things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


What I can say about Sanders is that he has been consistent on women's issues for his entire career which leads me to believe that he would continue in that regard. Clinton, as Secretary of State, had a much larger stage on which to do positive work for women around the world. Sanders has shown that he is not willing to compromise when it comes to legislation that will benefit women. Welfare reform was a big deal which Clinton supporters seem to want to minimize. Are we not interested in poor women? Are we only interested in pay equity for high earning women and in breaking the glass ceiling? In my book, a feminist must not compromise on the interests of impoverished women.

If I have time, i will write a longer post about where the two candidates have differed on women's interests but right now I cannot go into detail.

I think this comes to the heart of the difference between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton, particularly as SoS, has been in a position where she has responsibilities to implement and execute, not just design policy. Even as FLOTUS, and very likely a close confidante of her husband, she had to balance getting something done against holding out for the ideological perfect. I spent too long in DC to believe you can get everything you want when making the proverbial sausage...and I respect that Clinton has had to make choices and do things that are less than ideal. I understand that other people feel differently, or they have different lines that they are unwilling to cross than I do, but please recognize that this is the reality of the political and governance process. A lot of people in this country, and the world, disagree with what you think is "right". You can make the choice not to support a candidate who has willingly worked with those people to pass legislation or make policy (domestic and foreign), but you should recognize that not everyone will make the same choice. I view Clinton's ability to find compromises that move policy forward as an asset...others obviously view it as a liability. I just wish, though, that people would stop calling her two-faced and pandering instead of realizing that this is a necessity when making policy. Something I know firsthand from having had to negotiate policies myself and then being excoriating (in a much more insular and private platform, but still) for the compromises I had to make...never being given credit for how much worse it would have been if I hadn't been in the conversation or had refused to negotiate at all.

OP here. I want to thank you and the pp above for engaging in respectful, intelligent discussion about the real issue here instead of saying silly things to try to trap me into admitting that I contradicted myself and making ridiculous comments like "methinks you walked into that one." I have no interest in defending myself.

We are discussing who is the better candidate for women. I do agree that having a woman president is a great step for women in and of itself. Nevertheless, I want very much to see a president who is really going to implement pro-woman policy and my trust in Clinton to do that is very low. I worry that she will do more harm than good. I do understand the need for compromise and I really can't say what Sanders would be able to accomplish or what overall effects he mights have on government if he were president. We are all guessing but if you look at his record, it is one that I trust whereas it looks like Clinton could go either way on many things.

OP, your whole initial post was an attack on Clinton. It certainly did not scream "respectful, intelligent discussion." Go back and re-read it. That aside, you yourself set forth a definition for what a good feminist does. And I asked you twice, what exactly has Sanders done to meet that definition. Why don't you answer that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


What I can say about Sanders is that he has been consistent on women's issues for his entire career which leads me to believe that he would continue in that regard. Clinton, as Secretary of State, had a much larger stage on which to do positive work for women around the world. Sanders has shown that he is not willing to compromise when it comes to legislation that will benefit women. Welfare reform was a big deal which Clinton supporters seem to want to minimize. Are we not interested in poor women? Are we only interested in pay equity for high earning women and in breaking the glass ceiling? In my book, a feminist must not compromise on the interests of impoverished women.

If I have time, i will write a longer post about where the two candidates have differed on women's interests but right now I cannot go into detail.

I think this comes to the heart of the difference between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton, particularly as SoS, has been in a position where she has responsibilities to implement and execute, not just design policy. Even as FLOTUS, and very likely a close confidante of her husband, she had to balance getting something done against holding out for the ideological perfect. I spent too long in DC to believe you can get everything you want when making the proverbial sausage...and I respect that Clinton has had to make choices and do things that are less than ideal. I understand that other people feel differently, or they have different lines that they are unwilling to cross than I do, but please recognize that this is the reality of the political and governance process. A lot of people in this country, and the world, disagree with what you think is "right". You can make the choice not to support a candidate who has willingly worked with those people to pass legislation or make policy (domestic and foreign), but you should recognize that not everyone will make the same choice. I view Clinton's ability to find compromises that move policy forward as an asset...others obviously view it as a liability. I just wish, though, that people would stop calling her two-faced and pandering instead of realizing that this is a necessity when making policy. Something I know firsthand from having had to negotiate policies myself and then being excoriating (in a much more insular and private platform, but still) for the compromises I had to make...never being given credit for how much worse it would have been if I hadn't been in the conversation or had refused to negotiate at all.

OP here. I want to thank you and the pp above for engaging in respectful, intelligent discussion about the real issue here instead of saying silly things to try to trap me into admitting that I contradicted myself and making ridiculous comments like "methinks you walked into that one." I have no interest in defending myself.

We are discussing who is the better candidate for women. I do agree that having a woman president is a great step for women in and of itself. Nevertheless, I want very much to see a president who is really going to implement pro-woman policy and my trust in Clinton to do that is very low. I worry that she will do more harm than good. I do understand the need for compromise and I really can't say what Sanders would be able to accomplish or what overall effects he mights have on government if he were president. We are all guessing but if you look at his record, it is one that I trust whereas it looks like Clinton could go either way on many things.

OP, your whole initial post was an attack on Clinton. It certainly did not scream "respectful, intelligent discussion." Go back and re-read it. That aside, you yourself set forth a definition for what a good feminist does. And I asked you twice, what exactly has Sanders done to meet that definition. Why don't you answer that?

It is not an attack to say that Clinton is not a real feminist. I already told you that Sanders has been consistent in his policy regarding women's interests and Clinton has not. I am not attacking anyone. I am expressing an opinion and I have not been disrespectful in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Certain Bernie Sanders only can post about Hillary is the negative, best to just ignore them.

Before I was a Sanders supporter, I was a feminist who has been extremely disappointed in the Clintons over the years. I have not believed that Clinton was a feminist since she was first lady and I was a young women's studies student. You can certainly ignore me but my thoughts and opinions are not shaped by Bernie Sanders. They are my own.

You strike me as a rigid ideologue who is incapable or uninterested in finding common ground with others and has extreme difficulty accepting that you can ever not be "right." I'm sure you have always been like this. For whatever reason, it is a personality type attracted to Sanders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


What I can say about Sanders is that he has been consistent on women's issues for his entire career which leads me to believe that he would continue in that regard. Clinton, as Secretary of State, had a much larger stage on which to do positive work for women around the world. Sanders has shown that he is not willing to compromise when it comes to legislation that will benefit women. Welfare reform was a big deal which Clinton supporters seem to want to minimize. Are we not interested in poor women? Are we only interested in pay equity for high earning women and in breaking the glass ceiling? In my book, a feminist must not compromise on the interests of impoverished women.

If I have time, i will write a longer post about where the two candidates have differed on women's interests but right now I cannot go into detail.

I think this comes to the heart of the difference between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton, particularly as SoS, has been in a position where she has responsibilities to implement and execute, not just design policy. Even as FLOTUS, and very likely a close confidante of her husband, she had to balance getting something done against holding out for the ideological perfect. I spent too long in DC to believe you can get everything you want when making the proverbial sausage...and I respect that Clinton has had to make choices and do things that are less than ideal. I understand that other people feel differently, or they have different lines that they are unwilling to cross than I do, but please recognize that this is the reality of the political and governance process. A lot of people in this country, and the world, disagree with what you think is "right". You can make the choice not to support a candidate who has willingly worked with those people to pass legislation or make policy (domestic and foreign), but you should recognize that not everyone will make the same choice. I view Clinton's ability to find compromises that move policy forward as an asset...others obviously view it as a liability. I just wish, though, that people would stop calling her two-faced and pandering instead of realizing that this is a necessity when making policy. Something I know firsthand from having had to negotiate policies myself and then being excoriating (in a much more insular and private platform, but still) for the compromises I had to make...never being given credit for how much worse it would have been if I hadn't been in the conversation or had refused to negotiate at all.

OP here. I want to thank you and the pp above for engaging in respectful, intelligent discussion about the real issue here instead of saying silly things to try to trap me into admitting that I contradicted myself and making ridiculous comments like "methinks you walked into that one." I have no interest in defending myself.

We are discussing who is the better candidate for women. I do agree that having a woman president is a great step for women in and of itself. Nevertheless, I want very much to see a president who is really going to implement pro-woman policy and my trust in Clinton to do that is very low. I worry that she will do more harm than good. I do understand the need for compromise and I really can't say what Sanders would be able to accomplish or what overall effects he mights have on government if he were president. We are all guessing but if you look at his record, it is one that I trust whereas it looks like Clinton could go either way on many things.

OP, your whole initial post was an attack on Clinton. It certainly did not scream "respectful, intelligent discussion." Go back and re-read it. That aside, you yourself set forth a definition for what a good feminist does. And I asked you twice, what exactly has Sanders done to meet that definition. Why don't you answer that?

It is not an attack to say that Clinton is not a real feminist. I already told you that Sanders has been consistent in his policy regarding women's interests and Clinton has not. I am not attacking anyone. I am expressing an opinion and I have not been disrespectful in any way.

Ok then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


What I can say about Sanders is that he has been consistent on women's issues for his entire career which leads me to believe that he would continue in that regard. Clinton, as Secretary of State, had a much larger stage on which to do positive work for women around the world. Sanders has shown that he is not willing to compromise when it comes to legislation that will benefit women. Welfare reform was a big deal which Clinton supporters seem to want to minimize. Are we not interested in poor women? Are we only interested in pay equity for high earning women and in breaking the glass ceiling? In my book, a feminist must not compromise on the interests of impoverished women.

If I have time, i will write a longer post about where the two candidates have differed on women's interests but right now I cannot go into detail.

I think this comes to the heart of the difference between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton, particularly as SoS, has been in a position where she has responsibilities to implement and execute, not just design policy. Even as FLOTUS, and very likely a close confidante of her husband, she had to balance getting something done against holding out for the ideological perfect. I spent too long in DC to believe you can get everything you want when making the proverbial sausage...and I respect that Clinton has had to make choices and do things that are less than ideal. I understand that other people feel differently, or they have different lines that they are unwilling to cross than I do, but please recognize that this is the reality of the political and governance process. A lot of people in this country, and the world, disagree with what you think is "right". You can make the choice not to support a candidate who has willingly worked with those people to pass legislation or make policy (domestic and foreign), but you should recognize that not everyone will make the same choice. I view Clinton's ability to find compromises that move policy forward as an asset...others obviously view it as a liability. I just wish, though, that people would stop calling her two-faced and pandering instead of realizing that this is a necessity when making policy. Something I know firsthand from having had to negotiate policies myself and then being excoriating (in a much more insular and private platform, but still) for the compromises I had to make...never being given credit for how much worse it would have been if I hadn't been in the conversation or had refused to negotiate at all.

OP here. I want to thank you and the pp above for engaging in respectful, intelligent discussion about the real issue here instead of saying silly things to try to trap me into admitting that I contradicted myself and making ridiculous comments like "methinks you walked into that one." I have no interest in defending myself.

We are discussing who is the better candidate for women. I do agree that having a woman president is a great step for women in and of itself. Nevertheless, I want very much to see a president who is really going to implement pro-woman policy and my trust in Clinton to do that is very low. I worry that she will do more harm than good. I do understand the need for compromise and I really can't say what Sanders would be able to accomplish or what overall effects he mights have on government if he were president. We are all guessing but if you look at his record, it is one that I trust whereas it looks like Clinton could go either way on many things.

OP, your whole initial post was an attack on Clinton. It certainly did not scream "respectful, intelligent discussion." Go back and re-read it. That aside, you yourself set forth a definition for what a good feminist does. And I asked you twice, what exactly has Sanders done to meet that definition. Why don't you answer that?

It is not an attack to say that Clinton is not a real feminist. I already told you that Sanders has been consistent in his policy regarding women's interests and Clinton has not. I am not attacking anyone. I am expressing an opinion and I have not been disrespectful in any way.

I was asking for concrete examples, not your assessment of Sanders' consistency. I genuinely don't know, maybe you can educate me on specifics.

[Anonymous]

I consider Sanders' support for the Minutemen Militia to be disqualifying on humanitarian and feminist grounds. Or do we not care about refugee women who are victimized by those thugs while seeking a better life for their families?