They brought it up at either the last debate or town hall. Bernie is 100% pro-choice and she is willing to "compromise on abortion".

pandering.

But here you are trolling our group again. Certainly hope one of the hosts puts an end to your ability to do that.

Didn't realize that was the case.

it up.

We see right through you.

because they're basically the same on it (ignoring her willing to compromise on abortion). You don't think bringing up a point during a debate where you are seen to be the same, and you don't highlight any differences as pandering?

Honestly it feels more like you are willing to bend your feminism a bit for Hillary just because she's Hillary. Would you have felt the same if it was another issue that they agreed on and spent debate time agreeing with each other?

I'm sorry if saying that I thought it was pandering seems like trolling to you. I'm not sure any non-positive comment about Hillary wouldn't though.

There is a war on women being waged by conservatives. It NEEDS to be discussed EVERY FUCKING DEBATE.

If you don't like it, stay the fuck out of the feminist groups. They are the only safe havens we have here to discuss this without having dudes like you troll us.

Should they just talk about those issues they agree on during the limited time of the debate or should they be questioned on things they disagree on so we can see the difference?

My vote is for the latter. If you seem to think it's the former, then how do you fairly prioritize those issues they agree on?

Might want to ratchet down the anger a bit. Nobody was trolling you, and I'd appreciate you not falsely accusing me.

Regardless, you should still ratchet down the anger a bit.

Fuck that noise. Don't you dare think you can tell me to ratchet it down!

Seriously dude. You are so far out of line here.

Obviously I'm talking about your unnecessary anger here, toward someone that is an ally and anger for them expressing their thoughts politely. I'm not sure how that supports the war on women or is out of line, especially given your repetitive and unnecessary cursing.

I can fucking cuss as much as I want. Especially about women's rights and reproductive rights. Especially NOW. I don't need you here Berniesplainin or mansplainin shit to me about women or minority rights being "not important". My anger is at the conservatives and those who insist that our issues are "not important".

You aren't pissed? You aren't willing to scream and cuss and do something about it? Then you aren't on our side. You are deliberately baiting me and yeah.... it's really pissing me off.

I just asked you to ratchet down the anger you are expressing toward someone that should be seen as an ally. I didn't comment negatively or deny that conservatives have a war against women. I commented on Hillary using that to in my opinion score a cheap political point. I have not demeaned women's issues in any way by saying that she capitalized on them in the debate. Hopefully once you calm down, and step back you'll realize that.

Should I scream and stamp my feet about every issue that the candidates in a debate agree on and didn't get asked about? I think that's wasted effort. The topic was brought up in the previous town halls I believe, but I think a debate should focus on issues where they can highlight their differences. I definitely think women's rights will come up in the GE debates - because there is a stark difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Again, though yelling and cursing at an ally, won't create more allies.

If you don't like it, tough. Don't come into the feminists groups and tell us to sit down and be quiet.

Not gonna happen.

There is nothing cheap or pandering about actually TALKING ABOUT THIS SHIT at a time that people are actually deciding who they want for president. Why are you so threatened by her talking about it? Why don't you think it should be hammered every debate? Why shouldn't it be a top priority when considering Supreme Court Justices. The only thing the other candidate talks about is Citizen's United.

Just please stop.

I just asked that you not yell at allies such as myself. Feel free to yell at opponents on women's rights all you want.

Also, please don't paint what I did as what you just said. I never told anyone to sit down and be quiet. Again, if you'd calm down, step back and re-read this, I think you might feel differently. At least I hope so.

Making me incredibly uncomfortable.

And I am obviously much more invested in these issues than you, being as how you feel Hillary is being cheap and pandering by bringing them up when no one else is. That it's a "wasted effort". That's beyond being insensitive to women's issues.

I think you're more upset that I said something negative about Hillary - since I didn't say anything negative about women's issues.

Again, weren't those issues brought up in the last town halls where everyone talked about them not being brought up before? Stating facts, doesn't demean women's issues, and neither does stating my belief that Clinton was only pandering at the time she brought them up. Regardless, I only made the point that using an issue for cheap pandering doesn't do anyone any good, and a debte is meant to highlight differences for voters - Bernie & Hillary mostly agree (except for her statement where she's willing to compromise on abortion). How many issues that they agree on so much should be brought up during the limited debate time? This is a democratic debate not the general election debate where there will be a huge difference that needs to be highlighted.

Being unwilling to even have a legitimate dialog with an ally without accusing them of all sorts of stuff all while cursing at them, is probably not a method you're going to find rewarding.

You have not once since you've been here done anything to prove to me you are an ally.

I wish you would just respect the space you are posting in.

But you're free to re-interpret what I say however you like. Just know that you're far from the actual meaning.

If you truly believe that her mentioning it during the debate was a noble effort with no political calculation on her part whatsoever, then you certainly are free to hold that belief.

And accusing me of not respecting the space, when you're cursing at me is in poor taste to say the least.

that's a bit of a badge of honor when you actually read what was hidden... If you don't think both sides alert way too much in the hopes of a friendly jury, then you may not have been paying much attention lately.

Still, you won't find anything there negative toward women rights if that's what you were trying to allude to.

I believe you are trying to insinuate that I did because I said something not entirely positive about Hillary, but I have said nothing negative about women's issue or this group.

You are trying to conflate the two as a weapon against me here, probably in your effort to get an ally banned because of a disagreement on whether Hillary was pandering or not. I have not demeaned women's rights in any way, shape or form and resent your implying such.

insulting to everything this group stands for?

Yea, I know how. Your Hillary hatred has been painted on the walls of DU since the day you joined.

You are obviously free to reinterpret what I said however you want though, and continue to take liberties in that regard.

If I felt Hillary was truly bringing up the issue then I would not have said "pandering". But she brought it up in a debate with an opponent that is actually even more on that side than she is (since she is willing to compromise on abortion). She brought it up after it had already been discussed in the town hall, and it took time away from a debate which is intended to highlight differences.

Again, I feel that you're more perturbed about a slight to Hillary, than anything else. Enough so to twist it up to try to say I was maligning women's rights, when I wasn't - I just dislike those people that pander to various groups without real meaning behind their statements and I feel that's what Hillary did last night. I get that you feel that any mention, regardless of motive furthers the cause, but you ignore that I feel that cheap pandering does not further this cause. We can disagree without cursing at each other and alienating one another on an issue we should have common ground on.

Would you have felt the exact same way if Bernie had just randomly brought it up even though Hillary agrees with him? I would.

I guess maybe you and I understand the definition of a debate differently. Do you really see it as a platform to yell agreements at each other?

You better believe we disagree.

In addition to the childishness of cursing for no reason and twisting what I said. That's in addition to your debasing women's rights when you conflate pandering with legitimately fighting for women's rights. So yes, I guess we do disagree.

A suggestion would be to step back and re-read this thread. You have a disagreement with an ally who also believes in women's rights. Is the disagrement at least heightened because of it involving Hillary? Could my point not be valid as well whether you wholeheartedly agree or not, can you at least set the Hillary aspect aside and see any validity there? My guess, and I could be wrong, is that if Bernie had done this, you would think it was pandering.

Either way, perhaps going forward, trying to educate someone you feel is missing the point would work better than yelling and cursing at them might work better.

Seriously. And quit telling me what reactions I should or shouldn't have.

You are not going to sway me at all.

Much as I am an ally for LGBTQ rights and attend Allies group meetingsevents. Sorry if the context was confusing.

Have you not been telling me what reactions I should or shouldn't have during all this?

I think, rather than trying to "sway" you, I've been trying to entertain an honest discussion and get to some middle ground and understanding. If that is not a possible goal for you, and you just want to go back to the yelling and cursing, then you are certainly able to continue to do so.

Condescending and insulting.

Just go ahead and admit that you are only calling it "cheap" and "pandering" because of your blind hatred for Hillary since the rest of us have already figured that out. If you gave a shit about the issues, you would be happy to see someone bring up the difference between our candidates and the clown car and stress the importance of women's rights and women's reproductive rights and the major impact of appointing a supreme court justice who will uphold roe v. wade to a wide audience. Do you think only Democrats watch these debates? Do you not think that the debates are when these issues should be presented to undecided voters?

I'm now going to just go ahead and put you on ignore, because this isn't the first time that you've baited me and then alerted on my posts.

which apparently was obvious enough for 7 of 7 members of the jury to see. Fortunately labeling it as condescending and insulting doesn't make it so.

So are you admitting it's more about Hillary than the actual pandering? I already said I'd feel the same if Bernie did this in the same way that Hillary did.

I was happy to see the issue come up in the town hall. While I can't claim to fully understand, I have enough women in my life to at least understand the seriousness of the issue, and I can be objective enough to note pandering whether it's my candidate or their opponent that does it.

That's just the thing though. This was blatant pandering. It was brought up gratuitously when the people on the stage both agreed on the issue (again, aside from Hillary's willingness to compromise on abortion). To your clown car comment, I even previously mentioned the legitimacy of comparison to the republican party's war on women, as well as when debating someone that doesn't share the same opinions.

I don't recall alerting on your posts, and generally try not to alert at all. I consider it a poor response in most, if not all cases. I'm assuming it was you that alerted on mine here though, so I will say that I personally think saying all that and then doing just that is a bit hypocritical if it was you.

If I'm on ignore, so be it. Just wanted to answer to your comment.

Full disclosure: I was #1. Looks like somebody can't alert for 24 hours.

I had originally replied based on seeing the topic in the latest posts, and had not paid attention to the group it was in. I'm still a little confused as to how it's germane to "History of Feminism" but I could easily be missing something.

I did want to question your statement "Looks like somebody can't alert for 24 hours." since I had suggested something similar in the Ask the Administrators group about a month ago. Is it now the case that if an alert isn't justified by the jury that person can't alert for 24 hours? Is there a post explaining this somewhere I could read? Just curious to see how similar the implementation was since I had suggested something akin to it.

that alerting rights are pulled.

That's why if you alert, you can't alert again until your first jury comes back in case it is a 0-7.

That is a bit different from what I had suggested.

I had suggested that in order to stem the tide of overzealous alerts, that if a majority didn't back up the alert that you got a time out from the site for 24hours for the first failed alert. And then increase the time-out period based on the number of failed alerts in a specified time period like 30-90 days.

My assumption was that something like that would make people think twice before they alerted, and cool off the number of questionable ones.

Anyway, thanks again.

Funny how the rights of over half the population fall under "unnecessary," compared to what you see as the necessary reverence for one member of the political elite.

He has dismissed women's rights time and time again, like you are doing in this thread by insisting speaking about them is "pandering" and unnecessary. I am not interested in discussing your determination that Bernie is too important to be criticized. Leave this group. You are violating the SOP.

Did I mention Wall St here in this group? No.

While I am voting for Bernie, I didn't bring it into this group. I talked about my personal opinion that a politician pandered when during a debate they brought up a topic that had been talked about in the town hall already and that both candidates agree on (except for Hillary's being willing to compromise on abortion). I expressed my opinion that a debate was for highlighting differences and a much better place for this and other areas where Bernie & Hillary mostly agree, would be in the general election debates against those that disagree and are actually waging the war on women.

Please show me where I dismissed women's rights here in this thread or anywhere as I don't believe that I have. And please show me where I violated the SOP. I'm also not sure why this entire topic is in the group named "History of Feminism" but perhaps you can enlighten me on that as well.

It's also a tad hypocritical in a sub thread which is about Hillary's pandering by bringing up a topic they both agreed on, and my being lambasted by you & JTFrog about it, that you would not be "interested in discussing your determination that Bernie is too important to be criticized." since it was only Hillary being criticized - and quite tamely I might add.

If that poster had read the SOP he would understand exactly why he is out of line and exactly why we discuss these issues here. Issues that are most important to us, issues that need to be brought up in every single debate he labeled "pandering" "cheap" and "unimportant". He certainly reflects the attitude of his candidate. It's incredibly demeaning and insulting.

what we are supposed to be satisfied with while his concerns and his candidate matter so much more than what we care about.

No, actually it's not amazing. It's typical of what we have seen this election cycle and demonstrates why we and many others won't be voting the way he demands.

As far as I'm concerned, the sense of entitlement displayed by Bernie and his supporters is what convinces me how essential it is that they not be able to impose their rule over the subaltern.

I know this group has died, or almost, but I've NEVER seen anything like that.

Your bias compels you to pretend she panders while Sanders, doing precisely the same thing, is merely doing outreach.

Unless of course, you can provide peer-reviewed, objective evidence that is is in fact pandering and not simply a concern being voiced, yes?

I’m betting if Grandpa Bernie had brought this up he would have been bold and appreciated by his flock. But Hillary brings it up and she’s pandering?

I’m glad she’s concerned over choice whereas BS seems to be fine with pointing and lecturing.

I hope she kicks his ass Tuesday!

Because you know, we have so many people on the stage right now hammering how important women's rights are NOW.

You better believe she will kick ass on Tuesday.

and have when they use "pandering" about HRC and any group!

Dare one suggest that Bernie may be "pandering" to Catholic voters in making his trip to the Vatican and disingenuously letting it be known that the Pope invited him. This is certainly a situation where the term "pandering" is apt, IMO.

Good for her

Maybe it will be included from now on, especially against the R's.

from "real issues." He has called Planned Parenthood "establishment" and defended misogynist comments by his surrogates. This is the history of feminism group. The name of the group is not "women are liars" or "Bernie comes first."

Your profound observations on gender and truth can be expressed in one of the main forums or in any number of other groups on this site, but not HOF.

One feels that the Goverment has no (zero, nada) say in a woman's body or what she chooses to do with it the other one feels that the Goverment may have a reason to step in to a woman's choice. Guess which one is 100% pro choice with no if ands or buts, that one is Bernie!

to get applause because she was losing the crowd at that point. Once again she used us for her own political benefit. Not impressed.