Rand Paul on Bernie Sanders

[Prince.Skeletor]

 

[CHL]

Bernie Sanders' Campaign Responds to Questions Over 1972 "Rape" Essay

May 29, 2015


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, is facing questions over an essay he wrote for a Vermont alternative magazine in 1972. The piece, written when Sanders was 30 years old, begins with an odd insight into male-female sexual dynamics. He wrote:

A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees. A woman tied up. A woman abused.
A woman enjoys intercourse with her man—as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously.
The piece continues on in this free-wheeling, stream-of-consciousness style, with Sanders writing, "Men and women — both are losers. Women adapt themselves to fill the needs of men, and men adapt themselves to fill the needs of women."

Source: Vermont Freeman/Mother Jones
The article, published in the mid-February 1972 edition of the Vermont Freeman, was unearthed by Mother Jones as part of a longer story on Sanders' transition from "a restless political activist and armchair psychologist" to turbo-charged national political brand.

Late on Thursday, the Sanders campaign responded. Spokesman Michael Briggs told CNN the essay was a "dumb attempt at dark satire in an alternative publication" and "in no way reflects his views or record on women."

"It was intended to attack gender stereotypes of the '70s, but it looks as stupid today as it was then," Briggs said.

Conservative media outlets raced to scandalize the story, with the website Twitchy, among others, asking, "Where's media outrage over Bernie Sanders' pervy old essay?"

Whatever unruly vein of thought Sanders was attempting to tap back in 1972, his record as a legislator stands as evidence in his defense. He is a longtime supporter of the Violence Against Women Act and, during his kickoff event in Burlington, Vermont, this week called it "unconscionable" that women make 78 cents on the dollar compared to their male colleagues.

Even Sanders' natural political enemies at the conservative National Review seemed unimpressed by the initial hubbub: "Nobody suspects that he harbors a secret desire to pass intrusive legislation or to cut gang rapists a break. Really, there is only one reason that anyone would make hay of this story, and that is to damage the man politically."

Bernie Sanders' Campaign Responds to Questions Over 1972 "Rape" Essay
Nice try OP

 

[CHL]

So what did Bernie Sanders write and what did he say about rape?The essay by the Vermont senator, who officially kicked off his presidential campaign this week, isn't long — only a page. Warning: The bit about rape comes at the very beginning, as does some not-totally-safe-for-work language:


"A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.

"A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.

"The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church, or maybe to their 'revolutionary' political meeting.

"Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspaper with the articles like 'Girl 12 raped by 14 men' sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?"

Sanders then goes on to explain his ideas about gender roles and eventually gets at a sharper point — that traditional gender roles help create troubling dynamics in men's and women's sex lives.

"Many women seem to be walking a tightrope," he writes, as their "qualities of love, openness, and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism."

He adds that men, likewise, are confused:

"What is it they want from a woman? Are they at fault? Are they perpetrating this man-woman situation? Are they oppressors?"

One way to read the essay is that Sanders was doing (in a supremely ham-handed way) what journalists do every day: draw the reader in with an attention-getting lede, then get to the meat of the article in the middle. Though he only sticks to his larger point for three paragraphs before getting back to his fictional couple, ending the essay with an imagined conversation:

"And she said, 'You wanted me not as a woman, or a lover, or a friend, but as a submissive woman, or submissive friend, or submissive lover...'

"And he said, 'You're full of ______.'

"And they never again made love together (which they had each liked to do more than anything) or never saw each other one more time."

The Bernie Sanders 'Rape Fantasy' Essay, Explained

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

so a few things to the two above posters
1) Sanders distanced himself from writing this article so instead his campaign manager responds for him, further distancing himself from it
2) If there was nothing wrong with the article why not he responds himself?
3) I read your explanations, and even more just now on the net, and the article is fiction but that statement is still stupid!!! Read the whole thing, the story is fiction but why did he have to say that? The campaign staff saying the article was fiction explains the article, not that statement though.
The statement has no defence, which is why he's distancing himself from it.

Ron Paul had to explain to u idiots all about the newsletters that he didn't even write, but sanders doesn't have to explain something that he himself DID write????

 

[CHL]

Sanders was critiquing gender roles in a dark satirical way (albeit poorly).
There is nothing satirical or funny or pertinent about being associated with white supremacist newsletters, you fukking idiot.

Do you seriously not understand the difference?

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

Sanders was critiquing gender roles in a dark satirical way (albeit poorly).
There is nothing satirical or funny or pertinent about being associated with white supremacist newsletters, you fukking idiot.

Do you seriously not understand the difference?

You are a complete idiot!!
Even former staff from long ago said that newsletters were often published without RP's approval.
His newsletters were not white supremacy newsletters you dumb fukc, and no I'm not white!!!!!

You so dumb and stupid

Firstly RP is against forcing private businesses to cater to everyone, he is for disallowing white people entering a restaurant owned by a blackman that doesn't like white people, or a business owned by a whiteman disallowing black people to enter.
Amidst this belief he owned a private business during an era of serious racism!!!
And not only did he take him he didn't charge him!!!!!
Imagine being a black person during those times and not receiving a bill after all the fukc you's.

 

[hayesc0]

Rand Paul campaign looking while Bernie is

 

[CHL]

You are a complete idiot!!
Even former staff from long ago said that newsletters were often published without RP's approval.
His newsletters were not white supremacy newsletters you dumb fukc, and no I'm not white!!!!!

You so dumb and stupid

Firstly RP is against forcing private businesses to cater to everyone, he is for disallowing white people entering a restaurant owned by a blackman that doesn't like white people, or a business owned by a whiteman disallowing black people to enter.
Amidst this belief he owned a private business during an era of serious racism!!!
And not only did he take him he didn't charge him!!!!!
Imagine being a black person during those times and not receiving a bill after all the fukc you's.

Yeah, Ron Paul Is Racist After All, Sorry

February 3, 2012
By Mobutu Sese Seko

This week probably marks the moment that schadenfreude finally left the Ron Paul campaign.

There's always been a kind of awful element of fun to listening to rabid Paul defense, given that much of it was reality-optional. But, hey, at least his fans believed in something. And no true believer deserves this week. In the last seven days, some of Paul's former staffers admitted to deliberately courting racists, with his blessing. Then, adding insult to injury, Paul's current ties to American white supremacist groups surfaced courtesy of Anonymous.

As outlined before, there were only a limited number of explanations for Paul's racist, conspiracy-oriented newsletters, and none of them were good. Either he believed the things he printed, merely capitalized on the things he printed, or was unaware of the things he printed. It was a spectrum ranging from monstrous to cynical to incompetent.

Apparently, it's the second option, at least according to the Washington Post:

"[People] close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the [racist] newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

"It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

"... A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’

The story matches one broken by Julian Sanchez and David Weigel in 2008, in the libertarian magazine Reason. Not only was it an "open secret" in libertarian circles that Lew Rockwell ghost-wrote many of Paul's newsletters, but the racial and paranoid tone was part of his and Murray Rothbard's attempt to create a "paleo-libertarian" movement, which is basically libertarianism without all that fun stuff about legalizing drugs and prostitution. Rockwell was trying to court southern conservatives who thought the Civil Rights Act, the Great Society, and the Democratic Party were all enemy combatants in a Civil War that had just transitioned from active shooting to economics and "politically correct" social engineering.

All of this just confirms what strenuous opponents of the newsletters have been saying since their publication. And as much as it sucks for Ron Paul fans to confront staffers and aides confirming critics' arguments, it's tough not to say, "We told you so," because, well, practically everybody did.

The natural response to this news, if you’re still a true believer, is that it's from 16 years in the past. This is a newsletter operation divorced from the Ron Paul 2012 campaign. Unfortunately, that's not what the hacktivist group Anonymous discovered.

As part of an ongoing online effort against white supremacists, Anonymous hacked the website of the American Third Position (A3P), a white nationalist group tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Like the SPLC, Anonymous found ties to skinhead groups, Nazis and David Duke's flunkey Jamie Kelso. Unlike the SPLC, they also found significant ties to the Ron Paul 2012 campaign:

"In addition to finding the usual racist rants and interactions with other white power groups, we also found a disturbingly high amount of members who are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul. According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors."

In addition, someone who appears to be close to Paul expressed dismay that Kelso was shut out of the Conservative Political Action Conference and said he would speak to Paul about Kelso's organizational value.

None of this should be surprising. In 2008, Paul accepted donations from and was endorsed by st0rmfr0nt.org, America's leading white supremacist site; he even had a campaign coordinator from the KKK.

Of course, the quickest and easiest dismissal is that the A3P stuff comes from Anonymous, not exactly the most credible of sources. But they parade around in the same Guy Fawkes masks as Paul supporters, tend to skew libertarian, and in 2008 many of their members supported Paul's candidacy. At this point, there's too much stuff to try to handwave away. In addition to years of "we told you so!" material that mainstream outlets have urged Paul supporters to confront, there are now the words of his aides and managers, as well as his own appointment book.

And while "we told you so!" is tempting to say, it's just sad. It's sad to see people energized by politics being disappointed by the first thing they may have really believed in. It's sad to see tens of thousands of Americans donate millions of dollars to someone who hid such grossly prejudicial and politically fatal connections from them.

Really, the only amusing thing is that an independent group of political privateers took their own letters of marque to bring down a campaign. And they mostly came from a message board known for lolcats, camwhores, hentai, and decentralized anarchy. There's some cosmic justice in there, but even it's not all that funny.

 

[mc_brew]

paulites still exist? they were ferocious back in 2012 when ron was running ..... but then they just sort of evaporated... however one paulite continues to exist.... it's like finding a dinosaur... lol

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

it's so funny to see the different things opposing candidates are trying to get the GOAT bernie on grasping at straws

 

[JahFocus CS]

One star thread

 

[thekingsmen]

Fukk Rand Paul but at those emotionally attached to Bernie's nuts.

 

[Mook]

it's so funny to see the different things opposing candidates are trying to get the GOAT bernie on grasping at straws

These nikkas went from not mentioning him to, holy shyt we gotta destroy him.

 

[Mr Rager]