Connect with us

Sanders Tells Crowd Clinton ‘Not Qualified’ to Be President – Doubles Down With Press Release

Published

on

Vermont Senator Says He Is ‘Responding to Hillary Clinton’s Attempt to Portray Him as Unqualified’ – but Did She?

Wednesday morning Hillary Clinton told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Bernie Sanders “hadn’t done his homework” in response to a question about his interview with the New York Daily News Editorial Board.

“Do you believe this morning that Bernie Sanders is qualified and ready to be President of the United States?,” Joe Scarborough asked Clinton. 

“I will leave it to voters to decide who of us can do the job that the country needs, who can do all aspects of the job, both on the economic domestic issues and on national security and foreign policy,” was her ultimate response. 

Here’s the video:

Here’ the full transcript, via Real Clear Politics:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: We’re going to ask about Wisconsin in a second, but we’ve been talking about Bernie Sanders’ New York Daily News interview. I want to start with that and ask you in light of the interview, in light of the questions he had problems with, do you believe this morning that Bernie Sanders is qualified and ready to be president of the United States? 

CLINTON: Well, I think the interview raised a lot of really serious questions and I look at it this way. The core of his campaign has been break up the banks and it didn’t seem in reading his answers that he understood exactly how that would work under Dodd-Frank, exactly who would be responsible, what the criteria were. And you know, that means you can’t really help people if you don’t know how to do what you are campaigning on saying you want to do. 

SCARBOROUGH: So is he — so is he…

CLINTON: And then there were other very…

SCARBOROUGH: Is he — I know there are a lot of examples of where he came up short and the interviewers were having to repeat questions. So the question, and I’m serious, if you weren’t running today and you looked at Bernie Sanders, would you look and say this guy is ready to be president of the United States? 

CLINTON: Well, I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions. Really what that goes to is for voters to ask themselves can he deliver what he’s talking about, can he really help people…

SCARBOROUGH: What do you think?

CLINTON: Can he help our economy? Can he keep our country strong? Well obviously, I think I’m by far the better choice and…

SCARBOROUGH: But do you think he is qualified? And do you think he is able to deliver on the things he is promising to all these Democratic voters? 

CLINTON: Well, let me put it this way, Joe. I think that what he has been saying about the core issue in his whole campaign doesn’t seem to be rooted in an understanding of either the law or the practical ways you get something done. And I will leave it to voters to decide who of us can do the job that the country needs, who can do all aspects of the job, both on the economic domestic issues and on national security and foreign policy.

Clinton did not say Bernie Sanders is “unqualified” to be President. In fact, she refused to, when directly asked.

That was confirmed by several journalists:

Wednesday night, Bernie Sanders told a crowd that Hillary Clinton “has been saying lately that she thinks that I am ‘not qualified’ to be president. Well, let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don’t believe that she is qualified, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.”

Here’s the video:

Sanders later followed up with a press release:

PHILADELPHIA – Responding to Hillary Clinton’s attempt to portray him as unqualified for the White House, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders linked her to a trade pact exploited by wealthy individuals and profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes.

An investigation by a team of journalists revealed that 214,000 entities throughout the world have used a law firm in Panama to shelter their incomes and profits to avoid paying taxes. The release this week of the documents on offshore financial dealings raised questions over the widespread use of tactics to avoid taxes.

Sanders cited the former secretary of state’s support of the trade deal as one reason she should not be the party’s nominee for president. “I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed, which has made it easier for wealthy people and corporations all over the world to avoid paying taxes owed to their countries,” Sanders told a rally at Temple University in an auditorium packed with nearly 13,000 supporters.

Sanders five years ago led opposition to the Panama trade deal in a Senate floor speech. He predicted that the pact would make it easier for the wealthy and the powerful to stash their cash in Panama to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Clinton had opposed the deal in 2008 when she was running against then Sen. Barack Obama. But in an about face, she helped push the agreement through Congress when she was secretary of state.

“The American people are sick and tired of establishment politicians who say one thing during a campaign and do the exact opposite the day after the election,” Sanders said on Tuesday in a prepared statement. As president, Sanders said he would terminate the trade deal and investigate U.S. banks, corporations and wealthy individuals who have been stashing their cash in Panama to avoid taxes.

Sanders came to Pennsylvania fresh off a win Tuesday in Wisconsin, his seventh victory in the past eight caucuses and primaries. A new national poll release Wednesday put him ahead of Clinton by two points and also showed him ahead of Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

Clinton earlier on Wednesday questioned Sanders’ qualifications to be president. “Secretary Clinton appears to be getting a little nervous,” he shot back. “She has been saying lately that I am not qualified to be president.”

Sanders then ticked off his own list of reasons why Clinton isn’t qualified to be in the White House.

“I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is through her super PAC taking tens of millions of dollars in special-interest funds.

“I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

“I don’t think you are qualified if you voted for the disastrous war in Iraq.

“I don’t think you’re qualified if you supported almost every disastrous trade agreement.

“I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed, which has gave the green light to wealthy people and corporations all over the world to avoid paying taxes owed to their countries.”

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Bad Idea’: Trump’s Plan to Cut Vaccines He Deems ‘Dangerous’ Met With Concern by Experts

Published

on

Saying he will be the one to decide—in consultation with anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—which vaccines the federal government should cut, Donald Trump on Thursday again invoked the false and widely debunked conspiracy theory that links autism to the life-saving drugs. The President-elect’s remarks were met with concern and condemnation.

“When asked in an interview for TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year whether he would approve of an end to childhood vaccination programs, Trump said he would have a ‘big discussion’ with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” TIME magazine reported Thursday, noting Trump has nominated RFK Jr., an attorney who has no medical training or experience leading a massive organization, to run the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“The autism rate is at a level that nobody ever believed possible,” Trump told TIME, which debunked his remarks in its reporting. “If you look at things that are happening, there’s something causing it.”

READ MORE: ‘Did He Lie?’: Trump Questioning His Price-Lowering Promises Are Possible Sparks Anger

Reuters also reported, “Trump says [he] could get rid of some vaccinations ‘if I think it’s dangerous.'”

“When asked if the discussion could result in his administration getting rid of some vaccinations, Trump said: ‘It could if I think it’s dangerous, if I think they are not beneficial, but I don’t think it’s going to be very controversial in the end.'”

Like RFK Jr., Trump has no medical training or background.

While “Trump did not explicitly say in the interview that vaccines cause autism,” which it classified as “a false claim that traces back to a retracted study from the 1990s,” TIME reports that when “pressed on the issue, Trump said his administration will complete ‘very serious testing,’ after which ‘we will know for sure what’s good and what’s not good.'”

Dr. Ashish Kumar Jha is a physician, the Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, and served as the Biden White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator. He characterized Trump’s remarks that he will speak with RFK Jr. and possibly cut some vaccines, as an “extraordinarily bad idea.”

“RFK jr doesn’t seem to understand the data on vaccines,” Dr. Jha wrote. “He should have no role in deciding which vaccines should be available, recommended.”

READ MORE: ‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push

Dr. Priya Pal of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Division of Infectious Diseases, commenting on Trump’s remarks, referenced creators of some of the most important vaccines in history: “Never could Pasteur, Salk, Jenner, Sabin have imagined people celebrating the return of childhood diseases that they and others worked so hard to prevent.”

Dr. Annie Andrews, a pediatrician, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., a Senior Advisor to Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, and the CEO and founder of Their Future, Our Vote. She responded to the news by snarking, “Congratulations preventable infectious diseases!”

Infectious disease physician Apu Akkad, an Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine wrote: “Wow. This sounds hugely problematic. RFK has no business deciding which vaccines should and shouldn’t be used — most especially without first gathering further data.”

TIME also dove in to Trump’s allegation about the perceived rise in autism.

“It’s true that autism is diagnosed much more frequently now than in the past—but not because vaccines are causing the condition. Researchers have explored possible reasons for the uptick, including rising parental ages and environmental triggers. But much of the increase, research suggests, stems from changes to diagnostic criteria, widespread awareness of the condition, and improvements in screening. Detection jumps have been particularly steep among children of color, girls, and young adults, all of whom have historically been diagnosed less frequently.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has stated he believes “There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents

Image via Reuters

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Did He Lie?’: Trump Questioning His Price-Lowering Promises Are Possible Sparks Anger

Published

on

As a candidate, Donald Trump campaigned—and won—this year on the promise he would lower prices for Americans angry after the COVID pandemic’s inflation brought steep price increases, but now he’s backtracking, saying he’s not sure he will actually be able to fulfill those vows. Outrage at Trump, and the people who voted for him based on that pledge, was palpable on Thursday.

As recently as Sunday, MSNBC reports, Trump insisted, “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”

On Monday, Fox News reported: “Pointing to high grocery prices, Trump says, ‘I won an election based on that'”

But in his TIME magazine “Person of the Year” interview, Trump suggested he might not be able to lower prices as he promised to do. Appearing to remove himself from the equation, he declared: “It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”

Sam Stein of The Bulwark and MSNBC noted via social media, “’Prices will come down,’ Trump told voters during a speech last week laying out his vision for a return to the White House. ‘You just watch: They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast, not only with insurance, with everything.'”

READ MORE: ‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push

The President-elect told TIME he would “like to bring them down” when asked, “If the prices of groceries don’t come down, will your presidency be a failure?” but insisted if prices do not drop he doesn’t think that will make his second term a failure.

On the campaign trail Trump repeatedly promised he would lower prices and inflation, as HuffPost reported Thursday:

“’We will end inflation and make America affordable again, and we’re going to get the prices down, we have to get them down,’ Trump said at a rally in September. ‘It’s too much. Groceries, cars, everything. We’re going to get the prices down.'”

“’We will cut your taxes and inflation, slash your prices, raise your wages and bring thousands of factories back to America,’ Trump said at a Georgia rally in October, reciting a line he used in speeches at several other events.”

“Trump also specifically promised to get gas prices down: ‘I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months.'”

Stein’s post earlier Thursday morning quoting Trump saying “You know, it’s very hard” to bring prices down set of an explosion of anger at the incoming occupant of the White House.

READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New

“Trump has already folded on prices. He has no plans to make life more affordable for the majority of Americans,” declared Lindsay Owens, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Groundwork Collaborative.

“All of you idiots who voted for Trump over food prices should feel pretty stupid,” journalist Roland Martin remarked in response.

Politico White House reporter Adam Cancryn responded to Stein: “Trump in Asheville in August: ‘From the day I take the oath of office, we will rapidly drive prices down, and make America affordable again’ ‘Prices will come down. You just watch. They’ll come down and they’ll come down fast. Not only with insurance, with everything.'”

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake added: “Trump on Sept. 23: ‘Vote Trump, and your incomes will soar. Your net worth will skyrocket. Your energy costs and grocery prices will come tumbling down.'”

“Oh, Trump doesn’t have a plan to bring down costs for Americans? I’m shocked,” snarked Democratic U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal.

Tom Bonier, a veteran Democratic political strategist noted, “He’s likely right, which is why the Biden record of increasing wages while slowing inflation has put our country on the right track, but of course no one could admit that until Trump won by running against inflation.”

Ron Fournier, a business executive and former journalist asked, “Wait. He promised to bring them down. Did he …

… lie?”

READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push

Published

on

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial pick to oversee the Department of Defense and its 3.4 million military and civilian personnel, has a long history of anti-LGBTQ statements. According to multiple reports, Hegseth has opposed gay service members, labeling them a threat to military standards and a part of a “Marxist” agenda promoting “social engineering.”

“At least when it was an ‘Army of One,’ they were, you know, tough looking, go get ‘em army – but you’re right, that was the subtle shifting toward an individual ad campaign,” Hegseth told far-right podcaster Ben Shapiro, CNN reports. “Now you just have the absurdity of ‘I have two mommies and I’m so proud to show them that I can wear the uniform too.’ So they, it’s just like everything else the Marxists and the leftists have done. At first it was camouflaged nicely and now they’re just, they’re just open about it.”

Hegseth, now a former Fox News weekend co-host under fire for alleged sexual assault, alcohol abuse, an affinity for Christian nationalism, and mismanagement of two veterans’ charities, has repeatedly denigrated gays and lesbians, and expressed opposition to LGBTQ Americans serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, and women serving in the military — especially in combat roles.

RELATED: House Republican Says They Were Told ‘In Conference’ Hegseth Accusations ‘Were Anonymous’

“In his 2024 book ‘The War on Warriors’ and in subsequent media promotions this year. Hegseth described both the original ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a ‘gateway’ and a ‘camouflage’ for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness,” CNN reports.

Studies before and after the repeal of DADT have proven LGBTQ service members serving openly do not diminish unit cohesion or impair military readiness. “The repeal of DADT has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale,” a Palm Center report found one year after DADT repeal.

As MeidasTouch News reported Wednesday, Hegseth has “argued that allowing women and openly gay and lesbian individuals to serve undermines the readiness and effectiveness of the armed forces. He dismissed these inclusivity efforts as ‘social engineering’ aimed at satisfying political agendas rather than improving national security. In his words, the changes were about achieving symbolic milestones, such as having a female Navy SEAL, rather than maintaining operational excellence.”

Hegseth lamented on Fox News’ “Red Eye” in 2015 that America has a “military right now that is more interested in social engineering led by this president than they are in war fighting, So, as a result, through Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and women in the military and these standards, they’re going to inevitably start to erode standards because they want that one female special operator, that one female Green Beret, that one female Army Ranger, that one female Navy Seal, so they can put them on a recruiting poster and feel good about themselves and has nothing to do with national security.”

READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New

“So it started, you know, we saw it under Clinton with the tinkering of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and the reasons for those changes,” Hegseth said in November on a podcast promoting his book, also according to CNN. “And I talked to some of the people involved in when that was changed, but it really happened, started to accelerate under Obama.”

And yet, when asked on Wednesday by CNN if he still holds that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a mistake, Hegseth grew silent and did not answer, ignoring the reporter (video below).

Hegseth has a long, documented history of anti-LGBTQ and anti-women statements and positions.

“The dumbest phrase on planet Earth in the military is our diversity is our strength,” Hegseth said on a podcast this year, ABC News reported last month.

“There aren’t enough lesbians in San Francisco to staff the 82nd Airborne like you need, you need the boys in Kentucky and Texas and North Carolina and Wisconsin,” Hegseth also said earlier this year, ABC noted. On a separate podcast, he “said that transgender soldiers are ‘not deployable’ because they are ‘reliant on chemicals’ and suggested that women should not serve in certain combat roles.”

“Everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat means casualties are worse,” Hegseth also said, ABC added. He also argued “that men are ‘more capable’ in combat roles because of biological factors.”

Hegseth, under fire, this week claimed he supports women in the military, but did not specifically state he supports women in combat roles.

“I strive to defend the pillars of Western civilization against the distractions of diversity,” Hegseth wrote in 2002 as publisher of The Princeton Tory, the university’s conservative student magazine, The New Yorker reported last month.

“In the same year that Hegseth was defending the West against diversity, he and the other editors of the Tory opined that the New York Times’ decision to publish announcements of same-sex marriages had opened the floodgates to incest and bestiality: ‘At what point does the paper deem a ‘relationship’ unfit for publication? What if we ‘loved’ our sister and wanted to marry her? Or maybe two women at the same time? A 13-year-old? The family dog?’”

And in a 2002 publisher’s note at The Tory, Talking Points Memo reported, Hegseth “declared that he was ‘not encouraged’ by the ‘educational principles … guiding our generation.’ Among other things, he cited the ‘encouragement and support’ for ‘homosexuality.'”

“In pieces for the Tory,” TPM continued, “Hegseth and the team he oversaw railed against efforts to promote diversity on campus and what they described as the immoral ‘homosexual lifestyle.'”

The New Yorker also reports that during Hegseth’s tenure, The Tory wrote: “boys can wear bras and girls can wear ties until we’re blue in the face, but it won’t change the reality that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and immoral.”

“Hegseth and The Tory’s editor also wrote: “Overwhelming majorities of Americans agree with the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not moral equivalents.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Trump’s Defense Secretary pick, Pete Hegseth, has called allowing openly gay troops a “Marxist” push for social justice and said it “erodes” military standards.

He declined to clarify his comments when asked Wednesday by CNN.

Watch: www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/p…

[image or embed]

— Andrew Kaczynski (@kfile.bsky.social) December 12, 2024 at 9:48 AM

RELATED: ‘Swarm of MAGA Attacks’ Making Hegseth Confirmation Seem More Likely: Report

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.