Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How will Bernie try to defend his record on this I wonder? (Original Post) Tom Rinaldo Apr 2017 OP
they need a bigger rug juxtaposed Apr 2017 #1
Ah, but you didn't include all the fine print! Tom Rinaldo Apr 2017 #5
Totally irrelevant to the conversation which is about Sanders openly supporting an anti-choice KittyWampus Apr 2017 #37
Yep. cwydro Apr 2017 #39
Who cares? leftofcool Apr 2017 #2
Interesting Tom Rinaldo Apr 2017 #3
The corporate shills are scared stiff and doing all they can to discredit Sanders. kristopher Apr 2017 #8
"corporate shills" i.e. "people with a different opinion than mine" Dem2 Apr 2017 #31
Well, people with different values certainly. kristopher Apr 2017 #43
Thanks for posting! Great info! VigilantG Apr 2017 #4
But he is not a member of the party. safeinOhio Apr 2017 #6
That's a really important point ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #7
The irony of that can be painful sometimes n/t Tom Rinaldo Apr 2017 #9
only half? quakerboy Apr 2017 #10
Heh. Irony alert. progressoid Apr 2017 #11
Yep, I would say (with irony) that there was lots of Democrat bashing in the OP except... Tom Rinaldo Apr 2017 #23
Good point. Thanks for reminding us that Sanders has a stellar record on reproductive rights. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #12
What's your point? Gman Apr 2017 #13
I am worried about Party unity. What about you? Tom Rinaldo Apr 2017 #19
Nobody but one or two, maybe 3 in the country worry about it Gman Apr 2017 #20
Well there appear to be at least 5-6 right here on the forum. Kentonio Apr 2017 #24
How many members does DU have? Are 5 or 6 people a big majority of members? emulatorloo Apr 2017 #27
Nope Kentonio Apr 2017 #34
Thanks for the laugh! n/t emulatorloo Apr 2017 #36
those alleging a concern with party unity seem to be those working most strongly against it. LanternWaste Apr 2017 #40
I see that pattern too but I don't know if we are looking in the same place or not Tom Rinaldo Apr 2017 #41
Way too many Bernie threads popping up lately. Chicago1980 Apr 2017 #14
exactly! elmac Apr 2017 #16
No Plucketeer Apr 2017 #17
+1000 nt diva77 Apr 2017 #35
yawn elmac Apr 2017 #15
Seriously!!! IndianaKev Apr 2017 #18
Read the link? Duppers Apr 2017 #21
There is an obvious attempt to purge Sanders supporters going on. nt Snotcicles Apr 2017 #22
Indeed. Duppers Apr 2017 #25
LOL NurseJackie Apr 2017 #26
Sanders supporters make up the majority of DU emulatorloo Apr 2017 #28
I know. It can't be good for Skinner's fund drives though. nt Snotcicles Apr 2017 #29
Are you suggesting Skinner wants to purge Sanders supporters? emulatorloo Apr 2017 #30
Not at all. But I think his bottom line suffers from it. nt Snotcicles Apr 2017 #32
Well I still don't thing Sanders supporters are gonna be purged because of a handful of threads emulatorloo Apr 2017 #33
Sanders' own record is irrelevant to the conversation. In fact, the OP is a non sequitur KittyWampus Apr 2017 #38
Could we retire this "outreach" canard that's been repeatedly refuted? Jim Lane Apr 2017 #42
 

juxtaposed

(2,778 posts)
1. they need a bigger rug
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 04:56 PM
Apr 2017

Lifetime pro-choice record, plus funding for family planning. (Sep 2015)
Advocate for family planning and funding for contraceptives. (Sep 2015)
Women have the right to choose, regardless of income. (Jun 1997)
Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals. (Sep 2006)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
Require pharmacies to fulfill contraceptive prescriptions. (Jul 2011)
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services. (Nov 2013)
Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions. (Jan 2015)
Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
5. Ah, but you didn't include all the fine print!
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 05:40 PM
Apr 2017

You know, the stuff like this:

"Sanders co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act

Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:

a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability

Opponent's argument against (Live Action News): This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.
Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-S1696 on Nov 13, 2013 "

And this:

"Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Bilirakis, R-FL; Bill HR 4691 ; vote number 2002-412 on Sep 25, 2002"

And Dozens more.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
37. Totally irrelevant to the conversation which is about Sanders openly supporting an anti-choice
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:18 PM
Apr 2017

candidate and labelling that candidate "progressive" while not being able to muster up even a generic positive comment about another Democratic candidate.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
3. Interesting
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 05:10 PM
Apr 2017

I could have sworn that a few people around here were showing an interest in where politicians stood on reproductive and related rights. I'm not sure what gave me that impression. Sorry to have taken up your time unnecessarily.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
8. The corporate shills are scared stiff and doing all they can to discredit Sanders.
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:02 PM
Apr 2017

This recent wave of nonsensical allegations against Sanders reminds me of the way the truth was twisted about his civil rights record. Misinformation has been the curse of the internet since it's public debut


kristopher

(29,798 posts)
43. Well, people with different values certainly.
Thu Apr 27, 2017, 06:13 AM
Apr 2017

The idea that people are attacking Sanders because of his position on civil rights or abortion is sheer, obvious, overt nonsense. He is a threat to the mass money accumulation machine - nothing more, nothing less. There is no argument to be made in support of continued and increased mal-division of the world's wealth, so they attack with the kind of misinformation and lies on display here today.

VigilantG

(374 posts)
4. Thanks for posting! Great info!
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 05:31 PM
Apr 2017

I hope Dems don't become too caught up if a candidate running against a Repug differs from our platform on an issue here and there. We need unity against the ignorant, disgusting self-serving, greedy Repugs.

ProfessorPlum

(11,253 posts)
7. That's a really important point
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 06:12 PM
Apr 2017

Last edited Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)

and one that doesn't get made very often.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
23. Yep, I would say (with irony) that there was lots of Democrat bashing in the OP except...
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:15 AM
Apr 2017

...if I did someone would no doubt think that was fair game for alerting on this post

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
12. Good point. Thanks for reminding us that Sanders has a stellar record on reproductive rights.
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:13 PM
Apr 2017


Do I wish we could replace every one of our politicians who isn't 100% pro-choice with one who is? Certainly - but that's not realistic. It would be fantastic if every one of our senators and congresspeople felt the same way as Bernie - but they don't and I completely understand why our party leaders say it's important to support red state Democrats with mixed records on abortion over their Republican opponents.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
19. I am worried about Party unity. What about you?
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 09:16 PM
Apr 2017

Some seem to be afraid that the man who won 45% of the vote in our last presidential primary is intent on sacrificing women's reproductive rights on the alter of appealing to Trump voters. That could lead to deep divisions in our party which could be reflected in lots of worried threads on forums like DU with people expressing concern over women being about to be thrown under the bus by one of the national leaders of our Democratic Party led coalition (which overlaps with but is not the exact same thing as the Democratic Party) I thought some direct factual evidence about the 25 year voting record of the man in question might help allay some fears, and help to keep us united rather than fighting with each other over non substantiated concerns.

Gman

(24,780 posts)
20. Nobody but one or two, maybe 3 in the country worry about it
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:03 AM
Apr 2017

It's a non issue. Except for somebody who has nothing else to do.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
40. those alleging a concern with party unity seem to be those working most strongly against it.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:33 PM
Apr 2017

It appears that over the past three weeks, those alleging a concern with party unity seem to be those working most strongly against it. Just a head's-up: Party Unity does not begin with finger pointing and blame (I think your bias refers to the consistent fracture as 'factual evidence'), but rather solutions and, well... unity.

No doubt, the allegation of unity is good copy; but if even a halfwit like me me can see the obvious distinctions between the allegation of unity and the sources of dis-unity, no doubt a rational mind would easily see both the effect as well as the cause.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
41. I see that pattern too but I don't know if we are looking in the same place or not
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:56 PM
Apr 2017

I just checked. I've started dozens of OP's at DU since last Summer. Prior to this weekend I haven't started any praising Bernie Sanders or defending Bernie Sanders on anything since at least around the Democratic Convention. I have however posted OP's supportive of Hillary's run, and none negative toward her since well before the Democratic Convention (for those who may remember I mostly supported Sanders here rather than attacking Clinton).

I moved on long ago but some others here seem to have been doing their best to make that almost impossible. I would much prefer writing OPs against Trump and the Republicans than ones defending Sanders on matters of reproductive freedom.

Chicago1980

(1,968 posts)
14. Way too many Bernie threads popping up lately.
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:24 PM
Apr 2017

It's time to move forward, but people seem to be distracted.

 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
17. No
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:38 PM
Apr 2017

Bernie IS "Moving Forward". Amazing to me that a guy older then my ancient carcass hasn't even broken his stride since he "lost" the primary contest. He's a dynamo of dynamic thinking. Truly incredible that those he's allied with still try to make fistfuls of mud stick to him. The position parsing that goes on here is comical. All these "experts" who only "represent" their domicile as opposed to having to try and satisfy a herd of fussy cats.

IndianaKev

(8 posts)
18. Seriously!!!
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:41 PM
Apr 2017

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:34 AM - Edit history (1)

CTFO. I'm so sick of this. We have the scariest president of our lifetimes in office and we are going to keep this bickering up?!?!? Give it up. I get it. Bernie is to blame for Hillary not being a strong candidate. That makes sense. I mean at least outside of Putin and the MSM lying nonstop and making her out to be the antichrist it makes sense.

We have real enemies here and Bernie isn't it. Hillary isn't it either nor is any Democrat. Give it up and support our party. Quit making enemies of our friends.

Duppers

(28,117 posts)
21. Read the link?
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 10:27 AM
Apr 2017

Subject line firmly planted in cheek.

Btw, I totally agree: "We have real enemies here and Bernie isn't it."




emulatorloo

(44,045 posts)
33. Well I still don't thing Sanders supporters are gonna be purged because of a handful of threads
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:06 PM
Apr 2017

by a handful of people.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
38. Sanders' own record is irrelevant to the conversation. In fact, the OP is a non sequitur
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:21 PM
Apr 2017

The conversation is about Sanders choosing to openly support an anti-choice candidate and labelling that person "progressive" while declining to make even a generic positive comment about another candidate.

The conversation is about Sanders and his inability to act as head of Democratic Party Outreach without constantly throwing out unnecessary insults like "feeble".

The conversation is about Sanders not speaking up when his followers boo'ed Tom Perez.

And all of this conversation is pinned to the fact that Sanders holds himself above everyone else even though he has no real claim to any moral high ground. He preaches ideological purity but fails to practice it.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
42. Could we retire this "outreach" canard that's been repeatedly refuted?
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:53 PM
Apr 2017

You refer to Bernie as "head of Democratic Party Outreach". He is not. He is the outreach chair for the Democratic caucus in the Senate.

In that capacity, he's a member of the Senate Democratic Steering & Outreach Committee, which, according to its website, "is dedicated to fostering dialogue between Senate Democrats and leaders from across the nation." That doesn't mean that Bernie and the other Senators on the committee (all of whom, you'll note, have day jobs) have full responsibility for the Democratic Party's outreach.

So, who is actually the "head of Democratic Party Outreach"? That would be up to the Democratic National Committee, which runs the party. During the 2016 campaign, the DNC designated a Senior Advisor for Progressive Outreach. His name is Michael Lux. I don't know if he was just an election-time hire or if he's still on staff. If you want an actual head of Democratic Party Outreach, take it up with the current DNC Chair, who, incidentally, is not the one whom Bernie Sanders supported for that post.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How will Bernie try to de...