|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On February 18 2020 16:59 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 05:39 LegalLord wrote:On February 17 2020 00:37 BronzeKnee wrote:
Hmm... this is an interesting race. I think it is pretty clear that the number of moderates far outweighs those to the left, so I don't think Sanders can take this. It does look like that at first glance, but the thing is, it doesn't look like anyone else can "take this" either. The vote is just generally very split among many candidates. But if he looks like a relatively clear frontrunner, I'm certain that Sanders will start to gain support from a hefty crowd of moderates as well. He's not so far left that he's unpalatable to the Democratic base, he's just not the first choice of many of those in the middle. Though if the real question is if he can "take this" in terms of fending off the many entrenched interests working against him, that's definitely an interesting question. So the conventional "wisdom" of the pundits about Bernie right now is: - He's only the front-runner because the field is split so many ways- The "traditional" candidates put together have much more votes than him- He's too extreme, even if he wins the nomination, he has no chance in the general - He holds views/ says things that are gonna alienate a lot of the moderates and big chunks of the party's electorate - The party isnt behind him Like jeesh, I wish i had a good enough memory to recall someone who won the nomination and the presidency after the pundits said the same about him, almost word-for-word 
I think there's some truth to this though. As someone who wants to see Sanders win the nomination, I'm well aware that the best way for that to happen is for all the popular moderates (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg) to all stay in the race for as long as possible, to dilute the moderate vote. If all but one of these centrist candidates drop out and support the one who remains, then that candidate is pretty likely to win, especially if that happens soon. I don't think it'll happen until after Super Tuesday though, and the longer the moderates wait to exit, the scarier Sanders gets.
|
On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
95%+ ?
14% of democrats are anti-abortion
https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/srkO0JI.jpg)
I generally avoid spouting the catch phrases of either side in this debate. Thus, I try to avoid catch phrases like "Pro Choice" and "Pro Life".
Once one digs into the medical reality of miscarriages, abortions, and perilous pregnancies all these various catchphrases and the stereotypes each side employs to dehumanizes the other .... only exacerbate a problem many thousands of North Americans face every week. The problem is tough enough as it is. Heaping on all this marketing, grandstanding, and posturing just makes it worse.
I think its a bad move by Sanders to require Democrats toe his party line on the abortion issue. I think the stances held by previous Democrat Presidents like Clinton made the party more inclusive. I feel like Bill Clinton really nailed the issue as best as a US Prez can. I recommend Bernie Sanders mimic Bill Clinton's stance. Hell, I recommend Donald Trump mimic Bill Clinton's stance as well.
|
On February 18 2020 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 16:59 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 17 2020 05:39 LegalLord wrote:On February 17 2020 00:37 BronzeKnee wrote:
Hmm... this is an interesting race. I think it is pretty clear that the number of moderates far outweighs those to the left, so I don't think Sanders can take this. It does look like that at first glance, but the thing is, it doesn't look like anyone else can "take this" either. The vote is just generally very split among many candidates. But if he looks like a relatively clear frontrunner, I'm certain that Sanders will start to gain support from a hefty crowd of moderates as well. He's not so far left that he's unpalatable to the Democratic base, he's just not the first choice of many of those in the middle. Though if the real question is if he can "take this" in terms of fending off the many entrenched interests working against him, that's definitely an interesting question. So the conventional "wisdom" of the pundits about Bernie right now is: - He's only the front-runner because the field is split so many ways- The "traditional" candidates put together have much more votes than him- He's too extreme, even if he wins the nomination, he has no chance in the general - He holds views/ says things that are gonna alienate a lot of the moderates and big chunks of the party's electorate - The party isnt behind him Like jeesh, I wish i had a good enough memory to recall someone who won the nomination and the presidency after the pundits said the same about him, almost word-for-word I think there's some truth to this though. As someone who wants to see Sanders win the nomination, I'm well aware that the best way for that to happen is for all the popular moderates (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg) to all stay in the race for as long as possible, to dilute the moderate vote. If all but one of these centrist candidates drop out and support the one who remains, then that candidate is pretty likely to win, especially if that happens soon. I don't think it'll happen until after Super Tuesday though, and the longer the moderates wait to exit, the scarier Sanders gets.
It's difficult to have conclusive data on this because voters don't have to think in terms of moderate vs progressive. You could be voting for Biden but have Sanders as your second choice, it doesn't make a ton of sense ideologically but it happens. Some others may perceive that Buttigieg is progressive and prefer him to Bernie because he's younger, and so on. Another factor that is good for us is that some of the support for moderates comes from people who kind of like Bernie but think he's unelectable, and that perception is bound to change if Bernie keeps, well, winning primaries like he has so far.
I don't disagree that it's good that there are several people running and that it divides the vote somewhat, that helps for sure, but if the situation changes I don't know that it's time to panic yet. The most likely "sole moderate" candidate appears to be Bloomberg right now and Sanders' message would be highlighted by running directly against that ghoul.
|
On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
What the 40 sec soundbite says:
"I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the dems are pro choice, there are a few who are not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added
On February 18 2020 19:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
I think its a bad move by Sanders to require Democrats toe his party line on the abortion issue. I think the stances held by previous Democrat Presidents like Clinton made the party more inclusive. I feel like Bill Clinton really nailed the issue as best as a US Prez can. I recommend Bernie Sanders mimic Bill Clinton's stance. Hell, I recommend Donald Trump mimic Bill Clinton's stance as well.
Again, I have yet to see a transcript or a video, where Bernie says that he requires this, or he doesnt want any anti-abortion people in his movement/campaign.
Imo, he's on the right side of this issue, but it's not his main issue. That s fine. I think he shouldn't adopt any new stances based on what other politicians succeeded with in the past or in the present.
From an outside point of view, i see that US general elections are won by candidates who are genuine (or are perceived as genuine by the voters). For me it seems it matters less what they stand for, as long as they come across as honest and determined to make their vision happen. Flip-floppy candidates usually lose nominations, and always lose general elections (in my lifetime, so starting with the '90s)
Bill Clinton was quite conservative/moderate or call if what you will, by the left's standards. He won by a landslide. Obama was very new-wave, very liberal, he won by a landslide. That's the only 2 democrats who locked up the nomination and went on to win the general. Neither was well-known, neither was handpicked by the establishment.
Establishment/mainstream candidates who ran in the general elections: Al Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton. The only one of the 3 who came close to winning was Al Gore, and while he was a former VP, he had a strong, genuine stance on at least one issue. There are examples in the primaries as well.
If you extend the selection to the republicans, it's more of the same. Candidates like Romney or Jeb Bush got buried, people who were considered genuine by the public won (W. Bush, Trump.)
|
On February 18 2020 19:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 16:59 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 17 2020 05:39 LegalLord wrote:On February 17 2020 00:37 BronzeKnee wrote:
Hmm... this is an interesting race. I think it is pretty clear that the number of moderates far outweighs those to the left, so I don't think Sanders can take this. It does look like that at first glance, but the thing is, it doesn't look like anyone else can "take this" either. The vote is just generally very split among many candidates. But if he looks like a relatively clear frontrunner, I'm certain that Sanders will start to gain support from a hefty crowd of moderates as well. He's not so far left that he's unpalatable to the Democratic base, he's just not the first choice of many of those in the middle. Though if the real question is if he can "take this" in terms of fending off the many entrenched interests working against him, that's definitely an interesting question. So the conventional "wisdom" of the pundits about Bernie right now is: - He's only the front-runner because the field is split so many ways- The "traditional" candidates put together have much more votes than him- He's too extreme, even if he wins the nomination, he has no chance in the general - He holds views/ says things that are gonna alienate a lot of the moderates and big chunks of the party's electorate - The party isnt behind him Like jeesh, I wish i had a good enough memory to recall someone who won the nomination and the presidency after the pundits said the same about him, almost word-for-word I think there's some truth to this though. As someone who wants to see Sanders win the nomination, I'm well aware that the best way for that to happen is for all the popular moderates (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg) to all stay in the race for as long as possible, to dilute the moderate vote. If all but one of these centrist candidates drop out and support the one who remains, then that candidate is pretty likely to win, especially if that happens soon. I don't think it'll happen until after Super Tuesday though, and the longer the moderates wait to exit, the scarier Sanders gets.
Again, think back 4 years. It was the same narrative, Trump cant win, cuz he has a solid 20%, but no room to grow. Once the moderate field thins, the remaining guy gonna pick up the majority, and turn the tide.
The 12+ field got narrowed down to 4, and Trump's numbers grew. Than it was 3, and Trump rose yet again. Then there was 1 v 1 vs the mainstream, catholic, "conservtative", southern candidate and he won by a landslide, and went on to eek out a win in the General election.
|
On February 18 2020 19:59 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
What the 40 sec soundbite says:
"I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the dems are pro choice, there are a few who are not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added
Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 19:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
I think its a bad move by Sanders to require Democrats toe his party line on the abortion issue. I think the stances held by previous Democrat Presidents like Clinton made the party more inclusive. I feel like Bill Clinton really nailed the issue as best as a US Prez can. I recommend Bernie Sanders mimic Bill Clinton's stance. Hell, I recommend Donald Trump mimic Bill Clinton's stance as well. Again, I have yet to see a transcript or a video, where Bernie says that he requires this, or he doesnt want any anti-abortion people in his movement/campaign. Imo, he's on the right side of this issue, but it's not his main issue. That s fine. I think he shouldn't adopt any new stances based on what other politicians succeeded with in the past or in the present. From an outside point of view, i see that US general elections are won by candidates who are genuine (or are perceived as genuine by the voters). For me it seems it matters less what they stand for, as long as they come across as honest and determined to make their vision happen. Flip-floppy candidates usually lose nominations, and always lose general elections (in my lifetime, so starting with the '90s) Bill Clinton was quite conservative/moderate or call if what you will, by the left's standards. He won by a landslide. Obama was very new-wave, very liberal, he won by a landslide. That's the only 2 democrats who locked up the nomination and went on to win the general. Neither was well-known, neither was handpicked by the establishment. Establishment/mainstream candidates who ran in the general elections: Al Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton. The only one of the 3 who came close to winning was Al Gore, and while he was a former VP, he had a strong, genuine stance on at least one issue. There are examples in the primaries as well. If you extend the selection to the republicans, it's more of the same. Candidates like Romney or Jeb Bush got buried, people who were considered genuine by the public won (W. Bush, Trump.)
i posted the link here. i will post it again.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bernie-sanders-reverses-course-on-pro-life-democrats/
here is the exact quote.
“I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added.
bad move by Bernie. Bill Clinton did a better job with the abortion hot potato.
On February 18 2020 11:53 riotjune wrote:Pro-choice =/= Anti-life. Like universal healthcare, I view the right to choose as a right that should be treated and respected as a privilege, not something to be taken for granted and abused. Killing babies suck, and I rather avoid making an opinion on abortion like everyone else and live in a utopia where such a thing isn't necessary and not thought about. But if you really want to force the issue, then I guess I really can't avoid it and will have to make my stance on the issue known sooner or later as it's commonly discussed in the current world we live in. When I did my obgyn rotation, + Show Spoiler +we had a small group discussion with other students and residents about our stances on abortion to "break the ice," which I think had the opposite effect. I remember one of the pgy-4's looked at me with such disdain and skepticism when it was my turn to discuss my views, something along the lines of "doctors should be saving lives, not killing babies" but not as blunt. Received such loud sighs. Yea, I learned to keep my inner thoughts that might clash with my immediate learning/working environment a secret real quick, since I didn't even want to go into obgyn to begin with, but it was a required part of the curriculum that I need to pass.
You see all kinds of patients. A would-be mother whose pregnancy would endanger her life since she was scheduled to undergo a life-saving surgical procedure, and was told to get an abortion beforehand or risk a very high chance of dying. She didn't even know she was pregnant to begin with and spent many sleepless nights deliberating on what she should do, because she was so against abortion in the first place. Then realized it was her own body and her own life, and she was the one having to make the choice on how to play this shitty hand whether she liked it or not. She's the one who's going to suffer the consequences of her own decision, and nobody else, not a man, could do it for her. I would be fine with her for making the hard choice to go through with the abortion.
Then you see another unrepentant patient come in for her 9th d&c like it's a routine thing because she forgot to take the pill again or was too lazy, and still refuses to have her tubes tied, and you die a little/a lot inside. Obgyn was the most fun delivering babies, whether through good ol' fashioned labor, or shadowing and helping out with caesareans.
you make a lot of great points. thanks for taking the time to go into this much detail.
|
His argument is that Sanders is exclusively referring to elected Democrats and not the rank and file.
Even if you accept that reading, at best it becomes a statement that pro-life Democrats can vote for him but can't have representatives who share their views.
|
On February 18 2020 20:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 19:59 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
What the 40 sec soundbite says:
"I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the dems are pro choice, there are a few who are not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added
On February 18 2020 19:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
I think its a bad move by Sanders to require Democrats toe his party line on the abortion issue. I think the stances held by previous Democrat Presidents like Clinton made the party more inclusive. I feel like Bill Clinton really nailed the issue as best as a US Prez can. I recommend Bernie Sanders mimic Bill Clinton's stance. Hell, I recommend Donald Trump mimic Bill Clinton's stance as well. Again, I have yet to see a transcript or a video, where Bernie says that he requires this, or he doesnt want any anti-abortion people in his movement/campaign. Imo, he's on the right side of this issue, but it's not his main issue. That s fine. I think he shouldn't adopt any new stances based on what other politicians succeeded with in the past or in the present. From an outside point of view, i see that US general elections are won by candidates who are genuine (or are perceived as genuine by the voters). For me it seems it matters less what they stand for, as long as they come across as honest and determined to make their vision happen. Flip-floppy candidates usually lose nominations, and always lose general elections (in my lifetime, so starting with the '90s) Bill Clinton was quite conservative/moderate or call if what you will, by the left's standards. He won by a landslide. Obama was very new-wave, very liberal, he won by a landslide. That's the only 2 democrats who locked up the nomination and went on to win the general. Neither was well-known, neither was handpicked by the establishment. Establishment/mainstream candidates who ran in the general elections: Al Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton. The only one of the 3 who came close to winning was Al Gore, and while he was a former VP, he had a strong, genuine stance on at least one issue. There are examples in the primaries as well. If you extend the selection to the republicans, it's more of the same. Candidates like Romney or Jeb Bush got buried, people who were considered genuine by the public won (W. Bush, Trump.) i posted the link here. i will post it again. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bernie-sanders-reverses-course-on-pro-life-democrats/here is the exact quote. “I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added.
It's not the exact quote, i typed the exact quote from that 40 sec soundbite out for you, so you dont have to watch the vid. It's in the article btw.
It's the lowest and most dishonest form of journalism to latch on to one specific instance, cut out a 40 sec soundbite, and then transcribe it with gaps, making it sound like something different, than it was intended to be. But it's obviously working, so I understand why the media does it.
Here, last attempt to reason with you:
Take this hypothetical situation:
Interviewer: Is there such a thing in your vision of the party, as a Democrat who is not in favor of environmental regulations?
Sanders:
I think being protective of the environment is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the democrats want to protect the environment, there are a few who do not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being in favor of environmental regulations is an essential part of that.
Do you feel like in this hypothetical instance, that Sanders is taking an extreme stance on environmental protection?
|
On February 18 2020 20:29 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 20:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 19:59 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
What the 40 sec soundbite says:
"I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the dems are pro choice, there are a few who are not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added
On February 18 2020 19:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
I think its a bad move by Sanders to require Democrats toe his party line on the abortion issue. I think the stances held by previous Democrat Presidents like Clinton made the party more inclusive. I feel like Bill Clinton really nailed the issue as best as a US Prez can. I recommend Bernie Sanders mimic Bill Clinton's stance. Hell, I recommend Donald Trump mimic Bill Clinton's stance as well. Again, I have yet to see a transcript or a video, where Bernie says that he requires this, or he doesnt want any anti-abortion people in his movement/campaign. Imo, he's on the right side of this issue, but it's not his main issue. That s fine. I think he shouldn't adopt any new stances based on what other politicians succeeded with in the past or in the present. From an outside point of view, i see that US general elections are won by candidates who are genuine (or are perceived as genuine by the voters). For me it seems it matters less what they stand for, as long as they come across as honest and determined to make their vision happen. Flip-floppy candidates usually lose nominations, and always lose general elections (in my lifetime, so starting with the '90s) Bill Clinton was quite conservative/moderate or call if what you will, by the left's standards. He won by a landslide. Obama was very new-wave, very liberal, he won by a landslide. That's the only 2 democrats who locked up the nomination and went on to win the general. Neither was well-known, neither was handpicked by the establishment. Establishment/mainstream candidates who ran in the general elections: Al Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton. The only one of the 3 who came close to winning was Al Gore, and while he was a former VP, he had a strong, genuine stance on at least one issue. There are examples in the primaries as well. If you extend the selection to the republicans, it's more of the same. Candidates like Romney or Jeb Bush got buried, people who were considered genuine by the public won (W. Bush, Trump.) i posted the link here. i will post it again. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bernie-sanders-reverses-course-on-pro-life-democrats/here is the exact quote. “I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added. It's not the exact quote, i typed the exact quote from that 40 sec soundbite out for you, so you dont have to watch the vid. It's in the article btw. It's the lowest and most dishonest form of journalism to latch on to one specific instance, cut out a 40 sec soundbite, and then transcribe it with gaps, making it sound like something different, than it was intended to be. But it's obviously working, so I understand why the media does it. Here, last attempt to reason with you: Take this hypothetical situation: Interviewer: Is there such a thing in your vision of the party, as a Democrat who is not in favor of environmental regulations?Sanders: I think being protective of the environment is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the democrats want to protect the environment, there are a few who do not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being in favor of environmental regulations is an essential part of that. Do you feel like in this hypothetical instance, that Sanders is taking an extreme stance on environmental protection?
its pretty hilarious you question my source on what Sanders said. Where is your source that 95%+ of Democrats are pro choice? my source has 14% of Democrats as wanting abortion as illegal with that % fluctuating from 25% to 8% of the last 40 years.
any how, here is the 40 second clip of Sanders which was correctly transcribed in the article i posted.
www.youtube.com
People can make up their own minds about what they are hearing.
|
On February 18 2020 20:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 20:29 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 18 2020 20:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 19:59 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
What the 40 sec soundbite says:
"I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the dems are pro choice, there are a few who are not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added
On February 18 2020 19:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
I think its a bad move by Sanders to require Democrats toe his party line on the abortion issue. I think the stances held by previous Democrat Presidents like Clinton made the party more inclusive. I feel like Bill Clinton really nailed the issue as best as a US Prez can. I recommend Bernie Sanders mimic Bill Clinton's stance. Hell, I recommend Donald Trump mimic Bill Clinton's stance as well. Again, I have yet to see a transcript or a video, where Bernie says that he requires this, or he doesnt want any anti-abortion people in his movement/campaign. Imo, he's on the right side of this issue, but it's not his main issue. That s fine. I think he shouldn't adopt any new stances based on what other politicians succeeded with in the past or in the present. From an outside point of view, i see that US general elections are won by candidates who are genuine (or are perceived as genuine by the voters). For me it seems it matters less what they stand for, as long as they come across as honest and determined to make their vision happen. Flip-floppy candidates usually lose nominations, and always lose general elections (in my lifetime, so starting with the '90s) Bill Clinton was quite conservative/moderate or call if what you will, by the left's standards. He won by a landslide. Obama was very new-wave, very liberal, he won by a landslide. That's the only 2 democrats who locked up the nomination and went on to win the general. Neither was well-known, neither was handpicked by the establishment. Establishment/mainstream candidates who ran in the general elections: Al Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton. The only one of the 3 who came close to winning was Al Gore, and while he was a former VP, he had a strong, genuine stance on at least one issue. There are examples in the primaries as well. If you extend the selection to the republicans, it's more of the same. Candidates like Romney or Jeb Bush got buried, people who were considered genuine by the public won (W. Bush, Trump.) i posted the link here. i will post it again. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bernie-sanders-reverses-course-on-pro-life-democrats/here is the exact quote. “I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added. It's not the exact quote, i typed the exact quote from that 40 sec soundbite out for you, so you dont have to watch the vid. It's in the article btw. It's the lowest and most dishonest form of journalism to latch on to one specific instance, cut out a 40 sec soundbite, and then transcribe it with gaps, making it sound like something different, than it was intended to be. But it's obviously working, so I understand why the media does it. Here, last attempt to reason with you: Take this hypothetical situation: Interviewer: Is there such a thing in your vision of the party, as a Democrat who is not in favor of environmental regulations?Sanders: I think being protective of the environment is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the democrats want to protect the environment, there are a few who do not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being in favor of environmental regulations is an essential part of that. Do you feel like in this hypothetical instance, that Sanders is taking an extreme stance on environmental protection? its pretty hilarious you question my source on what Sanders said. Where is your source that 95%+ of Democrats are pro choice? my source has 14% of Democrats as wanting abortion as illegal with that % fluctuating from 25% to 8% of the last 40 years. any how, here is the 40 second clip of Sanders which was correctly transcribed. www.youtube.comPeople can make up their own minds about what they are hearing.
 )))))
My source is your source, )))) that you claim you watched, and confirmed that was correctly transcribed in the article. )))
I rest my case.
|
On February 18 2020 20:37 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 20:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 20:29 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 18 2020 20:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 19:59 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
What the 40 sec soundbite says:
"I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the dems are pro choice, there are a few who are not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added
On February 18 2020 19:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
I think its a bad move by Sanders to require Democrats toe his party line on the abortion issue. I think the stances held by previous Democrat Presidents like Clinton made the party more inclusive. I feel like Bill Clinton really nailed the issue as best as a US Prez can. I recommend Bernie Sanders mimic Bill Clinton's stance. Hell, I recommend Donald Trump mimic Bill Clinton's stance as well. Again, I have yet to see a transcript or a video, where Bernie says that he requires this, or he doesnt want any anti-abortion people in his movement/campaign. Imo, he's on the right side of this issue, but it's not his main issue. That s fine. I think he shouldn't adopt any new stances based on what other politicians succeeded with in the past or in the present. From an outside point of view, i see that US general elections are won by candidates who are genuine (or are perceived as genuine by the voters). For me it seems it matters less what they stand for, as long as they come across as honest and determined to make their vision happen. Flip-floppy candidates usually lose nominations, and always lose general elections (in my lifetime, so starting with the '90s) Bill Clinton was quite conservative/moderate or call if what you will, by the left's standards. He won by a landslide. Obama was very new-wave, very liberal, he won by a landslide. That's the only 2 democrats who locked up the nomination and went on to win the general. Neither was well-known, neither was handpicked by the establishment. Establishment/mainstream candidates who ran in the general elections: Al Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton. The only one of the 3 who came close to winning was Al Gore, and while he was a former VP, he had a strong, genuine stance on at least one issue. There are examples in the primaries as well. If you extend the selection to the republicans, it's more of the same. Candidates like Romney or Jeb Bush got buried, people who were considered genuine by the public won (W. Bush, Trump.) i posted the link here. i will post it again. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bernie-sanders-reverses-course-on-pro-life-democrats/here is the exact quote. “I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added. It's not the exact quote, i typed the exact quote from that 40 sec soundbite out for you, so you dont have to watch the vid. It's in the article btw. It's the lowest and most dishonest form of journalism to latch on to one specific instance, cut out a 40 sec soundbite, and then transcribe it with gaps, making it sound like something different, than it was intended to be. But it's obviously working, so I understand why the media does it. Here, last attempt to reason with you: Take this hypothetical situation: Interviewer: Is there such a thing in your vision of the party, as a Democrat who is not in favor of environmental regulations?Sanders: I think being protective of the environment is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the democrats want to protect the environment, there are a few who do not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being in favor of environmental regulations is an essential part of that. Do you feel like in this hypothetical instance, that Sanders is taking an extreme stance on environmental protection? its pretty hilarious you question my source on what Sanders said. Where is your source that 95%+ of Democrats are pro choice? my source has 14% of Democrats as wanting abortion as illegal with that % fluctuating from 25% to 8% of the last 40 years. any how, here is the 40 second clip of Sanders which was correctly transcribed. www.youtube.comPeople can make up their own minds about what they are hearing. ))))) My source is your source, )))) that you claim you watched, and confirmed that was correctly transcribed. ))) I rest my case.
i'll have to chalk this up to a troll post.
My source shows that 14% of Democrats think abortion should be illegal. You had no source for your claim that 95%+ are pro choice. So , no, my source is not your source.
On February 18 2020 20:24 Belisarius wrote:
His argument is that Sanders is exclusively referring to elected Democrats and not the rank and file.
Even if you accept that reading, at best it becomes a statement that pro-life Democrats can vote for him but can't have representatives who share their views.
the 40 second clip Sanders stated 2 times that being pro choice is an essential part of being a Democrat. He concluded the segment with that statement. and my point is Bill Clinton handled it better than Bernie Sanders.
Here is what he said word for word.
Q: "Then is there such a thing as a pro life democrat, in your vision of the party?
Sanders : “I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,..”
if you're asking me... if you're asking me.. and I think I may be wrong on this i think in the senate
probably 95% of the democrats are pro-choice you have a few who are not....in the house maybe even a higher percentage. So that's kind of what my view is i think by this time in history I think when we talk what a democrat is I think being pro choice is an essential part of that"
I think the article I posted accurately reflects what Sanders said. However, you now have the entire interaction.
|
On February 18 2020 20:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 20:37 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 18 2020 20:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 20:29 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 18 2020 20:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 19:59 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
What the 40 sec soundbite says:
"I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the dems are pro choice, there are a few who are not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added
On February 18 2020 19:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
I think its a bad move by Sanders to require Democrats toe his party line on the abortion issue. I think the stances held by previous Democrat Presidents like Clinton made the party more inclusive. I feel like Bill Clinton really nailed the issue as best as a US Prez can. I recommend Bernie Sanders mimic Bill Clinton's stance. Hell, I recommend Donald Trump mimic Bill Clinton's stance as well. Again, I have yet to see a transcript or a video, where Bernie says that he requires this, or he doesnt want any anti-abortion people in his movement/campaign. Imo, he's on the right side of this issue, but it's not his main issue. That s fine. I think he shouldn't adopt any new stances based on what other politicians succeeded with in the past or in the present. From an outside point of view, i see that US general elections are won by candidates who are genuine (or are perceived as genuine by the voters). For me it seems it matters less what they stand for, as long as they come across as honest and determined to make their vision happen. Flip-floppy candidates usually lose nominations, and always lose general elections (in my lifetime, so starting with the '90s) Bill Clinton was quite conservative/moderate or call if what you will, by the left's standards. He won by a landslide. Obama was very new-wave, very liberal, he won by a landslide. That's the only 2 democrats who locked up the nomination and went on to win the general. Neither was well-known, neither was handpicked by the establishment. Establishment/mainstream candidates who ran in the general elections: Al Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton. The only one of the 3 who came close to winning was Al Gore, and while he was a former VP, he had a strong, genuine stance on at least one issue. There are examples in the primaries as well. If you extend the selection to the republicans, it's more of the same. Candidates like Romney or Jeb Bush got buried, people who were considered genuine by the public won (W. Bush, Trump.) i posted the link here. i will post it again. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bernie-sanders-reverses-course-on-pro-life-democrats/here is the exact quote. “I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added. It's not the exact quote, i typed the exact quote from that 40 sec soundbite out for you, so you dont have to watch the vid. It's in the article btw. It's the lowest and most dishonest form of journalism to latch on to one specific instance, cut out a 40 sec soundbite, and then transcribe it with gaps, making it sound like something different, than it was intended to be. But it's obviously working, so I understand why the media does it. Here, last attempt to reason with you: Take this hypothetical situation: Interviewer: Is there such a thing in your vision of the party, as a Democrat who is not in favor of environmental regulations?Sanders: I think being protective of the environment is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the Senate probably 95% of the democrats want to protect the environment, there are a few who do not. In the House it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being in favor of environmental regulations is an essential part of that. Do you feel like in this hypothetical instance, that Sanders is taking an extreme stance on environmental protection? its pretty hilarious you question my source on what Sanders said. Where is your source that 95%+ of Democrats are pro choice? my source has 14% of Democrats as wanting abortion as illegal with that % fluctuating from 25% to 8% of the last 40 years. any how, here is the 40 second clip of Sanders which was correctly transcribed. www.youtube.comPeople can make up their own minds about what they are hearing. ))))) My source is your source, )))) that you claim you watched, and confirmed that was correctly transcribed. ))) I rest my case. i'll have to chalk this up to a troll post. My source shows that 14% of Democrats think abortion should be illegal. You had no source for your claim that 95%+ are pro choice. So , no, my source is not your source. Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 20:24 Belisarius wrote:
His argument is that Sanders is exclusively referring to elected Democrats and not the rank and file.
Even if you accept that reading, at best it becomes a statement that pro-life Democrats can vote for him but can't have representatives who share their views. the 40 second clip Sanders stated 2 times that being pro choice is an essential part of being a Democrat. He concluded the segment with that statement. and my point is Bill Clinton handled it better than Bernie Sanders.
And in which he says that 95% of Senate democrats are prochoice....the sentence that i transcribed... So again, my source is your source, I literally transcribed the 40 sec youtube clip you linked, and you doubled down and tripled down how it's accurately transcribed, and you keep asking where did i come up with the 95%. Again, the source for the 95% is THE YOUTUBE VIDEO THAT YOU LINKED. It's in regards to democrats in Senate. I dont even know if it's accurate, Bernie prefaces with "i may be wrong about this". You would know this if you would have watched the clip u keep linking.
Those are the literal words Sanders said in YOUR link, and i wrote out those words, verbatim, without adding anything.
EDIT: i see you finally went around and listened to your own clip. I hope you understand now where the 95% came from.
|
Again, you are ignoring my 14% source. I've stated my perspective though so I'm good.
|
On February 18 2020 21:14 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Again, you are ignoring my 14% source. I've stated my perspective though so I'm good.
I am not ignoring it, I never contested that source. 14% of democratic voters say that, cool.
Sanders said 95% of Senate democrats, and even higher percentage of House democrats are pro-choice. He might be wrong about the figure, I dont know, but the 2 things do not contradict each other.
In my interpretation, that does not make him an extremist, that underlines how his views on the issue are in line with most other Dem politicians. That s it.
|
yep i agree. i don't think Bernie is an extremist on this issue either. However, I do think previous Democratic Presidents have done a better job handling the abortion hot potato.
It'll be interesting to see if Bernie softens his stance a bit if he wins the nomination and is running for President in a close race. My guess is he'll sound a lot more like Bill Clinton in the heat of a close election race.
|
Jimmy.
No one claimed that 95% of the democrats are pro choice.
Bernie Sanders claimed that 95% of the democrats in the senate are pro choice.
Geo.Rion didn't actually claim anything with regards to percentages of democrats being pro-choice himself. He transcribed what Sanders said. Which he very clearly stated multiple times.
No one cares about your source stating that 14% of democrats think that abortion should be illegal. Because no one was actually talking about that.
Yet you somehow claim that it counters stuff that people said. For some reason you seem to think that someone claimed that 95% of the democrats in general are pro-choice, and that you need to refute this statement. But that is not what happened here.
|
On February 18 2020 21:21 Simberto wrote:
Jimmy.
No one claimed that 95% of the democrats are pro choice.
Here is his exact quote
On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
He has since made a more accurate and more delimited statement regarding this 95+%. So I think we're all in agreement on %s here.
On February 18 2020 21:21 Simberto wrote:
No one cares about your source stating that 14% of democrats think that abortion should be illegal. Because no one was actually talking about that.
I am talking about it because I think its important to understand what the electorate thinks on many issues.
|
On February 18 2020 21:24 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 21:21 Simberto wrote:
Jimmy.
No one claimed that 95% of the democrats are pro choice.
Here is his exact quote Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
He has since made a more accurate and more delimited statement regarding this 95+%. So I think we're all in agreement on %s here.
No, not since then, from the start. Please quote me correctly, it was clear from the start where i took the %. I understand you're confused because i said "party" at the end, which for me meant the politicians (as evidenced by the quote i typed out), and you understood i'm referring to the democrat voters in general
On February 18 2020 18:52 Geo.Rion wrote:
What the 40 sec soundbite says:
"I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the senate probably 95% of the dems are pro choice, there are a few who are not. In the house it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
|
yes, thanks for clarifying that. and so I think we're all in agreement on the the numbers.
On February 18 2020 21:29 Geo.Rion wrote:
I understand you're confused because i said "party" at the end, which for me meant the politicians (as evidenced by the quote i typed out), and you understood i'm referring to the democrat voters in general
good point. that is exactly what caused the confusion.
anyhow, do you think Sanders will alter the way he talks about the abortion issue in the heat of a close Presidential race? My guess is , he will.
|
Im sure Bernie will keep speaking in the same way he is now, keep the government out of women's bodies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
