Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

If your analogy was true, then the rest of the modern world has cured cancer.

more accurately, the rest of the modern world has found multiple cures for cancer with varying side effects, and our Left has apparently decided the only cures we should consider are the ones with instructions in the same language regardless of their actual applicability

 

[veloxStrix]

So they should sit back and wait to see if a candidate will be able to keep them functionally alive after one of the two political parties has made it part of their platform to demonize them into non-existence.

Yes. Or they should quit receiving government founding.

"We give you money - provided at least in some part by federal funding - so you will support us and give us more money which we can then pay back into the party." is not a very acceptable outcome for me. It opens up another door to serious abuse of the financial system.

PP is an NPO, so they should act the part. It's unfortunate that there are people who want to damage Planned Parenthood since, as much as any organization, they try to do as much good as possible.

 

[JustenP88]

"fuck them" might be a bit strong. But for reasons I do not understand, the Sanders campaign is doubling down on their PP statements. Particularly since PP is so popular with groups essential to winning the Democratic Nomination.

I don't particularly understand why they're not injecting more nuance/support towards PP into their elaboration, either. I don't think this is indicative of any sort of danger for his campaign, or PP if he were to win, but I still think they could stand to be a bit more PC about PP.

So you want them shut down effectively because they didn't chose Bernie.

Lol

 

[Armaros]

Yes. Or they should quit receiving government founding.

"We give you money - provided at least in some part by federal funding - so you will support us and give us more money which we can then pay back into the party." is not a very acceptable outcome for me.

PP is an NPO, so they should act the part. It's unfortunate that there are people who want to damage Planned Parenthood since, as much as any organization, they try to do as much good as possible.

So you want them shut down effectively because they didn't chose Bernie.

 

[noshten]

Bernie has put minority and women's issues on the back-burning the entire campaign, while Hilary has been on the forefront of women's issues since forever.

its is not the same at all. Trying to equate their impact is ridiculous.

Bernie's reaction to their endorsement means they doubly chose right.

Do tell me what back burner is Berning in your mind, the one that paternity leave, free healthcare, free education and equal pay are integral part of his platform? The fact that he has a higher rating according to their own rules? The fact they didn't endorse Clinton in 08 despite nothing changing in terms of her being on the forefront of women's issues.

It's a clearly political move and you are trying to spin this in a direction which makes no sense. The amount of support PP will get will not be inherently different in a Sanders or Clinton presidency - trying to say the opposite is clearly muddying the issue.

 

[lanella]

Yes. Or they should quit receiving government founding.

"We give you money - provided at least in some part by federal funding - so you will support us and give us more money which we can then pay back into the party." is not a very acceptable outcome for me. It opens up another door to serious abuse of the financial system.

PP is an NPO, so they should act the part. It's unfortunate that there are people who want to damage Planned Parenthood since, as much as any organization, they try to do as much good as possible.

How are non-profits supposed to run without government funding?

 

[sangreal]

What's their argument for endorsing Hillary which, again, goes against prior precedent? Can't be voting record. Is it that they need to get out in front and do what they can to stop Bernie from winning the nomination? If so, again, that fits right into his narrative.

Why check when you can guess whatever fits your narrative?

• Hillary Clinton has taken every opportunity to speak out in support of Planned Parenthood, including dozens of shout-outs on the campaign trail. She's been in Planned Parenthood’s corner more than any other presidential candidate.
  
• As Senator, Hillary Clinton introduced 8 pieces of legislation with the clear purpose of expanding and protecting women’s access to reproductive health care — more than any other presidential candidate.
  
• Hillary Clinton chaired the 1993 task force that created the first plan for health care reform and testified on it before Congress — an unprecedented move by a presidential spouse.
• Hillary Clinton helped launch the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Teen birth rates are now at a 40-year low.
  
• Hillary Clinton introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act ​in 2005, 2007 and 2009. No other presidential candidate has introduced equal pay legislation.
  
• Hillary Clinton waged a multi-year effort​ with Sen. Patty Murray — and even blocked the nomination of an FDA head — to pass the law that made emergency contraception available over-the-counter.
  
• Hillary Clinton would build on the Affordable Care Act, which has helped nearly 8.2 million adult women gain health coverage. This has been especially important for women of color, who accounted for 53.2 percent of uninsured women before the law went into effect.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...renthood-action-fund-endorse-hillary-clinton/

 

[Armaros]

Do tell me what back burner is Berning in your mind, the one that paternity leave, free healthcare, free education and equal pay are integral part of his platform? The fact that he has a higher rating according to their own rules? The fact they didn't endorse Clinton in 08 despite nothing changing in terms of her being on the forefront of women's issues.

It's a clearly political move and you are trying to spin this in a direction which makes no sense. The amount of support PP will get will not be inherently different in a Sanders or Clinton presidency - trying to say the opposite is clearly muddying the issue.

You mean how just about every time anything not directly related to the economy is brought up, he pivots back to Millionaries, Billionaries and Wall-Street?

As if that is going to solve everything?

 

[JustenP88]

Why check when you can guess whatever fits your narrative?



https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...renthood-action-fund-endorse-hillary-clinton/

Did they endorse her during the Democratic primary in 2008? If so, I digress.

 

[noshten]

Why check when you can guess whatever fits your narrative?



https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...renthood-action-fund-endorse-hillary-clinton/

Why didn't they endorse her in 08, if they had done so - it would have clearly make sense for them to endorse her in 16.

You mean how just about every time anything not directly related to the economy is brought up, he pivots back to Millionaries, Billionaries and Wall-Street?

As if that is going to solve everything?

That's your opinion on the matter, the majority of people looking to defund PP are indeed Millionaire and Billionaire puppets that got elected to gridlock government, unless they are passing something that might line someones pockets. To say that money, lobbying, influence and outside interests aren't the biggest issue this election is to willfully have your head in the sand. Everything we are facing is a byproduct of the grander issue of what Sanders pivots on. When government is gridlocked it's not the First Baptist Church that is lobbying for that gridlock, but to say that millions aren't pumped into organizations such as FBC and many others across the nation is just being willfully ignorant.

 

[gutter_trash]

I agree. A non-profit that helps women has no place taking sides in a political battle.

We already know that they're pro-Democrat. We already know that electing either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would keep them alive and well-funded. So why did they have to go the extra mile and endorse somebody?

I think Bernie might be on to something here. It may be a minor part of the cog in the machine, but it still bothers me.

Of course, as the reaction in this thread shows, this is the exact opposite of what his campaign should be doing, because attacking Planned Parenthood isn't going to get him votes...it's just going to make him more decisive and turn off voters who are on the fence. Really, really stupid decision on his part.

why did you select Thomas Mulcair?
The guy is not even a true Social-Democrat; he's a fiscal Conservative who toyed with the idea of exporting water in bulk as a natural resources when he was a Provincial Quebec MNA and applauded Margret Thatcher

The NDP would be best served by voting down Mulcair this Spring and actually selecting a Social-Democrat as leader of the party,

 

[Mael]

The amount of support PP will get will not be inherently different in a Sanders or Clinton presidency - trying to say the opposite is clearly muddying the issue.

Considering what Sanders and his campaign are saying, you can't really say that anymore.

Why didn't they endorse her in 08, if they had done so - it would have clearly make sense for them to endorse her in 16.

Did you miss the part about how no one was trying to actively shut them down in 08?

 

[Armaros]

Did they endorse her during the Democratic primary in 2008? If so, I digress.

Why didn't they endorse her in 08, if they had done so - it would have clearly make sense for them to endorse her in 16.

Were they under siege from a systemic campaign of defunding and demonizing by a party that still clings to the notion that they only do abortions and sell fetus parts? Republican Governors and States Assemblies are defunding PP at a record breaking rate.

 

[veloxStrix]

So you want them shut down effectively because they didn't chose Bernie.

That's a big jump there, my friend. I understand my mouth is delectable but, please, try not to stick anything in it. No one is talking about shutting down planned parenthood, not even effectively, with the exception of a few extreme Republicans. Especially not because they didn't support Bernie. They shouldn't be supporting anyone.

Even defunding them shouldn't hurt them as they are fully capable of funding political groups - or that's the perception of the public when they start taking political actions. Planned Parenthood starts supporting a political candidate for the first time since advent. The first bill planning to defund them arises in the same time period. Coincidence? Probably not.

And, unless I am mistaken, the "defunding" of Planned Parenthood only applies if they don't follow abortion certifications - and only for a year after that. Correct me if am though.

This bill prohibits, for a one-year period, the availability of federal funds for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates or clinics, unless they certify that the affiliates and clinics will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion during such period.
The restriction will not apply in cases of rape or incest or where a physical condition endangers a woman's life unless an abortion is performed.
The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture must seek repayment of federal assistance received by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any affiliate or clinic, if it violates the terms of the certification required by this Act.

How are non-profits supposed to run without government funding?

By not committing actions that put the ethicality and integrity of that funding in danger, I would imagine.

 

[JustenP88]

Were they under siege from a systemic campaign of defunding and demonizing by a party that still clings to the notion that they only do abortions and sell fetus parts?

The fight against abortion and women's reproductive issues is nothing new to the Right.

 

[Mael]

The fight against abortion and women's reproductive issues is nothing new to the Right.

Please do provide links to where you saw PP directly as a target of the right in 08 and before.

 

[Tabris]

why did you select Thomas Mulcair?

You won, don't kick someone when they are down gutter_trash

 

[Allard]

Why didn't they endorse her in 08, if they had done so - it would have clearly make sense for them to endorse her in 16.

They have never endorsed ANYONE till now. They endorsed her because they are a political lightning rod in which if a republican made it to office they would likely lose all their funding for an unfair and unreasonable reason. The political climate changed since 2008 that is what is different, if they were in such dire straits they might have done the same thing back then but it wasnt.

 

[NDP_Mulcair]

why did you select Thomas Mulcair?
The guy is not even a true Social-Democrat; he's a fiscal Conservative who toyed with the idea of exporting water in bulk as a natural resources when he was a Provincial Quebec MNA and applauded Margret Thatcher

The NDP would be best served by voting down Mulcair this Spring and actually selecting a Social-Democrat as leader of the party,

My name was changed by a NeoGAF administrator against my will!

My actual name is NPD_George!

 

[gutter_trash]

My name was changed by a NeoGAF administrator against my will!

My actual name is NPD_George!

Dang

 

[FyreWulff]

I agree. A non-profit that helps women has no place taking sides in a political battle.

Yeah, women should be quiet and not speak out of turn...

... they can't stay silent when they are literally being attacked by gunmen for providing services to women. They just supposed to smile and take it?

 

[JustenP88]

Please do provide links to where you saw PP directly as a target of the right in 08 and before.

Nah, not really interested in doing digging to prove that this issue has been contentious along party lines for longer than 8 years. That's a silly question coming from any American over the age of 8.

 

[Mael]

Nah, not really interested in doing digging to prove that this issue has been contentious along party lines for longer than 8 years. That's a silly question coming from any American over the age of 8.

No, please speak like I'm 5 and provide proofs that PP has been under constant attack by R lawmakers since before 2008.
All the way to the point that its funding by the federal government was in jeopardy.
Not just conservatives have a hard on against abortions and such.
What I want is actual proof that lawmakers tried to defund PP and questioned its very existence.
From 2008 and before of course.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yes, but not in the same capacity.

We also have things like http://www.sexualhealthandrights.ca and multiple other programs. ( http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/abortioninfo/bc.shtml#hospitals )

But you can go to 30 hospitals in BC to have an abortion, as well as a bunch of clinics. It's covered by Universal Healthcare.

Thing is the Hyde Amendment would prevent any of that in the US

 

[NDP_Mulcair]

Yeah, women should be quiet and not speak out of turn...

... they can't stay silent when they are literally being attacked by gunmen for providing services to women. They just supposed to smile and take it?

They are a support group. Their sole mission is to help and educate impoverished women.

Both candidates would support them equally and give them an equal voice in Congress.

If they support the Democratic party who will respect and champion them, fine. But one Democratic candidate over another? That's completely unnecessary and a waste of time and money.

 

[TheOohChild]

This election will literally determine if they get to continue to even exist.


Hillary has actively spoken in their defense and has a history of actually putting forth legislation in their defense.

Bernie btw skipped out on the defund planned parenthood vote in Dec.

So yeah....

Skipped out = he was so staunchly opposed and disgusted by the bill and knew it would never pass so he decided not to vote

 

[JustenP88]

No, please speak like I'm 5 and provide proofs that PP has been under constant attack by R lawmakers since before 2008.
All the way to the point that its funding by the federal government was in jeopardy.
Not just conservatives have a hard on against abortions and such.
What I want is actual proof that lawmakers tried to defund PP and questioned its very existence.
From 2008 and before of course.

Wikipedia = max effort on a question like this. I don't know what bubble you live, but I live an an extremely conservative part of the country and Republicans have been pandering to the "one-issue pro life" voters hardcore since "pro life" became a thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

Some members of Congress, overwhelmingly Republicans, have attempted since the 1980s to defund the organization,[46] nearly leading to a government shutdown over the issue in 2011.[119]

 

[excelsiorlef]

What's their argument for endorsing Hillary which, again, goes against prior precedent? Can't be voting record. Is it that they need to get out in front and do what they can to stop Bernie from winning the nomination? If so, again, that fits right into his narrative.



"fuck them" is a bit strong, I think. It's unfortunate that he mentioned them in the same breath as Wall Street, but I think you've put some significant spin on his comments if you really come away thinking he's got a problem with PP that would influence his policies.



On one hand, fair enough. Not sure what his excuse was there.

On the other (more defensive) hand, there's no way that bill would've passed over Obama's desk without a veto. It was a total waste of time.

I fucking posted that shit in this thread...possibly more than once.

Sanders votes and supports but Hillary Clinton created legislation and actively talks about them in support in debates and such unprompted.

 

[lednerg]

this excuse didn't fly in 2008 when seven sitting senators were running, it shouldn't fly now

so what you're saying is... he was pragmatic about his vote

I'm saying it would've been a waste of time and money to fly to DC to record a vote against something Obama already said he'd veto. The fact that it's being brought up now is disingenuous political gamesmanship.

 

[Mael]

Wikipedia = max effort on a question like this. I don't know what bubble you live, but I live an an extremely conservative part of the country and Republicans have been pandering to the "one-issue pro life" voters hardcore since "pro life" became a thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

Some members of Congress, overwhelmingly Republicans, have attempted since the 1980s to defund the organization,[46] nearly leading to a government shutdown over the issue in 2011.[119]

You misunderstand.
Conservatives all over the world have tried to make abortion illegal since we know how to do abortions really.
What you provided was proof that Republicans have between 1980 and 2011 tried to shut down PP.
From the information you provided, there's nothing that shows that PP was ever an issue in 2008 and before.
Especially since before 2008 the president was a Republican would could have easily defunded PP in the 8 years he was in power.

 

[JustenP88]

I fucking posted that shit in this thread...possibly more than once.

Sanders votes and supports but Hillary Clinton created legislation and actively talks about them in support in debates and such unprompted.

K. We can stop going in circles now.

What you provided was proof that Republicans have between 1980 and 2011 tried to shut down PP.
From the information you provided, there's nothing that shows that PP was ever an issue in 2008 and before.

Whooooooaaaaa. Yeah, I'm bowing out. Reading those sentences back to back was just a bit much for me.

 

[royalan]

They are a support group. Their sole mission is to help impoverished women.

Both candidates would support them equally and give them an equal voice.

If they support the Democratic party who will respect and champion them, fine. But one Democratic candidate over another? That's completely unnecessary and a waste of time and money.

I don't know how you can say that.

Obviously, neither Dem is going to defund PP, but Clinton has made support for women's issues a core part of her campaign in much the same way that Bernie has made economic equally a core of his. She talks about it every chance she gets.

PP will be able to breathe easier under either candidate, but to suggest that both candidates will give the same focus to the issues PP aligns with is a bit disingenuous. There's a clear champion among the two.

 

[FyreWulff]

They are a support group. Their sole mission is to help and educate impoverished women.

Both candidates would support them equally and give them an equal voice in Congress.

If they support the Democratic party who will respect and champion them, fine. But one Democratic candidate over another? That's completely unnecessary and a waste of time and money.

When women being able to get healthcare they need because people in power are trying to take it away, their entire survival depends on being involved in the political process. And after Bernie's remarks, they don't need to find out which canidate is going to be the most likely to support women's rights.

 

[Zoe]

When women being able to get healthcare they need because people in power are trying to take it away, their entire survival depends on being involved in the political process. And after Bernie's remarks, they don't need to find out which canidate is going to be the most likely to support women's rights.

I fail to see how his statement makes him less likely to support women's rights.

 

[veloxStrix]

When women being able to get healthcare they need because people in power are trying to take it away, their entire survival depends on being involved in the political process. And after Bernie's remarks, they don't need to find out which canidate is going to be the most likely to support women's rights.

Being part of the political process is what got defunding bills and comments from political candidates about the integrity of their cause in the first place, I would wager.

 

[NDP_Mulcair]

I don't know how you can say that.

Obviously, neither Dem is going to defund PP, but Clinton has made support for women's issues a core part of her campaign in much the same way that Bernie has made economic equally a core of his. She talks about it every chance she gets.

PP will be able to breathe easier under either candidate, but to suggest that both candidates will give the same focus to the issues PP aligns with is a bit disingenuous. There's a clear champion among the two.

I don't know how you can make these assumptions that a Bernie Sanders presidency would be inferior in championing them.

Who's to say that Bernie wouldn't pass legislation and focus heavily on it once he gets into office? Just because he's made economic inequality his core focus for his campaign doesn't mean he doesn't care about it or he won't give special attention to it.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Btw it's hillarious how this thread has gone since the double down. Prior to that Sanders folks were insulting me, accusing me of distortion and pro-Clinton propaganda and that Sanders absolutely did not mean what I claimed he meant.

Since the double down? Sanders is right! PP is the establishment he's up against.

Beautiful

 

[AlphaDump]

Wikipedia = max effort on a question like this. I don't know what bubble you live, but I live an an extremely conservative part of the country and Republicans have been pandering to the "one-issue pro life" voters hardcore since "pro life" became a thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

Some members of Congress, overwhelmingly Republicans, have attempted since the 1980s to defund the organization,[46] nearly leading to a government shutdown over the issue in 2011.[119]

why wikipedia it when we all remember? anyway keep reading your link.

On December 4, 2015, the U.S. Senate passed legislation to defund Planned Parenthood, with a 52-47 vote.[65] The bill would also repeal the portions of the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to fund abortions and abortifacients.

From September 2015:
Republicans try new way to defund Planned Parenthood, avoiding shutdown


2008 is a reference to Accorn. Where James O'Keefe made videos to tar and feather it before the election. It was later settled out of court. Which parallels what happened in 2015. But it was such bullshit and clearly fake that it was tossed out of court. So the Republcians backed down.

 

[veloxStrix]

Btw it's hillarious how this thread has gone since the double down. Prior to that Sanders folks were insulting me, accusing me of distortion and pro-Clinton propaganda and that Sanders absolutely did not mean what I claimed he meant.

Since the double down? Sanders is right! PP is the establishment he's up against.

Beautiful

It's almost like.. there are different people on the internet... with different viewpoints? Who get on at different times? Holy shit.

 

[lednerg]

Btw it's hillarious how this thread has gone since the double down. Prior to that Sanders folks were insulting me, accusing me of distortion and pro-Clinton propaganda and that Sanders absolutely did not mean what I claimed he meant.

Since the double down? Sanders is right! PP is the establishment he's up against.

Beautiful

I'm still accusing you of making it sound like Bernie doesn't support Planned Parenthood.

 

[Allard]

I don't know how you can make these assumptions that a Bernie Sanders presidency would be inferior in championing them.

Who's to say that Bernie wouldn't pass legislation and focus heavily on it once he gets into office? Just because he's made economic inequality his core focus for his campaign doesn't mean he doesn't care about it or he won't give special attention to it.

And they will endorse Bernie likely in the general election if he is nominated. But between the two candidates its not even close who is more outspoken candidate for that organization and its issues in this primary season, a season in which they are coming under successful statewide attacks and legislative hearings with two potential government shutdowns centered around just their organization. Hilary got tons of endorsements in 2008, so did Obama, those endorsements later coalesced and merged in the general election with most of them. Hilary did something similar in 2008 when she had long time 'friends' go for Obama and she spoke out too, guess what, she lost. This is a horrible idea to attack in the primary season, especially for such a respected organization on the democratic platform, it is a losing fight and he made a misstep bringing attention to it in a negative light.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm still accusing you of making it sound like Bernie doesn't support Planned Parenthood.

Never said that.

 

[NullPointer]

Never said that.

Nobody has said anything really.

I still don't see the threat I'm supposed to be reading in his words. A supposed threat he made immediately after touting his support from people in those groups while hoping for more.

I guess its impossible to be progressive and establishment? I don't get it. But I can and do expect resistance from the Democratic political establishment - that very same establishment I would still support over the Republicans.

 

[lednerg]

Never said that.

From the title of the thread, to how you stripped the context from the OP, to bringing up an inconsequential Senate vote of a DOA bill, this is just about getting a narrative out there that Bernie is against Planned Parenthood and its mission. That's what Hillary meant to do with that tweet, to drive a wedge. What Sanders was talking about was far more nuanced for a one sentence explanation, so most people won't bother to consider it, and will just fall back to "Sanders thinks Planned Parenthood are doodieheads". There's plenty of reactions in this thread which make it clear that's the message they took away from all this.

 

[excelsiorlef]

From the title of the thread, to how you stripped the context from the OP, to bringing up an inconsequential Senate vote of a DOA bill, this is just about getting a narrative out there that Bernie is against Planned Parenthood and its mission. That's what Hillary meant to do with that tweet, to drive a wedge. What Sanders was talking about was far more nuanced for a one sentence explanation, so most people won't bother to consider it, and will just fall back to "Sanders thinks Planned Parenthood are doodieheads". There's plenty of reactions in this thread which make it clear that's the message they took away from all this.

They doubled down exactly on that quote. They said exactly what I said they said.

It's always someone else's fault when Bernie's camp fucks up. Between this and the data theft, it's never his fuck up.

He fucked up here and doubled down when given the opportunity to extract himself. That ain't my fault.

 

[Allard]

From the title of the thread, to how you stripped the context from the OP, to bringing up an inconsequential Senate vote of a DOA bill, this is just about getting a narrative out there that Bernie is against Planned Parenthood and its mission. That's what Hillary meant to do with that tweet, to drive a wedge. What Sanders was talking about was far more nuanced for a one sentence explanation, so most people won't bother to consider it, and will just fall back to "Sanders thinks Planned Parenthood are doodieheads". There's plenty of reactions in this thread which make it clear that's the message they took away from all this.

What we took away from it is only when an important endorsement is not given to Bernie he starts speaking out against democratic establishment issues and how they aren't the voice of the people or that entire organization. The idea he presents is good, the timing and choice of words are not, and is without a doubt an almost rookie level political mistake,. If he is floundering this much against inside the primary on messaging, what is he going to be like in the general election when all the real money starts to become necessary? This is the real controversy over his statements, not his dedication for policy or his advocacy, he is not selling himself or his campaign well on why he should be the democratic presidential nominee. It sucks we only have a two party system, but this attack on the establishment in the primary process is a really, really poor mistake so close to caucus and primary elections, it comes across, even if not intentionally, as desperate.

 

[royalan]

From the title of the thread, to how you stripped the context from the OP, to bringing up an inconsequential Senate vote of a DOA bill, this is just about getting a narrative out there that Bernie is against Planned Parenthood and its mission. That's what Hillary meant to do with that tweet, to drive a wedge. What Sanders was talking about was far more nuanced for a one sentence explanation, so most people won't bother to consider it, and will just fall back to "Sanders thinks Planned Parenthood are doodieheads". There's plenty of reactions in this thread which make it clear that's the message they took away from all this.

Or..."Bernie is such a novice at handling these situations in his campaign and not pissing people off that I'm really beginning to question his ability to navigate Washington on a major level and actually get anything accomplished."

That's what I'm taking from it.

 

[TheOohChild]

Never said that.

I guess that is correct. Strongly suggesting something is different than saying it.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I guess that is correct. Strongly suggesting something is different than saying it.

My title

Sanders calls Planned Parenthood part of the Political Establishment he's taking on

The original quote

The Double down:

Todd: Do you believe that Planned Parenthood and Human Rights Campaign—that these are part of the Democratic establishment that's trying to defeat you?

Devine: I do, Chuck. I think the leadership of Washington-based groups—and it's not just those two—are part of a political establishment here in Washington.

 

[Mael]

Clearly excelsiorlef is trying to sink Sanders campaign all by herself.