Support NeoGAF

[Xe4]

It's just another move to the right for the party.

Nothing about restricting a woman's right to body autonomy is reasonable. Period.

You don't understand why some people would be upset at throwing a ton of support behind someone who's voted to throw women under a bus?

That's sad to you?

What's sad to me is any mention of democrats being able to compromise on any issue whatsoever is viewed as a betrayal. As if compromise is somehow a bad thing in its own right. That's how we got to this impass we're in in the first place.

No candidate is perfect. I've had my share of candidates who I've strongly dissagreed on on certain issues, yet still voted for. Nobody is perfect, but every democrat wants to move the country, or at least their part of the country to the left.

And I promise you, Mello is 1000x better than any republican would be on any issue, abortion included.

 

[VendettaRed07]

It's pointless to run an anti-choice candidate but softer views on abortion or more sympathetic rhetoric like Biden and Kaine can be effective.

 

[Slayven]

I feel for women, always old dudes telling them what they should do with their bodies

 

[Father_Brain]

The point of attacking "purity tests" is to make sure we don't become UK Labour.

When Sanders starts polling anything like Corbyn, I'll start worrying about that. Until then, it strikes me as a facile comparison.

 

[Bleepey]

I don't see anything wrong with it. If someone is pro lgbt, pro gun control, pro voting rights, social justice and other things but feel abortion is against their own personal ethics they've got more to gain with them than against them. They can probably speak to evangelicals who hate the hypocrisy of the GOP.

 

[KSweeley]

When is America going to get a true left-wing party?

It's hilarious that Democrats represent liberalism in America. This party is centre left at most.

I would love to see a viable third-party come into prominence here in the U.S. and overthrows the Democratic or Republican party.

 

[guek]

If people want to know why this blew up, it's because Sanders was willing to give Mello a pass on abortion because he otherwise mostly aligned with Sanders' views. Which is fine! That's the point of the 50 state strategy. But this happened in the same week that he said he wasn't sure that Ossoff wasn't a progressive because he didn't share Sanders' views on the economy and a few other issues. It wasn't a big deal, and he later clarified his comments about Ossoff and supported him, but he didn't have to say anything at all or at least give token support. Yet when there was an anti-abortion candidate, Sanders didn't make a comment saying he wasn't sure if Mello was progressive, he gave Mello his full support with this reasoning. Why couldn't he do that with Ossoff from the beginning too? The dude just isn't careful in the way he chooses his words, and that's why this blew up

Yeah, Bernie is a decent speaker when it comes to a very narrow range of topics but otherwise, he slips up quite frequently. It's usually nothing major but it happens often enough that's it's an issue. At least he clarified with Ossof though.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

They can probably speak to evangelicals who hate the hypocrisy of the GOP.

This group is like eight people.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

What's sad to me is any mention of democrats being able to compromise on any issue whatsoever is viewed as a betrayal. Thats how we got to this impass we're in in the first place.

No candidate is perfect. I've had my share of candidates who I've strongly dissagreed on on certain issues, yet still voted for. Nobody is perfect, but every democrat wants to move the country, or at least their part of the country to the left.

And I promise you, Mello is 1000x better than any republican would be on any issue, abortion included.

It's beyond "he's not perfect" to he voted to screw over an incredible amount of women. That's really fucked up, not "imperfect".

 

[Jenov]

Feministing speaks for me on this.

In his fight to define what it means to be progressive and to ”radically transform the Democratic Party," Sanders has drawn an unspoken but clear distinction between the economic issues that animate him (on which he says we must not compromise) and reproductive freedom (on which, he says, we should). It's a vision in which single-payer and free college are essential parts of the progressive, economic justice agenda, while a woman's right to choose is not.

But here's the thing: reproductive freedom is fundamentally an economic justice issue.

Access to abortion — the ability to decide when, and whether, to become a parent — is fundamental to the economic security of women (and other people who can become pregnant). If I found out I were pregnant tomorrow, and I didn't have the right to choose, unplanned parenthood would derail my career, my educational plans, my entire economic future.

And I'd still be better off than most. Nearly 70 percent of women who obtain abortions live below 200% of the federal poverty line, often because they cannot afford to care for a (or another) child. As Michelle Kinsey Bruns points out, abortion has empowered her to escape ”a life of hereditary poverty." She's not alone. The landmark ”Turnaway Study" tracked women across 21 states who sought but were denied abortion care; researchers found that ”women who carried an unwanted pregnancy to term are three times more likely than women who receive an abortion to be below the poverty level two years later."

Without the ability to control when they become parents, women can't control their economic futures. There's no economic justice without abortion access — unless you only care about people who can't become pregnant.

Perfect.

 

[Father_Brain]

Reproductive rights seems like a legitimate area to push Dems left on, to me. At least on a national level.

I think you misread my post. That was my read of the person I was quoting, not my own opinion.

 

[Hindl]

Yeah, Bernie is a decent speaker when it comes to a very narrow range of topics but otherwise, he slips up quite frequently. It's usually nothing major but it happens often enough that's it's an issue. At least he clarified with Ossof though.

Yeah it's good that he clarified, it's just becoming more of a problem lately. He's no longer the feisty underdog Senator from Vermont. He's now positioned to be a big tastemaker in the Democratic Party. He needs to start being more careful with how he talks, and he either needs to start exploring issues other than his pet issues more deeply, or surround himself with people that care about those issues as much as he cares about his own.

 

[Xe4]

It's beyond "he's not perfect" to he voted to screw over an incredible amount of women. That's fucked up, not "imperfect".

Geez, it's almost like people change their views over time or something. And again, I'd love to see a republican from his district with views even remotely close to his on abortion. Because guaranteed whatever republican was there was probably talking about getting rid of Roe v. Wade or some shit.

Again, sometimes you take the best of a bad situation. I've had to do it on a ton of issues that I feel strongly about.

 

[daman824]

It's beyond "he's not perfect" to he voted to screw over an incredible amount of women. That's really fucked up, not "imperfect".

Heath Mello has since changed his stance on abortion rights.

 

[Blader]

I think you misread my post. That was my read of the person I was quoting, not my own opinion.

Oh, I interpreted your post as saying economic issues were policy cornerstones that Dems should be pushed left on but social issues were much more malleable.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

BOOM. I literally yelled out loud at my office.

This is just sad.

 

[Jenov]

Heath Mello has since changed his stance on abortion rights.

What's his stance now?

 

[legacyzero]

This is just sad.

Thanks for the feedback/discussion

 

[Father_Brain]

If people want to know why this blew up, it's because Sanders was willing to give Mello a pass on abortion because he otherwise mostly aligned with Sanders' views. Which is fine! That's the point of the 50 state strategy. But this happened in the same week that he said he wasn't sure that Ossoff wasn't a progressive because he didn't share Sanders' views on the economy and a few other issues. It wasn't a big deal, and he later clarified his comments about Ossoff and supported him, but he didn't have to say anything at all or at least give token support. Yet when there was an anti-abortion candidate, Sanders didn't make a comment saying he wasn't sure if Mello was progressive, he gave Mello his full support with this reasoning. Why couldn't he do that with Ossoff from the beginning too? The dude just isn't careful in the way he chooses his words, and that's why this blew up

This is fair.

Like, 75-90% of criticism of Sanders, at least here and certain other corners of the Internet and center-left media, is made in fairly obvious bad faith by people who are still bitter about the primary and would be satisfied with nothing short of Sanders falling sycophantically in line with the DNC and never uttering a word of criticism of another Democrat again, BUT even criticism made in bad faith (not referring to you here) can still be valid on its actual merits.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Geez, it's almost like people change their views over time or something. And again, I'd love to see a republican from his district with views even remotely close to his on abortion. Because guaranteed whatever republican was there was probably talking about getting rid of Roe v. Wade or some shit.

Again, sometimes you take the best of a bad situation. I've had to do it on a tone of issues that I feel strongly about.

I never said don't back him, or that we shouldn't implement the 50-state strategy, but I don't have to love the guy, nor do I have to sit back and question why people (especially women) take offense.

 

[kirblar]

What relevance does this have? You are one of the main people I was referencing. You consistently talk about how bad purity tests are, and how the left should be more willing to compromise with the center. and Here he is doing exactly that, then suddenly you do a 360 just because of some dumb comment he made a week ago. Comparing him to LE Pen? Really? I think you're a good poster generally but stuff like this really hurts your credibility.

Bernie's not willing to compromise on economics. That is the problem. He explicitly only wants to compromise on social issues.

This is a problem. It's ok to compromise depending on state/region/district/etc., but you have to be willing to compromise on both.

I'm not comparing him to Le Pen, I'm saying that if you are willing to compromise on social issues, people like Le Pen are your natural allies. This is why in the French election, you have the new and bizarro dynamic of the center uniting around Macron while the fringes are going to Le Pen. This is why you have someone that TYT picked up pretty openly stanning for Le Pen. ( https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/856261177025888258 )

 

[daman824]

What's his stance now?

“While my faith guides my personal views, as mayor I would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care"
heres where the quote came from

 

[Blader]

What's his stance now?

Sounds like a Biden/Kaine-esque view, though without any policy track record to back it up (yet).

 

[Father_Brain]

Bernie's not willing to compromise on economics. That is the problem. He explicitly only wants to compromise on social issues.

This is a problem. It's ok to compromise depending on state/region/district/etc., but you have to be willing to compromise on both.

I'm not comparing him to Le Pen, I'm saying that if you are willing to compromise on social issues, people like Le Pen are your natural allies. This is why in the French election, you have the new and bizarro dynamic of the center uniting around Macron while the fringes are going to Le Pen. This is why you have someone that TYT picked up pretty openly stanning for Le Pen. ( https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/856261177025888258 )

Michael Tracey is garbage and is widely disliked on the left, at least if my Twitter timeline is any indication.

 

[mugurumakensei]

I don't see anything wrong with it. If someone is pro lgbt, pro gun control, pro voting rights, social justice and other things but feel abortion is against their own personal ethics they've got more to gain with them than against them. They can probably speak to evangelicals who hate the hypocrisy of the GOP.

Not really evangelicals. This move would be more towards getting support from Catholics who mostly are liberal aside from the issue of abortion.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Why is Bernie talking about the Dems as if he's part of the party? Isn't he an Independent again?

He's a independent when convenient for this political goals

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Thanks for the feedback/discussion

My feedback/discussion is that if you are yelling in your office over some post made on a forum by strangers, you need to re-evaluate your priorities. That is all, thank you.

 

[Maxim726X]

Perfect.

Perfect??

What am I missing here?

Did anyone read the fucking OP? It literally says, basically word for word, that someone's *personal* view on abortion can differ as long as their political position is pro-choice. Who gives a shit what someone's personal position on something is as long as they vote in line with the party?

Maybe I'm the crazy one? What is this mini-meltdown from people on the left?

 

[Bounceounce]

Bernie's not willing to compromise on economics. That is the problem. He explicitly only wants to compromise on social issues.

This is a problem. It's ok to compromise depending on state/region/district/etc., but you have to be willing to compromise on both.

I'm not comparing him to Le Pen, I'm saying that if you are willing to compromise on social issues, people like Le Pen are your natural allies. This is why in the French election, you have the new and bizarro dynamic of the center uniting around Macron while the fringes are going to Le Pen. This is why you have someone that TYT picked up pretty openly stanning for Le Pen. ( https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/856261177025888258 )

I don't even like or watch TYT politics anymore (I only watched it when the channel was first starting off to see what it would be like) other than an occasional pop in to see what narrative they're taking, and everytime I see that Tracy guy's face I get triggered, he adds literally nothing to their business and his Russia denial/obsession is simply insane.

Probably the worst person any branch of TYT has hired currently.

Edit: He definitely gets the most dislike out of any commentator as well, constant bashing from the audiences and comments about how seeing his face pops up sets them off, he needs to go

 

[DrBo42]

Why not just hammer it home that pro-choice /= pro-abortion in red states?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Perfect??

What am I missing here?

Did anyone read the fucking OP? It literally says, basically word for word, that someone's *personal* view on abortion can differ as long as their political position is pro-choice. Who gives a shit what someone's personal position on something is as long as they vote in line with the party?

Maybe I'm the crazy one? What is this mini-meltdown from people on the left?

His voting record is the issue, the bills he's sponsored/co-sponsored. If he's actually changed from actively trying to fuck over women, then we'll just have to see about that, now won't we?

 

[psychowave]

What's sad to me is any mention of democrats being able to compromise on any issue whatsoever is viewed as a betrayal. As if compromise is somehow a bad thing in its own right. That's how we got to this impass we're in in the first place.

No candidate is perfect. I've had my share of candidates who I've strongly dissagreed on on certain issues, yet still voted for. Nobody is perfect, but every democrat wants to move the country, or at least their part of the country to the left.

And I promise you, Mello is 1000x better than any republican would be on any issue, abortion included.

This isn't the kind of issue people should compromise on. This is about basic human rights. Would people be happy about Democrats compromising on other aspects of human rights, or is this one okay because it affects women exclusively?

 

[zelas]

Even Bernie has to face the reality of getting Dems elected in red states. Extremist liberals need to get their shit together too.

 

[legacyzero]

My feedback/discussion is that if you are yelling in your office over some post made on a forum by strangers, you need to re-evaluate your priorities. That is all, thank you.

Nah I'm good.

Odd thing for you to attack me on LOL.

Even Bernie has to face the reality of getting Dems elected in red states. Extremist liberals need to get their shit together too.

As a Bernie-crat, I don't like this either, but I realize that this really is the best way to do it. Or we can just leave the Republicans In office.

 

[gutter_trash]

My feedback/discussion is that if you are yelling in your office over some post made on a forum by strangers, you need to re-evaluate your priorities. That is all, thank you.

The funny part is that he misread the direction I choose on my post.

I was slamming Bernie Bros for their double-standards on purity

 

[Hindl]

This is fair.

Like, 75-90% of criticism of Sanders, at least here and certain other corners of the Internet and center-left media, is made in fairly obvious bad faith by people who are still bitter about the primary and would be satisfied with nothing short of Sanders falling sycophantically in line with the DNC and never uttering a word of criticism of another Democrat again, BUT even criticism made in bad faith (not referring to you here) can still be valid on its actual merits.

Yes agreed, but to be fair there are also plenty of Sanders supporters who were bitter from the primary as well, as seen by how the DNC chair race went down. People were furious that Perez won over Ellison and somehow claimed Perez wasn't a progressive, even though I doubt most of them knew anything about his work. There are deep wounds in both sides of the party on this, and many people are bitter.

But going off of this, Sanders has major power within the party. He needs to use it responsibly. He's saying that one issue shouldn't determine a politician's worth, but would he say the same if that politician was opposed to single payer healthcare? Or if their single issue was an opposition to a $15 minimum wage increase? That's the issue a lot of people bring up when they talk about the purity tests. If you agree with Sanders' economic message, he's willing to forgive you for not lining up with him 100% on social issues. But if you flip that around and disagree with some of his economic ideas, the same may not be true. I said this to another poster, but if he surrounds himself with people that care about abortion, women's rights, minority rights, etc. as much as he cares about income inequality and healthcare, I think he could be a very effective leader. He just needs to do the work to get those people in his circle and listen to them

 

[freeofgreed]

Bernie's not willing to compromise on economics. That is the problem. He explicitly only wants to compromise on social issues.

This is a problem. It's ok to compromise depending on state/region/district/etc., but you have to be willing to compromise on both.

I'm not comparing him to Le Pen, I'm saying that if you are willing to compromise on social issues, people like Le Pen are your natural allies. This is why in the French election, you have the new and bizarro dynamic of the center uniting around Macron while the fringes are going to Le Pen. This is why you have someone that TYT picked up pretty openly stanning for Le Pen. ( https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/856261177025888258 )

And what does any of this have to do with what's in the article? He isn't compromising on social issues. You're own article says that he votes heavily pro-choice. What he's willing to compromise on is the people he works with. Also he clearly is willing to work with people who aren't economically as left as he is, just by virtue of him working with the democratic party. Just because he didn't want to call Ossoff (which he later recinded) doesn't mean he's not working with anyone who doesn't 100% agree with him on economics. Also your le Pen analogy still doesn't make any sense.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Even Bernie has to face the reality of getting Dems elected in red states. Extremist liberals need to get their shit together too.

Would Sanders go to bat for a guy who is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, in a red state?

 

[Maxim726X]

His voting record is the issue, the bills he's sponsored/co-sponsored. If he's actually changed from actively trying to fuck over women, then we'll just have to see about that, now won't we?

Well, perhaps we should put away the pitchforks and torches for now.

Because there is nothing inflammatory about the Sanders statement. At all.

 

[Jenov]

Sounds like a Biden/Kaine-esque view, though without any policy track record to back it up (yet).

He does have policy track record, he has consistently voted or backed anti- abortion policy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ctive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84

- Mello co-sponsored a bill in 2009 requiring women to be informed that they could see an ultrasound before having an abortion

- The group's scorecard from 2011 shows Mello ”voting against Planned Parenthood's position on three votes ― all abortion related."

- Mello is a sponsor of the final version of a 20-week abortion ban approved by the governor in 2010, and cast anti-choice votes in favor of requiring physicians to be physically present for an abortion in order to impede access to telemedicine abortion care, and a law banning insurance plans in the state from covering abortions. He was endorsed in 2010 by anti-choice group Nebraska Right to Life.

I don't know when that quote is from, but his actions are opposite of his words thus far. Pretty shit if that's the best democrats can put forth. Good luck women of Kansas.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

This is fair.

Like, 75-90% of criticism of Sanders, at least here and certain other corners of the Internet and center-left media, is made in fairly obvious bad faith by people who are still bitter about the primary and would be satisfied with nothing short of Sanders falling sycophantically in line with the DNC and never uttering a word of criticism of another Democrat again, BUT even criticism made in bad faith (not referring to you here) can still be valid on its actual merits.

Are NARAL and Planned Parenthood still bitter about the primary?

 

[Trojita]

Am I missing something here? I read over the bill in question. It says IF an ultrasound was performed prior to an abortion, the woman has a CHOICE to view the ultrasound and ask any questions if they choose to.

 

[benicillin]

Would Sanders go to bat for a guy who is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, in a red state?

They wouldn't have Bernie campaign for someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. His message wouldn't play there.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

As long as they feel this way

This.

It's similar to "you can be a Christian or whatever, as long as that belief doesn't alter how you govern when it comes to decisions about separation of church and state or teaching religion in public schools."

 

[WedgeX]

As long as they feel this way

That's the general Catholic Democrat stance of John Kerry, Tim Kaine, Mike Thompson, and many others. Not sure why it's now an issue since they support the right to chose.

 

[cryptosporidium]

Nothing wrong with being pro life, though that is a personal decision that should not reflect the law. As a society we've decided that were fine with 'killing' a fetus in order to protect a womans and mans health and financial well being so changing the law should not be up for debate.

 

[Blader]

He does have policy track record, he has consistently voted or backed anti- abortion policy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ctive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84

- Mello co-sponsored a bill in 2009 requiring women to be informed that they could see an ultrasound before having an abortion

- The group's scorecard from 2011 shows Mello ”voting against Planned Parenthood's position on three votes ― all abortion related."

I don't know when that quote is from, but his actions are opposite of his words thus far. Pretty shit if that's the best democrats can put forth. Good luck women of Kansas.

No I know, I meant a track record since adopting his current tone on abortion. In other words, I guess people to just take him at his word trust that, if elected, he would be more of a Biden/Kaine and less of a...Mello.

Are NARAL and Planned Parenthood still bitter about the primary?

I'm sure Bernie attacking PP as part of the dirty establishment did a lot to help that relationship :lol

 

[old manatee]

“While my faith guides my personal views, as mayor I would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care"
heres where the quote came from

Oh, so it is just a purity test.

 

[freeofgreed]

His voting record is the issue, the bills he's sponsored/co-sponsored. If he's actually changed from actively trying to fuck over women, then we'll just have to see about that, now won't we?

What voting record are you referencing? You mean the one where he's supported pro choice bills for almost his entire career? You're going to need to post some receipts if you're going to say he's trying to fuck over women.

EDIT: Unless you're talking about Mello then nvm.

 

[wisdom0wl]

I don't like it, but fuck. Do you really have wiggle room when you're going for the 50 state strategy?