HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Nancy Pelosi: 'Of Course'...

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:29 AM

Nancy Pelosi: 'Of Course' You Can Be a Democrat and Pro-Life

Source: Mediaite


by Josh Feldman | 10:14 am, April 23rd, 2017

You may have heard that Bernie Sanders is getting flak from Democrats for supporting a pro-life candidate in Nebraska. Daily Kos withdrew its support of Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello after learning about this.

On Meet the Press this morning, Chuck Todd spoke with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi about “what should unify the Democratic party” and asked her if it’s possible to be a Democrat and also pro-life.

Pelosi said “of course” it is, telling Todd she’s served for years with Democrats who don’t share her position on that issue.

She went on to argue that Democrats are unified on “our values” and “our commitment to America’s working families.”

###

Read more: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nancy-pelosi-of-course-you-can-be-a-democrat-and-pro-life/



Video of interview at link, above

110 replies, 22125 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 110 replies Author Time Post
Reply Nancy Pelosi: 'Of Course' You Can Be a Democrat and Pro-Life (Original post)
DonViejo Apr 2017 OP
retrowire Apr 2017 #1
NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #3
retrowire Apr 2017 #7
NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #9
retrowire Apr 2017 #11
NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #14
pangaia Apr 2017 #34
NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #85
pangaia Apr 2017 #87
pangaia Apr 2017 #33
athena Apr 2017 #95
retrowire Apr 2017 #102
NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #2
Yo_Mama Apr 2017 #66
musette_sf Apr 2017 #91
onetexan Apr 2017 #96
tavernier Apr 2017 #98
onetexan Apr 2017 #99
tavernier Apr 2017 #100
karynnj Apr 2017 #108
bucolic_frolic Apr 2017 #4
cstanleytech Apr 2017 #5
FakeNoose Apr 2017 #15
VigilantG Apr 2017 #31
pangaia Apr 2017 #37
FakeNoose Apr 2017 #62
TexasBushwhacker Apr 2017 #73
pangaia Apr 2017 #75
KPN Apr 2017 #68
Yo_Mama Apr 2017 #70
Kashkakat v.2.0 Apr 2017 #84
dsc Apr 2017 #6
Plucketeer Apr 2017 #12
dsc Apr 2017 #18
Plucketeer Apr 2017 #20
dsc Apr 2017 #22
Post removed Apr 2017 #23
dsc Apr 2017 #26
Plucketeer Apr 2017 #43
Post removed Apr 2017 #45
Plucketeer Apr 2017 #47
dsc Apr 2017 #57
Gore1FL Apr 2017 #64
dsc Apr 2017 #65
Gore1FL Apr 2017 #71
m-lekktor Apr 2017 #42
Cha Apr 2017 #60
sharedvalues Apr 2017 #74
JudyM Apr 2017 #81
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #38
dsc Apr 2017 #46
Cha Apr 2017 #59
Cha Apr 2017 #67
Cha Apr 2017 #63
KittyWampus Apr 2017 #30
Cha Apr 2017 #53
LiberalFighter Apr 2017 #8
retrowire Apr 2017 #10
Plucketeer Apr 2017 #13
KittyWampus Apr 2017 #32
LiberalFighter Apr 2017 #72
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2017 #109
Cha Apr 2017 #69
OKNancy Apr 2017 #16
JNelson6563 Apr 2017 #17
LakeArenal Apr 2017 #21
50 Shades Of Blue Apr 2017 #27
Honeycombe8 Apr 2017 #19
50 Shades Of Blue Apr 2017 #24
JNelson6563 Apr 2017 #25
50 Shades Of Blue Apr 2017 #28
JudyM Apr 2017 #39
50 Shades Of Blue Apr 2017 #48
JudyM Apr 2017 #49
50 Shades Of Blue Apr 2017 #51
JudyM Apr 2017 #55
50 Shades Of Blue Apr 2017 #61
bekkilyn Apr 2017 #82
KittyWampus Apr 2017 #29
mwooldri Apr 2017 #35
CrispyQ Apr 2017 #36
JDC Apr 2017 #54
BigDemVoter Apr 2017 #40
Mz Pip Apr 2017 #41
Lil Missy Apr 2017 #44
MBS Apr 2017 #50
50 Shades Of Blue Apr 2017 #56
bekkilyn Apr 2017 #80
musette_sf Apr 2017 #93
Lil Missy Apr 2017 #105
musette_sf Apr 2017 #106
still_one Apr 2017 #52
nini Apr 2017 #58
PatrickforO Apr 2017 #76
MedusaX Apr 2017 #77
RockCreek Apr 2017 #78
bekkilyn Apr 2017 #79
J_William_Ryan Apr 2017 #83
melman Apr 2017 #86
Kashkakat v.2.0 Apr 2017 #88
bekkilyn Apr 2017 #103
NobodyHere Apr 2017 #89
musette_sf Apr 2017 #92
bekkilyn Apr 2017 #104
TomCADem Apr 2017 #90
Skittles Apr 2017 #94
Bettie Apr 2017 #97
Paula Sims Apr 2017 #101
andym Apr 2017 #107
Orsino Apr 2017 #110

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:32 AM

1. We don't all have to be lock step.

I mean, when it comes down to it, shouldn't we define a Democrat by the base philsophy of the party? Federal oversight over state? I mean, if you believe that federal regulations are more productive than less federal regulations.... Doesn't that alone define a basic Democrat? Everything else is extra.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:34 AM

3. Women's rights aren't "extra"

They are human rights, which are at the heart of the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NastyRiffraff (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:38 AM

7. I get that...

But the base belief of the Democratic Party is federal oversight. the BASE belief. I'm just saying that it makes sense that there are different flavors of democrats rooted from that base.

I don't mean to say womens rights or everything else is vestigial, please don't misinterpret me today I cannot fucking deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:41 AM

9. Sorry if I misinterpreted

It's an issue I feel strongly about, and it's being challenged in many posts right here on DU. Mea culpa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NastyRiffraff (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:41 AM

11. I'm with you. Thanks for backing off, I've got no damn patience today lol

Friends!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:45 AM

14. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NastyRiffraff (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:47 AM

34. Nice to see you and retro 'making up.'

It's been hell around here recently..

My way or the highway kinda stuff..


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:25 PM

85. Hey when I'm wrong I'm wrong

I jumped the gun; it was a knee-jerk reaction about an issue I care about a lot. You're right about the highway stuff. If I'm wrong I admit it, apologize and move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NastyRiffraff (Reply #85)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:34 PM

87. Way to go.

it was just so nice to see, from both sides..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:47 AM

33. Nice to see you and riffraff 'making up.'

It's been hell around here recently..

My way or the highway kinda stuff..


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 05:48 PM

95. Retrowire, let me give you a hug!



I always appreciate your posts here. Hang in there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #95)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:43 PM

102. :) thank you nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:33 AM

2. Nancy, I love you but

this is very very wrong. There is no valid reason for any Democrat not to support women's rights. And the right to choose is an important one. Believe it or not, women are capable of making their own minds about what to do with their reproductive rights. Some will choose abortion, some will not. But it should be THEIR CHOICE, not a bunch of white male government officials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NastyRiffraff (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:45 PM

66. Well, that can still be the platform of the party without chasing pro-lifers out of the party!!!

Remember that "big tent" thing? There are a lot of people who have ethical difficulties with most abortions who align very well with Democrats.

We want them. We need them.

There have always been pro-life Dems. It's never kept the party from supporting reproductive choice, has it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #66)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 04:08 PM

91. "There have always been pro-life Dems"

First, the term "pro-life" is a LIE. "Gestational slaver" is the accurate term.

Everyone has the right, if they so desire, to gestate each and every random occurrence of fertilization that occurs in THEIR OWN UTERUS. And THAT is as far as their, ahem, "ethical difficulties" are entitled to have any influence whatsoever.

John Lennon was right 45 years ago and he's right now:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #66)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 05:57 PM

96. Agree

Joe Biden is a good example of a strong Democrat with that stance. While he doesn't himself personally condone abortions he thinks it should be each woman's right to do whatever they decide is best for them. It should be a matter of personal choice. The fact they are pro-life should not hinder or disqualify citizens from the Democratic party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Reply #96)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 06:32 PM

98. I consider myself pro life/pro choice.

I would always look for another alternative to abortion if at all possible (I'm way past the age, but that was always my belief), but I don't have the right to tell another woman/family and physician what choices she should make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavernier (Reply #98)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 06:56 PM

99. ditto

Completely agree with you, as my stance is the same. Does that make us any less of a Democrat? Of course not .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Reply #99)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:29 PM

100. Probably more so.

We don't want to be told how to think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Reply #96)

Wed Apr 26, 2017, 07:08 AM

108. Joe Biden voted for the "partial birth" abortion ban in 2003

Even though it did not have an exemption for the health of the woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:34 AM

4. It's all an economic issue

For the Republicans who create the party's ideology the costs of having
and raising a child are no worry, it's God's will

For working Democrats who struggle economically that is surely not true

Merely having the discussion is injecting moral issues into a financial conundrum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:37 AM

5. The problem isnt the pro life believers its the anti-choice ones

and their continuing effort to take away a persons freedom to choose what do with their own body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:48 AM

15. I agree that there IS a distinction

between pro-Life - "abortion is wrong and it's my personal choice"

and anti-Choice - "I have the right to take away everyone else's choice"

I believe that the Democratic Party can embrace those who are pro-Life as long as they're not anti-Choice.
However I also believe that the Republican Party will never recognize the difference, and that's our real problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:43 AM

31. agree with you

I think anti-choice is the deciding factor for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:53 AM

37. First time I ever heard it put that way. Guess I have been sleeping.


And that even with my being tired of hearing people say they are "pro-life' when they are REALLY anti-abortion.. yeah, pro-life until it comes to the death penalty, or bombing the shit out of Iraq, or-- you name it.

BUT, then you are right, there are those who, as you say, pro-life concerning their own choice whether or not to have an abortion, and those who stick their noses into other people's business.

I didn't really have to type all that did I. You knew what I meant. LOL.

Anyway, it is a very good distinction to make.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #37)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:39 PM

62. It's the key to getting Catholics back to the Democratic party

For too long (almost 40 years) Catholics have been told that voting Democratic is a sin because the Dems are pro-Abortion.

Well I don't believe anybody *wants* to have an abortion, certainly not any woman I know.
It's a matter of necessity, usually economic necessity, or possibly another kind.

To me an abortion would be wrong, but if I were in that position I'd really want to decide for myself.
Most Catholics - certainly the Baby Boomers - have been taught that abortion is wrong. (I don't call it murder.)

But many of us, probably most of us, feel that it should be a personal choice, not something dictated by the government. Any woman who needs or wants an abortion has the right to a safe medical procedure. I'm not saying anything new here.

We all have our personal beliefs, but we can't force those beliefs on anyone else.
The GOP believes it has that right, and it doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #62)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:09 PM

73. I think most Catholics are still Democrats

That's certainly the case among the Hispanic community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #62)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:11 PM

75. Well spoken.



Nothing much I could add,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:49 PM

68. Yeah, I agree with that.

Anti-choice is a whole lot different from pro-life -- I see it in my own family where I am 1 of 9 siblings. We have the full gamut. Those who are evangelical-Christian (we have a few of those) tend to be anti-choice, those who simply religious in their own personal life or agnostic (none of us call ourselves atheists) are either pro-life personally but not anti-choice, or clearly pro-choice.

So, 3 different things. But only 2 of my siblings vote Republican no matter what -- they are evangelicals (anti-choice).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:56 PM

70. The problem for the Democratic party is that younger generation is not as liberal on this issue.

Their attitudes are slightly more conservative than the intermediates:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/generational-differences-abortion-narrow.aspx

The Democratic party has to be open to the young on this. That does not mean dropping support for legal abortions, but the reality is that the PUBLIC does not favor abortion without any restrictions.

Further, the younger people's views have shifted more conservatively over time on this issue, and 18-29 year olds are now the most likely of all age groups to think that abortion should be totally illegal.

We can maintain the party's support, but we cannot afford to chase off these people because we do not like their positions on this topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:20 PM

84. YESSSSSSSSSSSS pls can we make room for the view that one can be so-called "pro-life" AND pro-choice

at the same time. Its a somewhat nuanced view but I think its time that we get it on the table..... and hopefully then move on from there......?

It means I am not going to agree with you that abortion is "moral," but given the cultural realities I'm not going to stand in the way either or inflict any petty vindictive laws on women who chose it. I will however work like hell to ensure PP continues to exist and provide accessible and effective BIRTH CONTROL.. It means recognizing that abortion rates are lowest ironically where women have freest access to abortion and birth control. (Where abortion is highest is in countries where these things are LEAST accessible.)

It means advocating for effective, accessible and affordable BIRTH CONTROL and doing what I can to change the culture to one where people take responsibility for their sexuality and pregnancy prevention. One that does not tolerate, promote or accept rape.

It means I get to express my opinions andif the topic comes up in conversation, I get to say something like I believe the fetus is a human life and I get to tell you why I think that, and you say "ok that's interesting but I don't agree" and you don't call me names (like "republican" or mischaractierize my position.

And I assure you.... I may think your view is not correct, but I wont hate you or call you names. I'm a pagan so I wont call you a sinner either LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:37 AM

6. That isn't what Sanders got criticized for

what he got criticized for is endorsing Mello, calling Mello a progressive and future star of the party after refusing to support Ossoff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:44 AM

12. So you're contention is

 

that Sanders FLAT REFUSED to support Ossoff? I think Bernie's deft enough to choose words more wisely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:50 AM

18. This is what he said

“If you run as a Democrat, you’re a Democrat,” Sanders said. “Some Democrats are progressive, and some Democrats are not.”

about him. That compares to the effusive praise for Mello. It is that behavior for which he was criticized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:00 AM

20. Some Democrats are progressive, and some Democrats are not.

 

OMG! Bernie obviously should've taken the 5th!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:08 AM

22. the words vote for the man might have been nice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #22)


Response to Post removed (Reply #23)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:25 AM

26. yes how dare the DNC let Black people vote

that is why he lost. Blacks especially black women refused to vote for him and in my opinion for damn good reason. I know many white liberals are outraged at the idea that blacks, especially black women dared to vote for someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:10 PM

43. How far out of contention

 

were you for the chair Perez landed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #43)


Response to Post removed (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:22 PM

47. So those old bits of footage

 

where he's chained to others - those were staged? Colorized? Geez, I had no idea! Thanks for the enlightenment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #47)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:32 PM

57. the fact is his career in the Congress he did nothing in terms of civil rights

no legislation sponsored. Not one word in a 45 minute speech announcing his candidacy about any issue of concern to African Americans a speech given on the day the Tamir Rice case report came down. He lost because he deserved to lose. He chose to campaign the way he did and govern the way he did that isn't the DNC's fault, its his.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #57)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:42 PM

64. Yet he was rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record.

Go figure.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Civil_Rights.htm

You don't have to love Bernie Sanders, but to suggest he did nothing is less than honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #64)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:44 PM

65. he voted the right way

but did nothing else. He provided no leadership at all on those issues, and minority voters took that into account and that is why he lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #65)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:00 PM

71. If you say so.

I submit that Clinton did a better job of reaching out to the electorate than Sanders did--especially in the South. I realize it is anecdotal, but in 2016 my Facebook page was filled with African-American Stein voters who were pissed that Sanders lost to Clinton.

I guess it's who you talk to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:08 PM

42. You all are just looking for reasons to go after Bernie. Nobody is fooled. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to m-lekktor (Reply #42)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:37 PM

60. Actually we dare to criticize BS when it's warranted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to m-lekktor (Reply #42)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:11 PM

74. Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to m-lekktor (Reply #42)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:51 PM

81. +1. So transparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:56 AM

38. Bernie's corrected himself. Has vouched for Ossoff and endorsed him.

Bernie makes gaffes sometimes. He's human. But for the most part he always corrects or clarifies when he says something kinda dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #38)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:18 PM

46. it was a gaffe in the sense

that a gaffe is accidentally telling the truth. He clearly favors economics over other issues, that is his perogative, but that doesn't make him immune from criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #38)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:35 PM

59. BS woudn't endorse him the day of the election.. he got

criticized so he endorsed him on Friday .. 3 days later.. and he still won't call Jon Ossoff a "progressive".

sanders' loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:46 PM

67. The Big Fat Problem was Jon Ossoff is PRO CHOICE and

a hellava lot more Progressive than Heath Mello. BS stepped into with claiming Mello was a "progressive" and saying about Jon Ossoff that "he isn't prepared to back Democrats just because of a party label"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:41 PM

63. BS refused to call Ossoff a "progressive" and said..

"he isn't prepared to back Democrats just because of a party label"



Nothing "deft" about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:43 AM

30. IMO, he didn't need to 'support' Ossoff. Just needed to make a generic, positive statement.

 

Which he should have been able to do as a career politician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:31 PM

53. Exactly, dsc.. BS called "aggressively anti-cholce" Mello a "progressive"

and he wouldn't say that Progressive Jon Ossoff is a "progressive"... said he "didn't know him" before the big Important Election in Georgia.

Said "he isn't prepared to back Democrats just because of a party label"




We'll never know if a few positive words instead of dismissal could have made the difference from the "most popular politician in America".

Not sure why BS wouldn't want to have gotten to know Jon Ossoff who would have immediately gone to Congress if he had won 50% and we would have had one more Dem to fight the Fascistrumps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:38 AM

8. Interesting that Sanders came out in support of this candidate.

But questioned the progressive values of Ossoff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:41 AM

10. He simply didn't know Ossoff, that's already been discussed.

Bernie's not going to give an opinion on people he doesn't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:44 AM

13. Perzactly! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:44 AM

32. He's head of Democratic party Outreach. To not know about the Ossoff race is hard to believe

 

and points to a whole other issue with Sanders. If that is true.

Ultimately, Sanders didn't need to make a detailed response about Ossoff. He SHOULD be capable of making a generic positive comment about a Democratic candidate.

I could. And I'm not a career politician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:09 PM

72. Thumbs up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #32)

Wed Apr 26, 2017, 09:16 AM

109. Why keep repeating the same misinformation?

It has become a false talking point

Sanders is not "head of Democratic party Outreach". That position does not exist. By giving Sanders a non existent title you give him sweeping non existent responsibilities that allows you to be upset that he doesn't do well enough at meeting them. I would imagine that being "head of Democratic party Outreach" would be a full time job heading up an office with a team of designated support staff. The DNC might want to consider establishing it.

This year Chuck Schumer decided to expand the number of Senators who have positions on the Democratic Senate Caucus leadership team. It is traditional for members of Congressional leadership teams for either party in either chamber to all be given "Titles". Below is coverage of Nancy Pelosi doing the exact same thing with the House Democratic caucus. Her reasons were specific to her situation. Schumer added Sanders on the Senate side at the same time as he added Manchin.

Dems expand leadership team
By Mike Lillis - 12/06/16 12:30 AM EST
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/308920-dems-expand-leadership-team

"House Democrats on Monday expanded their leadership team, promoting a handful of junior lawmakers to newly created positions in an effort to boost the influence of greener members..."

So this is how Schumer did so on the Senate side:
Schumer Expands Leadership Team
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/charles-e-schumer-minority-leader

"...Whether there would be a contest for the role of whip (which has officially been assistant Democratic leader) remained a bit of a mystery. And Schumer has figured out how to split the baby.

Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois will see that informal title become official, while Washington’s Patty Murray will slide into a No. 3 role of assistant leader. That avoids what could have been a fractious fight between Durbin and Murray.

Schumer is creating an expanded leadership team with 10 members, including senators from a variety of different states and representing ideological diversity within the caucus. A senior Democratic aide said they would all be invited to leadership meetings...

There are a variety of new or elevated roles, all elected by acclimation. Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, will be outreach chairman."

If you read the full piece you can find the other new leadership positions Schumer "created" to expand his leadership team - if you are curious Manchin is now Democratic Policy and Communications Committee Vice Chairman

Beyond the first few leadership posts- the ones that actually get "ranked" and identified as the number two and number three leadership posts, the titles are not meaningful, everyone needs one so everyone gets one. There is no such thing as a mere "member" of the Caucus leadership team.

Bernie Sanders is not a Democratic Party member so yes, it would be odd for him to be the Head of Outreach for the Democratic Party - he isn't. Sanders is a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus however and his new role pertains to the activities of that caucus only - to the extent that his title is meant to convey any responsibilities beyond attending Senate Caucus leadership meetings and providing input to that team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:55 PM

69. Yeah, very curious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:49 AM

16. You can be a Democrat, of course, but we don't have to vote for you

I'm not happy that Mello supports the Keystone Pipeline either.
However, if it was between him and a right-winger ( I live in Okla.) I would vote for him.

I would try to vote smart and pragmatically.

OTOH, if it was a primary I may decide I just couldn't vote for that person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:49 AM

17. There is a common ground, actually.

I mean who doesn't want to see less abortions? We all do! How do we achieve that? Education and accessible birth control. If we could work toward this common goal that would be a positive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:01 AM

21. It's really the semantics...

Even the strongest pro-choice person is pro life. It's just the right has normalized the label "pro abortion". My liberal family is pro life. We aren't pro abortion.. We are for choice. A choice we feel is no body's, least of all government's, business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:28 AM

27. There is no common ground with anti-choicers. They are anti-women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:51 AM

19. The difference is personal belief vs forcing others to behave according to your beliefs.

When I heard that, I was surprised (but not much) that they both missed the point.

There is the view that people have different positions on issues for themselves. Like abortion. But that is very different from holding the view that you expect OTHERS to behave according to YOUR personal view.

I have no problem with someone being pro-life for herself or himself. But I draw the line when they extend their personal beliefs to others.

I remember Gov Cuomo years ago explaining this position on Larry King. As a Catholic, he personally didn't belief in abortion. But, he explained, that is his PERSONAL view, and he recognizes that others have a different view. It's not his job to force others to share his personal view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:17 AM

24. But you can't be a Democrat and anti-choice. That makes you a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 50 Shades Of Blue (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:21 AM

25. Therein lies the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:29 AM

28. That's why pro-choicers must not give an inch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 50 Shades Of Blue (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:56 AM

39. There are several Dems who support the Hyde amendment. No one's screeching about them.

Pelosi knows we can't get everything we want in every district, but we still need to fill as many seats as we can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #39)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:24 PM

48. Filling seats with anti-choicers is a great big FU to women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 50 Shades Of Blue (Reply #48)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:26 PM

49. Filling with actual republican agenda candidates is worse, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #49)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:30 PM

51. Being anti-choice is a big part of the Republican agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 50 Shades Of Blue (Reply #51)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:31 PM

55. Yes, and being anti-environment and anti-voting rights, and anti-LGBT and anti-gun control and ...

so on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #55)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:38 PM

61. A woman's right to bodily autonomy is the foundation of freedom

If a politician wants the state to decide if I must, or how many demeaning and expensive hoops I must jump through to not, bring a pregnancy to term, that politician will never get my vote. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 50 Shades Of Blue (Reply #61)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:03 PM

82. I'd leave that part of the ballot blank before I'd ever knowingly vote for anti-choice

When it comes to bigotry, there's no compromise. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:40 AM

29. The Issue W/Sanders Is He Consistently Insults The Democratic Party

 

and so do his followers/supporters/fans for not being ideologically pure enough.

Sanders and those who insist on supporting him are only ever for pragmatism only when it suits them.

But 99.9% of the time Sanders and his supporters pretend to hold some ideological high ground. And hurl insults at the Democratic party from that self-exalted space.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:48 AM

35. How many Democrats are "Pro Death"?

That's why I'm against the death penalty.

As for the abortion argument: everyone has to realise that this is a personal medical decision that is made by the person undergoing the procedure. Some people say life begins at contraception, others at birth. My view is that human life begins when it can exist outside the womb, before then it is potential life. It shouldn't be a party political argument... yet in America it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:51 AM

36. Pro-life - I'm laughing here.

For anyone who calls themselves pro-life I would ask, "What did you have for dinner last night?" Cuz if it included meat, then their pro-life label just lost all credibility. They can't claim they are pro-life & then put life in a hierarchy & say "This life is more valuable than that life."

You are anti-choice or you are pro-choice. If you are against abortion on a personal level, but you believe that you don't have the right to make that choice for others, then you are pro-choice. Why is it so hard for someone to say, "I believe abortion is a woman's personal decision." There. Done. Without labels!

And don't get me started on the issue of how many men are suddenly so goddamned concerned about this issue when they don't give a fuck about any other part of women's health care. Fucking hypocritical dicks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:31 PM

54. Exactly. F'in "Pro-Life" is a bs term. What's the alternative?

Pro death of course. F that narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:58 AM

40. Nancy couldn't very well say otherwise.

Although I don't care at all for their views and roll my eyes every time I hear about 'baby killers', I won't object to seeing these misguided folks voting the right way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:01 PM

41. Big difference

There's a big difference between being personally opposed to abortion and working to pass laws preventing women from having that choice.

I really don't care what a person's personal beliefs are as long as they stay personal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:10 PM

44. I agree - Being Pro-choice is not a prerequisite to being a Democrat. Purity oaths are dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #44)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:29 PM

50. + 1.

Granted that the single-issue so-called "pro-life" voters (so-called because many/most of them are also pro-death penalty, against any sort of social safety net) anger me more than any voting bloc I can think of (I actually had to walk away from a conversation with a colleague when she told me that that is the only issue that matters for her), but I've come to hate rigidity on both sides of this issue.

There should be room in the Democratic Party for anti-abortion folks who are not single-issue voters, especially those who are consistently pro-life (against the death penalty, against war, for economic and social justice, etc)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #44)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:31 PM

56. What about anti-choice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #44)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:43 PM

80. So we should have no standards whatsoever, not even for basic human rights? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #44)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 04:33 PM

93. "Pro-choice is not a prerequisite to being a Democrat"?

Um, actually, it IS a prerequisite. And defending and upholding the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of HALF OF AMERICA is not a "purity oath". I expect ALL Dems to defend and uphold my rights.

Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing.


https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#reproductive-health

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musette_sf (Reply #93)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 09:52 AM

105. THAT is a Purity Test.

It is part of the Democratic Platform, not something Democratic Voters have to vow 100% blind support to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #105)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:28 PM

106. WRONG. Defending and upholding the sacred rights of HALF OF AMERICA

is NOT a "purity test".

And YES, I do expect ALL Democratic voters, candidates, and office holders to defend and uphold the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of HALF OF AMERICA.

"Democratic voters", or any other voters, for that matter, are personally free to personally gestate any and all unplanned random fertilizations in their own personal uteri.

What they are NOT free to do is to obstruct, interfere with, and attempt to erase the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of HALF OF AMERICA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:30 PM

52. It is about choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:34 PM

58. you can be 'pro-life' you just don't get to support people/policies that are not pro-choice

There's a big difference between not liking abortion etc.. and forcing that view on others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:18 PM

76. On this issue of reproductive rights and access to abortion on demand,

we need to take a hard line. I'm sorry, Pelosi, but that isn't negotiable. My feeling is that a Democrat might well be 'pro-life' in the sense that she would not herself have an abortion. But the hard line for our party is this:

NO DEMOCRAT SHOULD EVER AID IN LEGISLATING AGAINST ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES ON DEMAND. NO DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM SHOULD EVER EQUIVOCATE ON THIS ISSUE. WE MUST BE OPEN IN OUR SUPPORT OF WOMEN.

Why? Because over half our population is female, and no woman will ever be completely equal until she has total control over if, when and under what circumstances she gives birth. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:19 PM

77. The terminology creates misperception of position...

The issue needs to addressed as
Pro-Choice v. Anti-Choice
Or
Individual Control v. Government Control

Period.

'Pro-life' to some people means that they personally would choose not to have an abortion.... but believes that the choice is a personal one.

To others, it means that no one should be allowed to have the choice to have an abortion.


The Narrative Needs to be
Pro- Choice / Individual Control:
Believe in everyone's right to choose for themselves ... Believe it is each individual's right to exercise control over one's own body...
Believe in individual right to have control over reproductive choices.

VS

Anti-choice / Government Control:
DO NOT believe any person should have the right to exercise control over one's own body.
DO
Believe state/federal government should control reproductive choices of individual citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:31 PM

78. I hope all democrats are "pro-life"

And that for many/most that includes being pro-reproductive choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 01:38 PM

79. Uggghhhhhh

What does she mean by "of course it is"? Does she mean it's okay to have a personal view against abortion, or does she mean that it's perfectly okay and dandy for Democrats to legislate against choice? If she's talking about the latter, then no, it's NOT okay. IT'S NOT OKAY, Nancy!

She wouldn't support Medicare for all either in her recent town halls because (get this!) the *insurance companies* would be harmed and it would be a complete government takeover. (Any guesses as to who she gets a lot of her money from?) Complete right-wing Republican talking points...representing CALIFORNIA, so no use of that weak argument that such things are okay so long as we are only screwing over red states.

She's so wishy-washy. Bleh. No spine.

She needs to take a few lessons from Perez on this one because it's pretty impressive what he decided concerning this choice issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:08 PM

83. Everyone is prolife.

It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to believe abortion is wrong while at the same time defending the privacy rights of women.

Indeed, citizens are at liberty to seek to end the practice of abortion, provided any solution to realize that goal comports with the Constitution and its case law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:25 PM

86. I look forward to all the angry threads

that will never appear.


Because we all know it's not what is said, but rather who is doing the saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:39 PM

88. reading these threads the last few days - wonder if there could be another option besides "pro-life"

and "pro-choice."

I think if I HAD to chose, I might call myself "pro-choice." However I understand and respect the views of some "pro-lifers" I know - just disagree wholeheartedly with who they vote for and their methods for attempting to reduce abortions are hateful and misogynistic.

I regularly yell at my religious right winger siblings and tell them - you are NOT going to eliminate abortions by telling people not to have sex. Thousands of years of human history have proven otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kashkakat v.2.0 (Reply #88)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 08:27 PM

103. I call them pro-forced birth (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:46 PM

89. I'd rather have a candidate who share 75% of my views

 

then lose to a Republican that shares 25% of my views

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #89)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 04:11 PM

92. Anyone who is an enemy of

the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of innocent female US citizens shares ZERO per cent of my views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musette_sf (Reply #92)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 08:28 PM

104. Exactly. There is NO compromise when it comes to basic human rights. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:53 PM

90. In Other Words, You Can Be Catholic

Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 05:41 PM

94. I wish they'd stop saying PRO-LIFE

*EVERYONE IS PRO-LIFE*

what repukes are is MISOGYNIST / ANTI-CHOICE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 06:24 PM

97. You can work to ensure that abortion remains safe and legal

while also working to decrease the need for the procedure, through education and access to reliable birth control/family planning.

But, once you* get into the territory of taking choices away from women, then you lose my vote.

* That's a general "you" meaning politicians who want to have it both ways, Dem and Anti-choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:30 PM

101. I am . . . BUT . . .

That doesn't mean I force my opinions on others. It's a personal decision and if a person believes in an after-life judgement, it's up to that person to face it -- not me. I can advise but I'm not in their shoes so the final decision has to be up to the other person.

But that also makes me pro health care and pro life AFTER the baby is born -- so yes, I'm pro life all the way (AND against the death penalty). . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Apr 26, 2017, 01:54 AM

107. Does Nancy Pelosi think it's OK for a Democratic representative

to support the Hyde Amendment for example and still be a Democrat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Apr 26, 2017, 02:32 PM

110. Don't listen to her.

The hell does she know about the Democratic Party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread