Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: The Bernie Bros and sisters are coming to Republicans' rescue [View all]Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)If you're going to defend Heath Mello, you might wish to reference his actual voting record, which sought to deny telemedicine, required transvaginal ultrasounds, and a 20 week ban. This is perhaps why it's better to do one's own research than to rely on unreliable sources with a clear bias, the actual votes don't back up your points.
Yes, facts should be viewed in context, shouldn't they? Here's Planned Parenthood on that 100% rating, [link:https://rewire.news/article/2017/04/21/planned-parenthood-nebraska-never-gave-heath-mello-100-percent-rating/|
Yes, Jane Kleeb has an interesting right wing history herself, quite the divisive force herself, facts matter, as does history and she's also on board with the anti-choicers, and sits on the board of an outside group that seeks to support Republicans, so perhaps look at all of the facts not just the ones you like.
This issue was well researched and hotly debated here and the facts don't support your stance. Not on Mello, not on Kleeb. The type of divisive nonsense on that non-unity tour and the silence of the main backers while their supposed colleague was being disrespected also spoke volumes.
Can you please direct me to the bills that Casey has authored to target abortion, or Roe? Also, why are Mello's actual sponsored legislation from 2010 ancient history but statements of opinion from 2006, which aren't reflected in the legislative record relevant? That is what hypocrisy and double standards are, in case you wondered what qualified.
There are people actively seeking to sow division by introducing false equivalence, outright hypocrisy and double standards that are utterly ridiculous to attack and divide Democrats. They keep stating that their aim is to destroy the party if it does not remake itself in their image, though they're also pretty vocal about not being Democrats and supporting Republicans.
What I've been saying is that Single Payer, one path to Universal Healthcare coverage is not equivalent to human rights. By the way, Single Payer would make abortion impossible to access due to the Hyde amendment that people keep forgetting exists.
It wasn't just Mello's votes that were the issue, it was the legislation he sponsored, sort of different things. Even if it was just his votes against Planned Parenthood that some non-Democrats keep lying about, that's not as vile as what he himself wrote, sponsored and tried to make law.
Debate requires some sort of honesty, some facts and some knowledge of what's being discussed, deliberate and repeated failure to meet that standard and dedication to the fallacy of false equivalence doesn't cut it.
Are you for or against human rights for all people in the U.S. or not? That is a legitimate litmus test. Are you for or against this one non-fleshed out policy that is all slogan and nothing more, that is not. No equivalency at all, the premise fails. The facts don't support the argument. This fallacy is trying to create a forced orthodoxy while rejecting facts that make it clear that it's all about division and purity testing of slogans.