Bernie Sanders tries to speak for Democrats

[RoseWilder]

Bernie Sanders went on Morning Joe today and the following exchange occurred: 

Bernie Sander is really pissing me off right now. First of all, why is he trying to speak for Democrats when he's already let us know he doesn't consider himself one (except, of course, when he wants to run as one to get access to Democratic money and donor lists.) And secondly, being pro-choice and pro-gun control is a fundamental part of the party platform. Why the fuck would we want a candidate that doesn't believe women have a right to make their own medical decisions and who doesn't value public safety. If we wanted a candidate like that, we would vote for the Republican candidate. 

Damn it, this man pisses me off. 

[Childless]

5 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

Bernie Sanders went on Morning Joe today and the following exchange occurred: 

Bernie Sander is really pissing me off right now. First of all, why is he trying to speak for Democrats when he's already let us know he doesn't consider himself one (except, of course, when he wants to run as one to get access to Democratic money and donor lists.) And secondly, being pro-choice and pro-gun control is a fundamental part of the party platform. Why the fuck would we want a candidate that doesn't believe women have a right to make their own medical decisions and who doesn't value public safety. If we wanted a candidate like that, we would vote for the Republican candidate. 

Damn it, this man pisses me off. 

I agree.  I would not support anyone who wanted to strip me of my bodily autonomy nor would I support someone who wasn't for sensible gun restrictions.

[GreyhoundFan]

11 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

Bernie Sanders went on Morning Joe today and the following exchange occurred: 

Bernie Sander is really pissing me off right now. First of all, why is he trying to speak for Democrats when he's already let us know he doesn't consider himself one (except, of course, when he wants to run as one to get access to Democratic money and donor lists.) And secondly, being pro-choice and pro-gun control is a fundamental part of the party platform. Why the fuck would we want a candidate that doesn't believe women have a right to make their own medical decisions and who doesn't value public safety. If we wanted a candidate like that, we would vote for the Republican candidate. 

Damn it, this man pisses me off. 

I agree wholeheartedly. One of the many things that made me angry during the 2016 campaign is that he ran as a Democrat. You know, they use the term RINO for people who are Republican in name only, well he's a DWIC -- Democrat when it's convenient. I don't know of ANY pro-choice candidate that is like, "yay for abortions", those candidates demand that we have a choice what we do with our bodies. Also, I don't know any pro-gun control people who say that there shouldn't be any guns whatsoever, but there should be some restrictions. Who the <blank> needs assault rifles (unless you're in the military, maybe) or a bunch of Saturday Night Specials. I really wish we could get a couple of good spokespeople (maybe Cory Booker or Kamala Harris) who are younger and fresher than Pelosi and Schumer.

[onekidanddone]

13 hours ago, Childless said:

I agree.  I would not support anyone who wanted to strip me of my bodily autonomy nor would I support someone who wasn't for sensible gun restrictions.

I have gun owners in my family. Well to be more exact my husband's family. His step mother loves to go target shooting and she used to work for Planned Parenthood before she retired.  So, yes there are liberals who are pro choice, and own guns.  They are however okay with background checks and restrictions.

8 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I agree wholeheartedly. One of the many things that made me angry during the 2016 campaign is that he ran as a Democrat. You know, they use the term RINO for people who are Republican in name only, well he's a DWIC -- Democrat when it's convenient. I don't know of ANY pro-choice candidate that is like, "yay for abortions", those candidates demand that we have a choice what we do with our bodies. Also, I don't know any pro-gun control people who say that there shouldn't be any guns whatsoever, but there should be some restrictions. Who the <blank> needs assault rifles (unless you're in the military, maybe) or a bunch of Saturday Night Specials. I really wish we could get a couple of good spokespeople (maybe Cory Booker or Kamala Harris) who are younger and fresher than Pelosi and Schumer.

I was highly disappointed when Pelosi was reelected as minority speaker.  I have nothing against her, but shit we need to move the party forward. I would have loved to see Raskin as speaker even though this is only his first term. Of course I am a bit biased on that. Cory Booker would have been an outstanding choice in  the Senate. 

[HarryPotterFan]

As a friend of mine pointed out, it really shows white male privilege when the man who lost the primary gets to speak for a party he isn't even part of while the woman who won the popular vote is expected to sit down and shut up.

[mamallama]

The way I see it the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot (see what I did there) with the gun control issue and I don't think they can win nationally until they take a step back and redefine their position.  They say "sensible regulations" and people hear "ban guns".  To people in cities and suburbs that sounds okay anyway but outside of those areas and even in cities and suburbs gun rights are as important as gay rights and reproductive rights.  I think that was a big part of Bernie's appeal and if we continue to ignore it we will continue to lose states like PA, MI, OH.

[HarryPotterFan]

@GreyhoundFan I'm sleep deprived, so when you said Schumer I thought you meant Amy. They are related, so I wasn't too far off, right?

Can you imagine thanksgiving dinner in that family?

[GreyhoundFan]

Just now, HarryPotterFan said:

@GreyhoundFan I'm sleep deprived, so when you said Schumer I thought you meant Amy. They are related, so I wasn't too far off, right?

Can you imagine thanksgiving dinner in that family?

I'm sure it's quite, um, vocal.

[bea]

They're 2nd cousins, if I recall correctly. I saw Schumer on the Today Show or the View or some daytime talk show (I was at the gym) and they asked him about it.

[VelociRapture]

6 hours ago, bea said:

They're 2nd cousins, if I recall correctly. I saw Schumer on the Today Show or the View or some daytime talk show (I was at the gym) and they asked him about it.

She also worked with him regarding some sort of gun law after someone shot up a showing of her movie, Trainwreck.

On 3/30/2017 at 9:19 PM, mamallama said:

The way I see it the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot (see what I did there) with the gun control issue and I don't think they can win nationally until they take a step back and redefine their position.  They say "sensible regulations" and people hear "ban guns".  To people in cities and suburbs that sounds okay anyway but outside of those areas and even in cities and suburbs gun rights are as important as gay rights and reproductive rights.  I think that was a big part of Bernie's appeal and if we continue to ignore it we will continue to lose states like PA, MI, OH.

What would you suggest? Because it seems like people just aren't understanding no matter how it's explained. How are you supposed to explain that sensible regulations truly means sensible regulations when a lot of people don't seem to want to listen?

[mamallama]

I just had this conversation with my mother.  I think they need to back completely off on a national level and then allow law enforcement speak out on the need for national registries to prevent interstate sales without a clear source for guns used in crimes.  It's pretty clear that legislation cannot be passed on a national level anyway.   Of course the new Trump proposal about states honoring other states concealed carry permits will make thinks worse but again I think the push has to come from law enforcement.