2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton, Sanders had opposing views on biomedical research
Glad to see a bit of Vetting of Sanders has begun.
TWEET:
Clinton co-sponsored legislation in 2001 & 2002 that would have expanded stem cell research-Sanders has evolved a bit http://apne.ws/1SIgvLO #p2
Clinton, Sanders had opposing views on biomedical research
By KEN THOMAS
Apr. 2, 2016 12:35 PM EDT
FILE - In this April 1, 2016 file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks... Read more
NEW YORK (AP) Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were on opposing sides of certain types of biomedical research while they served in Congress, differences that have gained notice by scientists and advocates on the forefront of stem cell research.
Clinton has pointed to her advocacy for groundbreaking medical research, from her push for more dollars as a New York senator for the National Institutes of Health to her long support for stem cell research that could eventually lead to regenerative medicine.
Sanders, a Vermont senator, has supported stem cell research in the Senate. But advocates within the scientific community cite his voting record in the early 2000s in the House when he repeatedly supported a ban on all forms of human cloning, including one called therapeutic cloning intended to create customized cells to treat disease....................
.............Some advocates for stem cell research said that overlooked the potential benefits of finding possible cures to Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's and other fatal or disabling diseases.
"Sanders and (then Republican House Majority Leader Tom) DeLay some unlikely group were just unyielding and they were part of the religious right's attempt to shut down this whole critical new frontier of therapy for chronic disease," said Robert Klein, chairman of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.................
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Sanders is a proponent of stem cell research. The questions on cloning are not so black and white. I'm not arguing pro or con, only pointing out that there are legitimate grounds for concern and for taking a cautious approach.
"I have very serious concerns about the long-term goals of an increasingly powerful and profit-motivated biotechnology industry," Sanders said in a statement. "It was unacceptable to me that the [Greenwood] amendment would have created a new licensing regime that for the first time would expressly condone cloning in the United States."
http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=170
by E. J. Dionne Jr., The Washington Post
August 3rd, 2001
This week's House vote on human cloning produced one of the year's most interesting and unexpected alliances. Bernie Sanders, the proudly self-described socialist from Vermont, and Tom DeLay, the staunchly conservative Republican whip from Texas, both supported a strong cloning ban.
This is not one of those columns suggesting that because two representatives on the far ends of politics voted one way, the other side must hold the high, moderate ground. On the contrary, there is a moral and intellectual clarity in the DeLay-Sanders alliance that needs to be taken seriously.
But does the debate over cloning really cut across the normal lines of demarcation in American politics? After all, most of the foes of cloning are conservatives who also oppose abortion. On the other hand, most supporters of abortion rights also favor "therapeutic cloning" research.
But it's not that simple. Contemporary political conservatism has another imperative: opposing increased regulation of private industry. Voting for the strong ban on cloning proposed by Rep. Dave Weldon, a Florida Republican, put conservatives at odds with biotech companies. The companies were out in force against Weldon's bill this week. Many critics of the prohibition feared it would not only get in the way of research but also would hurt some of America's rising entrepreneurial stars.
Most liberal House members voted against Weldon's bill and in favor of an amendment by Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) that would have permitted "therapeutic cloning" research to go forward. But ask yourself: Aren't liberals the ones who regularly say it's the task of government rules to inject social and moral concerns into the marketplace?
That's where Sanders, who supports stem cell research, voted with DeLay for decidedly un-Republican and un-conservative reasons. "I have very serious concerns about the long-term goals of an increasingly powerful and profit-motivated biotechnology industry," Sanders said in a statement. "It was unacceptable to me that the [Greenwood] amendment would have created a new licensing regime that for the first time would expressly condone cloning in the United States."
Yet the truth is that Sanders and DeLay were not all that far apart. I apologize if I cause him heartburn, but DeLay's own statement was, in a narrow sense, "socialist," because it plainly put social and ethical concerns above the claims of market freedom.
"This technique would reduce some human beings to the level of an industrial commodity," DeLay declared on the House floor. "Cloning treats human embryos--the basic elements of life itself--as a simple raw material. This exploitative, unholy technique is no better than medical strip mining." Talk about exploitation and reducing human beings to industrial commodities is more the stuff of AFL-CIO meetings than of gatherings in the Republican whip's office. You wonder whether DeLay might ever be persuaded to apply similar logic to other issues.
What the DeLay-Sanders confluence points up is that we are using too narrow a frame in discussing the great issues raised by developments in biotechnology. The common formulation is to declare this a battle between "religion" and "science."
Greenwood put the argument plainly: "I am not prepared as a politician to stand on the floor of the House and say: 'I've got a philosophical reason, probably stemmed in my religion, that makes me say, you cannot go there, science, because it violates my religious belief.' "
But we subject science to all sorts of restrictions for moral and philosophical reasons, and that's a good thing. Greenwood himself would ban cloning for reproductive purposes. Why, other than for "philosophical" reasons, would he do that? Would he suddenly be wrong if his reasons were also "religious"? We regulate all scientific research involving human beings, which is why Johns Hopkins University got into so much trouble recently when a healthy young woman died in an asthma study. Scientists cannot be exempt from rules and laws based on common moral understandings; few would ever ask to be.
The new developments in biotechnology hold great promise, but they also raise the most profound questions about what it means to be human. You don't have to be a right-to-lifer or religious (or, for that matter, a socialist) to think that on "therapeutic cloning," we should put on the brakes so we can ask where this research is heading--and, before it's undertaken, whether it should be done at all.
"There has been insufficient public debate about the ethical implications of human cloning technology," Sanders said. He's right. It's why, for one day at least, he stood arm-in-arm with Tom DeLay.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
Congressional Record
(search for "Sanders" to see what he said on the floor)
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2003/02/27/CREC-2003-02-27.pdf
Therapeutic cloning has been possible or at least almost possible for a while. Newer technologies to build organs independently of bodies in culture systems may make therapeutic cloning moot.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)who tried to interfere in that case.
That Bernie Sanders signed to anything that asshole proposed....particularly in a scientific/medical context is a mark against him, and an affront to science.
riversedge
(70,270 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)riversedge
(70,270 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Found the link to Washington Times when doing a search.
riversedge
(70,270 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)
riversedge
(70,270 posts)Wash Times is re-running it -then they are. I am not going to click on your link. No need to hassle me about it anymore--. I do not need to delete it and I do not like your threats!!
From my OP:
TWEET:
Clinton co-sponsored legislation in 2001 & 2002 that would have expanded stem cell research-Sanders has evolved a bit http://apne.ws/1SIgvLO #p2
Clinton, Sanders had opposing views on biomedical research
By KEN THOMAS
Apr. 2, 2016 12:35 PM EDT
FILE - In this April 1, 2016 file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks... Read more
NEW YORK (AP) Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were on opposing sides of certain types of biomedical research while they served in Congress, differences that have gained notice by scientists and advocates on the forefront of stem cell research.
mcar
(42,366 posts)This is just deflection. Funny, I don't see such objections when HRC hit pieces from The Daily Caller are linked here.
sheshe2
(83,846 posts)Please tell us what is and is not acceptable.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)riversedge
(70,270 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Mea culpa.
riversedge
(70,270 posts)sheshe2
(83,846 posts)Want to know what is upsetting me, you and Berns casual dismissal of the research and it's importance. I watched my dad slip away for years.
sheshe2
2. He was more interested in....
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0ce95fb27fd3457fb282c316a3f9f9ca/clinton-sanders-had-opposing-views-biomedical-research
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110789752#post2
Got it, he was more concerned with the profits the companies would make and not the people that were dying from these diseases. The ones whose lives might have been saved through research. My dad died a year and a half ago from Alzheimer, a long decent into blackness. It killed him and it broke our hearts watching him slip away never knowing who we were.
He wanted to CRIMINLIZE those conducting research that would have helped so many.
Tears.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)An emotional appeal is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater attempts to win an argument by trying to get an emotional reaction from the opponent(s) and/or audience, e.g. eliciting fear or outrage. It is generally characterized by the use of loaded language and concepts (God, country, and apple pie being good concepts, homosexuality, drugs, and crime common bad ones). In debating terms, it is often effective as a rhetorical device, but is dishonest as a logical argument, since it often appeals to listeners' prejudices instead of being a sober assessment of a situation.
Emotional appeal overlaps with other fallacies such as argumentum ad populum, appeal to consequences, appeal to shame, appeal to force, appeal to fear, and poisoning the well.
The fallacy is an informal fallacy.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal
Every day it's another manufactured scandal about teh evil Bernie and how he doesn't care about victims, and worse he actually WANTS people to suffer because *insert reason here*.
Not buying your interpretation on the facts, sorry. I prefer facts to fallacies.
sheshe2
(83,846 posts)Well at least some of us do.
Especially when they lose a loved one. Thank you so very much for your kind words on my dads and our families pain. Your true compassion and humanity shines through brightly here.
So very telling. You! You are the new face of DU.
riversedge
(70,270 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Accusing me of not caring about yours or this research in an attempt to win an argument is a logical fallacy.
It would be like me accusing you of not caring about my brother who's still suffering because of Hillary's vote for the Iraq war.
sheshe2
(83,846 posts)You said....
20. The appeal to emotion fallacy isn't going to work on me, never has.
Emotional appeal
An emotional appeal is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater attempts to win an argument by trying to get an emotional reaction from the opponent(s) and/or audience, e.g. eliciting fear or outrage. It is generally characterized by the use of loaded language and concepts (God, country, and apple pie being good concepts, homosexuality, drugs, and crime common bad ones). In debating terms, it is often effective as a rhetorical device, but is dishonest as a logical argument, since it often appeals to listeners' prejudices instead of being a sober assessment of a situation.
Emotional appeal overlaps with other fallacies such as argumentum ad populum, appeal to consequences, appeal to shame, appeal to force, appeal to fear, and poisoning the well.
The fallacy is an informal fallacy.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal
Every day it's another manufactured scandal about teh evil Bernie and how he doesn't care about victims, and worse he actually WANTS people to suffer because *insert reason here*.
Not buying your interpretation on the facts, sorry. I prefer facts to fallacies.
Do you own a mirror? Have you looked in it?
Here ya go, the emotional appeal about your brother, the irony. You just said that was bad.
Then ya tell us Hill single handedly created the Iraq war. Her vote hurt your brother. I am so very sorry your brother suffers. My heart breaks for you and yours. No war is a good war, never will be. Compassion is when you care about the suffering of others yet you ridiculed mine and I show compassion to yours.
Night.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I was demonstrating why the appeal to emotion fallacy is a lousy debate tactic, I didn't accuse you of not caring and I have no desire to bring my family into the argument.
I can't tell if you're deliberately missing the point or not.
riversedge
(70,270 posts)I fear our family may be witnessing some Alzheimer in my mom. It has been hard--. But I do not want to dwell on it now.
But I have been in health care-one way or another all my life--and I watched this fear-mongering over stem cells during that time. I remember most of it--if not the names. Wisconsin--the University of Madison has a bio tech industry that Gov Walker is doing his best to get rid of.
Yes--it rather fits with his MO--and his stump speeches.--fear of Corporations--in this case, ever the good ones doing biomedical research--to make lives better.
your comment
"Got it, he was more concerned with the profits the companies would make and not the people that were dying from these diseases."
My heart goes out to your family. I know you don't want to go into it and I will not tell you the horror stories.
What I will say, is I sat with my dad for four hours on the night he died. It was a magnificent fall day. I just sat holding his hand and watched the sunset.
This, yes.
"Got it, he was more concerned with the profits the companies would make and not the people that were dying from these diseases."
Yikes, not sure how to say this. I want the people to come first. They are the one. I want compassion for the living and yes the dying, not passion for a persons personal ethics. I want the people to be first. Oversight can be worked out, you just do not say no.
Thanks rivers.
Tears and a hug.
riversedge
(70,270 posts)--and yes,--the regulations and oversite can be worked out. But they were so wrapped up in their sick ideologies that there was no compromise. And timewarp to today--He is set in his ways!!
..........Yikes, not sure how to say this. I want the people to come first. They are the one. I want compassion for the living and yes the dying, not passion for a persons personal ethics. I want the people to be first. Oversight can be worked out, you just do not say no..........
George II
(67,782 posts)....as President Hillary Clinton can advance science and research for the good of older Americans, the dismissals be damned!
riversedge
(70,270 posts)sheshe2
(83,846 posts)She will, George.
Perogie
(687 posts)The article clearly states that Sanders is in favor of stem cell research.
QUOTE "Sanders, a Vermont senator, has supported stem cell research in the Senate."
Please stick to the facts.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.
...
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.
To provide for human embryonic stem cell research. A YES vote would:
Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics
Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded
Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bernie_Sanders_Abortion.htm#2005-204
Try to do some research before making such ridiculous claims.
riversedge
(70,270 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...including ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/clinton-sanders-opposing-views-biomedical-research-38102281?nfo=/desktop_newsfeed_ab_refer_google_health
and appears on dozens of their affiliates' websites.
It was also published in a number of newspapers around the country, indeed the world. In fact most media outlets that get the AP feed published/posted that story.
In fact, googling the term "Clinton, Sanders had opposing views on biomedical research" yields more than 25,000 hits
riversedge
(70,270 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)It was written by an AP writer. MANY newspapers will also run AP articles. SOURCE is AP.
George II
(67,782 posts)....hundreds of media outlets, including the Washington Times, is "giving benefit of the doubt"?
Why don't you simply come out and ADMIT that it was from the Associated Press, no doubt whatsoever? Even your Washington Times link/article attributed it to the Associated Press.
Of course, for some, poring over hundreds of sources to find the one negative (i.e., "rightwing", as it was put) source to discredit the article is de rigueur.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Yesterday I posted an article where he is all over Woo science, and makes a huge push for pseudo sciences, making all sort of false claims of what causes and cures cancer...but he bypasses actual science? Not good form!!
Cha
(297,496 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)riversedge
(70,270 posts)AP: Bernie Sided with Tom Delay and Religious Right Against Life-Saving Medical Research
http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-sided-with-tom-delay-and-religious-right/?utm_content=bufferb1780&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
By Peter Daou
April 2, 2016
Bernie Sanders and his surrogates are on the warpath against Hillary, hurling baseless accusations in hopes of derailing her campaign. Bernies false claim that Hillary takes money from fossil fuel companies has sparked a debate that has led the media to begin vetting him.
Here are excerpts from an illuminating story about Bernie from Ken Thomas at the Associated Press:
..........At BNR, we have never attacked Bernie Sanders in gratuitous personal terms and never will. We are aligned with his progressive values and we consider his supporters our ideological brothers and sisters.
However, we categorically reject the all-out assault on Hillarys character aided and abetted by his campaign. There is absolutely no excuse for impugning Hillarys integrity, certainly not in an election season where she may be facing Donald Trump in a general election.
With each new character attack from Bernie and his supporters against Hillary, we have reported on Bernies own voting record, from the bill he co-sponsored to dump nuclear waste on low-income Latinos in Sierra Blanca, to his support for the F-35 boondoggle, to his troubling coziness with the NRA. And now, the stunning report that he supported criminal penalties for people conducting potentially life-saving research.
Our objective is to debunk the myth that Bernie is pure and Hillary is corrupt, which is unfair, unjust and completely untrue. The fact is that they are both human beings with flaws, politicians who have made mistakes, and ultimately, well-intentioned individuals who have tried to do good in the world.
We simply ask Bernie, his aides, surrogates and supporters to acknowledge that fact and act accordingly.
(AP Photo/John Bazemore)