Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LexVegas

(6,058 posts)
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 11:30 AM Aug 2017

What the fuck is going on with this anti-choice shit? What bizarro world have I stepped in to?

There is zero compromise on this issue. I don't tolerate anti-civil rights views when they are directed at minorities and I don't tolerate them when they are directed at women.

This shit is off the rails. Let me be clear: Fuck anyone that is anti-choice, be they Democrat or Republican or Independent. Zero tolerance. Zero debate. Zero acceptance.

I have a mother. I have a wife. I have a sister. I have 2 daughters. I will go to war against anyone fucking with their rights.

167 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What the fuck is going on with this anti-choice shit? What bizarro world have I stepped in to? (Original Post) LexVegas Aug 2017 OP
a permanent minority party does nothing to protect the rights of women nt geek tragedy Aug 2017 #1
Translation: ExciteBike66 Aug 2017 #2
Barack Obama got the votes of plenty of racists, and more than a few sexists voted for Hillary geek tragedy Aug 2017 #7
Uh, the point centers around racist politicians, ExciteBike66 Aug 2017 #9
so in districts where a pro-choice candidate who supports tax funds paying for abortion can't win, geek tragedy Aug 2017 #12
Stand up. For your principles. 6000eliot Aug 2017 #24
A party that doesn't win any elections is absolutely worthless and should disband itself nt geek tragedy Aug 2017 #26
A party without principles they're willing to stand up for should disband as well flibbitygiblets Aug 2017 #27
Absolutely. 6000eliot Aug 2017 #29
WEDGE ISSUE, 3 long threads going right now. Look to the Russians, Hortensis Aug 2017 #165
EXACTLY!! niyad Aug 2017 #48
Such a disappointment. I really thought you were one of feminists best allies here. Sorry to say I boston bean Aug 2017 #32
Your last comment mentioned not winning in a deep red area, ExciteBike66 Aug 2017 #69
if Democrats as a national party can't win the White House & can't win the House of Representatives geek tragedy Aug 2017 #117
What ever votes we would gain from an anti-choice candidate, we would lose smirkymonkey Aug 2017 #109
The "purity" argument coming from some is odd. Agschmid Aug 2017 #138
This, is so wrong! n/t RKP5637 Aug 2017 #154
ABSOLUTELY! Brainstormy Aug 2017 #61
How will allowing Cons perpetual control idahoblue Aug 2017 #159
So, in a red district, it would be OK to put up a candidate Bettie Aug 2017 #35
Again, running competitive candidates in conservative districts is not the same geek tragedy Aug 2017 #70
Having those candidates in seats Bettie Aug 2017 #111
What matters more than anything is which party controls Congress. geek tragedy Aug 2017 #114
And if these compromised elected Democrats get into the leadership mazzarro Aug 2017 #137
Yes, just give up. ExciteBike66 Aug 2017 #68
no, if they want to run and they're told they're not welcome as a Democrat, they'll geek tragedy Aug 2017 #71
That makes no sense. ExciteBike66 Aug 2017 #73
okay fine, then you don't need to send them money nt geek tragedy Aug 2017 #74
I agree ExciteBike66 Aug 2017 #75
people are up in arms because the head of the DCCC said they won't condition geek tragedy Aug 2017 #76
Yes ExciteBike66 Aug 2017 #79
where'd you get your 25%? lakeguy Aug 2017 #131
here geek tragedy Aug 2017 #132
Manchin, Donnelly, and Casey all stood against geek tragedy Aug 2017 #167
There will be plenty of pro-choice candidates in districts we can win we should support. Fla Dem Aug 2017 #161
There would be no Democratic xxqqqzme Aug 2017 #145
It's Realpolitik. Igel Aug 2017 #42
On the other hand ExciteBike66 Aug 2017 #64
Democrats never f*cking learn. SusanaMontana41 Aug 2017 #46
What we haven't learned yet is that we don't win because we keep trying to be smirkymonkey Aug 2017 #113
EXACTLY right. SusanaMontana41 Aug 2017 #127
Democrats often succumb to the prevailing winds without the guts and cleverness to stand up to RKP5637 Aug 2017 #155
Double Bingo! rock Aug 2017 #83
heck no! we are better than that!!!! demigoddess Aug 2017 #140
Okay atreides1 Aug 2017 #20
Thank you. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #22
How much anti-choice legislation passed when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker? geek tragedy Aug 2017 #25
By getting you a pro-choice soeaker of the House Loki Liesmith Aug 2017 #151
Translation: "Women, get under the bus so we can win." AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #40
Thank you. a la izquierda Aug 2017 #58
Again, that's a logical fallacy. geek tragedy Aug 2017 #102
More complex than that. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #107
what's the purpose of the party if it's not going to be competitive in elections? nt geek tragedy Aug 2017 #108
If it's not currently competitive, then the purpose is to become so. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #110
Our base isn't enough to win. geek tragedy Aug 2017 #112
A discharge petition can override that. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #116
you can't safely assume that. geek tragedy Aug 2017 #119
Wrong. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #120
There hasn't been a single successful discharge petition since 2002 (McCain-Feingold) geek tragedy Aug 2017 #121
I think you just made my point. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #122
Rand Paul is a member of the majority party which favors banning abortion geek tragedy Aug 2017 #123
THIS time they didn't. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #124
the place to fight abortion is not within the Democratic Party geek tragedy Aug 2017 #126
I don't think that what you posit as statement B accurately reflects what the poster said. lapucelle Aug 2017 #152
your comments are so disappointing to everybody who fights for the right thing, even when it's not Corvo Bianco Aug 2017 #63
just because someone thinks there's a more effective way to fight does not mean geek tragedy Aug 2017 #101
When it comes to something like this, something as fundamental to my humanity as rights to Corvo Bianco Aug 2017 #105
Anti choicers MFM008 Aug 2017 #78
they don't need to if they give us a majority. geek tragedy Aug 2017 #100
So voting for a white supremacist is OK mcar Aug 2017 #94
are 25% of Democrats white supremacists? geek tragedy Aug 2017 #99
It gets worse dragonfly301 Aug 2017 #133
I have a blood clotting disorder that makes pregnancy dangerous LeftyMom Aug 2017 #139
We are not a minority party. A construct put in the constitution by slave holders to protect... NNadir Aug 2017 #141
It's a shame this even needs to be said NastyRiffraff Aug 2017 #3
Fucking ridiculous. Democrats need to ghostsinthemachine Aug 2017 #4
This. CrispyQ Aug 2017 #14
EXACTLY. SusanaMontana41 Aug 2017 #52
Thank YOU! smirkymonkey Aug 2017 #115
Amen shenmue Aug 2017 #5
Hear, hear! smirkymonkey Aug 2017 #6
Bad Idea Oubaas Aug 2017 #8
Thank you. K&R DLevine Aug 2017 #10
I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!! Raster Aug 2017 #11
Recommended. H2O Man Aug 2017 #13
Assumption that enough anti-choice votes might tip swing states exactly as needed? lindysalsagal Aug 2017 #15
Courting the idiotic prolife voters is one thing. Running anti-choice candidates? LexVegas Aug 2017 #18
Good rant canetoad Aug 2017 #16
Agree bcbink Aug 2017 #17
K&R stonecutter357 Aug 2017 #19
I don't know but it's making me sick, and MAD. MoonRiver Aug 2017 #21
I'm with you!!! VaBchTgerLily Aug 2017 #23
i agree!!! no anti choice candidate will get my $$ samnsara Aug 2017 #28
Yes...k & r NRaleighLiberal Aug 2017 #30
Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008? Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #31
Obama explicitly stated he was for SSM and gay rights long before running for President LostOne4Ever Aug 2017 #36
No he didn't, and no - it was NOT an act. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #38
Actually he did in 1996 LostOne4Ever Aug 2017 #82
Does that include voting for a candidate who expressly opposes gay marriage? Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #84
If I have no other choice then yes LostOne4Ever Aug 2017 #90
Then we're on the same page. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #93
For the most part we are LostOne4Ever Aug 2017 #97
Agreed on the primary - Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #103
As I recall, he was iffy on gay marriage, but on board w/other gay rights. Honeycombe8 Aug 2017 #43
Don't you know instead of rejoicing in that fact, it should be used as a bludgeon to keep others boston bean Aug 2017 #45
I have no idea what you're talking about or what you're upset about. nt Honeycombe8 Aug 2017 #67
I am basing my statement on a document he signed in 1996 LostOne4Ever Aug 2017 #85
He changed his position well before he ran for president, Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #92
I tend to think his views prior to running for national office were more likely to be honest LostOne4Ever Aug 2017 #95
Most of the candidates we are talking about are on board with other women's rights. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #87
I agree that Obama came around a bit late for my taste, ExciteBike66 Aug 2017 #80
I don't believe he would have. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #86
I can't see him resisting it... ExciteBike66 Aug 2017 #89
THANK YOU. WinkyDink Aug 2017 #33
Tom Emmer of Minnesota does not care what you think Angry Dragon Aug 2017 #34
That's absolutely correct. He doesn't. MineralMan Aug 2017 #77
K&R Progressive dog Aug 2017 #37
Amazingly, there were Democrats who stayed home in November because they honestly believed StevieM Aug 2017 #39
If a person is not opened minded enough to understand that women have the right Mountain Mule Aug 2017 #41
Divisive bullshit. we can do it Aug 2017 #44
+1 broadcaster90210 Aug 2017 #47
k and r, with deepest thanks. niyad Aug 2017 #49
No anti-choice in my Democratic party msdogi Aug 2017 #50
More important that a vote in Congress angrychair Aug 2017 #51
Absolutely. That slope is steep, slippery and ends with enslavement. nolabear Aug 2017 #53
Right there with you. hamsterjill Aug 2017 #54
Do We Really Need to Pull the Rug Out From Under Women, Yet Again? dlk Aug 2017 #55
Yes, yes, yes and thank you! UtahLib Aug 2017 #56
Thank you wryter2000 Aug 2017 #57
Apparently Hillary could have picked up those Rust Belt states by being more pro whatever Not Ruth Aug 2017 #59
You should maybe take a class on how the House of Representatives works DefenseLawyer Aug 2017 #60
You've highlighted what this issue is really about, control of Congress. n/t PoliticAverse Aug 2017 #128
The question is a distortion of common sense Pantagruel Aug 2017 #62
Did something specific happen that brought this issue up today? Honeycombe8 Aug 2017 #65
Simple Egnever Aug 2017 #66
Eh after reading some posts this week on this issue I'm quite sure that's NOT the case. BannonsLiver Aug 2017 #91
Planet Citizens United. Orsino Aug 2017 #72
an Ugly Truth DonCoquixote Aug 2017 #81
For some folks it's party over ... GeorgeGist Aug 2017 #88
So are we better off with the Republicans dominating every level of government? Willie Pep Aug 2017 #96
Why is it OK for cops to murder our living, breathing, family members & friends? Dark n Stormy Knight Aug 2017 #98
If we want the Democratic Party to stop with this MuseRider Aug 2017 #104
Party conservatives think the most basic human right of half the population is dispensable Warpy Aug 2017 #106
+1,000!!! Right on! AgadorSparticus Aug 2017 #118
the only reason this is possible is dems ignore rw radio while it certainot Aug 2017 #125
The Democratic party dflprincess Aug 2017 #129
certainly not on abortion dsc Aug 2017 #134
DURec leftstreet Aug 2017 #130
What bizarro world have I stepped in to? Jopin Klobe Aug 2017 #135
And democrats so often take the bait!!! n/t RKP5637 Aug 2017 #157
Exactly Lunabell Aug 2017 #136
Exactly jmowreader Aug 2017 #142
Personally, Any democrat worth there salt would not even consider anything but pro-choice.... Old Vet Aug 2017 #143
Right there with ya buddy! Ligyron Aug 2017 #144
I'm with you there, but also apply your attitude to the all out looting and greed by the 1%. brewens Aug 2017 #146
I can not speak of anyone but myself. Lady Freedom Returns Aug 2017 #147
Only 40% of those who could have VOTED MasonDreams Aug 2017 #148
Are anti-choice Democrats preferred over Republicans? PDittie Aug 2017 #149
24. Just 24. Amimnoch Aug 2017 #150
A lot of people say something can't be done until it is. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #156
The Majority party writes, and passes the bills that become laws. Amimnoch Aug 2017 #158
Amen fuck them all to hell dembotoz Aug 2017 #153
Can the Democrats afford to throw women under the bus? Nightowl Aug 2017 #160
It's a deliberate, calculated distraction, meant to split and weaken Democrats. Paladin Aug 2017 #162
There are threads about it because it is current news. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #164
And look at you, putting an ugly spin on my comments. Paladin Aug 2017 #166
Life or Death. To my mind, it's about a Woman's right to Her life. BlancheSplanchnik Aug 2017 #163
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
7. Barack Obama got the votes of plenty of racists, and more than a few sexists voted for Hillary
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 11:39 AM
Aug 2017

I would also bet solid $$ that some anti-Semites voted for Bernie Sanders, and that some people with anti-Mormon beliefs voted for Mitt Romney.

Political parties have two jobs--winning elections and enacting policies after winning elections.

The Democratic Party is at its weakest point in almost a century. We don't have the luxury of telling voters they're not welcome.

ExciteBike66

(2,331 posts)
9. Uh, the point centers around racist politicians,
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 11:42 AM
Aug 2017

not racist voters.

I welcome racists and anti-choice folks to vote for Democrats. I do not welcome racists and anti-choice folks to run for election as Democrats.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
12. so in districts where a pro-choice candidate who supports tax funds paying for abortion can't win,
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 11:56 AM
Aug 2017

just give up?

6000eliot

(5,643 posts)
24. Stand up. For your principles.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:10 PM
Aug 2017

I don not fucking care if we lose EVERY ELECTION for the next hundred years. NO ANTI-CHOICE candidate will ever get my support or my vote. This is not negotiable.

flibbitygiblets

(7,220 posts)
27. A party without principles they're willing to stand up for should disband as well
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:16 PM
Aug 2017

We stand for women's rights. That's not negotiable.

6000eliot

(5,643 posts)
29. Absolutely.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:18 PM
Aug 2017

I can't believe that some people who call themselves progressive think that there is an argument to be had on the subject. There is none.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
165. WEDGE ISSUE, 3 long threads going right now. Look to the Russians,
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 11:49 AM
Aug 2017

and those whose survival depends on our losing in 2016 and 2020. Suggest checking noses for a ring, and if it's there removing it.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
32. Such a disappointment. I really thought you were one of feminists best allies here. Sorry to say I
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:22 PM
Aug 2017

was very wrong.

I personally feel betrayed. Even though we do not personally know one another.

ExciteBike66

(2,331 posts)
69. Your last comment mentioned not winning in a deep red area,
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:03 PM
Aug 2017

now you have enlarged that to not winning "any elections".

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
117. if Democrats as a national party can't win the White House & can't win the House of Representatives
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:39 PM
Aug 2017

then they're on the road to irrelevance.

There's very little difference between having 200 votes in the House and having zero.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
109. What ever votes we would gain from an anti-choice candidate, we would lose
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:32 PM
Aug 2017

twice as many votes from pro-choice voters. It's stupid and pointless.

Besides, most anti-choice voters wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
138. The "purity" argument coming from some is odd.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 06:45 PM
Aug 2017

Many of them often said "you can't expect perfect" when talking about Hillary Clinton... and now they expect perfection. Odd.

Brainstormy

(2,380 posts)
61. ABSOLUTELY!
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 01:49 PM
Aug 2017

What is a "win" worth if it violates an absolute core principle? It's not negotiable for me either!

idahoblue

(377 posts)
159. How will allowing Cons perpetual control
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 10:01 AM
Aug 2017

Help freedom of choice?
Pro-life is not the same as anti choice. I will support a candidate who claims to be prolife who will fight for the environment, against the death penalty, the First Amendment, who is anti war, pro education and finding of PP and health care for all.

Bettie

(16,089 posts)
35. So, in a red district, it would be OK to put up a candidate
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:25 PM
Aug 2017

who is a white supremacist?

Someone who believes that conversion therapy is the only solution for "the gays"?

Once we throw women's rights under the bus, who is next?

We're to just jettison all of our values in the interest of getting people elected who don't believe that women are human beings with rights?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
70. Again, running competitive candidates in conservative districts is not the same
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:04 PM
Aug 2017

as compromising on those issues when it comes to a legislative agenda.

Bettie

(16,089 posts)
111. Having those candidates in seats
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:35 PM
Aug 2017

DOES compromise the legislative agenda when they vote with the opposition on their pet issues.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
114. What matters more than anything is which party controls Congress.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:37 PM
Aug 2017

If Democrats control Congress, then anti-choice legislation never gets a vote. House leadership just kills it.

mazzarro

(3,450 posts)
137. And if these compromised elected Democrats get into the leadership
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 06:43 PM
Aug 2017

Then what? We start fighting the internal battle of who controls the party?

ExciteBike66

(2,331 posts)
68. Yes, just give up.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:02 PM
Aug 2017

The person you are describing is not a Democrat, should never be a Democrat. If some anti-choice idiot wants to run on a Democratic platform (except for abortion), let the run as an independent. They will still likely caucus with Dems on all the other issues.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
71. no, if they want to run and they're told they're not welcome as a Democrat, they'll
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:06 PM
Aug 2017

run as a Republican.

25% of Democrats are not pro-choice. If you tell them they're not welcome, you pretty much guarantee Paul Ryan (or someone worse) will run the House for the next 50 years.

ExciteBike66

(2,331 posts)
73. That makes no sense.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:17 PM
Aug 2017

If the person was someone you wanted to have elected, then if they get elected as a Republican what difference is it to you?

25% of Dems can be whatever they want to be. If they are running for office and want my vote and support they better be either pro-choice or only passively anti-abortion (i.e. believe in no abortion, but do not vote that way, ever).

ExciteBike66

(2,331 posts)
75. I agree
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:26 PM
Aug 2017

that is what this whole argument has been about for the past few days: which candidates would you or would you not support?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
76. people are up in arms because the head of the DCCC said they won't condition
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:28 PM
Aug 2017

support on being pro-choice.

ExciteBike66

(2,331 posts)
79. Yes
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:34 PM
Aug 2017

and my point is that I disagree with the DCCC here. I do not give money to the DCCC anyway, so there is little I can do to show my distaste.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
167. Manchin, Donnelly, and Casey all stood against
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 02:18 PM
Aug 2017

the Trumpcare bills that gutted Medicaid and defended Planned Parenthood.

The Republican Senators from their states voted to gut Medicaid and defund Planned Parenthood.

People who can't see a significant difference between Manchin and Capito have lost the plot.

Fla Dem

(23,645 posts)
161. There will be plenty of pro-choice candidates in districts we can win we should support.
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 10:27 AM
Aug 2017

We don't need to waste time/money supporting candidates who espouse anti-choice positions because they're in a deep red district. It's against our position and if a district is that deep red they wouldn't win anyway.


xxqqqzme

(14,887 posts)
145. There would be no Democratic
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 08:31 PM
Aug 2017

Party without women. The party has conveniently tossed that information aside.

Igel

(35,296 posts)
42. It's Realpolitik.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:35 PM
Aug 2017

You work with the mass-murdering Stalin instead of being defeated by Hitler.

Since we like extremes, it's not inappropriate an analogy.

ExciteBike66

(2,331 posts)
64. On the other hand
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 01:57 PM
Aug 2017

if "mass-murdering Stalin" were "mass-murdering" Americans, we would probably not work with him regardless of the existence of Hitler.

We are talking about electing people who would actively restrict women's rights here, now, in America. We are not talking about working with other world leaders who have no power to take away our rights.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
113. What we haven't learned yet is that we don't win because we keep trying to be
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:36 PM
Aug 2017

republican-lite. We don't stand up for our principles ENOUGH! This is not the time to back down, but become more firmly entrenched in the core values of our party and that includes the right to choose.

Who the hell are all these people on this board lately anyway? I can't believe what I am hearing!

RKP5637

(67,103 posts)
155. Democrats often succumb to the prevailing winds without the guts and cleverness to stand up to
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 08:32 AM
Aug 2017

opposition. That, is why the democratic party is ever moving rightward. Way back the democratic party was tough and stood its ground. The party is far different today.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
25. How much anti-choice legislation passed when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:12 PM
Aug 2017

Without anti-choice Democrats in Congress, Nancy Pelosi would never have been Speaker.


a la izquierda

(11,791 posts)
58. Thank you.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 01:24 PM
Aug 2017

Fuck these apologists with a rusty pike and fuck "Democrats" who "may" support women's rights, if it's convenient for them.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
102. Again, that's a logical fallacy.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:03 PM
Aug 2017

Statement A: we should run candidates who are competitive in their districts, even if that means those candidates won't agree with the mainstream party on some core issues

Statement B: the entire party should move to the right and abandon our core issues in order to win votes

(A) and (B) are much, much different propositions.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
107. More complex than that.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:27 PM
Aug 2017

'Well, the Democrats voted for it too' is political cover that actually resonates with a lot of America.

I am unwilling to see this issue cast in the national news as even having a single Democratic Party supporter. Not one.
Every single vote is a signal. Every time we compromise on a core party plank, we are sending a message to OTHER districts, other states.

Not on my watch. Not with my sanction.

This is a core principle upon which I will not compromise.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
110. If it's not currently competitive, then the purpose is to become so.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:33 PM
Aug 2017

One way to do that is to signal to a beleaguered base that you actually DO have a spine/principles.


What's the purpose of a party if we are supplanted in other districts when Republicans realize they can win center-left seats on this issue by maybe supporting pro-life democratic candidates, and then finally deliver to their base on banning abortion?

What's the purpose of a party if we lose turnout because we reneged on our core values? You don't think that's a weapon that will be gleefully used against us?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
112. Our base isn't enough to win.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:35 PM
Aug 2017

Not only are there not enough members of our base, we're concentrated in urban areas.

What's the purpose of a party if we are supplanted in other districts when Republicans realize they can win center-left seats on this issue by maybe supporting pro-life democratic candidates, and then finally deliver to their base on banning abortion?


That is not how Congress works. It doesn't matter whether a majority are anti-choice if the House leadership don't let anti-choice legislation reach the floor.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
116. A discharge petition can override that.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:39 PM
Aug 2017

I think I can safely assume, any member of the house that would vote to ban abortion, would also sign a discharge petition to bring the legislation to the floor regardless of what the house leadership says.

There's always a check. Always a balance. Always a workaround.


For this reason alone (and there are others) it is not safe to support a pro-life Democratic candidate. Sorry.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
119. you can't safely assume that.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:40 PM
Aug 2017

How many anti-abortion discharge petitions happened when Pelosi was Speaker?

Discharge petitions NEVER succeed.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
120. Wrong.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:42 PM
Aug 2017

"563 discharge petitions were filed between 1931 and 2003, of which only 47 obtained the required majority of signatures. The House voted for discharge 26 times and passed 19 of the measures, but only two have become law.[3] However, the threat of a discharge petition has caused the leadership to relent several times; such petitions are dropped only because the leadership allowed the bill to move forward, rendering the petition superfluous. Overall, either the petition was completed or else the measure made it to the floor by other means in 16 percent of cases.[3]"

Abortion is the kind of landmark issue that can indeed make it through that process.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
121. There hasn't been a single successful discharge petition since 2002 (McCain-Feingold)
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:47 PM
Aug 2017

It was the only one since 1995.

http://conginst.org/2015/10/15/the-discharge-petition-bipartisan-effort-might-revive-the-ex-im-bank/

To say that there's a real chance of a tactic working when it has happened zero times in the past 14 years and only once in the past 22 is absurd.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
122. I think you just made my point.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:53 PM
Aug 2017

These people coupled defunding planned parenthood and repealing the ACA as recently as July.

Rand Paul was using the threat of discharge petition to move defunding PP forward in the Senate 2 sessions ago.


These people WILL NOT STOP TRYING. We cannot afford to relax our stance on this issue. They will end-run/rules game/anything. Anything, no shame, no quarter. They are in it to win on this issue.

We do not improve our position by accepting more Democratic candidates into our ranks with no commitment to this issue. We certainly send the wrong damn message to women nation-wide when it happens.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
123. Rand Paul is a member of the majority party which favors banning abortion
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:56 PM
Aug 2017

Also, how'd that turn out for the Republicans? They couldn't even defund PP despite controlling both houses of Congress.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
124. THIS time they didn't.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:02 PM
Aug 2017

Next time they might. They're working the 'PP performs abortions' angle to get the votes. How's that going to play for a pro-life Democrat?

I think it plays out as one of those bi-partisan moments where we shit our pants in terror, and millions of women across the nation stay home in droves next election because WE LET THEM DOWN AS WELL, and WE HAVE NO EXCUSE.


'Oh we neeeeded that seat. We sold you out because we neeeeeded it nationally.'

I don't need it that bad. I won't sell them out. I will die politically defending that hill if necessary. If we slip and they take advantage, real people will really die. It'll be women who are dying, and they'll know we failed them.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
126. the place to fight abortion is not within the Democratic Party
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:03 PM
Aug 2017

but in the general election.

Dividing ourselves over abortion means the rabidly anti-abortion party gains ground.

We do not disagree on goals, but rather on strategy and tactics.

lapucelle

(18,242 posts)
152. I don't think that what you posit as statement B accurately reflects what the poster said.
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 08:12 AM
Aug 2017

You also need to be more precise in statement A.

"We should run candidates who are competitive in their districts, even if that means those candidates won't agree with the mainstream party on this core issue."

Nothing other than this particular right seems to be on the table.

Corvo Bianco

(1,148 posts)
63. your comments are so disappointing to everybody who fights for the right thing, even when it's not
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 01:55 PM
Aug 2017

popular with evangelicals.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
101. just because someone thinks there's a more effective way to fight does not mean
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:01 PM
Aug 2017

they are not on your side in that fight.

Corvo Bianco

(1,148 posts)
105. When it comes to something like this, something as fundamental to my humanity as rights to
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:25 PM
Aug 2017

my own body are, if your "effective" approach is that we need to let it slide a little, the last thing I'd ever do is trust you to fight for me. And the second to last thing I would ever do is vote for you.

Something every candidate needs to seriously think about before taking this passivity on women's rights approach.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
100. they don't need to if they give us a majority.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:00 PM
Aug 2017

If we have a majority, anti-choice bills never reach the floor

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
99. are 25% of Democrats white supremacists?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:57 PM
Aug 2017

Note, btw, that FDR presided over a coalition of African-Americans and white supremacists.

If coalitions are comfortable, they're (a) too small and (b) probably not a coalition

LeftyMom

(49,212 posts)
139. I have a blood clotting disorder that makes pregnancy dangerous
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 06:52 PM
Aug 2017

Fuck any and every person who prioritizes a majority- useless without ideological unity- over my ability to stay alive.

NNadir

(33,512 posts)
141. We are not a minority party. A construct put in the constitution by slave holders to protect...
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 07:23 PM
Aug 2017

...what they defined as their "right" - to "own" other human beings = gave a virulent racist with tiny hands and an even tinier mind the "right" to live in a house built by slaves.

It is stupid for a majority to kiss the asses of a minority because a minority unjustly holds power.

Try thinking. It works.

CrispyQ

(36,457 posts)
14. This.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 11:58 AM
Aug 2017

They should work harder & smarter, not capitulate on core values to get some low hanging fruit. I was told the other day, when I suggested that the dem party court the non-voters instead of the anti-choice voters, "Tapping into the mass of unregistered voters is fool's gold." Here. - on DU. Dis GOTV but support ditching women's rights as a litmus test.

Oubaas

(131 posts)
8. Bad Idea
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 11:40 AM
Aug 2017

We're not going to be able to "temporarily" embrace this. Once that critter is loose, you'll play hell trying to round it back up and put it back in the corral. We shouldn't go there. Women's rights ought to be a foundational, unwaivering, unalienable position.

Raster

(20,998 posts)
11. I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!!
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 11:52 AM
Aug 2017

There is no bargaining. There are no concessions. Zero tolerance. Zero debate. Zero acceptance.

lindysalsagal

(20,662 posts)
15. Assumption that enough anti-choice votes might tip swing states exactly as needed?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 11:59 AM
Aug 2017

Speculative B.S.

My rights are not for sale.

Don't like abortion? Don't. Have. One.

Ms. Toad

(34,060 posts)
31. Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:21 PM
Aug 2017

He was expressly against the rights of the LGBT community, and invited one of the most rabid anti-gay preachers to share the podium with him.

When I criticized him for his stand on this issue, even though I voted for him and worked election protection duty on the day of the election, I was told to shut up and stop whining about my special pony.

So, unless you refused to vote for him on principle, your insistence that there is zero compromise on this issue is a bit hypocritical.

That said, whenever there is a pro-choice Democrat I will support that person over an antichoice Democrat. But I am not going to sit the election out, or vote for the Republican candidate over a single issue - any more than I refused to vote for Barack Obama when he expressly declared that my marriage did not exist, and should not be legally recognized.

LostOne4Ever

(9,288 posts)
36. Obama explicitly stated he was for SSM and gay rights long before running for President
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:26 PM
Aug 2017

We all knew it was an act on his part and once elected he would change his tune.

Ms. Toad

(34,060 posts)
38. No he didn't, and no - it was NOT an act.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:30 PM
Aug 2017

He made a real transition near the end of his first term. As an LGBT individual I'm pretty good at recognizing when someone is truly welcoming, and when it is an act. In addition, I know a member of his administration who - among others - was instrumental in his transition from, "I know the correct position- but Damn, this makes me uncomfortable," to truly welcoming and being comfortable advocating for LGBT individuals.

Aside from whether it was real or not - would you accept the same from someone pretending to be anti-choice to get votes?

LostOne4Ever

(9,288 posts)
82. Actually he did in 1996
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:53 PM
Aug 2017
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/amp/p/3168f2d8ae60

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/photospreadthumbs.php?APUB=wct&ADATE=2009-01-14&AGALLERY=obama

For the record, I would have preferred a candidate who was openly gay marriage back then. And I will accept whatever I have to if it advances civil rights and liberties. The cause is more important to me than the messenger. LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, right to die, etc.

Ms. Toad

(34,060 posts)
84. Does that include voting for a candidate who expressly opposes gay marriage?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:05 PM
Aug 2017

If so, it is no different than the current debate - in which many of us are no more willing to use abortion as a litmus test than we have been to use LGBT rights in the past. Yes - criticize the wrong-headed position, but when push comes to shove, vote for (and even work for) the most progressive candidate all around, despite their bad stand on one issue.

LostOne4Ever

(9,288 posts)
90. If I have no other choice then yes
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:13 PM
Aug 2017

But I would fight like hell to keep such a person from winning the primary. I would do whatever I could to see that Any democrat who is anti-lgbtq rights or anti abortion rights right lose the primary to a democrats who supports such positions.

Again my ultimate litmus test is whatever progresses the causes I believe in. I check my ego in at the door.

Ms. Toad

(34,060 posts)
93. Then we're on the same page.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:17 PM
Aug 2017

I was primarily addressing the OP, who was suggesting it was outrageous to support or vote for a candidate with whom you disagree on an issue of civil rights of any sort.

I don't believe we were that pure in 2008, or that we can afford to be that pure now.

LostOne4Ever

(9,288 posts)
97. For the most part we are
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:37 PM
Aug 2017

Though I always push for the candidate who does share my view on civil rights in the primary. I reject the idea of not voting for those people because they have no chance of winning because of this or that issue.

I feel that had the Democratic Party had fought for SSM then, the way they do now that the country would have come around sooner. And I deeply fear that democratic politicians are going to throw abortion rights and trans rights under the bus if we let them.

I feel we need to keep the pressure on them so that they can't do that.

Ms. Toad

(34,060 posts)
103. Agreed on the primary -
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:19 PM
Aug 2017

and why I did not vote for Obama in the primary.

As to coming around sooner - I don't think it would have mattered. The Democratic party was bringing up the rear on same gender marriage - endorsing it only after the tide had turned. It just took time for people in places like Massachussets, where the world didn't end; and LGBT people like me who were willing and able to be out (me, for 36 years). As frustrating as it was,marriage was gentler - and more lasting - as a recognition of a societal fait accomplis. Although there have been a few vocal opponents, generally there's barely been a whimper. But as to general rights, we're not entirely there yet. Discrimination is still legal in many parts of the country - just not marriage discrimination. And you're right about trans rights. I don't think politicians are going to throw abortion rights under the bus (absent isolated politicians with personal beliefs they can't set aside), but trans people are definitely subject to being thrown under the bus. I don't think any version of ENDA has included trans rights, for example.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
43. As I recall, he was iffy on gay marriage, but on board w/other gay rights.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:35 PM
Aug 2017

He evolved, as he put it, on gay marriage, coming to thoroughly and enthusiastically support it.

boston bean

(36,221 posts)
45. Don't you know instead of rejoicing in that fact, it should be used as a bludgeon to keep others
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:45 PM
Aug 2017

voices down, who speak of other rights.

It's a tactic that serves neither group any good.


I've had it with that bullshit.

LostOne4Ever

(9,288 posts)
85. I am basing my statement on a document he signed in 1996
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:06 PM
Aug 2017

" Do you support the Marriage Resolution, a statement of support for the right of same gender individuals to marry."

He said he would support such a resolution.

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/photospreadthumbs.php?APUB=wct&ADATE=2009-01-14&AGALLERY=obama

Ms. Toad

(34,060 posts)
92. He changed his position well before he ran for president,
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:15 PM
Aug 2017

While I agree he ultimately came around, based on my sense of where his heart was in 2008 - and on the experience of a member of the LGBT community working in his administration - 1996 was more likely an act than 2008.

There was a true change in his relationship with LGBT people near the end of his first term - based on his own statements, my experience of listening to him talking about LGBT people, and my conversations with the LGBT friend in his administration. So people who voted for him in 2008 (including me) voted against the right of LGBT people to marry - because that was his expressly stated position (as well - from my perspective - his true position on the matter).

LostOne4Ever

(9,288 posts)
95. I tend to think his views prior to running for national office were more likely to be honest
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:28 PM
Aug 2017

He didn't have much to lose then. However, I doubt there is any true way to know for sure. I believed back then it was an act and felt vindicated when he went back to supporting it.

But, I do get voting for people who opposed such positions. But, I can't bring myself to do so when there are viable alternatives.

Ms. Toad

(34,060 posts)
87. Most of the candidates we are talking about are on board with other women's rights.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:09 PM
Aug 2017

So we're talking about the same kind of position.

ExciteBike66

(2,331 posts)
80. I agree that Obama came around a bit late for my taste,
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:42 PM
Aug 2017

but I bet that if Congress had put a bill legalizing gay marriage on Obama's desk in 2009, he would have signed it.

Ms. Toad

(34,060 posts)
86. I don't believe he would have.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:07 PM
Aug 2017

He had not moved personally yet, and he was still very much in the "work with my enemies" posture that led him to invite the vile pastor to share the stage with him at his inauguration in early 2009.

ExciteBike66

(2,331 posts)
89. I can't see him resisting it...
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:12 PM
Aug 2017

"He had not moved personally yet, and he was still very much in the "work with my enemies" posture that led him to invite the vile pastor to share the stage with him at his inauguration in early 2009."

Yes, but if the Dem Congress had already passed the bill, I doubt he could have resisted signing it. I mean, it was still 3 whole years before the next election season, and think of the damage he would do to his own party if he vetoed their bill.

We can disagree though, this is all just hypothetical. I think that regardless of what Obama said in public about being against gay marriage, he would not have stood in the way if Congress had sent him this bill.

MineralMan

(146,286 posts)
77. That's absolutely correct. He doesn't.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:29 PM
Aug 2017

And he will actively vote for measures to restrict or ban reproductive choices. DFLers in MN have been trying to win that district for quite some time. Before Emmer, we had Michele "crazy-eyes" Bachmann in that seat. We're still trying. In 2018, we'll try again. I don't know who's going to run against Emmer yet, but I'll be working to help that candidate win, as long as he or she is a Democrat.

In my own district, MN CD-4, it would be impossible for anyone to win who wasn't 100% pro-choice. That is not the case in Emmer's district. However, trying to flip that district has proven to be a tough job. It's solidly in the hands of the Republicans at this point. If we can break that pattern, we might be able to make progress toward making it a Democratic district.

Who will run on the DFL ticket in 2018? I don't know. It's going to be up to the DFLers in that district, as always. I don't vote there. I don't live there. However, I will do GOTV in that district for the Democratic candidate. Period. If you knew Tom Emmer, you'd understand exactly why. He votes against progress at every opportunity and on every issue. We need desperately to flip MN CD-6.

StevieM

(10,500 posts)
39. Amazingly, there were Democrats who stayed home in November because they honestly believed
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:30 PM
Aug 2017

it was unclear as to whether Hillary Clinton would appoint pro-choice judges. People on the left were openly stating that HRC might not appoint the same types of judges that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama appointed. And a lot of people believed them.

Mountain Mule

(1,002 posts)
41. If a person is not opened minded enough to understand that women have the right
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:34 PM
Aug 2017

to choose what happens to their own bodies, they are not open minded enough to be a democrat. We cannot become the party of Trump Lite in a doomed attempt to win more votes. Look at the governor of W. Virginia - an individual who was republican then turned democrat just long enough to raid the DNC war chest and then turned republican again. I am very skeptical about putting a right to lifer up as a candidate. Who's to say they wouldn't turn into a trojan horse just like that W. Virginia governor?

msdogi

(430 posts)
50. No anti-choice in my Democratic party
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:49 PM
Aug 2017

This is not a gray area, a woman has the right to make her own decisions, there is nothing more to discuss. Not supporting that position would make a candidate a republican.

angrychair

(8,692 posts)
51. More important that a vote in Congress
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:50 PM
Aug 2017

The DCCC proposal to court anti-choice candidates has created a big dust up here and everywhere else.
Why do we continue to have this debate?

If you think we should court anti-choice candidates I ask you this question: what rights are negotiable to you? What other rights are you willing to give up?

LGBT rights?

Global warming?

Women's right to vote?

PoC voting rights?

If any or all seem like a ridiculous question than I ask another question:

Why are they ridiculous but a women's basic human rights negotiable?

My point is that it cannot just be about getting a person that claims to be a Democrat but personally does not support basic human rights for everyone, elected to office.

Most importantly, It is not a partisan issue. Supporting basic human rights, like a women's ability to obtain reproductive healthcare or an LGBT person's ability to marry who they love, does not make someone a "Democrat" it makes them a human being.

nolabear

(41,959 posts)
53. Absolutely. That slope is steep, slippery and ends with enslavement.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:53 PM
Aug 2017

Women have ended pregnancies since women have been getting pregnant. The only way to stop it is to chain them up and force them. And that's a simple fact.

dlk

(11,546 posts)
55. Do We Really Need to Pull the Rug Out From Under Women, Yet Again?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 01:07 PM
Aug 2017

Supporting anti-choice candidates isn't a winning strategy for Democrats or for women. Aren't women marginalized enough? Perhaps it's time to support candidates who want the government to regulate and control the reproductive organs of all American men. It would make about as much sense.

 

Not Ruth

(3,613 posts)
59. Apparently Hillary could have picked up those Rust Belt states by being more pro whatever
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 01:26 PM
Aug 2017

Yes, the candidate evolved in the car to the rally, give her another minute before she steps to the podium, she is still evolving....,

 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
60. You should maybe take a class on how the House of Representatives works
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 01:48 PM
Aug 2017

The majority party selects the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House determines what legislation is brought to the floor for a vote. Anyone that is elected as a Democrat is going to contribute the total number of votes that elect the Speaker. Regardless of that particular member's stance on any issue, he or she isn't going to be able to advance any legislation without the approval of the leadership, so it really doesn't matter what his or her stance is on any particular issue. Thus, if you are in a situation in a district where you have a viable candidate as a Democrat that is anti-choice and a Republican that is also anti-choice, you are going to end up the an anti choice representative. However, one of them with vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and one that will vote for Paul Ryan. At the end of the day that's the only vote that matters. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

Pantagruel

(2,580 posts)
62. The question is a distortion of common sense
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 01:53 PM
Aug 2017

It's two parts, primary and general election.

Totally and rabidly support choice candidates in the primary BUT
if you can't nominate a choice candidate it's logical and moral to support the lesser of two evils, Dem over GOP in the General election.

We got Dubya and maybe Trump for our rigidity to doctrine, let's not do it again.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
65. Did something specific happen that brought this issue up today?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:00 PM
Aug 2017

In any case, abortion is legal. So I would expect people, esp. judges, to recognize and respect the law.

But that's different from personally believing abortion is not right for her, for whatever reason. That's what choice is about. But if someone wants to overturn Roe v Wade, they are in the wrong party.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
72. Planet Citizens United.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:11 PM
Aug 2017

There's not a lot of money in sticking up for human right. Not big political money, anyway.

DonCoquixote

(13,616 posts)
81. an Ugly Truth
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:43 PM
Aug 2017

especially as there is a genuine need to have all sorts of people, and because of then genuine lemming like fungicidal tendencies of the far left, but..the truth is, when you let Blue Dogs define what it is left, they will move the border to the point where even Ronnie Ray Gun would not feel comfortable. Simply put, now the Blue Dogs do not even fell they have to pay lip service to women, especially as they, in their own way, resented Hillary as much as any "bernieBro."

Willie Pep

(841 posts)
96. So are we better off with the Republicans dominating every level of government?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:28 PM
Aug 2017

I am surprised at the reactions to the news about the DCCC chairman saying there won't be a litmus test on abortion. Pro-life Democrats are nothing new. We had plenty of them in Congress in 2006 and 2008 and I don't recall there being this level of anger about it. You could also argue that reproductive rights were safer even with these pro-life Democrats than they are now with the Republicans in control of every level of government.

How many people here complaining about the DCCC were complaining about left-wing "purity pony" types refusing to vote for Clinton because they thought she was too hawkish or too right-wing on economics? To some people those are human rights issues just like abortion. But they were told (rightly, in my opinion) that on balance Clinton would better serve their interests than Trump so it made strategic sense to vote for Clinton even if you disliked some of her stances on some issues. I think this is a comparable situation.

Dark n Stormy Knight

(9,760 posts)
98. Why is it OK for cops to murder our living, breathing, family members & friends?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:44 PM
Aug 2017

Why is it OK to send our young men and women into harm's way to protect what is usually mostly the interests of the corporations and the wealthy? Why is OK to deprive the living of healthcare and decent living conditions?

But a women must not fail to sustain and deliver a fetus?

Fuck that BS!

Create a world that truly values and honors the living, and not just the "beautiful" and wealthy ones, and I might have some respect for the so-called "pro-lifers."


MuseRider

(34,105 posts)
104. If we want the Democratic Party to stop with this
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:21 PM
Aug 2017

crap we know what to do.

If you do not want the Democratic Party to lose because a whole shit ton of uppity women and those who agree with them will not vote for the anti choice candidate then I would say get your asses in gear and talk them out of this crazy notion. Women who have NEVER had equality legislated and have forever had their damned internal organs not to mention an entire lifetime screwed with, by the fact that somehow we can be sacrificed for votes, are damned tired of either being restricted, legislated against and treated as pawns for those mostly without ovaries.

I say fuck those who would do that. I will not vote for them.

You want to win? Tell them to stop this crap and get on with all of it. I know, it is much easier to ask us to kindly stay in that dusty old back seat always reserved for us than it is for you fight with us for what you KNOW is our right as human beings. You want to win by sacrificing us? Lovely. Does not sound like a party I want to even be loosely associated with. Democrats do not sacrifice people's lives for votes or should not anyway. Apparently a lot of them don't really care who loses except if it is them.

EDIT to add, not directed to you OP

Warpy

(111,241 posts)
106. Party conservatives think the most basic human right of half the population is dispensable
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:27 PM
Aug 2017

We have to tell those conservative farts that it most certainly is NOT.

I will point to the Green Party of NM. It was strong and growing in the 80s. Then in the early 90s, they dug up an antiabortionist to run for governor. That did it and they have never recovered, they're a joke.

Wanting to insert one's church dogma into civil law should be a disqualification for public office, period.

 

certainot

(9,090 posts)
125. the only reason this is possible is dems ignore rw radio while it
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:03 PM
Aug 2017

blasts the country with anti choice bullshit. it pulls the whole country right 10 to 20 pts, demonizes contraception and women, and intimidates politicians. it creates the perception in many states and areas that all their constituents are anti-choice and when the issue moves into the local political realm a few jerks scream as loud as thousands.

and we let 88 major universities endorse 257 limbaugh stations with sports broadcasting while they do that.

dflprincess

(28,075 posts)
129. The Democratic party
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:45 PM
Aug 2017

Has been sliding right since Reagan was president. The further right it moves the more elections it loses. We can only hope that it will eventually figure out that Republican Lite doesn't work

No wonder it's perceived as having no message.

dsc

(52,155 posts)
134. certainly not on abortion
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 06:38 PM
Aug 2017

There are 6 anti choice Democrats in both Houses of Congress. When Reagan was around we had dozens of anti choice members of the House including the number 3 Democrat. He later became the number 2 Democrat. Al Gore ran as an openly anti choice Presidential candidate in 1988 (he came in third). Kucinich had to flip flop on abortion in 2004 to run a single issue campaign for President. The only anti choice Dems left are legacies (Casey, Lipinski) have served for a very long time (Cueller, Petersen) or accidental (Donnelly). Anti choice Democrats have all but disappeared from office. They can't win primaries except under very rare circumstances. Under Reagan we had a significant percentage of anti choice Democrats in office. Our party has moved vastly in the pro choice direction.

Jopin Klobe

(779 posts)
135. What bizarro world have I stepped in to?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 06:38 PM
Aug 2017

... it's called "The Slippery Slope" ...

... it's a trick that's always set by "Republicans" ...

... that's always sprung on "Democrats" ...

jmowreader

(50,553 posts)
142. Exactly
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 07:41 PM
Aug 2017

The three big reasons we should work to bring people to our point of view, and not bend to embrace views counter to ours:

FIRST, it demeans us to walk away from our deeply held beliefs just so we might pick up a vote here or there. The "don't kill your baby!" crowd would vote Republican even if their candidate ate a puppy on live television.

SECOND, the people who are really serious anti-choicers work their asses off to have their views be the only views anyone gets to consider. We bring anti-choicers in here and within five years there will be a huge groundswell of "we should end public funding for Planned Parenthood" on this very board. We believe in a woman's right to choose. We RUN candidates who do too. On this there can be no compromise.

and

THIRD, if we start embracing antichoice views the hard right media will declare we've finally proven the only thing we care about is votes.

We can never compromise on a woman's right to self-determination. We believe in it. The Republicans do not.

brewens

(13,568 posts)
146. I'm with you there, but also apply your attitude to the all out looting and greed by the 1%.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 08:36 PM
Aug 2017

It's none of my business what any woman is being seen for medically. She should get the care she needs. If she is pregnant and does not want to have a baby, then she needs and abortion if that is what she wants. But how would I give a shit if it was like it should be and I never know about it? That includes you dudes, if you got a woman pregnant and she doesn't want anything to do with you or your baby. I guess you should have picked another woman or been a better dad prospect.

My best oldest conservative friend passed away in his 80's a couple years ago. He was strictly a small business type conservative though. We agreed on a great many things. One was that if a girl had nothing going for her, didn't want anything to do with the guy that got her pregnant, she should have her abortion, even at tax payer profit, not expense! That's right. She saves us all a shit ton of money by getting rid of the fetus! At least on the average. In fact there probably couldn't be a federal program that could run more in the black, along with free taxpayer funded contraceptives being easily available, even to minors.

So why don't pro-choice people lay that out there? You are scared shitless to even say that!

Lady Freedom Returns

(14,120 posts)
147. I can not speak of anyone but myself.
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 12:34 AM
Aug 2017

However I will not vote for someone who is not pro choice. I will not vote for someone who is a begot.
I will not back off of my moral compass for a "win".

Sorry not happening.

MasonDreams

(756 posts)
148. Only 40% of those who could have VOTED
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 12:38 AM
Aug 2017

We the People must wake up. Maybe, just maybe, this can be a blessing in disguise. We the people, especially the 50% with wombs must take action, and at least VOTE.

PDittie

(8,322 posts)
149. Are anti-choice Democrats preferred over Republicans?
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 07:49 AM
Aug 2017

Last edited Sat Aug 5, 2017, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Because in the "lesser of two evils", binary choice world we live in, you will find a handful of senators elected in 2012 who call themselves "pro-life".

... Democrats already have people in office who oppose federal funding for abortions and late-term abortion rights, or who define themselves as personally opposed to abortion.

This faction includes several senators up for re-election next year and tenuously clinging to red state turf: Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Bob Casey (Pa.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.). Abandoning them when Democrats are desperately trying to retake control of the Senate would be political malpractice.


Bill Scher, writing at RCP

IIRC, without any one of those four, Obamacare would have been repealed last week.

FFS don't we disagree on enough things to keep us out of power already?

... Heitkamp and Casey have voted to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. Heitkamp helped filibuster a ban on abortions 20 weeks after conception. Casey, who, unlike the others, was in office at the beginning of Barack Obama’s first term, voted to confirm two Supreme Court justices expected to uphold Roe v. Wade. Surely the others would if given the opportunity. The same could not be said if Republicans snatched their seats.

Abortion rights activists are getting the better of this bargain. Allowing a few marginally “pro-life” Democrats inside the party tent helps maximize Democratic numbers in the Senate without diluting the national party’s message. A zero-tolerance policy would only shrink Democratic numbers in the chamber, weakening the party’s ability to protect abortion rights and resist the rest of the Republican agenda.


Purity or winning elections? You decide.
 

Amimnoch

(4,558 posts)
150. 24. Just 24.
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 07:50 AM
Aug 2017

That's how many seats in the House that we need to take back in the house to have the majority.

Personally, I'm working on 1.

Just last weekend in Bellaire in Houston, James Cargas, who will be running against John Culberson yet again in 2018 had a fund raising dinner. in 2016, Texas House district 7 had one of the closest races for a Democrat contender that it has had since George HW Bush took the seat from the last Democrat that sat it in 1967. The dinner this past Sunday had twice as many paying supporters as I've ever seen at a Cargas fundraiser. James was that candidate.

Cargas is not a perfect Democrat. On abortion, I've never seen or heard his position. On my own "pony" issue of GLBT rights.. never a peep. He describes himself as a "fiscal conservative, social liberal", something that I'm not at all in line with since I'm liberal minded on both fiscal and social issues.

however, I know my district pretty well..
ANY candidate who espouses a pro choice stance WILL NOT WIN.
ANY candidate who openly supports GLBT rights WILL NOT WIN.

So why the hell do I support a candidate that is not in line with my beliefs? Because he CAN win, and he WILL vote mostly in line with the Democratic Party, and he WILL add to the numbers necessary to put Pelosi, or whomever is selected back in the speakers chair, which gives our entire party, and our platform which DOES support pro choice, and GLBT rights the steering rights of legislative power.

By all means, wherever we are able to, let's put in full down-the-board liberals and progressives into office. But in places like Texas House district 7, let's get the best that we can achieve, and get over that 218 count threshold and get our majority back.

At the end of the day there are 4 versions of a possibility with US Congress:
1. Republican Majority that is cohesive, and passes their agenda- Civil rights of all types go backwards.
2. Republican Majority that is ineffective, can't agree, and can't pass bills - Civil rights stay mostly the same, possibly some backward slippage.
3. Democrat Majority that is ineffective, can't agree, and can't pass bills - Civil rights stay mostly the same, possibly some movement forward.
4. Democrat Majority that is cohesive, and passes our agenda - Civil rights progress forward.

That last option is the goal. A great goal it is, but when the numbers aren't there to make the last goal possible, we need to compromise.. sometimes in distasteful ways, or we will end up with options 1 or 2.

MrsCoffee

(5,801 posts)
156. A lot of people say something can't be done until it is.
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 08:35 AM
Aug 2017

If we shit all over the party platform, guess what we will get in return. Starting from a position that doesn't even give women a fighting chance is the stupidest thing this party can do and will result in massive protests. Many women will leave the party and good luck getting a majority of anything without us!

 

Amimnoch

(4,558 posts)
158. The Majority party writes, and passes the bills that become laws.
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 09:18 AM
Aug 2017

The platform of the majority party is the ONLY one that gets addressed.

On this issue our platform is:

We believe the United States must continue to be a strong advocate for the rights and opportunities of women and girls around the world. Elevating their status is not just the right thing to do—it is also a strategic imperative that advances American interests in prosperity and stability. When women and girls are healthy, educated, and able to participate economically, their families and communities prosper, poverty decreases, and economies grow. And when women participate in conflict resolution and post-conflict processes, it improves the likelihood of securing sustainable peace. Democrats are committed to advancing the rights and opportunities of women and girls as a central focus of American diplomacy, development, and defense efforts and will continue to support the United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. We will work to end the epidemic of gender-based violence around the world. We will urge ratification of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
We will support sexual and reproductive health and rights around the globe. In addition to expanding the availability of affordable family planning information and contraceptive supplies, we believe that safe abortion must be part of comprehensive maternal and women’s health care and included as part of America’s global health programming. Therefore, we support the repeal of harmful restrictions that obstruct women’s access to health care information and services, including the “global gag rule” and the Helms Amendment that bars American assistance to provide safe, legal abortion throughout the developing world.


Their platform:
Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.


I'm offering NO argument that we should pursue pro life candidates, our focus should be those that are in line with our platform 100%. Accepting that some House districts will NOT support a candidate that openly supports some of our platform positions is political reality. In those districts.. and only those districts, we need to accept a lower standard to get the numbers that allows for OUR platform above to be put into bills. Else, THEIR platform is what is slipped into bills passing through congress, and that is NOT good for us.

As I said above, we need 24 more seats to boot Ryan from the House Speakers seat, and put Pelosi (or the next Democratic Party selected house leader) into the speakers seat. You show me the 24 districts that will support and elect a full progressive/liberal candidate as their representative over the Republican incumbent, and I'm totally onboard. OR we accept and get behind some less than perfect candidates. OR we just accept the continued Republican hold, and let them run with THEIR platform.

Nightowl

(77 posts)
160. Can the Democrats afford to throw women under the bus?
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 10:05 AM
Aug 2017

As a woman, mother of a woman and grandmother of two young women I will not accept this. I have been a Democrat for most of my adult life. I am now registered unaffiliated. I can not be part of a party that supports those who want to enslave women as unwilling incubators. I can never vote for someone who wants to take women back to the bad old days. Woman's freedom is too high a price to pay.

Paladin

(28,252 posts)
162. It's a deliberate, calculated distraction, meant to split and weaken Democrats.
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 10:39 AM
Aug 2017

Way too many threads on the subject turning up here at DU. Reminds me of the worst days of the 2016 campaign. Enough, already!

MrsCoffee

(5,801 posts)
164. There are threads about it because it is current news.
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 11:34 AM
Aug 2017

Because we have Democratic leaders discussing what should and shouldn't be a line drawn in the sand.

So here we are joining in the discussion and letting it be known that there will be huge blow back if they suddenly decide that they are going to start funding anti-choice candidates. The party stands for something or it doesn't.

If discussion about the rights of over half the population bothers you, I hear there is a feature that will allow you to not even see these threads here.

Paladin

(28,252 posts)
166. And look at you, putting an ugly spin on my comments.
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 12:40 PM
Aug 2017

A woman's right to choose and to maintain control over her own body shouldn't even be an issue on a Democratic site, and all of a sudden we have multiple threads dealing with it. If it's "current news," it shouldn't be, to any genuine, long-standing Democrat---like me, for instance. I smell a rat, and I'm not taking back a single word, on your account.

BlancheSplanchnik

(20,219 posts)
163. Life or Death. To my mind, it's about a Woman's right to Her life.
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 11:28 AM
Aug 2017

Roe v Wade came about because the laws against abortion (and birth control) were proving to be a cause of horrific deaths for women and pubertal girls.

Women have and will ALWAYS seek ways to decide whether or not they get or stay pregnant--there will always be cases where the prospect of carrying a pregnancy is a worse choice than seeking whatever means possible to end it.

There were so many women mutilated and/or killed by backalley solutions or their own desperate attempts to abort on their own, that the need for safe, legal accessible medical care became clear.

It's not about choice or privacy---it's about who decides whether women live or die.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What the fuck is going on...