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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:06 PM Aug 2017

Who is the genius

That decided a majority of Democratic women are going to turn out to vote for our own reduction to second-class citizenship, greatly increased poverty, and sharp increases in our own death rates?

They can't have forgotten that women are the majority of voters in the Democratic Party, that not one Democrat from dog catcher to Senator holds a seat without our votes. Why would anyone assume they own our votes, that our own lives matter so little to us that we would sit back while they engineer our subjugation?

Pretending any of this is about winning is the most transparent ruse possible. Excuses that a majority of the counties are red and anti-choice might convince someone with a lobotomy, but not many women or our male allies. The majority of districts have been red since the mid-60s, and Democrats controlled congress most of that time. The land mass game is as weak as it gets.

I don't believe for a second that this has a thing to do with winning. Democrats have had anti-choice candidates since Roe, and they had them during the recent electoral losses too. So why the push now? Interesting how people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton in the GE because she wasn't "progressive" enough have suddenly decided undermining the equal tights of the majority is a winning tactic.

This amateur shit doesn't cut it. The anti-equality crowd is going to have to up its game. And when they are coming up with their next scheme, they should remember that they are up against a segment of the population that doesn't need to exclude the majority from full citizenship to feel adequate.



72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Who is the genius (Original Post) BainsBane Aug 2017 OP
The people who want to run a Democrat in District 13. Weekend Warrior Aug 2017 #1
If you read the OP, you should go back and read it again. eom Control-Z Aug 2017 #4
I read it before I posted. Thank you. nt. Weekend Warrior Aug 2017 #5
I have no idea what you're talking about BainsBane Aug 2017 #18
It seems you do know what I'm talking about. Weekend Warrior Aug 2017 #43
Yes, we do BainsBane Aug 2017 #45
The DCCC is a house group. Weekend Warrior Aug 2017 #47
Which district 13 BainsBane Aug 2017 #52
This guy represents the 13th District in Texas. Weekend Warrior Aug 2017 #65
I don't get the refusal to understand that some districts are red. DanTex Aug 2017 #2
It is easy to say MontanaMama Aug 2017 #3
Nobody's basic human rights are being debated. DanTex Aug 2017 #7
I think we can win without MontanaMama Aug 2017 #16
Well obviously that would be ideal. DanTex Aug 2017 #19
I guess we will have to agree MontanaMama Aug 2017 #20
We could back white racist Democrats in those districts. We delisen Aug 2017 #71
That's where things get a little complicated. progressoid Aug 2017 #63
You might be right. MontanaMama Aug 2017 #66
When someone comes for my life BainsBane Aug 2017 #25
So run a pro-choice Catholic, like Joe Biden. pnwmom Aug 2017 #9
Great idea in Delaware. DanTex Aug 2017 #12
I don't get the refusal to understand BainsBane Aug 2017 #13
Sorry, but that's an absurd conspiracy theory. DanTex Aug 2017 #27
+ 1!! musette_sf Aug 2017 #53
we will lose some red districts. that is what you get w a 50 state strategy, but mopinko Aug 2017 #21
What if the person is a white supremacist? mcar Aug 2017 #61
I so appreciate your posts. boston bean Aug 2017 #6
Thanks BainsBane Aug 2017 #48
Your posts are cathartic to me at least. So in one little way they are valuable. boston bean Aug 2017 #49
Keeps the base from talking about Single Payer Healthcare leftstreet Aug 2017 #8
They are a special breed. It is not but for that one issue they would vote democrat. boston bean Aug 2017 #11
20-25% of Democrats are anti-choice. geek tragedy Aug 2017 #24
As I've already said, that poll is bunk leftstreet Aug 2017 #26
what data are you citing? nt geek tragedy Aug 2017 #28
The poll's own 'data.' It's there at the link leftstreet Aug 2017 #30
you're not citing any data for your original claim that there are no anti-choice Democrats. geek tragedy Aug 2017 #31
Nice try. I didn't say that leftstreet Aug 2017 #34
"They KNOW that anti-abortion voters will never vote for Democrats " geek tragedy Aug 2017 #36
The subject was wooing GOPer voters leftstreet Aug 2017 #37
Hillary got votes from anti-choice Republicans who geek tragedy Aug 2017 #40
okay n/t leftstreet Aug 2017 #42
If they are democrats they don't make their vote based on abortion. boston bean Aug 2017 #35
Nope, wrong again lakeguy Aug 2017 #64
"Completely overturn" Roe v Wade is not a particularly geek tragedy Aug 2017 #72
Yep. LexVegas Aug 2017 #10
Women and POC are always supposed to defer for the greater good Fresh_Start Aug 2017 #14
Good point. Ligyron Aug 2017 #56
Choice is not negotiable. Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #15
Thank you. MontanaMama Aug 2017 #17
Women are doing a lot of trench work ismnotwasm Aug 2017 #22
If you don't live in a conservative district, there is exactly a zero percent chance geek tragedy Aug 2017 #23
There have been conservative Dems forever BainsBane Aug 2017 #44
"this is about a concerted effort to try to reduce the majority to second class citizenship" geek tragedy Aug 2017 #50
Outstanding! MuseRider Aug 2017 #29
While I don't understand your stab at "progressives"... countryjake Aug 2017 #32
Conservative dumbasses who want to create heaven on earth by Warpy Aug 2017 #33
A women's body belongs to her, period. SonofDonald Aug 2017 #38
I've been puzzled by the recent spate of posts suggesting abortion rights are negotiable cyclonefence Aug 2017 #39
You got it. MontanaMama Aug 2017 #67
Democratic candidates support for women's rights . . FairWinds Aug 2017 #41
Why are there several angry posts about divisiveness & such re women's rights today? Honeycombe8 Aug 2017 #46
May just be another effort at divided and conquer. EOM tiredtoo Aug 2017 #51
It's been in the news recently. DLevine Aug 2017 #54
I'm as puzzled as you. BarbD Aug 2017 #60
People are really mad at the DCCC chair for saying... countryjake Aug 2017 #68
I see. Boy, that's a tough one. I'd have to give that some thought. Honeycombe8 Aug 2017 #70
If I was a Russian hacker, or a republican, I would love this discussion. pwb Aug 2017 #55
You rang? hfojvt Aug 2017 #57
I'm As Pro Choice As Anyone, Yet PoorMonger Aug 2017 #58
you are blaming the wrong people virtualobserver Aug 2017 #59
her name is Nancy Pelosi SethH Aug 2017 #62
Really? BainsBane Aug 2017 #69
 

Weekend Warrior

(1,301 posts)
1. The people who want to run a Democrat in District 13.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:10 PM
Aug 2017

I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying I hold the same position. I am saying it's not hard to understand their thoughts when it comes to funding a Democrat running in District 13.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
18. I have no idea what you're talking about
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:05 PM
Aug 2017

There are 50 states in this country and hundreds of districts.

People can run whoever the fuck they want anywhere. They still have to win. No way In hell majority of Democratic women vote for that, and without us they lose. Period.

Y'all are just going to have to come up with strategies that don't involve negotiating away women's lives. Or you can lose, bigger than you've ever lost before. Because you will. I guarantee that.

No, it's not hard to understand that men who resent women in the public sphere use our lives as pawns. Trump's win is a golden opportunity to empty the playing field of competition so they can come out on top. So they spew some weak excuses about winning. I do not for a second by it and I doubt many other Democratic women will either. And we have the votes.




 

Weekend Warrior

(1,301 posts)
43. It seems you do know what I'm talking about.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:39 PM
Aug 2017

You hit on a number of the points.

"Y'all are just going to have to come up with strategies that don't involve negotiating away women's lives."

"Y'all" is not the proper word to use in that instance.

"No, it's not hard to understand that men who resent women in the public sphere use our lives as pawns."

That isn't hard to understand at all.

"And we have the votes. "

No, you don't.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
45. Yes, we do
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:43 PM
Aug 2017

Women are the overwhelming majority of the party. The GOP is the party of white men. They have the votes in that party, but not the Democratic Party.

 

Weekend Warrior

(1,301 posts)
47. The DCCC is a house group.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:50 PM
Aug 2017

If you think you simply have the numbers, why isn't District 13 ours? That is not how things work.

I agree that women are the majority of the party. They are also a majority of the country. They should be recognized as such.

If a Democrat comes out of a house primary and is anti-choice, that will not automatically take them out of the running for DCCC funds.

Not one person can claim a fifty state strategy without understanding this. I will never support an anti-choice individual in a primary. In the general I would consider it depending on their opponent.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
52. Which district 13
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:07 PM
Aug 2017

Which state?
Do you mean this? https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/142523/the-district-13-house-taking-the-opposition-to-washington-dc

Google turns up that, the Hunger Games, and other movies.


Look, I'm not saying no anti-choice Dems should be allowed. I'm saying this RW putsch against equal rights is about something far more pernicious. Don't think for a second there is this intense interest over a few seats in red districts. There is a concerted agenda here.

I think that DCCC chair was trying to placate the anti-Democrats who are trying to seize control of the party through dominance, power they haven't been able to gain through elections. He could fund anti-choice Dems in conservative districts without announcing it to the press. The party has done it for years, and it doesn't magically result in wins. But publicly announcing it, that's for a reason, and it's not to win over anti-choice red state voters.

 

Weekend Warrior

(1,301 posts)
65. This guy represents the 13th District in Texas.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 06:14 PM
Aug 2017
https://thornberry.house.gov

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
No family planning assistance that includes abortion. (Jul 2014)

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Mac_Thornberry.htm

It was an unnecessary comment. Completely unnecarry. For that alone your argument has clear merit. I believe my point was correct but it was not in line with the main point of what you put forward.

The DCCC leadership should at a minimum have to hold the party platform line in public statements.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
2. I don't get the refusal to understand that some districts are red.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:16 PM
Aug 2017

Districts are different. Some are heavily evangelical, and pro-choice candidates have no chance. Some have a lot of coal or oil, and environmentalists have no chance. Some have other specific industries (e.g. finance) and won't vote for candidates that want to heavily regulate those industries. And so on.

So we have a choice. We can be blind to these obvious facts, and just run Elizabeth Warrens and Bernie Sanderses everywhere. Then we can pat ourselves on the back for our purity. The downside, of course, is that the Republicans would end up with huge majorities in both houses, and everything we care about policy-wise, very much including reproductive rights, would go down the toilet.

Or, there's another option, where we run candidates who can actually win their states and districts, even though they disagree with the party platform on a few issues. This has the advantage of being able to actually take back congress and push the country in a progressive direction. But we don't get to be as morally smug about never ever supporting anyone who disagrees on any issue.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
7. Nobody's basic human rights are being debated.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:33 PM
Aug 2017

What is being debated is a political strategy.

The real risk to human rights, and everything else, is the Republican party. Losing elections due to ideological purity does absolutely nothing to protect human rights, in fact it does the oppoisite.

MontanaMama

(23,238 posts)
16. I think we can win without
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:01 PM
Aug 2017

compromising on what should be non-negotiable principles. Somehow it works for the other side.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
19. Well obviously that would be ideal.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:07 PM
Aug 2017

But some parts of the country are extremely socially conservative, and pro-choice views just don't fly. That sort of leaves us a choice, do we just forfeit those parts to the GOP, or do we allow D candidates with anti-choice views to run.

delisen

(6,039 posts)
71. We could back white racist Democrats in those districts. We
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 07:45 PM
Aug 2017

used to win by doing that.

Sure I am being facetious but nevertheless it was true.

The white south was solidly Democratic and the New Deal was built partly by not rocking the boat of segregation.

Don't want to return to the so-called "good old days" of inequality and I don't want to return to the whispering world of coat hanger health care for women and girls.

I do not believe that the only way a Democrat can win in some states is by promising to curtail the rights of women.

When you see polls that say Democrats don't stand for anything, consider this latest attempt to throw people under the proverbial bus, and then make a decision to be a party that stands for human rights, civil rights, and equality.

You will get more respect when you stand for something.





progressoid

(49,825 posts)
63. That's where things get a little complicated.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:45 PM
Aug 2017

People are elected on the local level where principles vary from state to state.

For instance, your senator Tester would likely be defeated as a senator in California or Connecticut for his gun support.

MontanaMama

(23,238 posts)
66. You might be right.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 06:18 PM
Aug 2017

I find it puzzling and frankly, unacceptable, that men have the luxury of having any political say on a woman's right to choose or anything else when it comes to our bodies. This whole argument has moved uncomfortably to the right. Even birth control seems to be on the table for political discussion. Every reasonable man in this country ought to be leading the goddam birth control support parade!! Imagine if their penises and what they did with them were legislated? Laughable, right? It would not be entertained or tolerated. For many of us, this is our line in the sand.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
25. When someone comes for my life
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:19 PM
Aug 2017

Last edited Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

It makes zero difference to me if they are a Republican or Democrat.

This has f all to do with ideological purity. This is about basic survival.


That you so glibly use the lives of women as a political strategy-- with no effort to even inform yourself on the likelihood of its succeeding--proves to me that our lives are inconsequential to you.

This is a strategy guaranteed to make the Dem Party lose like never before. That is so obvious it's hard to see how anyone who didn't want to destroy the party would even contemplate it. How anyone thinks they can attack the majority of their voters and still win defies comprehension.




pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
9. So run a pro-choice Catholic, like Joe Biden.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:38 PM
Aug 2017

Someone who can say, "Look, I share your pro-life views. But I'm not going to impose my personal, religious views on anyone else. I support the right of every woman to make this choice herself, without government interference."

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
13. I don't get the refusal to understand
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:49 PM
Aug 2017

That my life is not a pawn in your weak power play.

There already are pro-life Democrats running in those districts. The Democrats still lost. No pro-lifer in their right mind votes Democrat. They know the difference between the parties. Your claim that all we need to do to win those seats is kill a few hundred thousand more women, to see more children pushed into poverty, is based on no evidence. There is no indication it will win more seats. None of you even try to provide evidence. You don't even care about evidence.

Concern for winning would mean careful examination of data, of specific races. It wouldn't involve sacrificing the equal rights and very lives of the majority of the population on a supposition, a whim. That is why it is obvious this argument had fuck all to do with winning.

Now, you are free to vote for any misogynist you want. You can complain to them about how uppity women refuse to understand how insignificant their lives are. I really don't give a shit. But if you think that you are going to convince Democratic women to vote for their own subjugation, for our own DEATHS, you have no idea who you're dealing with.

Now, you've enough made yourself very clear. We have nothing more to discuss on this or any other issue. You've made very clear that you see my life, my death, as a bargaining chip in a power play. I do not have discussions with people who threaten my life, which is precisely what your argument entails.





.




DanTex

(20,709 posts)
27. Sorry, but that's an absurd conspiracy theory.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:26 PM
Aug 2017

Nancy Pelosi has stated she's against having a pro-choice litmus test. Do you really think she doesn't actually care about winning, and she's just doing it as some kind of underhanded plot to criminalize abortion? Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

Sure, you can accuse me of being misogynist and in favor of subjugation of women if you want, but Nancy Pelosi has a stellar voting record on abortion, and one thing even her opponents will agree is that she very much does care about winning elections. So I think you should ask yourself, which is more likely. Do you think Pelosi said those things because she actually thinks its a winning political strategy? Or do you think her whole political career was just a sham leading up to this moment where she finally tries to criminalize abortion?

mopinko

(69,806 posts)
21. we will lose some red districts. that is what you get w a 50 state strategy, but
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:10 PM
Aug 2017

the whole point is to represent the party, everywhere.
give them a watered down thug policy, and they will pick the real thing.

give them a real choice, and see what that gets you. the majority in this country support reproductive rights.
i guess it boils down to- do we want to bring dem non-voters out of the woodwork, or do we want to go on the fool's errand of trying to win over enough of "them" to win.

mcar

(42,210 posts)
61. What if the person is a white supremacist?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:21 PM
Aug 2017

Wants to roll back voting rights? Destroy public education?

Look, I get your point. I live in a ruby red FL district. I understand that more conservative or Blue Dog Dems may be the best shot for these districts.

I could and would vote for an anti abortion Dem who is legislately pro- choice. But if they are advocating for taking away my right to health care, no, I could not vote for that person.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
48. Thanks
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:52 PM
Aug 2017

I've wasted too much time on this. You can't convince people that women's lives are wotrthwhile. Either they already know it, or they will never care. I need to get in touch with PP and NARAL about that DCCC chair.

leftstreet

(36,078 posts)
8. Keeps the base from talking about Single Payer Healthcare
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:35 PM
Aug 2017


I can't fathom why the brain surgeons of the DCCC would set this all off

They KNOW that anti-abortion voters will never vote for Democrats

DURec

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
11. They are a special breed. It is not but for that one issue they would vote democrat.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:40 PM
Aug 2017

These people are bigots all the way around.

We would have to become the racist+bigoted party. Not the "just" misogynist one.

leftstreet

(36,078 posts)
26. As I've already said, that poll is bunk
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:25 PM
Aug 2017

Doesn't ask specifics about conditions of pregnancy - rape, length of pregnancy etc. All those things rabid wingers care so much about

leftstreet

(36,078 posts)
30. The poll's own 'data.' It's there at the link
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:28 PM
Aug 2017

It was a poll designed to get a specific result

But I suspect you already know that

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
31. you're not citing any data for your original claim that there are no anti-choice Democrats.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:30 PM
Aug 2017

Here's a hint: I know some in real life.

leftstreet

(36,078 posts)
34. Nice try. I didn't say that
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:31 PM
Aug 2017

If you HAD asked me if there are anti-choice Democrats....

Yep, most likely.
But they'll still vote for a Democrat before they'll vote for a GOPer

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
36. "They KNOW that anti-abortion voters will never vote for Democrats "
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:33 PM
Aug 2017

This is what you said. It's also patently untrue--many anti-abortion voters do vote Democratic.

There are anti-abortion Democrats in Congress.

leftstreet

(36,078 posts)
37. The subject was wooing GOPer voters
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:36 PM
Aug 2017

Sry. Thought everyone knew that.

I could amend my posts to be specific

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
40. Hillary got votes from anti-choice Republicans who
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:38 PM
Aug 2017

couldn't stomach Donald Trump.

Not a lot, of course. Certainly not enough. But some.

lakeguy

(1,639 posts)
64. Nope, wrong again
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 06:13 PM
Aug 2017

you're just making numbers up as you go. also you cite a survey that said legal in all/most cases. that's a pretty broad view.

84% support at link below...even a majority of republicans are in support of roe v wade. and you want to run an anti-choice democrat? smart.

https://thinkprogress.org/pro-choice-america-majority-d8963029ae45/

how about we run an anti-choice, anti-union, anti-fair pay, and anti-civil rights candidate, just to win. and how is that different than electing a republican?

if you run a republican light, voters who lean republican will choose the real one every time. why not change the equation instead of falling for the same trap we've been in for the last 30 f'in years!?!

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
72. "Completely overturn" Roe v Wade is not a particularly
Sat Aug 5, 2017, 02:11 PM
Aug 2017

useful question. Republicans aren't trying to overturn it, they're chipping away at it.

Fresh_Start

(11,330 posts)
14. Women and POC are always supposed to defer for the greater good
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 03:59 PM
Aug 2017

whereas whiny ass white men expect everyone to bow to their needs...

(even though we had the same needs for decades and the whiny ass white men didn't lift a finger).
You you've noticed that jobs are being replaced by technology/automation - how many women do you think lost jobs as secretaries/switchboard operations/bank tellers when technology and automation hit traditional women's jobs.

Did you say keep the teller/cashier/operator? Not frickin likely.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
23. If you don't live in a conservative district, there is exactly a zero percent chance
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:16 PM
Aug 2017

anyone is asking you to vote for a conservative candidate.

Political parties exist to win power and enact policies. They do not exist for mutual affirmation amongst groups of people who never disagree on anything.

Don't like conservative Democrats--easy solution--don't vote for any in your local primary.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
44. There have been conservative Dems forever
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:40 PM
Aug 2017

and anti-choice Dems, in both winning and losing cycles.

this is about a concerted effort to try to reduce the majority to second class citizenship for the benefit of a minority (not even most D. white men) that can't compete for votes, jobs, or power on an even playing fielled.

You know, it's not even worth arguing. Women have the votes. It's our party. if they are so colllosally stupid to think they can attack the rights and lives of the overwhelming portion of the electorate and win, they deserve what they get.

All the more reason to ensure that party leadership positions continue to be held by women.





 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
50. "this is about a concerted effort to try to reduce the majority to second class citizenship"
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:58 PM
Aug 2017

The only people participating in that effort are Republicans (and maybe Dan Lapinski--fuck that guy).



MuseRider

(34,058 posts)
29. Outstanding!
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:27 PM
Aug 2017

Especially this..." And when they are coming up with their next scheme, they should remember that they are up against a segment of the population that doesn't need to exclude the majority from full citizenship to feel adequate."

Thank you!

countryjake

(8,554 posts)
32. While I don't understand your stab at "progressives"...
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:30 PM
Aug 2017

and wonder why you'd think they might be the ones who are behind this current "Big Tent" move to the right, I'm happy to recommend your post since we all must fight to be more united now, much more than ever before. Our own party leaders have been signaling that abortion rights are no longer as important an issue to "Democrats" for quite awhile now, and I, for one, attempted to point that out here several times during the past year but was out-talked with silly Primary bullshit, instead of firm unity on Women's Rights.

Remember when DNC chair Tom Perez drew that "line in the sand" earlier this Spring? He made his statement on a Friday, to the relief and spirited cheers of vast numbers of progressive, conscientious women nationwide (a resounding "one voice" ), but by the following Sunday morning, our Democratic leadership had effectively and deliberately "walked" his statement back. That, right there, is and has always been a main concern of mine, that the Democratic Party would eventually give in to those members who are opposed to abortion and finally agree to compromise on that right-wing stance.

Thanks for this thread!

Now, get off the computer and write letters, make phone calls, our voices must be heard!

One voice!





Warpy

(110,907 posts)
33. Conservative dumbasses who want to create heaven on earth by
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:31 PM
Aug 2017

giving their church dogma the force of civil law, that's who.

They really are stupid fuckers and ultimately self defeating. The DCCC has always had a genius for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and this is one way they do it.

SonofDonald

(2,050 posts)
38. A women's body belongs to her, period.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:36 PM
Aug 2017

There is no argument or reason to disagree with this, zero, zilch, nada.

Religious views do not matter in this, it's not your decision or business, your approval is not required.

cyclonefence

(4,483 posts)
39. I've been puzzled by the recent spate of posts suggesting abortion rights are negotiable
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:36 PM
Aug 2017

and not important enough to insist on. They make me sick.

How a candidate stands re: abortion rights is a valuable, necessary litmus test revealing how he or she (but mostly he) stands on women's rights in general. Hell, it isn't even about women's rights--it's about whether women are adult human beings.

I am out of patience even with the good guys like Biden and Kaine, who *have* to say "well, personally, I'm opposed to abortion, but..." Grow up. Either you respect women as equal human beings or you don't. And frankly, I don't *want* the votes of people who don't understand that.

 

FairWinds

(1,717 posts)
41. Democratic candidates support for women's rights . .
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:39 PM
Aug 2017

is necessary but not sufficient.

I will not support a pro-choice corporatist.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
46. Why are there several angry posts about divisiveness & such re women's rights today?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 04:47 PM
Aug 2017

Did something happen? What happened?

If not..then what's up with these angry posts? Is it "just in case"? I don't get it. I haven't seen anything in the news about this subject.

DLevine

(1,788 posts)
54. It's been in the news recently.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:09 PM
Aug 2017

Democrats will not withhold financial support from candidates who are anti-choice, according to DCCC chair Rep. Ben Ray Luján. DUers are divided about whether or not it's a good idea.

countryjake

(8,554 posts)
68. People are really mad at the DCCC chair for saying...
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 06:24 PM
Aug 2017

it will continue to fund Pro-Life candidates.

People Are Really Mad at the DCCC for Saying It Will Continue to Fund Pro-Life Candidates
They say it’s paving a “path to victory in 2018 at the expense of women.”
by Becca Andrews ~ July 31, 2017

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/people-are-really-mad-at-the-dccc-for-saying-it-will-continue-to-fund-pro-life-candidates/

The Democrats will not withhold financial support from candidates who oppose abortion, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) chair Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM).

“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates,” said Luján in an interview with The Hill. “As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.”



Read the article...it's a fairly good summary of this disturbing development.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
70. I see. Boy, that's a tough one. I'd have to give that some thought.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 06:44 PM
Aug 2017

I can see both sides of that argument. Pragmatism, on the one hand...it's either this pro-life Dem or a Republican...a pro-choice Dem can't win in that area. OTOH, if they believe in overturning Roe v Wade, they would possibly vote for that on a Republican bill.

It depends on the individual candidate, maybe.

pwb

(11,204 posts)
55. If I was a Russian hacker, or a republican, I would love this discussion.
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:10 PM
Aug 2017

For around fifty years republicans have used abortion as a wedge issue to divide otherwise like minded people. And the beat goes on.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
57. You rang?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:13 PM
Aug 2017

Just kidding, it wasn't really me.

About the only thing I have the power to decide, is what I am going to have for lunch.

I had a bit of a surreal experience back in 2011. I think that was the year anyway. The precinct committee people in my district were being called upon to replace a legislator who was being deployed to Afghanistan (or maybe it was Bosnia, the details escape me now). There were only five of us - but that was reduced to four because the couple from the other county chose to give their county chair their votes by proxy, so she had two votes, and then myself, a black woman and two white women, that was our committee of four. Had we filled all the precinct seats in our district, there should have been about twenty of us.

So anyway, we were questioning two candidates who might replace the woman who had just won the election. One was a former county commissioner who had lost in the primary to the winning candidate, and the other was the previous person in that seat for five terms. SHE was anti-choice and pro gun. The woman who had just won the election was anti-choice and pro gun. The former county commissioner was also anti-choice. None of the three women mentioned the issue of abortion or seemed to care that both of our choices were anti-choice.

Well, this is Kansas, where some elected Democrats, even female ones, are anti-choice, and where some of the democratic voters are anti-choice and others apparently do not care that much about the issue one way or another. And some people believe that we have strong candidates like, say, Dennis McKinney or Josh Svaty and that we should support them even as others complain about their stance on abortion. As Bird (retired poly sci professor Burdett Loomis) says - that's why we have primaries.

PoorMonger

(844 posts)
58. I'm As Pro Choice As Anyone, Yet
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:14 PM
Aug 2017

I do live in Nebraska too. I totally understand not wanting to compromise your core - but I do wonder, in a state like mine when we have a largely do nothing Republican in Deb Fischer up for re-election in 2018, would I support a return of someone like former Senator Nelson ( a conservative D, who often frustrated me?) yes I would vote for him if it was him or Fischer.

Right now, I'm concerned that she may even sail by unopposed. No one has declared intent in Nebraska for us Democrats.

While I would support and campaign for a better option, and not want an anti choice Dem if I could help it... I have to admit that a squishy candidate who agrees with me 80% of the time is better than conceding seats all together.

We can worry about so called policy purity in primaries - where I would push for a pro choice person.

SethH

(170 posts)
62. her name is Nancy Pelosi
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:33 PM
Aug 2017
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-democratic-candidates-should-not-be-forced-to-toe-party-line-on-abortion/2017/05/02/9cbc9bc6-2f68-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html?utm_term=.d79e14142205

The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump.

“This is the Democratic Party. This is not a rubber-stamp party,” Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters.

“I grew up Nancy D’Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic,” she added, referring to the fact that she is the daughter and sister of former mayors of that city. “Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?”

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
69. Really?
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 06:29 PM
Aug 2017

So the people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton because she wasn't progressive enough decided three months after that statement that they were so inspired by Nancy Pelosi that the would begin an assault on abortion rights? And of course we're supposed to forget the events leading up to that comment and pretend it began and ended with her.

There have been anti-choice Democrats for as long as there has been choice. Nancy didn't invent that. Nor did she as a strong defender of all equal rights decide to run around the interwebs telling women and people of color they had to give up equal rights to "win." After refusing to vote Dem in the general election because the party didn't give then a reason to vote for Hillary rather than against Trump, they decided the reason they were looking for is reducing women to second class citizenship, greater poverty and sharp increases on death rates. Winning couldn't be achieved by their actually voting for a Democrat rather than Trump or third Party. No that's only possible by compelling the majority to become second class citizens so that a self-entitled few could have the power and wealth they believe is their birthright but can't achieve through competence or actually winning a single election anywhere. Nancy Pelosi is their inspiration, the person they demanded be replaced by a "progressive" anti-choice Democrat whose voting record resembles another Ryan. The no compromises crowd suddenly decided they would compromise the lives of everyone but themselves because they were so inspired by Nancy.

I suppose Nancy is to blame for all the assaults on candidates of color and the warm fuzzies toward Rand Paul and the White Supremacist Trumpsters as well.


Yeah, it was all Nancy because what she said is totally the same as shit being piled mile deep now.

Nice try. Well, not really.

I need waist high Wellies to wade through all this.






Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Who is the genius