what part of "not voting for someone who will vote to take away my rights" is so hard to get?

[niyad]

[Me.]

1. But...But

[niyad]

2. I know. I know. . . .

[hamsterjill]

3. Not hard to get for me.

No way. No how. Reproductive choice IS a litmus test for me.

Find better candidates and start an active and earnest education process about those rights. The reason half of the people who are anti-choice is because they've been told they'll go to hell if they aren't. Dems have never done a very good job of refuting the ideology with facts IMHO. Instead of caving, let's do some educating.

[niyad]

5. you make excellent points. thank you!!

[Me.]

9. Also

How about addressing the economic realities/ramifications connected to unplanned births?

[hamsterjill]

13. I could certainly agree with that.

How many right wing, crazy-assed videos have you seen coming around on Facebook and other media outlets where it shows a three-week old fetus in perfect "human form" who can walk, talk, etc.? Coupled with the shock that any woman would "murder" such a fine young person.

And I don't remember the last time I saw something science-based refuting those videos. So we need efforts taken to refute that crap.

Definitely, we need to also address economics, as well as health concerns for the mother, etc.

[niyad]

31. friends and I used to protest the gestational slavers at our local PP. during one of our

weekly events, a woman was carrying around a very badly done poster showing fetal development (totally incorrect, of course). I said, "you know, I can do photo shop, too. But, unlike you, I can actually do it correctly. I don't need to make nonsense up. Take a couple of biology lessons, for your own sake". Have no idea why she got so annoyed.

maybe it was my, 'hey, look, another idiot with fake pics" comment to the crowd.

[niyad]

14. shhh, you are trying to be rational!!

[vi5]

58. EXACTLY! This applies to every issue....

Our party seems to want only candidates who tell people what they think they want to hear so that it's easy and they don't have to do any work. How about instead we get candidates who are good at actually explaining policies and the facts that are on our side across the board. Yes, I know that might require some money and some legwork and some salesmanship. But isn't that...you know what politics is all about.

This policy and approach of not taking any hard positions and not having to do any work and just hoping that people get tired of the Republican or they implode and say something stupid (not possible any more) is getting us nowhere fast.

[louis c]

4. Also, we need to understand that not voting for and voting against are two different things

I talk to far too many people who are against Trump, but voted third party or wrote in during the GE.

I try to explain that that kind of thinking made Trump president. Writing in or voting alternative party in the final election suppresses the vote on the anti-trump side.

[loyalsister]

74. It sucks to have to vote defensively

Sometimes it's the best if not only way to avoid disaster. My personal deal breakers are legitimate and matter to me, but the well being of my fellow citizens matters more than the personal satisfaction I could get with a rebellious vote or nonvote.

[Warpy]

6. The basic rights of half the human population

is supremely unimportant to the other half.

[niyad]

7. sadly, you are quite correct.

[Heddi]

8. I remember when it was GLBT'ers that were thrown under the bus for votes

Words like "special pony" and "pragmatic" and "appealing to lower income rural voters" "what about the undecideds/centrists/conservatives who would never vote for a democrat in their lives" were bandied about in the 2004 election.

Ah yes, those were the days. We were told that it was SELFISH to demand equal rights. We were told WE WERE THE CAUSE OF LOSS if we demanded same-sex marriage and weren't happy being relegated as second class citizens.

Now it's women.

It's JUST Abortion and reproductive rights. PLUS ITS ABOUT WINNING AT ALL COSTS...can't you see that? We MUST appeal to conservative independent republicans. SURELY you can see that. SURELY you understand that it's not like once they take away reproductive rights that they'll go after anything else, right??? How selfish of you. Uppity women just don't know their place....

Now...my prediction for 2020 election
"Look, *I*'m against banning Muslims from entering the country and YOU'RE against banning muslims from entering the country, and WE ARE ALL fundamentally against outlawing the practice of Islam in the US but let's be realistic -- Some muslim loving bleeding heart isn't going to win very many hearts and minds in the breadbasket of America, are they? No. So it ONLY MAKE SENSE that we nominate and elect completely CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS to run on the Democratic Ticket. It's the only way we'll ever get a majority in the house & senate!!!!"

[niyad]

16. would you make this its own OP for visibility and rec" ability??

[Heddi]

20. I would prefer not to get an unnecessary hide

if you know what i mean. People can be quite sensitive.

Feel free to use the text as your own, or add to your OP. I don't mind

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Yes, I remember that as well.

"Values Voters" or some shit.

[Heddi]

23. Ponies and unicorns

we were just special snowflakes back then, dragging the party down with our desire for equal (not special) rights regarding marriage, employment, and protections. We were thrown under the bus. When we didn't win in 2004, and in the 2006 midterms, it was because of GAY RIGHTS and how we totally GAVE THOSE ELECTIONS to the Republicans. If only us uppity gays would have SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP none of that "losing elections" thing would have happened.

Now, it's women who are holding back the party from TRULY advancing and winning!!!

Next up: racial and religious minorities, unionists, people who want a living wage, people who are supportive of clean energy, people who would like to, you know, vote for Democrats who stand behind democratic values

"But guys, if we don't elect conservative evangelical republicans runinng on the D ticket, we'll never get a majority!!! Besides, when you look at it rationally, it's only a burka if you call it that. I'd LOVE to be required to wear head-to-toe covering with barely any way to see out of it. I know *I* would relish not having to worry about what to wear every day.."

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Right, the "conventional wisdom" beltway people said the US would never be "ready" for Gay Marriage.

Sort of like how now they want us to support candidates who vote to throw granny in prison for the pot plant in her basement.

[PoliticAverse]

26. "GLBT'ers that were thrown under the bus for votes" - so did you vote for Obama in 2008

against McCain - Palin?

[Heddi]

28. Yes, of course

because I didn't agree with DU'ers who called me and my friends/family member special fucking snowflakes for wanting full equal rights for GLBTs in 2004 means that I totally supported McCain Palin in 2008. Because...reasons.

Because nothing gets the base going like being called a traitor who is willing to sacrifice the Good of The Party (tm) for our special unicorn pony. That gives me so many feels.....

And now these same people are telling me that I, as a woman, should just shut the fuck up because hey, apparently women in Nebraska or where the fuck ever aren't *as* deserving of reproductive rights as a woman in NYC or LA because...special pony unicorns. Pragmatism! Good of the party! etc etc

[QC]

51. Yes, I remember those days very well.

We were just petulant, pouty pony-demanders.

You're not going to ruin this for the rest of us!

Here's your fabulous pink pony!

etc.

[KG]

69. I ain't forgot.

same kinda silly shit is coming up again.

[Solly Mack]

92. I remember.

People said wait..wait...wait..don't push it until after the election.

Then after the election...they have a lot to do...wait..wait...wait...some more.

Progress takes time...said those whose rights were not up for debate.

[yallerdawg]

10. Aren't we a little more sophisticated than the average, uninformed voter?

Does being the majority party have any advantage at any level of government, an advantage we acknowledge and suffer?

Perfect example - Civil Rights legislation that came about from having a rabid, racist minority of the Solid South Democrats in the majority party!

And Blue Dogs made possible Obama's Affordable Care Act.


If you're lucky, you might not ever have to make that choice.

[niyad]

11. you have clearly not been paying attention to the news today--reproductive rights is NOT

a litmus test in the party.

[yallerdawg]

15. My 'litmus test' is 'just throw me a bone'!

Even if the only bone is a vote for Nancy Pelosi (or any other Democrat) to be Speaker of the House!

[Gothmog]

12. Your position seems very reasonable to me

[niyad]

17. not according to some comments in other threads on this subject. but then, that does

not surprise us in the least, does it?

[Gothmog]

19. No it does not surprise me

Which is so very sad.

[hurple]

18. EMAILS!

Who cares about my rights when... she... EMAILS!!!!!

[uponit7771]

29. +1

[niyad]

32. I know, we have to keep our priorities straight!

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Choice is not negotiable.

[ck4829]

25. K&R

[leftstreet]

27. DURec

[still_one]

30. The Democratic party and platform is prochoice

Last edited Mon Jul 31, 2017, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)

If you have a republican and Democrat in a senate or house race who are both against abortion, does it makes sense to sit that race out, realizing even though the Democratic party having a majority is important in Congress, and would protect a woman's right to choose, is it more important to lose sight of that big picture, even if it meant a republican win would control the agenda, which would be an anti-choice agenda?

The closest issue in recent times that I can think of where this applies is the 1964 Civil Rights Act, introduced by Kennedy, and made a reality by Johnson.

Here is how Congress voted on that:

House:

It passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964 by a margin of 290-130. When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

Senate:

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).

Democrats deserve credit for being the driving force behind the legislation, however, the fact is the degree of Republican support for the Civil Rights Act, and Voting Rights act exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it's also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time.

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/25/michael-steele/steele-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196/

[niyad]

33. what part of "I am NOT giving my permission or approval to someone to vote to take away

my rights" is so damned hard to understand.

the platform does not force someone to vote for choice and full autonomy for women. there is no penalty for voting against women.

[still_one]

35. I am presenting the arguments that are used to justify why people would vote for an anti-choice

candidate. I understand your position perfectly, and I have no issue with it.

A woman's right to choose is a human rights issue period.

However, there are some who believe it is a question of pragmatism:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/23/politics/bernie-sanders-heath-mello/index.html

https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim_fact_check:_Heath_Mello%27s_voting_record_on_abortion

The reason why your OP is so important is because this doesn't only apply to women's rights. It applies to a whole range of issues. I presented how the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act are an example of this.

Howard Dean has made it clear that he will not support candidates who are opposed to abortion rights.

Tom Perez made it clear in April that all Democratic candidates must support a woman's right to choose:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-tom-perez-abortion-rights_us_58fa5fade4b018a9ce5b351d

The line is drawn, but the arguments and debates among Democrats regarding this and all similar issues are just beginning.

That is why I appreciate your thread, because it brings it out into the open

[niyad]

39. thank you so much for that very thoughtful response, and the informative links. we

have one hell of a battle before us.

[still_one]

48. We have a huge battle ahead.

[6000eliot]

43. I would rather lose and keep my principles, thank you very much.

NEVER will I vote for or support an anti-choice candidate. EVER.

[still_one]

59. Good. As I said this is a discussion that is way overdue, and avoiding it has

resulted in Civil Rights, which include Women's Rights, slowly be whittled away.

Tom Perez made it clear in April that all Democratic candidates must support a woman's right to choose:

Hopefully, he will follow through on that promise.

In fact, no one should join the Democratic party who does not support a women's right to choose.

This should not be a surprising revelation that the Democratic party stands for CHOICE, just as it shouldn't be a surprising revelation that the republican party does not support the concept of a women's right to choose, and why they are against the Roe V Wade decision.

Let's get right into it, Bob Casey who defeated Rick Santorum is hardline, anti-choice, and want Roe V Wade overturned.

He is liberal in almost every issue except a women's right to choose:

Plan B morning-after pill is contraception, not abortion. (Sep 2006)

Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned. (Dec 2005)

Right to Privacy means contraception, not unborn. (Dec 2005)

No embryonic stem cell research; adult research ok. (Jul 2005)

Exceptions to save life of mother, rape & incest. (Nov 2004)

Opposes public funding of abortion. (Nov 2004)

Supports state funding of contraceptive services. (Nov 2004)

Opposes Woman’s Right to Abortion. (Nov 2004)

Opposes Tax-Funded Abortion. (Nov 2004)

Supports Legal Protection for Human Life from Conception. (Nov 2004)

Voted YES on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)

Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)

Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)

Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bob_Casey.htm

This is where the debate will focus on people like Bob Casey, and the only way to change that is to run a Democratic candidate against him that is for a women's right to choose.

[6000eliot]

86. Absolutely.

The same reason I never voted for his father.

[still_one]

94. Someone has just pointed out to me that Casey has changed his position on choice

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9403244

[6000eliot]

95. Happy to see that he's changed.

[Orrex]

44. What if the both candidates campaigned on an aggressive "CASTRATE STILL_ONE" platform?

Or a platform that made you fully responsible for the financial support of some random woman's child?


Would you still vote for the Democrat?

[still_one]

60. You are personally acussing me of advocating something I am not. What I am

doing is presenting the arguments that will be used by those who think we should compromise on this.

I would suggest that a better analogy to use would be if both candidates campaigned on a racist platform would you still support the Democratic candidate?

A women's right to choose is a human rights issue period.

The challenge will be running pro-choice candidates against people like Bob Casey, who is hardcore anti-choice, and want Roe V Wade overturned.

[LanternWaste]

62. In other words, you're merely presenting us the option that "2+2yellow"

"doing is presenting the arguments that will be used by those who think we should compromise on this..."

In other words, you're merely presenting us the option that "2+2=yellow" because other people believe it to be true. However, though they may present that absurd, half-witted reponse, it does not make the reponse any less half-witted or absurd... or true.

[still_one]

64. I am NOT presenting you any options. Did you even read what I wrote?

Here I will copy and paste it for you:

I am presenting the arguments that are used to justify why people would vote for an anti-choice

candidate. I understand your position perfectly, and I have no issue with it.

A woman's right to choose is a human rights issue period.

However, there are some who believe it is a question of pragmatism:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/23/politics/bernie-sanders-heath-mello/index.html

https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim_fact_check:_Heath_Mello%27s_voting_record_on_abortion

The reason why your OP is so important is because this doesn't only apply to women's rights. It applies to a whole range of issues. I presented how the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act are an example of this.

Howard Dean has made it clear that he will not support candidates who are opposed to abortion rights.

Tom Perez made it clear in April that all Democratic candidates must support a woman's right to choose:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-tom-perez-abortion-rights_us_58fa5fade4b018a9ce5b351d

The line is drawn, but the arguments and debates among Democrats regarding this and all similar issues are just beginning.

That is why I appreciate your thread, because it brings it out into the open

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9401182

[Orrex]

65. I made no accusation whatsoever, nor can I see how you inferred an accusation.

Since you presented the arguments that you anticipate from preemptive compromisers, I simply asked the same, and I would ask the same question of them.

In a hypothetical, the specific examples don't matter, because the important thing is to object when both candidates endorse an unacceptable platform in real life.


If the Democratic party loses seats because it has fielded anti-choice candidates, then that responsibility falls solely on the party and not on constituents who refused to vote to forfeit their rights.

[still_one]

68. Your hypothetical used the event of me being casterated as your example. You think that

is a good approach to convince people of your position, go for it

You don't need to throw that shit at me. We are on the same side on this issue.

You don't like my suggestion of using a different example, that is your right

[Orrex]

73. As you note, I used a different example

[still_one]

81. Thanks

[Egnever]

80. Not a simple question

But an easy answer.

Yes if...

[still_one]

82. The easy answer is just run prochoice candidates, case solved

[Egnever]

84. If only

Pro choice does not equal solid candidate. While I understand how important a single issue is to many of us it does not always coincide with a solid candidate. John Edwards was a great candidate if your issue was poverty except...

Sadly it is never so simple. Like everything in life you should weigh the pros and cons and make the decision that is best for you. There is no perfect candidate. Sometimes your choice is between two very flawed candidates, or six, take one look at the republicans choices. They had no good choice really. Maybe Bush or Kaisich but really the rest were just flawed. All of them were for guns though..

Governing is compromise. I got lucky with Obama there were very few things he did I did not agree with. I doubt I will ever see that again in my lifetime.

I would think it is more than obvious the Dem party supports choice. It is in the platform. If some rep from Pensatucky just cant get on board with that one part of the platform because they live in the bible belt and it is just untenable with their constituency I get it.

Doesn't mean I like it but when looking at the whole picture when Dems do not have control of at least one branch of government like now it is certainly much more concerning as you illustrate with the civil rights act. If I have to chose the choice is normally pretty clear.

I would have to believe that a Democrat running on a pro choice platform in Wyoming is going to be dead on arrival considering they are about as draconian a state as you can be on abortion. So no Democrats from Wyoming ever?

Our country is big and diverse we don't all fit into a box on anything.

When the Dems are in control the party platform controls the agenda it does not matter what individual congress critters personal issue is it is the Dem leadership that has a history we can depend on that controls the agenda not some Senator from Pensatucky. Giving up us controlling the agenda is far more harmful than a few senators on any issue.

[still_one]

85. of course not, and realistically there will be anti-choice Democrats who will run in certain areas

of the country. I really believe that it will be very difficult to change someone's mind to vote or not vote for someone, if this is the voter's dominant issue.

Reading the posts here at DU the few days, no one's mind on the subject is going to be changed on this, no matter which side they take.

[niyad]

34. . . . .

[Orrex]

36. You wimminfolk and your uppity demand to control your own bodies. Harumph!

[niyad]

40. I know. Utterly egotistical and hubristic of us!!

[Orrex]

45. :evilgrin:

[demmiblue]

37. None.What.So.Ever.

Call me a purist, I don't care.

I notice that that vast majority of 'pragmatists' are men.

[niyad]

41. I noticed the same thing.

[BannonsLiver]

90. But not this "pragmatist"

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=.8dfaf43c4677

[ismnotwasm]

38. I don't fucking know.

I live in Seattle, if I lived in red district, I suppose, if the choice was between a otherwise principled Democrat who voted against my basic human rights vs. a mouth breathing psychotically religious republican who thinks women need forensic uterus examination every month to see if a embryo slipped out so I could charge women with murder, I'd take a step back and reevaluate., but I doubt the norm is those extremes. Id find a Democrats who was wholly pro-choice first.

[niyad]

42. an "otherwise principled Dem" would NOT be voting to eliminate women's rights.

[ismnotwasm]

71. Yeah

I was trying to think of an example..but there you go

[Doreen]

78. Try living in Centralia.

[DefenseLawyer]

46. It's pretty hard for me to get. Sorry.

If you are talking about a general election and you have one Democrat on the ballot and one Republican, not voting for the Democrat is exactly the same as voting for the Republican. So you are taking a stand but not voting for a candidate that is against you on one issue and by doing so you are supporting a candidate that is against you on all issues. So no, I don't get it.
If you're talking about recruiting better candidates, amen to that. if you're talking about a primary challenge by a better candidate, yes to that as well. But if the candidates are set in the general election, you either vote for the Democrat or you leave the Republican needing one less vote to win. The is nothing noble about helping the Republicans.

[niyad]

47. so you are okay with a "democrat" selling out women, per the dccc? got it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029396321

[DefenseLawyer]

49. What is important is that the party is not selling out women.

If the Democratic Party stopped being pro choice I would stop being a Democrat. The thing is, one Congressman doesn't have the power to "sell out" anyone. One Congressman doesn't change the platform. One Congressman doesn't get bills called to the floor. But he or she is one more vote for a Democrat as speaker. And unless we have a Democrat as speaker we are always in danger of losing our rights. So yes, I can live with a pro life candidate that can get elected over a Republican.
My hope would be that we could recruit a better candidate. But at the end of the day what matters is what the party stands for, the agenda that the leadership advances and ultimately that we are the majority party.

[niyad]

50. did you read the link? the head of the dccc just said it is okay to sell out women. are you

okay with democratic leadership selling out women??

[DefenseLawyer]

52. I understand that they are trying to recruit candidates that can win elections

I haven't heard anyone say that we are changing our platform or are legislative agenda to accommodate these candidates.

[niyad]

55. then you must not have read carefully enough

[DefenseLawyer]

61. Maybe you can quote the part about changing the party's position on abortion

Or the plan by our leadership to push anti-abortion legislation, because I'll admit, I read it as carefully as I could and I didn't see that anywhere.

[LanternWaste]

63. First line of article holds that precise sentiment while it cowers behind implication...

First line of article holds that precise sentiment while it simultaneously cowers behind implication...

"Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights, the chairman of the party's campaign arm in the House said in an interview with The Hill..."

But I can certainly understand being unable to see anything which doesn't carefully validate a bias, regardless of your alleged yet irrelevant admissions.

[DefenseLawyer]

66. I don't think you understand how the government works

That leaves you at a distinct disadvantage in this discussion.

[stonecutter357]

53. K&R

[vi5]

54. I'm wondering if there's any cross section....

....of the folks who were saying some variation of "Any dem is a good dem!!!" when people were complaining about the economic rightward shift that we were told we HAVE to accept from our candidates and those who are now saying "NEVER!!!!" when we are being told we have to "accept" the rightward shift and support pro-life candidates.

And would never and will never support a candidate who is anti-woman and/or anti-choice. But I also think it's just as reasonable to draw a hard line on economic issues as well.

The point is that the party as a whole HAS to stand for certain things. We've been eaten away at the edges to the point where if we don't stand for anything across the board we will continue to be perceived as the weak party that will just say and do anything.

[Eliot Rosewater]

56. When the GOP maintains the house, senate and WH in 2018, I might need

a place to live.

I better start looking now.

[niyad]

57. for those who are having trouble understanding this basic concept, an excellent OP:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029400358

[Greybnk48]

67. Seems clear enough to me. I won't vote anti-women, period.

I don't care if they say they're a Democrat. They will not get my vote if they don't support human rights for women. That's not the Democratic Party I am familiar with.

[still_one]

72. Devil's advocate. So in the race between Bob Casey and Rick Santorum, a person who

believed that Choice was one of the key issues in supporting or not supporting a candidate, that person would not vote for either the Democratic or the republican candidate in that case?

[ebbie15644]

77. Bob Casey has not ever voted to restrict my rights and has

made it very clear that he separates his religious beliefs from his duty to represent all PA

[still_one]

83. That is actually not factual. He Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines

He has always stated that Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned
Opposes public funding of abortion
Opposes Woman’s Right to Abortion:
Opposes Tax-Funded Abortion:

Have you hear of the case Planned Parenthood verses Casey? It was a landmark case argued before the Supreme Court, and it was a 5 to 4 ruling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/casey.html

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bob_Casey.htm

[ebbie15644]

87. Casey V Planned Parenthood was Bob Casey's father

[ebbie15644]

88. http://www.pennlive.com/capitol-notebook/2017/06/planned_parenthood_must_be_pro.html

Bob Casey has abandoned his father's pro-life legacy once again. He has traded his father's legacy of supporting life for the support of Planned Parenthood, Democrat party bosses, and D.C. special interests like the Center for American Progress," the statement reads.

[still_one]

93. Thanks. Then that is recent development, because when he ran against Santorum he was anti-choice

Regardless, good for him

[ebbie15644]

96. Your welcome, I also had concerns at first but he has turned out

to be a champion

[geek tragedy]

70. I would certainly hope no one's going to tell you how to vote nt

[Ms. Toad]

75. Not hard at all, as a personal stance. But if LGBT individuals had taken such a stance,

we would have had no presidential candidate to vote for until 2012.

I chose to vote for Democrats who would take my rights away - multiple times - Democrats who were more actively, and more personally, taking away my rights than many on the "never pro-life" posters are having their rights taken away by people who are personally opposed to abortion but - as a political position - are pro-choice.

It's not as if this is the first time a choice between supporting a candidate with an abhorrent position on a single issue - and preventing a candidate who has - in a much broader sense - ahorrent positions.

I support your choice not to vote for someone based on a single issue. But please don't insist that it is the only reasonable position, becuase many of us have had to put our rights in the back seat for decades (in my case - 3 decades) for the sake of the wider good. AND when we complained about the position of Democrats on issues of LGBT rights, we were told to stop whining about our special pony, and (among other things) blamed for Kerry's loss because we were too vocal.

[ebbie15644]

76. exactly!

[MuseRider]

79. Seems pretty straightforward to me

and we mean it.

Never.

[LAS14]

89. It depends on the alternative. We have to weigh all issues.

[niyad]

97. I willl NEVEr VOTE for somebody who will vote to take away my rights. I will NEVER give MY

permission or approval (because THAT is what your vote is) to a person who says I don't have a right to exist in autonomy.

[LAS14]

99. And so you won't vote at all, since the opponent will want to take away those same rights, plus...

... a lot of other really awful stuff.

That's how we got Trump. By saying "never."

[niyad]

101. there are other options, but hey, thanks for blaming me for trump.

so, voting for an asshole who denies my right to reproductive autonomy is a good thing? REALLLLLYYYYYYY?? explain to me how that works.

[LAS14]

109. See my response #99 for the requested explanation. nt

[taught_me_patience]

104. That's why Republicans win

Evangelicals held their nose and voted for Trump... he delivered Gorsuch to the Supreme court and will deliver many more wacko judges to other courts. Way to cut off your nose to spite your face. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is better than the alternative.

[niyad]

107. NICE TRY

[JoeStuckInOH]

113. They don't need YOUR PERMISSION!!1!! to take your rights away...

All the republicans need for you to do is stay home.
They thank you for your complicity.

[niyad]

114. NICE TRY

[Wiseman32218]

91. If we abandon our core values we have nothing!!!!!!!!!

The all inclusive tent needs to respect our basic beliefs!!!!!!

[LAS14]

100. And so we don't vote and a Republican with many more unconscionable positions...

... gets elected. I just don't understand this reasoning.

[Orsino]

98. Not at all hard to undertand...

...but it may put one at odds with "not allowing the worst candidate to take office."

Holding one's nose and voting for the lesser of two evils is a worthy goal, too...but I won't ask you to do it. You are probably well aware that a Republican candidate wouldn't stop with one set of rights, and will fuck you over in many other ways.

You have a responsibility to vote for the best candidates, but our party also has a responsibility not to run jackholes who are ready to hurt you.

Best wishes.

[niyad]

103. the responsibility of the party not to run these jackasses is indeed all-important.

[populistdriven]

102. The Wedge Politics Part - Which is designed to do precisely that! nt

[taught_me_patience]

105. Progressive purity

it's why we continuously lose.

[tonedevil]

111. ConservaDem...

cowardice is why we continuously lose.

[brooklynite]

106. What part of "the Democratic Party isn't supporting such candidates" is so hard to get?

We have pro-life Democrats in office; they don't impose their views on others.

[niyad]

108. from the dccc:

Abortion rights were notably absent from the party’s new policy push announced last week, meant to unify the party around an agenda outside of opposition to Trump. That plan, called “A Better Deal,” focused on economic policy largely related to jobs, wages and reducing the burden on families.

[brooklynite]

110. Where did the Party statement say anything about DENYING abortion rights?

This is about messaging, not policy making.

[JoeStuckInOH]

112. The part that in some regions, the only choices ARE anti-choice (D) vs. an anti-choice (R)

given the choice, I'd vote for an anti-choice (D) over an anti-choice (R) to help make sure the (R) losses... every time.

a) on other issues, the (D) should be expected to caucus with other dems. That republican will always be against you on everything.

b) On the issue of women's rights, a democratic majority ensures no anti-choice legislation even comes to the floor... so a few members of the democratic caucus being anti-choice amount to a big fat nothing burger. But if you stay home and let republicans win, then anti-choice issues will come up for vote often.