I have been a Dem for forty years or so,

[mitchtv]

active lately only with money as age slows me down. Active in Gay rights, environmentalism, and my Union, I am an old time dem. Big tents are fine, I suppose, but you have to believe in something. I understand the controversy with the left vs loyalists here, and lament it. There are somethings that are deal breakers, which will cost my vote or not, My deal breakers are Choice, and marriage equality. as a candidate for me to accept. These are prereqs. you have a deal breaker or am I just a dreamer or what?

[ingac70]

1. Choice and they must be pro labor. n/t

[LWolf]

2. Public education, labor, and PEACE. nt

[denbot]

3. My deal breaker is what is the alternative?

I have been around long enough to know I won't get what I want. My decision is determined by which would be worst, and then vote, and hope for the better alternative.

[WCGreen]

22. Exactly....

[rhett o rick]

37. Just asking not arguing. Are you saying you would vote against your principles for the lesser of

evils? I am asking because I am struggling with the decision myself.

[handmade34]

43. I will vote the lesser of the evils

The problems we have as a society are going to take much work and dedication on the part of the people. If the Republicans take the House and Senate, we have a good idea that things will be much worse and we have nothing to work with... if the Dems stay in, we are not very happy but we have something to work with and we can get to work doing our part.

[rhett o rick]

48. If you base your vote on the lesser of evils, I believe you will always get evil.

I admit living in Washington the State, I havent had to make the decision too often. But I find it very hard to swallow that one should vote for the numbers over the individual. You are saying that you would vote for anyone with a D behind their name. I cant do that.

[handmade34]

52. me too

(although, lesser of evils is merely a word play in this conversation) voting in Vermont has given me lots of breathing room... I have always in the past (haven't missed a vote since 1972) voted my principles and for whom I considered the best person...

this year has given me much reason to pause as I believe we are at an important liminal point (in society; in history) and as I get older I want my efforts to mean something...

[emilyg]

54. For the first time in my

life - no automatic D votes for me.

[BzaDem]

60. If you DON'T vote for the lesser of evils, you will always get MORE evil.

That's what I don't get about people who even see this as a problem (let alone a hard problem).

Your argument is analogous to the following. Let's say you don't like that it rains. Normally, you go to work every day, but you really hate that it rains. You hate that it rains so much that you are going to no longer go to work.

The problem, of course, is that it will rain REGARDLESS of whether you go to work. Not going to work will cause you lots of problems, but it won't affect whether or not it will rain.

In this case, one of the two viable candidates will ALWAYS be elected. You could either vote for the lesser of two evils, or aide and enable the GREATER of two evils. Either way, one of them is going to be elected. You could hate that, really hate that, scream about it, stomp your feet on the ground, or whatever, but that simply isn't going to change.

[rhett o rick]

68. I can certainly see how that would make your life so much easier. So you always vote a straight

Democratic ticket? So the Democratic Party can rely on your vote no matter who they run or what they do?

Sorry that isnt for me. I will vote my principles and try to change the system so that my vote is meaningful.

Actually it is a moot discussion in an oligarchy.

[BzaDem]

73. You are changing the system. To be more right-wing. The right thanks you

for playing right into their hands.

[rhett o rick]

75. Good grief. Your way or hiway. Are you really a Democrat? nm

[BzaDem]

79. It's funny that the person who ADMITS he doesn't vote for Democrats asks ME if I am a Democrat.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror, and ask yourself how someone who aides and enables Republicans to take and hold power could possibly be a Democrat.

[TBF]

69. It certainly could change. Revolution could come for example...

I'm not saying that would be a good change, or that it would definitely come, but it could. It doesn't have to always go on the way it has lately with two corporate parties and no one supporting labor. Strong third parties could come (and if they come in under the Independent party they might actually have a shot at winning).

It is never hopeless, we still have choices, and voting is a very small part of political life.

[rhett o rick]

76. Of course an armed revolution is what the corporatists want so they can install a dictator directly.

It may not be hopeless because that is an awkward term. But I dont see a scenario where we will ever get our Democracy back. We are in a world community now. And our rulers work for international corporations that dont give a shit about us other than steal what resources we have left.

Our empire is over. It's someone else's turn. Currently the Chinese have a lot of influence in our government. It isnt necessary to have a war when they can literally buy our government.

I am not going to give up, but think the situation is dire.

[TBF]

77. It wouldn't be easy - that's for sure.

I kind of see it the way you do though. I think socialism will come, and will need to come pretty much on a global scale. I doubt that will be in my lifetime (I'm mid 40's now), but eventually.

[rhett o rick]

78. I dont see socialism in our future. We are being sold to China and Saudia Arabia.

We will be vassals. Europe may go on fine, but we are screwed because we have so many idiots living here.

[Warpy]

4. My absolute deal breaker is choice

If an antichoice Democrat is running, I will simply not vote in that race or vote third party. I can't cross that line any more than I could have crossed the abolitionist line in the 1850s and for much the same reason.

There are other deal breakers that will get me to contribute to primary opponents, but I'll hold my nose and vote for the Democrat.

However, any Democrat who wants to strip the most basic civil right from half the population, that of sovereignty over their own bodies, is a Democrat in name only and not worthy of my vote.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. Good thing you didn't live in Rep. Kucinich's district...

...prior to his 2003 conversion on the issue.

[EFerrari]

16. Has it ever occurred to you that the pro-choice voters in that district

might have helped bring that change about?

[mitchtv]

71. very sticky

I think I would dump him in those days

[daylan b]

7. My deal breaker is life

"I can't cross that line any more than I could have crossed the abolitionist line in the 1850s and for much the same reason."

And I agree with this statement even though I'm on the complete opposite side of the issue as you.

[mitchtv]

13. must get lonely

around Democrats

[daylan b]

19. It's Texas.

We do a lot of things differently down here.

On DU I'm Sean freaking Hannity. I fit in just fine with the Hispanic Catholic dems down here although my position on the issue isn't religiously based.

Bottom line, I don't compromise my respect for life to fit in. The dilemma is the Democratic party doesn't respect life until birth which is exactly when Republicans stop respecting it.

edit:BTW, it's Henry Ceullar's district, I still get to vote Democrat as a pro-lifer.

[mitchtv]

20. luck to you

"Sean"

[Justitia]

92. and this Texan is militantly pro-women, pro-choice - so I guess we cancel each other out. -eom

[Control-Z]

31. Yeah. My deal breaker is also life.

The woman's. Her life. Her body. Her choice. Period.

[daylan b]

32. ugh.

Regarding "life" - I have no problem with abortion to save the mother's life and I'm not sure why you'd think anybody is advocating killing women who get pregnant or have an abortion.

Regarding "body" - All it takes is a simple DNA test to prove a mother's child is a different person than her.

Regarding "choice" - I'm very stringently against rape which is already illegal in all 50 states. I'm not even against the idea of abortion in the case of rape although it is hypocritical of me to believe children of rapists deserve less rights.

Regarding "period" - The world is too complicated to be simplified into two words at a time.

Hey, I'm not stupid enough to believe this is the place to get sympathy for my stance. I'm well aware of the fact that the third trimester is the only time both parties seem to believe human life is something that is worth fighting for. My original reply was to the fact that the idea a person is standing up for rights in the same way as we did during slavery is a two way street on this issue.

Choice? I'm standing up for the rights of those who will never get a choice.

[handmade34]

55. yes, you are a hypocrite...

if you claim to respect the life of the unborn, than you had best respect that life no matter how it is conceived.

I have come to understand, in my old age, that grown-up life is merely a series of very tough choices and we have no right to tell another that they cannot terminate a pregnancy. If you are truly standing up for "those who will never get a choice" then take your campaign to children already hungry and living in the streets. Take your fight to help children abused and neglected by parents that are stressed beyond comprehension by oppression, lack of job or money. Take your fight to help give our gay brothers and sisters a choice. Take your fight to reverse the tragic abuse our environment gets before we are left with no clean water or air. Grow up and take your fight someplace else where it is meaningful and leave my body alone and my daughter's bodies alone!

[daylan b]

57. Have you not read the multiple times...

...I have said that is the problem - Democrats don't respect life before birth and Republicans don't respect it afterward? Do you realize that being pro-life doesn't mean a person is doesn't believe in everything you said in your second paragraph? Did it for a second pass through your mind why I'm defending my belief in life here instead of defending gay rights, environmental issues, and help for the needy on a Republican board?

What have I possibly said that makes you think I'm against anything in your second paragraph? Yes, I'm of the opinion that the industrialized euthanasia of hundreds of thousands of children a year is a higher priority. I’m also most certainly for gay marriage and more stringent environmental regulations. However, there are hundreds of thousands of people a year who will NEVER have the right to gay marriage. No, not because there are a-holes in congress but because they weren’t given the most basic right of all and the one you need in order to enjoy that and every other right, that of life.

It’s not just about “your body” and that over simplification is insulting. Anybody with half a brain realizes that abortion isn’t simply about giving people rights because at its core the rights of two individuals are in conflict with one another not by law but by nature. I have chosen to fall on the side of that conflict standing up for those that have no such thing as a choice and have nobody to speak for them when their own mother wants to terminate them. Frankly, that’s one hell of a lot closer to anything resembling the abolitionists.

Note: My stance on abortion in the case of rape is meant only to cut off the inevitable "what about rape" red herring when discussing the idea of choice. Yes, it's hypocritical but if we could ever save the lives of the hundreds of thousands of children euthanized each year, we can have that debate later.

[handmade34]

58. I heard what you have said

I have no doubts that you are concerned about those things I spoke of.

I said life is full of choices that are very difficult and yes you are correct that the plight of those of us living here and now take higher priority over the unborn and we have more than enough work to keep us very busy. …and it IS about my body and my responsibilities for my body. I have had children, and I have had abortions, and I am very clear that how I have acted and how I have taken responsibility for myself and my unborn children has been the right and proper thing to do. Pregnancy is not about two individuals in conflict, it is about one person deciding to (or not to) take responsibility for another life. You may be insulted, but I would suggest that you never need get an abortion if that is your wish, you will never be forced to do so.

…and while I believe implicitly in a woman’s freedom to choose, I can respect a person’s belief in life beginning at conception… but if that is your belief, then it is a life, no matter how it is conceived and there is no excuse for conceding abortion in case of rape or incest…

[daylan b]

64. One point, science can pretty clearly prove the unborn child is a different body.

A DNA test is all that is needed. There are no beliefs needed.

There's no need to misconstrue what I said. I'm not fighting for my right to not have an abortion and I don't care about a medical procedure except in the context where that procedure is for the purpose of terminating a life. I'm fighting to prevent the euthanasia of hundreds of thousands of children a year.

Going back to the context of original post I was replying to, would telling abolitionists "it's okay if you are against slavery, just don't own slaves" have been an acceptable position on that issue?

[handmade34]

72. euthanasia is an intentionally inflammatory word... and

I am not arguing against the embryo and resulting fetus being a separate life; I can’t imagine that anyone would claim that an unborn fetus is not a living thing and certainly a potential human. Using abolition as an analogy for abortion rights is somewhat of a non-sequitur and giving the unborn and the already born the same status is akin to comparing a thought to an academic Master’s Degree.
We make tough choices in our private lives and as a society. If a woman becomes pregnant and does not want to carry the fetus to term, how do we react to her potential mental and emotional distress should she experience it? (Hundreds of women died before Roe v Wade trying to end their pregnancy without proper care) Who will pay for the pre-natal care and birth if the mother has no money? Who will care for and pay for the child born if the mother can’t or won’t? Do we use public money to pay for these things at the expense of the already hungry and homeless children? (There are upwards of 2 million homeless children- and many more adults- in this country presently) How do you propose we give them a choice? (Give those children and all others, a home, health care, food and security and then I will seriously discuss providing for the unborn)
Do we use public money that’s needed as a result of the forced birth of a child instead of giving proper health care to our already born citizens? (There are approx 50 million people presently living that don’t have insurance or proper health care) How do we give them a choice?
Do we care about the unborn at the expense of millions of people now living that are being discriminated against, are being abused, are being denied care, are going hungry…….
How many of these children have you feed or given a home to? How much of your money have you given to cover the medical expenses for a denied abortion? How many women in distress have you counseled? How many children have you had to work with that have suffered from abuse and neglect?
I have children, I have had abortions. I have counseled women and I have taken in neglected children. I have given my money to help mothers and those that didn’t want to be. I respect all life and I respect and trust all women to do what is best for herself and her children, born and unborn. Ending an embryo and/or a fetus’s life is a very difficult choice, but it is a choice to be made by the one who is providing the lifeblood to it and no one else. I will care for the born and give them significant priority over the unborn, always.
If your belief is that life is sacred beginning at conception (and that we need to value all life) then there is absolutely no justification for condoning abortion at anytime, for any reason, including rape and/or incest. …and I would think that in cases of medical emergency the life of the unborn should take precedence over the mother as she has already had her chance at life and now it is time to give the unborn a choice.
Your stance, in my opinion, is unreasonable and not practical in this harsh time we live in. Unless you are seriosly giving your entire life over to helping ALL people that have no choice, than I call you a hypocrite. It is a Christian viewpoint that people of the Christian persuasion can practice, but has no place in my world.

[daylan b]

74. Going after me personally does not make an argument.

The word euthanasia was not meant to be used as an inflammatory word, quite the opposite. I apologize if it came across that way but perhaps you are not aware of the definition of the word, euthanasia is the practice of ending a life painlessly. There are a ton of inflammatory words I could have chosen but I choose that word specifically to avoid insulting people. In fact, based on your arguments for choice, euthenasia is a rather appropriate word in that it's the humane ending of a life to prevent further suffering.

To go point by point…

Abolition – I was not the first person to mention abolition and if you read up the reply tree, you will see the context in which that word was used. Is there a reason you called it a non-sequitur when I used it and not when the original poster did?

Regarding “potential mental and emotional stress” – Nobody is claiming it would be easy but I have always been of the opinion that killing a child is in no way, shape, or form an answer to avoiding mental and emotional stress. Yes, hundreds died before Roe v Wade, hundreds of thousands of children die every year right now.

Regarding pre-natal care – That would require us as a nation to step up with a real health care solution, something I’m in favor of even out of the context of this discussion.

Regarding hungry and homeless children – Yes, we would need to use public money to support them. I’m well aware of the fact that it would require a HUGE commitment and would require our nation to put more value in life than war and death. Put frankly, hungry and homeless is still better than dead.

“How much of your money have you given to cover the medical expenses for a denied abortion? How many women in distress have you counseled? How many children have you had to work with that have suffered from abuse and neglect?”

I’m going to answer this directly because you seem to want to seem to go after me personally which is unnecessary, disrespectful, and not something I would do to you. Before I do, what exactly does my level of volunteer work have to do with the right to life of another human being?

I offered to adopt my brother in law’s child when he and his high school girl friend got pregnant in college (edit: I was the one in college). I’m an assistant director (volunteer position) for a regional child and family emergency services organization that you have heard of. My wife and I volunteer at the Haven for Hope. I’m more of a logistics/dirty work type; my wife is a counseling type. Yes, my stance on abortion and rape is hypocritical but you are way off base in what you were attempting to imply with those questions.

Regarding the paragraph on life of mother/rape/incest - And you accused me of using non-sequiturs? I tell you what…how about we get to the point we can save the hundreds of thousands of children who are euthanized each year for reasons other than that and then we can have a debate on what to do in the case of rape, incest, and danger to the mother situations later.

Regarding your entire argument, I hate to say it this way but pretty much all of your arguments have a strong stench of eugenics to them. If you are in favor of abortion as population control (which is exactly what all of your arguments about homelessness and welfare issues boil down to) I’m having a hard time finding anything about the argument to respect.

[mitchtv]

10. thanks, I like your atitude

I , being gay have enhanced that to include equality as it is a closely related issue "my Body,my choice"

[gateley]

6. I don't know -- I feel very strongly about the same (and other) issues which

could be deal breakers for me, but at this time in our country, I think losing to a Republican may mark the beginning of the end of America as we loved it. I think we're working our way back now, and I don't want to jeopardize the progress we DO make by withholding my vote and ending the chance of EVER achieving those things that are so important.

So I'm a dreamer, but I guess that's been tempered by the reality of what I see around me these days.

Tough time in our history.

[PDJane]

8. I'm with Galbraith.

Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
John Kenneth Galbraith
US (Canadian-born) administrator & economist (1908 - 2006)

[upi402]

45. John Kenneth Galbraith - my man

It was edifying to read 'The Good Society' - a must read. Too bad there is no party to vote for that would promulgate that. We are disenfranchised -even here on "DU".

[Gman]

9. Those things are fine "deal breakers" for use in the primaries

But they shouldn't even enter into the discussion in the General Election for several reasons. One, who else are you going to vote for in the GE that supports those things, even if the Dem is only say, luke warm on those things? So you vote for a third party, maybe Green, candidate. Yeah, you went with your ideals, but you took away a vote from someone that may be strong in other areas such banking and/or business regulations or trust busting or against wars in Iraq or Afghanistan and can also stand in the way of a radical right wing Congress. (The key word is "radical", which is what we're looking at as a very real possibility.) These may not be your core issues, but in a lot of ways they are connected indirectly.

I'm all for going after an incumbent that is not liberal enough or moderate enough or conservative enough for someone in the primary. If you don't get them this year, you come back and try again in 2 years or whatever. But you vote for the Democrat in November at the great risk of many real bad things that could happen.

[mitchtv]

18. sounds all nice and shit

But if I have a pol who has voted to "keep me down" I just won't give him my vote. Fortunately there is only one on my slate down ballot a bit, state senator, voted against the issue as an assemblyman. He lost my vote several years ago. the rest are dems I can live with

[BzaDem]

61. The problem is, of course, that you are aiding, abetting, and enabling the greater of two evils

who happens to be worse on every issue.

The idea that you can somehow "not vote" for one of the viable candidates is an illusion. Not voting is simply enabling the greater of two evils. You might disagree with that, but the truth of the above statement doesn't depend on your agreement with it.

[Pisces]

11. I guess you haven't voted in your lifetime, since no one has passed those dealbreakers.

[mitchtv]

17. Barbara Boxer passed

and I have only recently added marriage equality to my list now that we have pols that have a record on this. Plenty have passed the basics , even Dianne Feinstein.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. To me it goes something like this.

Of the candidates running for the office who actually have a chance to win, which will come even a hair closer to doing what I think should be done. If I can't make that decision, then I ask which party would I prefer in power because that party will do things even a hairs bredth more in the way I think things should be done.

There are, at times, very dificult choices, not because both candidates are so qualified, but because both candidates have real problems. When I was younger, I often drew stark lines in the sand. I reached a point when I realized that I wasn't hiring a person to mow my lawn, but making a choice on a process. Governance and legislation are a process. Presidents,congressmen, Senators, Governors, and other elected officials are part of a process. Which group do I think will do a better job when holding the gavel, whose agends will be better are big considerations.

It would be incredibly dificult to find a deal breaker when voting.

Fortunatly, I've not faced having to vote for a complete dickwad.

I cast my first vote in the 1972 election.

[EFerrari]

14. That's an interesting question

considering all the mental gymnastics I have to do just to vote any more.

I actually try not to think about it. Instead, there are plenty of issues I care about and can work on the other 364. Is that displacement or compensation?

:yoiks:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Escalating a lost war was the deal breaker for me in '08.

I will "compromise" and hold my nose on some issues. But, killing for political gain isn't one of them. Choice is another.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[mitchtv]

23. love that Quincy Adams quote

Thanks

[Fire1]

21. Public Education, Choice and Labor. n/t

[Bitwit1234]

24. I am 77 years old and this is not relavant to me BUT

Abortion is what I get upset most about. I am a woman and I can not stand for the republicans and some Democrats practically ALL MEN telling a woman what she can and can't do with their body. What would these same men say if we had a law that says'

any man convicted (convicted mind you) of raping a woman would have their penis cut off. Even men not involved would raise wholly hell.

[daylan b]

25. Regarding your example

You do know that castration for sex offenders is a popular subject amongst conservatives right?

[mkultra]

26. deal breakers are for fools

Like republicans who throw out the baby with the bath water, single issue voting has no home in the progressive party.
Elections are and have always been binary and necessary. You always vote, and you always vote for the best of the options until the voting is over.

If you don't vote, then you are the problem with America.

[ruggerson]

28. why do you have such a tough time with being civil?

[mkultra]

39. i reserve my civility for those who deserve it

regardless of what some might hypocritically say, there are some people that just don't deserve civility.

[mitchtv]

29. I would think

My party right or wrong is for fools

[mkultra]

38. considering voting republican or not voting is whats foolish

Its not about my party being right, its about the other party being wrong. If you don't see that, you are a fool.

[rhett o rick]

50. If you want to make your life easier, vote a straight ticket and never think again. nm

[mkultra]

81. fine by me.

im not embarrassed to say that i would. I haven't seen a circumstance in the past 20 years in which the given republican was a better choice than the democrat. Things may change in the future, but that are hardly close now. What im saying is that plenty of people think they are being independently minded because they are considering all of the actions of the democrats involved. I say that your not considering all the actions of all the candidates if the republican is ever on your radar. Additionally, third party candidates are a waste of time. They only dilute one side of the voting paradigm.

[Techn0Girl]

46. Read ....learn

"Elections are and have always been binary and necessary. You always vote, and you always vote for the best of the options until the voting is over."


You are being screwed over time and time again - and every four years you smile , bend over and say "Thank you Sir may I have another!"

Wake up.
There are plenty of third party candidates out there that support Progressive interests.
You have a choice.
It should be obvious to everyone at this point that Change will only blossom from YOU.

[mkultra]

82. Third party candidates are for morons

they only dilute one side of the political spectrum. Third party candidates are ideological wins and practical loses. It has and always will be the case. I would never vote for an indie when a dangerous republican like Palin or W is on the other side. If you want to throw your vote away, feel free. You're a fool for not recognizing the political reality and its imperfections of necessity.

[Bonobo]

47. No deal breaker means no convictions.

Only a person without the strength of his/her convictions, aka a true cheerleader, would have no standards high or low enough to be broken.

And THAT is the problem with America.

Meaning YOU.

[rhett o rick]

49. Dealbreakers = principles. If you have no dealbreakers you apparently do not have principles.

You have is backwards. Republicans have no principles so they all go along with the leaders. Democrats have principles and therefor object when their leaders stray from those principles. For an example: I will never vote for anyone that gave George Bush the authority to illegally invade Iraq. I am sorry if that messes up your "party", but if you dont have principles you dont have jack.

[mkultra]

83. dealbreakers and one issue voters are narrow minded

and self centered. They are essentially throwing a temper tantrum that no one cares about. A true man of principle would recognize how dangerous today's republicans really are. Democrats are a chaotic mess, but they are light years better than ANY republican. I dare you to claim otherwise and prove it.


Example: I will never allow Palin or McCain to be in charge of our nuclear arsenal. If your personal agenda trumps THAT, then you sir are the one without any principles.

[MH1]

27. My deal breaker is

if the guy on the Democratic line is truly worse than the guy on the Republican line.

And I don't think I've seen that happen. I was snookered a couple times when I was young and stupid. But looking back, in each case, we would have been better off if the Dem had won.

[old mark]

30. I'm 63, and I never found a republican I'd vote for over any Democrat, even

a SOB Blue Dog. I despise their entire party and their attitude toward the working people and the not-rich of America. They think we are serfs and should be second class citizens. If there were a hell, that's where the republicans should hold their conventions.

I once voted for the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for President, but never for a republican.


mark

[oldlib]

42. I have been a Democrat for 54 years.

The only time that voted for a Republican was back in the sixties. During that period California had a Republican Senator named Tom Kechel that the Democratic party was happy with. Tom was defeated in the Republican primary, by Bill Richardson, a John Bircher and I can't recall the year. Richardson was defeated and never became a Senator.

[mitchtv]

93. do you remember Milton Marks?

state senator SF, pro gay rights repub when Dems were hiding on the issue. I voted for him in the 70's I believe, and maybe for assembly too

[oldlib]

95. I recall hearing his name.

I was living in San Jose and Marks, being in San Francisco, was out of our district. Those were different times and you could discuss politics politely with Republicans.

[roamer65]

53. I vote anti-Rethuglican like you.

I despise that party and the people that support and belong to it. Dems only get my vote by default anymore. If we get a viable hard core leftist party, that is where I will go.

[old mark]

59. Me, too - we certainly don't have one now....I wish we could bring back Harry Truman...nt

[mkultra]

84. thats exactly it. Vote in our primaries then ALWAYS vote against republicans

If you want a dealbreaker, the way republicans act should be a giant deal breaker for anyone with a brain in their head.

[stray cat]

33. Are you better off with the GOP or with the Dems you disagree with

voting is the lesser of two evils for every one who votes - pick your poison

[mitchtv]

70. A Dem who has stabbed me in the back once

iS not going to get another chance if I can help it. vote denied, democrats not serious. I've spent years holding my nose, and being told to wait. Let's try insisting on , no more waiting

[mkultra]

85. republicans have stabbed you in the back a thousand times

open your eyes.

[mitchtv]

94. at least I didn't vote to be stabbed in the back by repukes

and it was expected. A stabbing is a stabbing after all.

[unblock]

34. i voted for a republican *once* in my entire life and i will never do it again

it was when silber(r) was running against weld(r) for governor of massachusetts. weld was about as left-leaning as republicans get, which in massachusetts wasn't all that bad. silber was slightly to the right of attila the hun. i mean this guy would set up pograms if he thought for a minute that he could get away with it.

i held my nose and voted for weld, but straight line "d" on everything else.

then weld, of course, surrounded himself with other republicans and appointed republicans wherever he could. i never thought he himself was a terrible person or governor, but i had a real problem with the company he kept.

that taught me a lesson. it's never *just* about the individual. it's about the entire package, and if that includes unspecified republican appointees and so on, then that's a deal breaker for me.

[dimbear]

56. This is an excellent summary of reality.

I wish every American understood this. Republicans are not good for America.

[glitch]

35. Who would you rather march against?

That's the way I look at it anymore.

[demosincebirth]

36. Labor is my deal breaker. I've never voted for a republican in fifty two

years of voting. Every dem I voted for was pro-labor. Of course any dem in Ca. is pro-labor...especially in the B.A.

[CBR]

40. Racial and ethnic discrimination. If someone doesn't

acknowledge that white privilege exists and is institutionalized in all aspects of our society.

[Starry Messenger]

41. You're one of my fave DUers.

:) I have a lot of deal breakers these days. They all seem to stem from the same source so it's hard to isolate them into categories. Any candidate that favors rewarding unearned privilege over access to justice is pretty much on my "no" list. Fortunately, as you say, we live in CA. There are usually good choices here.

[upi402]

44. Yep, be a DEMOCRAT whether in the party -or not. n/t

[Autumn]

51. I will not vote for a candidate who is not

Pro Choice. That is my line I will not cross.

[mkultra]

86. republicans are never prochoice

[nofurylike]

62. ah, i see. you're so pissed we don't get to marry that you'll throw

us to the repukes.
to those who would mutilate, torture, murder, genocide lgbttsqic....

i see.


(note: in mass i could marry, since we worked our butts off to make that so)

[mitchtv]

67. I am married here in Calif

and I am tired of voting for people who will vote against me when given the opportunity, I vote for real Democrats

[nofurylike]

80. there will ALWAYS be SOME way in which the elected will "vote

against" us, each and every one of us.

i suggest thinking of the greatest good possible, given what we have to work with; then working, as hard as we all ought to work in a participatory democracy, to make our party and our elected what they can and should be.


peace and solidarity

[mkultra]

87. I guess you think republicans vote FOR you? then your a fool

The REALITY is that if you let republicans win, they would just as soon see you hung. But hey, its your neck i guess.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

63. Anti-union/anti-labor

To me, A democrat has to be pro-labor to rightfully call himself one.

[Lorien]

65. Those are up there on my deal breaker list, as is environmentalism

if a candidate is on the side of corporations and industry lobbyists (like the beef lobby) instead of standing up for emissions reductions and preserving endangered species then there's no way that I'll vote for them. Without a healthy ecosystem no other issue matters at all.

[mkultra]

89. so WAR doesnt matter to you?

because republicans in control will always mean new wars.

[mkultra]

90. .self deleted

[ThomWV]

66. Choice, Pro Labor, Anti-war, Anti-Domestic-Spying - all make or break criteria

Quite a quandary when trying to vote for what makes it to the Ballot in this state in the name of the Democratic Party.

[craigmatic]

88. All I really want is a dem with balls who fights for what he/she believes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. I'm reading an interesting book; "The Science of Liberty"

The author says the political spectrum is a triangle with "liberal", "progressive" and "conservative" at the corners.

Progressive, in his view is the belief that government should promote equality even at the expense of equality of opportunity.

Both of the examples in your view are unambiguous "classical liberal" values (in his definition) that progressives can agree with. Where it gets more ambiguous are things like speech, guns, pornography, etc.

So yes, you have a reasonable set of deal breakers IMHO.