Jul 31, 2017 Topic: #BREAKING: Dem campaign chairman: Dems willing to fund candidates who oppose abortion rights http://hill.cm/tA0Y3zG There's a few schools of thought here. First, the correct one: mine. The Democratic Party shouldn't be one size fits all. Particularly in states where local parties are decimated, we need to hit the reset button on some of these wildly divisive social issues. In some pockets of the country, traditional men and women simply do not need Planned Parenthood services, and would likely vote Democratic... except their Pastor is telling them all Pro Life candidates are evil. We need to get in front of this in an effort to sustain Congressional candidates, who -- despite being pro-life -- likely will NEVER impact abortion policy in a nancy pelosi-controlled House (the ultimate goal.) The question rly is about party fealty. Our esteemed friend and colleague @WPG believes in litmus tests for Democrats, a tactic we often deride Republicans for employing (as well as Nazis.) While I share his belief in pro choice causes, I also believe All Politics Is Local. Where do you stand? @Enigma @Swizz @JMG @reservoirGod If you draft over 800 words in response, please CC: @BigCountry so he may publish on SoundPurple. ps- wpg getting kukt all over: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/flashback-detroit-erupts-into-race-riots-in-1967-w494702
Jul 31, 2017 as for me: i don't think the supposed local benefits will outweigh (or even do much to mitigate) the continued, nationwide frustration over the dems' general spinelessness. i also don't think abortion access is something that should be used as a bargaining chip; how is a woman who lives in one of these so-coveted purple districts supposed to feel, and to vote? anyway, excited to see how this plays out on a staunchly pro-slavery internet forum.
Jul 31, 2017 hip-hop forum = staunchly pro slavery forum all american police = inhumane pieces of s---
Jul 31, 2017 to say that if the democrats build a big enough majority in congress they can afford to have differences of opinion on the issue while *still advancing* the policy in a positive way-- the policy meaning pro choice policy. i hate arguing with sloganeers. "dems general spinelessness" is not a thing, not a thing anybody cares about other than the dirtbag left.. Ultimately voters want politicians who stand up for THEM. and there are much more practicial ways that politicians need to convey standing up for their constituents depending on the district..... i.e. if your state rep district employment is 75% in one industry - guess what - the person who reps that district will STAND UP FOR THOSE PEOPLE i made the pragmatic point about how abortion policy would net out positively ...but there's a philosophical point, which is that having a diversity of opinions is not inherently bad and being wrong about a single policy issue doesn't automatically make one a bad person. it just makes one wrong
Jul 31, 2017 in this instance, WPG, we both agree. Both are correct uses of blanket statements that you throw around. thank you for agreeing so formally, WPG
Jul 31, 2017 lmao thats it. im posting my original thread. ultimately, the actual people who are barely getting by in this economy really don't give a f--- about abortion rights in comparison to feeding their families. *pauses, waits for pauls eye contact* that doesn't make fighting for women's health care rights unimportant. it's absolutely important. sigh. there are lots of really relatively well-off college educated white people **kids ***twitter acounts who VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE and they'd like to give those personally religious and pro-life but otherwise liberal democrats a VERY STERN TALKING TO
Jul 31, 2017 i'm not lauren duca andrew!! i also don't think that you get to say that people who are economically strapped don't prioritize things like abortion, because let's be real, none of this happens in a vacuum: when abortion access is curbed, so is access to a bunch of other necessary healthcare--access that becomes all the more vital the less financial room to breathe you have.
Jul 31, 2017 hah, i understand that the modern landscape of media does result in a sort of informational bleed bbbbbbut that is very easily remedied by those "elsewhere" places having their own *good* candidates who can take their *own* position. it's amazing how that works. Note: the DCCC, DSCC and DNC shouldn't be policy clearinghouses. they should be providing infrastructural support to the candidates who want to thrive under the mantle of the democratic party BTW you're right that none of this happens in a vacuum; if democrats retook full control of the federal gov't the financial pressures would be remedied in myriad ways.....through a full range of policy decisions including better coverage of health care *including womens health care* And as you know, birth control is cheap, courtesy of ACA. We need Dem house to protect ACA.
Jul 31, 2017 well, i asked you this before: what should the threshold be, to receive support and access to DNC etc infrastructure? how about someone with an 85 from the NRA, anti-abortion, anti-food stamp? what about someone who's...anti-ACA? where's the drop-dead point? we can disparage things we don't prioritize as "purity tests" but at some point there needs to be a test, no?
Jul 31, 2017 Let the court record Paul dodged - i.e. conceded - all my previous points. Lets take a break to remind our forum members to check out my latest article: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/flashback-detroit-erupts-into-race-riots-in-1967-w494702 anyway. re: NRA, Heidi Heitkamp has an A. But wait - THERE'S MORE. Heitkamp has a 100% lifetime rating from Planned Parenthood Action Fund. do you know what's interesting about heidi heitkamp? SHES A f---ing SENATOR ----SHE WINS. BECAUSE SHE'S NOT A COOKIE CUTTER. anyway, youre arguing a bit of a straw man. i think you would be reeeeally hard pressed to find a dem candidate with those views u mention. purists of any stripe are infuriating - its a fallacy.
Jul 31, 2017 is "abortion should at least remain legal and accessible as per the supreme court" really a matter of "purity" though
Jul 31, 2017 let's be clear here. we're mostly talking about whether or not it's ok for people to have *personal* reservations about abortion, not SCOTUS. if there are occasions when elected officials feel like they need to take a position that isn't in line with the ideal to achieve some greater good, that should be ok! there is only one group of people who gets to decide the person deserving of an office ......the people voting for that office. Not Lauren Duca, or the People's Republic of LA!
Jul 31, 2017 this is correct. I've witnessed it in my Country and in people in other countries. it's like, these people have real world problems which unfortunately take up nearly 100% of their daily thought process. They don't have the luxury to nitpick a topic and decide why they don't like it, they are too busy worrying about themselves and their family (as most people do). They dont give a s--- about some pakistani refugees, they dont give a f--- about planned parenthood, they dont try to paint an entire organization and workplace as a bunch of inhumane pieces of s---. Their focus is on big important things to them exclusively. for example low-income households probably don't give a f--- about gay marriage (in my country). But if a member of their family was gay, they'd want equality/more rights, but none would become political advocates pushing for it. its just a held beleif, without any political action. bottomline is that low income people are too focused on their daily lives to worry about trivial things, while high income earners have too much time and they end up whinging, complaining and nitpicking topics. Imagine if we had a war within the next few years (not like its highly unlikely with current political climate) or when NK bombs someone, or when ISIS 2.0 make their explosive debut... I think a lot of people will look back and feel embarassed they were so aggresively against such minor trivialities.
Jul 31, 2017 it's definitely a mistake for the Dems to fall into the type of cannibalization that threatened to k--- the GOP during the Obama era. Remember, like, 2010 and 2012? There were plenty of winnable races that were lost because ideological purity became such a driving force within the party
Jul 31, 2017 Dems can't afford to have litmus tests. It's what made Sanders supporters reservations about Clinton so ridiculous. This idea that you're going to 100% agree with everyone apart of the party is fantasy. A couple democratic representatives that publicly declare themselves "pro-life" isn't going to change the DNC's platform of being pro-choice -- nor is it going to stop them from pushing pro-choice policies. Also, I believe there's a clear benefit of having pro-life Dems in office over Republicans on the focused issue of abortion alone. Like Papa Andy said, we'd be able to protect the ACA which provides cheap birth control. Pro-life Dems wouldn't be pushing as hard as Republicans to restrict access to abortion clinics -- if they would even push at all. It's not ideal but it's certainly better than the alternative.
Jul 31, 2017 these are not unreasonable positions but...can one of you guys then explain to me what exactly the democratic party is supposed to be?
