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

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:36 AM Aug 2017

I'll bet we could get more votes if we reinstituted slavery

We should totally do that.

Fuck civil rights. Fuck personal freedom. As long as we win the election, who cares if we shit on people or their rights? We should be more pragmatic and less pure.

Oh, and no government regulations either. Fuck that stuff if it prevents us from slicing off a few Trump voters. We need them, so fuck our values and principles!

104 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I'll bet we could get more votes if we reinstituted slavery (Original Post) Orrex Aug 2017 OP
sarcasm I hope IndieRick Aug 2017 #1
Excellent point! "... slavery never went away, it only changed form." It's pathetic. RKP5637 Aug 2017 #3
I think real slaves from America's past pintobean Aug 2017 #9
Definitely, in that respect, it's a far far far better place to be now. n/t RKP5637 Aug 2017 #10
So, it's a false equivalency. pintobean Aug 2017 #29
Which is totally horrible! Slavery was horrific! n/t RKP5637 Aug 2017 #34
The wage slave bit was used Progressive dog Aug 2017 #33
And then supported in its changed form GaryCnf Aug 2017 #4
It's sarcasm, and it's not that deep. WinkyDink Aug 2017 #13
Long experience has shown that DU doesn't respond well to deep sarcasm Orrex Aug 2017 #31
Perhaps... syringis Aug 2017 #70
I bet if we keep this up we'll get less votes njhoneybadger Aug 2017 #2
From angry white dudes? LexVegas Aug 2017 #6
LOL njhoneybadger Aug 2017 #51
Most arent. nt LexVegas Aug 2017 #80
Yeah, because compromising on principles GaryCnf Aug 2017 #17
I agree compromising principles is a bad road to take njhoneybadger Aug 2017 #52
"fewer" votes, not "less votes. JustABozoOnThisBus Aug 2017 #63
Now that's really inclusive and tolerant. yallerdawg Aug 2017 #5
Which of your rights would you vote to forfeit? Please be specific. Orrex Aug 2017 #8
I wouldn't be voting to take away any rights. yallerdawg Aug 2017 #12
Way to answer a question that I didn't ask. Orrex Aug 2017 #15
Now we're back to your over-the-top analogies. yallerdawg Aug 2017 #24
Equally, I consider the denial of reproductive freedom "the stupidest piece of legislation" Orrex Aug 2017 #27
What makes us the minority party... yallerdawg Aug 2017 #36
When we tell groups that their rights are unimportant, we tell those groups not to vote Orrex Aug 2017 #39
As you know... yallerdawg Aug 2017 #57
You mean in the aggregate, right? Orrex Aug 2017 #59
"To hell with our principles?" Oh, hell, yeah! yallerdawg Aug 2017 #62
Not sure I see how an anti-choice candidate will mitigate that Orrex Aug 2017 #64
I think candidates vocal against choice hurt our message by muddying it/ bettyellen Aug 2017 #94
If you use the "election" as a lesson, you need a better teacher ck4829 Aug 2017 #40
The implication being... yallerdawg Aug 2017 #66
Pragmatism is moot ck4829 Aug 2017 #38
That's the US Constitution. yallerdawg Aug 2017 #67
"reasonable anti-abortion sentiments" MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #76
Well, I wonder? yallerdawg Aug 2017 #77
That is a right wing talking point. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #78
I beg your pardon. yallerdawg Aug 2017 #81
Yes I did disagree. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #95
Rec. nt LexVegas Aug 2017 #7
The willingness to sell ourselves out for the hope at a chance to get a shot at a piece of a pie ck4829 Aug 2017 #11
Lets get REAL here. Which "civil rights" issues are you born with..... johhnydrama Aug 2017 #14
Your question is silly Orrex Aug 2017 #16
You make false equivalence because Race isn't something you can AVOID. johhnydrama Aug 2017 #18
Oh ffs. DLevine Aug 2017 #19
Especially if the anti-choice people get their way Bettie Aug 2017 #23
Again, that's not the question Orrex Aug 2017 #21
How do you avoid rape? Stay inside the house? No that's where it can occur too. How do you avoid lunasun Aug 2017 #43
I hear tell that Bettie Aug 2017 #83
Who asked you, woman? Orrex Aug 2017 #86
By the way GaryCnf Aug 2017 #20
Yes indeed Orrex Aug 2017 #22
The ones making those demands BainsBane Aug 2017 #32
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect GaryCnf Aug 2017 #41
Tell me how I am attempting to drive a wedge between oppressed groups? BainsBane Aug 2017 #49
I am so firmly behind you on choice GaryCnf Aug 2017 #87
Bains isn't "driving the wedge" JustAnotherGen Aug 2017 #53
"George Soros Funded" wellst0nev0ter Aug 2017 #42
This message was self-deleted by its author Orrex Aug 2017 #44
Yeah, it was a while ago. BainsBane Aug 2017 #50
Sounds like anything less than instant Progressive dog Aug 2017 #37
Don't give them ideas. BainsBane Aug 2017 #25
... MoonRiver Aug 2017 #26
Did you just read Bear Creek Aug 2017 #28
Winning! countryjake Aug 2017 #30
our 13th allows slavery,currently in use- no need to reinstitute anything. Sunlei Aug 2017 #35
No. What a ridiculous OP, whether it is sarcasm or not. It's a failed Original Post. :eyes: Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2017 #45
meh Orrex Aug 2017 #55
Yeah, that's the spirit. AllyCat Aug 2017 #46
I'm curious. Would all the women (reproductively speaking) say "Aye"? nolabear Aug 2017 #47
No, I think that's in the Republican Platform, not the Democratic Platform. MineralMan Aug 2017 #48
Who needs to win elections as long as we have our principles? geek tragedy Aug 2017 #54
Compromise has brought about Republican control of all three branches Orrex Aug 2017 #56
No, the party losing white populist voters is what geek tragedy Aug 2017 #58
Name for me the principles of the Democratic party. Orrex Aug 2017 #60
Preserving and expanding the social safety net geek tragedy Aug 2017 #68
The right of reproductive choice is part of the social safety net Orrex Aug 2017 #69
20-25% of Democrats are anti-choice. geek tragedy Aug 2017 #71
Are they anti-choice, or are they personally anti-abortion? Orrex Aug 2017 #74
DNC isn't campaigning against choice. geek tragedy Aug 2017 #96
It's the logical extension of Turbineguy Aug 2017 #61
Post 1984, we have typically looked between the 40 yardlines for votes. It worked in 92 and 96. Gore1FL Aug 2017 #65
If Democrats don't pull it together as a party, the Repubs will take care of all those freedoms and hadEnuf Aug 2017 #72
It seems clearer and clearer that we have at least two Democratic parties Orrex Aug 2017 #75
There are going to Democrats that agree and disagree. There always have been. hadEnuf Aug 2017 #97
K&R mcar Aug 2017 #73
I think we could win if we stopped painting other Dems as the enemy. n/t Binkie The Clown Aug 2017 #79
Did you feel the same way about those who voted for the IWR and the Patriot Act? In other words, still_one Aug 2017 #82
Those votes were a long time ago, and Casey's last election was in 2012 Orrex Aug 2017 #84
I appreciate your well thought replay, and I agree with you, except it wasn't that long ago. still_one Aug 2017 #89
In macroscopic terms, you're definitely correct that five years isn't that long Orrex Aug 2017 #91
heck, dems should run some actual republicans. KG Aug 2017 #85
K&R demmiblue Aug 2017 #88
What I can't figure... Orrex Aug 2017 #90
Excellent BannonsLiver Aug 2017 #92
Thanks for the kick! Orrex Aug 2017 #93
Fuck sitting out an election and letting republicans win. liquid diamond Aug 2017 #98
Please post a list of the rights that you would forfeit for political expediency Orrex Aug 2017 #101
Oh yeah, liquid diamond Aug 2017 #99
That is a silly objection Orrex Aug 2017 #100
JFC, this was just alerted on. People suck. Squinch Aug 2017 #102
Yowza! Orrex Aug 2017 #103
Looks like it didn't work. Squinch Aug 2017 #104
 

IndieRick

(53 posts)
1. sarcasm I hope
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:43 AM
Aug 2017

I think it obvious that you attempt sarcasm here despite the fact that sarcasm plays poorly on this media.
I only rise to note that slavery never went away, it only changed form.

RKP5637

(67,086 posts)
3. Excellent point! "... slavery never went away, it only changed form." It's pathetic.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:47 AM
Aug 2017

Many in the US are held in slavery financially by the system, for example. Imagine a young kid today with no parental wealth, etc. Most stand no chance in USA, Inc. And many are held in line simply by race.

 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
9. I think real slaves from America's past
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:55 AM
Aug 2017

would trade places with damn near anyone in America today. In a fucking heartbeat.

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
33. The wage slave bit was used
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:38 AM
Aug 2017

by slave owners and their allies to justify slavery. They are not even similar.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
31. Long experience has shown that DU doesn't respond well to deep sarcasm
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:34 AM
Aug 2017

Responses to sarcasm more or less invariably take one of three general forms:

1. The respondent doesn't quite "get it" and posts a scathing rebuttal.

2. The respondent "gets it" and offers some sort of enthusiastic, supportive reply.

3. The poster "gets it" and tells me in no uncertain terms that it wasn't funny.

syringis

(5,101 posts)
70. Perhaps...
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:37 AM
Aug 2017

...due to some hesitations on how to behave when confronted to sarcasm.

A psychologist, a sociologist or a philosopher would have brought various plausible arguments to explain this or that attitude.

Is sarcasm a tool or a weapon? A useful tool or a harm one? An effective weapon or a deadly one?

To me, humor, especially in its specific forms as sarcasm or irony, is the courtesy of helplessness.

A way to stay sane when the unbearable collides you.

PS : I hope I produced some coherent assembling. It is hard to translate to another language when this last is not fluently practiced.

I can put it in french if that can help.

 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
17. Yeah, because compromising on principles
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:07 AM
Aug 2017

has worked so well at getting us more votes -

because "running blue dogs in 2006 gave us control of Congress," not "W was the most hated man in America and the economy was headed for the tank," because our additional gains in 2008 running principled liberals don't count, AND because we should just ignore the fact that when the Bush factor was removed in 2010 four times as many blue dogs were swept out of office than liberal democrats?

Yeah, it's our principles that are killing us at the polls.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
5. Now that's really inclusive and tolerant.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:50 AM
Aug 2017


Let's equate reasonable anti-abortion sentiments in a minority of Democrats to slavery!

While the Republicans are stacking the court to take away choice.

Yeah, fuck pragmatism.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
12. I wouldn't be voting to take away any rights.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:59 AM
Aug 2017

I would be voting for a Democratic majority to preserve, defend and expand our rights - if the occasion rose.

Which it did for my district in 2008 - and we had a pretty decent run for the next two years, didn't we?

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
15. Way to answer a question that I didn't ask.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:04 AM
Aug 2017

Which of your rights would you vote to forfeit?

If a "Democratic" candidate is vocally anti-choice, should women still suck it up and vote for him simply to preserve the Democratic seat?

What if the "Democrat" campaigned on a platform of "castrate yallerdawg?" Would you still advocate for him, for the sake of the numbers?

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
24. Now we're back to your over-the-top analogies.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:24 AM
Aug 2017

While a number of people may want to "castrate yallerdawg" the reality is I am sure a majority of Democratic office holders from one end of the country to the other would consider that to be the stupidest piece of legislation ever proposed - and it wouldn't even come up for a vote!

Do you get MY analogy?

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
27. Equally, I consider the denial of reproductive freedom "the stupidest piece of legislation"
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:29 AM
Aug 2017

Yet you would have me vote for the candidate who personally supports such legislation.

And you didn't answer the question: would you vote for the "castrate yallerdawg" candidate in order to preserve a majority? Would you swallow your disgust at the candidate's personal belief (that yallerdawg should be castrated) and vote for him?

Or would you say "fuck that noise" and give your vote instead to a candidate who more closely represents your values?


For too many election cycles we've been playing the compromise game, and we've gotten seriously fucked as a result. The resultant infighting has led to Republican control of both houses, the judiciary, and the Whitehouse. How's that spirit of compromise working for us on the grand scale?

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
36. What makes us the minority party...
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:43 AM
Aug 2017

is our willingness to eliminate each and every Democratic candidate over an "issue," and to ignore what makes the candidate an asset to our party.

This is what cost us the presidential election in 2016. Too many "Democrats" and independents chose a "third way" instead of going with the Democratic nominee.

Let's blame the Russians and gerrymandering and voter suppression - and ignore the real lesson.

And let's start fighting it all over again!

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
39. When we tell groups that their rights are unimportant, we tell those groups not to vote
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:01 AM
Aug 2017

Are we better off securing the votes of a few anti-choice white males, or would we (and the nation) be better served by fighting for women's rights?

Let's blame the Russians and gerrymandering and voter suppression - and ignore the real lesson.
Gerrymandering has been conclusively shown to give Republicans an almost insurmountable advantage in districts nationwide. How many anti-choice white males would we have to turn in order to swing that unbalanced advantage to our favor?

And why do you discount the impact of Russian meddling, when Clinton won a clear popular majority and yet conveniently (and suspiciously) lost exactly those states that Trump needed and by exactly the amounts he needed?

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
57. As you know...
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:46 AM
Aug 2017

presidential and senate elections are not gerrymandered.

As I keep reminding people - 9 months now - if you toss out California's results, Trump won the popular vote in the 49 remaining states, too.

How does the Democratic Party successfully compete in gerrymandered red districts? We only need 25 districts to take back the House? The only way to do this is take the seats from Republicans!

We came up about 80,000 votes short in the three states credited for giving Trump the Electoral College victory. Do you know how many votes Jill Stein received in those three states? And how many more voted 3rd party in 2016 than in 2012? The votes were there. They just didn't vote for Hillary. I would argue, as promised. But we are not allowed to go there, are we?

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
59. You mean in the aggregate, right?
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:51 AM
Aug 2017

He sure as shit didn't win the popular vote in New York, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, etc.

Significantly, he won exactly the amount he needed--in exactly the states that he needed-- to secure his electoral win.


Are you confident that we'd have won those 80,000 votes by saying "to hell with our principles?"

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
62. "To hell with our principles?" Oh, hell, yeah!
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:04 AM
Aug 2017

All those Jill Stein voters? Absolutely!

All those who stayed home because Hillary wasn't "pure" enough? Yeah, them, too!

WE all got pummeled with Hillary Clinton FAKE NEWS! 65,000,000 plus didn't fall for it. Didn't matter if it was Russian BS on social media, Comey, Trump - 65,000,000 plus saw through to the truth!

Somewhere in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, about 80,003 voters are saying, "Oops."

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
94. I think candidates vocal against choice hurt our message by muddying it/
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 02:33 PM
Aug 2017

I honk a lot of this is pushed by bitterness about Hillary being elected our nominee. Feels like some would like to punish women.

ck4829

(35,038 posts)
40. If you use the "election" as a lesson, you need a better teacher
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:04 AM
Aug 2017

This joke of an election has been used to shame people who want healthcare and education for all and paint them as unreasonable all while normalizing the far right and three percenters, the groups who basically think "The Purge" is a how-to video.

That's not my America.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
66. The implication being...
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:28 AM
Aug 2017

Hillary didn't want healthcare and education for all.

We heard you. Yes we did.

ck4829

(35,038 posts)
38. Pragmatism is moot
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:45 AM
Aug 2017

If our country and culture was pragmatic in a meaningful sense, then the person who got 65 million votes would be president as opposed to the person who got 63 million.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
67. That's the US Constitution.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:31 AM
Aug 2017

Not "pragmatism."

Pragmatic would be voting for the Democratic nominee - not an "ideal."

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
77. Well, I wonder?
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:58 AM
Aug 2017

At what point in a pregnancy do you - and the Democratic Party - begin our support for an anti-abortion position?

Surely you don't believe the final question the doctor should ask before delivering the baby would be, "Last chance! You still want this pregnancy?"

Are you saying we don't have reasonable anti-abortion sentiments?

Or shouldn't have them?

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
81. I beg your pardon.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 12:22 PM
Aug 2017

You disagreed with the simple assertion that there are "reasonable anti-abortion sentiments."

At some point in a pregnancy, there are.

Why do we need to have a "litmus test" for some minority of Democrats who believe that that sentiment should begin at conception, rather than later in the timeline - while, like many Republicans, still recognizing some exclusions?

I'm looking to expand the party, not shrink it!

I can include and tolerate 'some' positions on issues I don't support or agree with. I find that to be the case in every candidate.

MrsCoffee

(5,801 posts)
95. Yes I did disagree.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 03:26 PM
Aug 2017

I don't think it's any of your business what happens between a woman and her doctor. And I have only ever heard right wing conservatives use the example you used in you post:

Surely you don't believe the final question the doctor should ask before delivering the baby would be, "Last chance! You still want this pregnancy?"


It's ridiculous and beyond insulting.



ck4829

(35,038 posts)
11. The willingness to sell ourselves out for the hope at a chance to get a shot at a piece of a pie
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:58 AM
Aug 2017

Has become crazy.

But I have something to say to EVERYBODY regardless of their position on do we sell ourselves out or do we not. It's something I've repeated multiple times here and I'm going to keep saying it and I don't care if nobody is listening.

Elections are tainted, by Russia yes, but mainly by gerrymandering and voter suppression. Look for ways outside of the electoral process to institute change. Debunk and discredit the tropes and cliches which fuel the right wing on an everyday basis. Politics is something we do every day, not one day every even numbered year. Don't put all your eggs in the voting basket.

The Trump administration has shown the danger of the power of the executive branch, but it also shows that we have a cult of personality around the oval office. We are at a crossroads here; love for the environment, standing up against authoritarianism, standing with the trans community, refusing to normalize the alt/far right, and saying no to romanticizing war on one side and respect for the office of the President on the other. We can't have both, but we have people, even here, who think it is their ally, who will stand for it, maybe because they think they can use this office some day in the future if they play their cards right. No. This office is poisoning our country.

And if we're not fighting "It", then we aren't going to win. Period.

Funny thing is, I am a white heterosexual male working class person. I'm the person people want to keep pandering to and are willing to throw other groups off because I'm so special I guess. But I've never been so anxious in my life, watching the medical concerns of people like my two year old nephew being on the table or seeing the 'othering' of the GLBTQ communities or Muslims, people in these groups I include among my loved ones.

So thanks for all the pandering (and nightmares I have every other night) guys. It's been a blast so far.

 

johhnydrama

(15 posts)
14. Lets get REAL here. Which "civil rights" issues are you born with.....
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:02 AM
Aug 2017

ARe you born into your race, yes. Are you born into being gay, yes. ARe you born into being trans, yes. Are you born pregnant???

Yes I am pro-choice.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
16. Your question is silly
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:06 AM
Aug 2017
Are you born pregnant???
In certain Republican districts, maybe.

But the actual question is "Are you born with the right of reproductive freedom?" And the answer is a resounding "yes."



 

johhnydrama

(15 posts)
18. You make false equivalence because Race isn't something you can AVOID.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:09 AM
Aug 2017

Being pregnant can be avoided.

DLevine

(1,788 posts)
19. Oh ffs.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:13 AM
Aug 2017

Being born a woman means you might someday become pregnant. And no, pregnancy can not always be avoided.

Bettie

(16,072 posts)
23. Especially if the anti-choice people get their way
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:22 AM
Aug 2017

many of them want to out law not just abortion, but the most reliable methods of birth control.

They also tend toward abstinence only sex ed, which is worse than telling kids nothing.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
21. Again, that's not the question
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:19 AM
Aug 2017

The actual question is "Are you born with the right of reproductive freedom?" And the answer is a resounding "yes."

lunasun

(21,646 posts)
43. How do you avoid rape? Stay inside the house? No that's where it can occur too. How do you avoid
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:17 AM
Aug 2017

pregnancy by rape? Do you know any birth control is not 100% effective? Sterilization at a young age ? Is that the answer?

Bettie

(16,072 posts)
83. I hear tell that
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 12:37 PM
Aug 2017

women's bodies can "shut that down"! Oh, wait, it doesn't work that way.

I think we're supposed to just sit down and shut up while the menfolk decide what we're allowed to do with our bodies.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
86. Who asked you, woman?
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 01:05 PM
Aug 2017

Now that was sarcasm.



I'd like to share my most recent epiphany about women's reproductive rights. This is not intended as mansplaining but rather as an explanation of my own views.

I've seen discussions on social media in which men (and only men) ask "doesn't the man get a choice?" about whether or not the woman has an abortion. And my answer is this: "the man has plenty of choice. He can choose to have sex with a consenting partner (accepting the related risks), or he can choose not to. That's all the choice he gets."

If a pregnancy occurs, then the man can offer his opinion if the woman asks for it, but the choice at that point is 100% hers.


The epiphany part came when I realized how simply this resolves the entire question. Once the man recognizes and accepts the limitations of his choices--and when specifically those choices occur--all he needs to do is respect the woman's decision. If that doesn't turn out the way that he wants, then too fucking bad for him. He had plenty of opportunity to follow a different path when the choice was his to make.

His ego may make it hard for him to agree to her choice, but (again) too fucking bad for him.


This is very much an evolution in my thinking, and I can point to embarrassing DU posts years ago when I hadn't yet reached this point.

 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
20. By the way
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:17 AM
Aug 2017

Centrists laying claim "whatever it takes to win" is ridiculous.

We compromised on health care AND WE LOST

We compromised on the Courts AND WE LOST

We compromised on crime/law enforcement AND WE LOST

We compromised on workers rights AND WE LOST

We compromised on Black Lives Matters AND WE LOST

Compromise on choice so we can win they say?

They don't know how to win.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
22. Yes indeed
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:21 AM
Aug 2017

Because every time we compromise (i.e., completely capitulate) on one of those issues, we send a clear message to the very people who are getting screwed over as a result, and the message is this: "We will not fight for you."

How can we expect these people to ignore that betrayal and pull the blue lever after that?

BainsBane

(53,012 posts)
32. The ones making those demands
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:35 AM
Aug 2017

Last edited Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Call themselves progressives. They call those of us who support equal rights, and those who need equal rights protection, the "establishment."

I guess you forgot the BLM is a George Soros funded plot, so insisted self-identified progressives.

They are also demanding the removal of every woman and person of color from party leadership, because they are all "centrists" and "establishment."

Those labels are meaningless. I suggest you stop attributing to " centrists" positions advanced by people claiming to be leftier than thou.




 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
41. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:13 AM
Aug 2017

And your attempt to drive a wedge between oppressed groups works against what I believe is your genuine concern for one of these groups.

BainsBane

(53,012 posts)
49. Tell me how I am attempting to drive a wedge between oppressed groups?
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:27 AM
Aug 2017

The people arguing those positions are not from those groups. That is why they are so eager to compromise their rights.

How is my pointing out those who are making this push to roll back equal rights call themselves progressive is more divisive than your claim they are centrists? I don't make claims as to what they are. Only to what they call themselves. Progressive means to move forward. These are calls to turn back the clock. I don't believe them to be progressive but the word has been so distorted as to lose all meaning. If the label means so much to them, they can have it. If other progressives are angered by the association, they have a responsibility to call them out rather than pretending others are responsible, which is what you have done. (Some of those compromises have come from the center of the party. The recent demands have not. The OP's post is in response to recent attacks on women's rights. ) People use all kinds of words that have little relation to what they advance. Words serve a purpose, all too often to obfuscate.

You aren't paying attention if you think these current demands are coming from those typically identified as centrists.

 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
87. I am so firmly behind you on choice
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 01:20 PM
Aug 2017

that I hesitate to keep this going for even a little while.

The current battle over the soul of our party - and yes, choice is at the soul of our party for many reasons - did not come from the left. The left is not making decisions about who gets monetary backing. The few remaining leftists here are generally not the ones who are calling for loyalty. They are the ones who heard the same thing you are hearing now when they called for the party to stand for something. If anything, trying to look past that fact and try to pin it not to who just said it but to a months-old mayoral race in Omaha, which is about the only time you're going to find where the left stood with anyone who was even mildly anti-choice, is to ignore the reality that pragmatism - as they have defined it - puts choice on the chopping block every bit as much as it puts single-payer health care there with it.


JustAnotherGen

(31,781 posts)
53. Bains isn't "driving the wedge"
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:42 AM
Aug 2017

She's pointing out it already exists.

If the backing away from Democratic Party principles that have existed since since LBJ took office (The Great Society) and pointing out that a minority view is the wedge creator is not allowed by the self professed progressives - then you will alienate me and many like me all the way back to how our grandparents and great grandparents who COULD vote in the Jim Crow establishment voted.

I don't think we would vote Republican in 2020 - but Evan McMullen should give us all pause. Stand on equality regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexuality or fall. He does.

I also think - we are looking at 4 candidates running in the GE in 2020. All 4 will have a viable shot. And the Green Party is not one of them.

Response to wellst0nev0ter (Reply #42)

BainsBane

(53,012 posts)
50. Yeah, it was a while ago.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:28 AM
Aug 2017

It was horrific. A whole lot of people took aim at BLM after netroots. That was an eye opener.

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
37. Sounds like anything less than instant
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:44 AM
Aug 2017

gratification is a loss to you. Please don't include me in your royal "we".

Bear Creek

(883 posts)
28. Did you just read
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:32 AM
Aug 2017

The regulatory accountability act? Supposed to be bipartisan. Pretty much will strip away protection for almost every one in this country except corporations.

countryjake

(8,554 posts)
30. Winning!
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:33 AM
Aug 2017

You know, the more I talk with people about this, that insidious line from Mister Sheen has continually been slithering into my brain.



Since concessions to anti-choice wing-nuts have been in the mix, to suit the "districts", so many now insist, why not go all the way...let's promote full-on theocracy, dominionism, even...that's the ticket! Support for such candidates will become wildly popular in these difficult areas of the country...for fundraisers, we could hold public stonings or maybe sponsor a truck-dragging or two. Winning! Once all of those red states have been rendered "blue", then we can get down to the serious business of repealing the 19th Amendment.

No. It's nothing to joke about.

AllyCat

(16,145 posts)
46. Yeah, that's the spirit.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:23 AM
Aug 2017

Ugh. If I read one more comment from another Dem leader asking us to stop being purists, I really don't see the point in fighting 45. But I'll fight anyway.

nolabear

(41,932 posts)
47. I'm curious. Would all the women (reproductively speaking) say "Aye"?
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:23 AM
Aug 2017

I'm not planning to come back and say anyone doesn't have a right to any opinion because of gender but I am curious who's thinking in terms of self (past or present) and who's thinking of others.

MineralMan

(146,255 posts)
48. No, I think that's in the Republican Platform, not the Democratic Platform.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:24 AM
Aug 2017

It seems to be working for that party...

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
54. Who needs to win elections as long as we have our principles?
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:43 AM
Aug 2017

Losing is winning!

Sure, a GOP Congress does massive damage to every issue we care about, but why should we do anything about that?

We'll always have Brooklyn.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
58. No, the party losing white populist voters is what
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:50 AM
Aug 2017

brought that about.

Swing voters in this country are white, culturally conservative, but economically liberal. Outside of the donor class, media, and think tanks social liberals/economic conservatives are virtually non-existent.

This is due to the structure of our election system and the geographical distribution of various demographic groups.

There is a reason why states like Indiana and West Virginia produce Democrats like Manchin and Donnelly.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
60. Name for me the principles of the Democratic party.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:54 AM
Aug 2017

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Because it sure as hell seems like they amount to "let's try appealing to this group or that group in hope of siphoning off votes from Republicans, because we can rely on women and minorities and the working class no matter how long we ignore them."

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
68. Preserving and expanding the social safety net
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:31 AM
Aug 2017

is the core area of agreement amongst Democrats.

Not one Democrat voted for any incarnation of Trumpcare.

Cultural conservative/economic liberals are about 30% of all voters. Not exactly a micro group.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
69. The right of reproductive choice is part of the social safety net
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:36 AM
Aug 2017

Any Democrat who says otherwise doesn't actually want to preserve & expand the social safety net. Instead, they want to cherry-pick which parts of the safety net will safely net them the most votes.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
71. 20-25% of Democrats are anti-choice.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:38 AM
Aug 2017

That percentage increases outside of our urban strongholds.

The DNC has a different function than does NARAL.

The party is predominantly but not uniformly pro-choice.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
74. Are they anti-choice, or are they personally anti-abortion?
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:45 AM
Aug 2017

That is, do they reject reproductive freedom, or is it simply that they themselves declare that they wouldn't have an abortion?

The DNC has a different function than does NARAL.
If the DNC is campaigning against the right of reproductive freedom, then they're in the wrong.
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
96. DNC isn't campaigning against choice.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 04:33 PM
Aug 2017

And the way choice gets addressed in polling is usually whether abortion should be legal or illegal in most cases.

Gore1FL

(21,099 posts)
65. Post 1984, we have typically looked between the 40 yardlines for votes. It worked in 92 and 96.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:27 AM
Aug 2017

Our real power is to energize the people who typically don't vote. We typically don't. We did in 2008. We did it again in 2012.

The Democrats going to the center for votes is similar to the GOP's insistence on implementing "trickle-down" economics. They sound like working strategies, but after 30+ years of trying, neither have proven to be viable when implemented, and no one is willing to change in the face of the facts.

I think it was Bill Maher who pointed out, the Democrats follow the polls and the Republicans move the polls. It figures that would be the only thing they can do right.

While the rhetoric is a little OTT, your OP is on target.

hadEnuf

(2,176 posts)
72. If Democrats don't pull it together as a party, the Repubs will take care of all those freedoms and
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:39 AM
Aug 2017

rights. That part's pretty clear.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
75. It seems clearer and clearer that we have at least two Democratic parties
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 11:46 AM
Aug 2017

One which values women, and one which is willing to sacrifice women's rights for the sake of political expediency.

hadEnuf

(2,176 posts)
97. There are going to Democrats that agree and disagree. There always have been.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:06 PM
Aug 2017

But right now I think everybody needs to just agree to disagree and focus on getting these current RW lunatics out of government.

still_one

(92,061 posts)
82. Did you feel the same way about those who voted for the IWR and the Patriot Act? In other words,
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 12:32 PM
Aug 2017

why would you vote for someone who voted for the IWR and Patriot Act? At least that was one of the excuses people used in 2016, along with tat there really was no difference between the two parties.

Ironically the argument the OP is making ignores exactly how the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act became a reality.

It is no secret that the South was controlled by mostly racist Democrats prior to the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Movement started in the fifties, but Washington didn't really take notice until JFK, and it was the efforts of JFK and LBJ in conjunction with the DEMOCRATIC Congress that allowed the Civil Rights Act to even be considered, and that happened because of the Northern Democrats and Republicans. It would not have even come to the floor if the Democrats didn't have the majority, because as we all know, the majority party sets the agenda.

In other words, the Civil Rights Act would not have even been introduced in Congress if the Democrats didn't have the majority, but it would not have passed if the Northern Democrats in Congress didn't have republican support.

In fact, it was the Southern Democrats at the time who did everything to block the Civil Rights Act, with Robert Byrd leading the filibuster, but the Civil Rights Act would NOT have even come to the floor to be considered if it wasn't for those Southern Democrats which gave the Democratic party the Majority in Congress, and thus allowed them to set the agenda.

It would be nice if things were binary, but with human variables, and the way our republic is setup, that rarely occurs.

Here is how the voting for the Civil Rights Act came out:

House Version:

Democratic Party: 152 - Yes 96 - No (61–39%)

Republican Party: 138 - Yes 34 - No (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

By Party and Region:

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party

It might also be constructive to look at 2016.

There were those that refused to vote for the Democratic nominee because in their minds they could not support that candidate because they perceived it would violate their principals.

Those actions contributed to what we have today, and that involves the Supreme Court, Civil Rights, Women's Rights, workers rights, the environment, etc.

When Bob Casey ran against Rick Santorum, no doubt there were those who would not have voted for Bob Casey because of his position on a women's right to choose, and his belief that Roe V Wade should be overturned back then. On every other issue except choice, Casey was progressive, especially compared to Santorum. Those were the choices in Pennsylvania at the time. So the voters in Pennsylvania had a choice, either vote for the candidate that they agree with on the most issues, or don't vote or vote third party. In other words, let others decide who will be their Senator.

In addition, for those folks who decided they could not vote for anyone who was against choice, if they had looked closely between Casey and Santorum's views on abortion, they would have seen differences there also. The position of Casey on abortion was that it should only be allowed for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Santorum on the other hand made no such exceptions, and stated, "they should make the best of a bad situation"

An almost parallel situation occurred in Indiana in 2012 with Joe Donnelly when he ran against Richard Mourdock. Joe Donnelly won that race also, but it was close.

I am not sure why the threads now seem to be popping up that either a "candidate supports choice, or I will not vote for that candidate", when we are facing one of the most critical midterm elections in 2018, but it sure makes me wonder, because the issue has always been there, and the timing seems so convenient.

I have to wonder about those who are saying they absolutely will not vote for an anti-choice Democrat against an anti-choice Republican, if they are even in a state where that situation occurs. I am in California, and I can loudly proclaim that because in my district, and location in California, there will always be prochoice candidates.




Orrex

(63,172 posts)
84. Those votes were a long time ago, and Casey's last election was in 2012
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 12:56 PM
Aug 2017

Not sure how I would vote for those candidates now. My opinion on the issue of reproductive freedom has evolved in the five years since his last election.

His views on abortion are frankly obsolete, and I can't say with confidence that I would vote for him again. I applaud his stances on contraception and on LGBT rights, but I would feel a lot better about him if he recognized women's full right of choice.


still_one

(92,061 posts)
89. I appreciate your well thought replay, and I agree with you, except it wasn't that long ago.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 01:26 PM
Aug 2017

Just to clarify the time frame, the Casey Vs Santorum election was in 2006, and the
Donnelly vs Mourdock was in 2012 that I was referring to.

I think you just said it much better than I did, you're are not sure how you would vote on those candidates today, and neither do I

One more point, from what I understand today Bob Casey has evolved somewhat on the issue, though it is still not entirely clear where he stands, he does support the funding of Planned Parenthood, so things do change

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
91. In macroscopic terms, you're definitely correct that five years isn't that long
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 01:36 PM
Aug 2017

But believe me when I say that I have very much had my eyes opened in that time, and it forces me to reflect on opinions I held in the past.

I can't really fault others for not having made the same realizations, so I've tried to avoid attacking anyone on this issue (though I would kick my own ass if I could go back in time to do it). Still, I only reached my current understanding thanks to the persistence of people (mostly women) who felt strongly about it and who were willing to explain it, so I feel obligated to give it a go, too.

KG

(28,751 posts)
85. heck, dems should run some actual republicans.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 01:04 PM
Aug 2017

seen that proposed and seconded here. mccain and powell as i recall. maybe others.

demmiblue

(36,823 posts)
88. K&R
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 01:20 PM
Aug 2017

There are more than a few men that seem to get off on arguing for the forced birthers... it is beyond creepy.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
90. What I can't figure...
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 01:32 PM
Aug 2017

is why this is the issue that we're supposed to be ok with abandoning, as if women will simply smile and nod and vote Democrat because... why, exactly?

And when the comparison is made to the forfeiture of any other right, the comparison is mocked and dismissed.


BannonsLiver

(16,294 posts)
92. Excellent
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 01:38 PM
Aug 2017

I was worried we were going to get through the weekend without another repetitive hyperbolic thread about abortion. Relieved that isn't the case.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
93. Thanks for the kick!
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 01:41 PM
Aug 2017

Are you complaining in each and every one of the other threads, or have you singled me out?


 

liquid diamond

(1,917 posts)
98. Fuck sitting out an election and letting republicans win.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:24 PM
Aug 2017

That would lead to even MORE rights being lost.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
101. Please post a list of the rights that you would forfeit for political expediency
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:49 PM
Aug 2017

And be specific.


Thanks.

 

liquid diamond

(1,917 posts)
99. Oh yeah,
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:38 PM
Aug 2017

comparing abortion to slavery is disgusting. One can't avoid being black, but there are over 30 ways to PREVENT an unwanted pregnancy.

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
100. That is a silly objection
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:48 PM
Aug 2017

In fact, it's so obvious that I can't believe you actually read the OP before posting your reply. Let me spell it out for you:

The fundamental issue here is not abortion. Got it? Is that clear enough for you?

The fundamental issue here is a woman's right of reproductive choice. That right is as essential as any right that you imagine yourself to be entitled to enjoy. Abortion is part of that right, but it is not the entirety of it.

And perhaps you can explain to me, since it's all so clear to you, exactly how one can avoid being a woman. Can you offer me 30 ways to prevent being a woman?


No? Then maybe you should hold off before you presume to instruct me.

Squinch

(50,911 posts)
102. JFC, this was just alerted on. People suck.
Sun Aug 6, 2017, 08:51 PM
Aug 2017

I think the alert was sent in bad faith, and said so. The reason was "peddles right wing talking points."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I'll bet we could get mor...