Support NeoGAF

[PBY]

I'm not defending the position. But I am saying that the difference between a pro-life Republican governor and a pro-life Democratic governor, especially in a red state, is that one will actively restrict and punish women and cut funding for their health care, and the other will not.

This isn't a real choice though!

The only sort of grey area I see are legacy Dems who have run on a specific position over their career and have been in power on such positions, given the parties eventual coalescing around this firm position. And even there, I really think the party should push these people to change their position or cut off funding.

Its a basic human right. The opposite position is fundamentally sexist.

 

[Blader]

Why do people consider this position 'pro-life'?

Would a pro-life voter consider that a pro-life position? Of course not. So therefore it's very clearly not a pro-life position. Democrats have to stop trying to reclaim terms and words that have been tainted by the GOP.

If the Kaine/Biden position was 'pro-life,' the Democrats would clearly be a pro-life party and abortion would never be a political issue every again. That's clearly not the case.

Democrats are not pro-life and THAT IS OKAY.

/rant

Okay, I wasn't arguing whether or not it's acceptable for Dems to support abortion rights, just wanted clarity on the 'pro-life Democrat' term was being thrown around in this instance.

 

[jtb]

Okay, I wasn't arguing whether or not it's acceptable for Dems to support abortion rights, just wanted clarity on the 'pro-life Democrat' term was being thrown around in this instance.

Oh, I know. That rant wasn't directed at you, more at neogaf dot com in general.

More of an extension of what you were saying - which is that people fundamentally do not understand what the label 'pro-life' means because they think it means anything other than anti-choice.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Pretend they don't exist and hope no one writes a Medium article about them.

Pretty much. Their votes will never matter since the issue won't ever come up to a vote in a Democrat controlled congress, and so it's just a matter of what "feels" good instead of what actually ends up doing the most good.

It doesn't matter how many pro-life Democrats are in the house. Nancy Pelosi controlling the bills that get voted on means abortion and other women's health issues will always be safe.

 

[PBY]

God I hate purity test bullshit.
.

Lets go ahead and run a racist, because certain demographics want it!

Pretty much. Their votes will never matter since the issue won't ever come up to a vote in a Democrat controlled congress, and so it's just a matter of what "feels" good instead of what actually ends up doing the most good.

It doesn't matter how many pro-life Democrats are in the house. Nancy Pelosi controlling the bills that get voted on means abortion and other women's health issues will always be safe.

This is why people fucking hate Democrats!!!! Throwing women under the bus for strategic reasons, then telling them it really will be okay, is fundamentally bullshit. It shows you don't actually think this is a basic right.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I feel like the mere fact that the messaging got twisted from "we're not gonna turn away anybody" to "Dems are recruiting anti-choice candidates!!!" so quickly is kind of a sign that the original idea was a bad one, tbh.

 

[benicillin]

From now on we should only talk about a candidate being pro-choice or anti-choice. Pro-life and anti-abortion are garbage terms invented by Republican think tanks.

 

[Fenderputty]

Lets go ahead and run a racist, because certain demographics want it!


This is why people fucking hate Democrats!!!!

It's almost like you didn't just read the Manchin example. You're the embodiment of everything I hate on the left right now.

 

[PBY]

It's almost like you didn't just read the Manchin example. You're the embodiment of everything I hate on the left right now.

And yet the left gets tagged with sexism. This is real sexism man. In no universe is this negotiable.

 

[jtb]

From now on we should only talk about a candidate being pro-choice or anti-choice. Pro-life and anti-abortion are garbage terms invented by Republican think tanks.

Exactly. Stop trying to reclaim this Orwellian doublespeak bullshit. We can't win fighting on the Republican's turf.

 

[PBY]

Exactly. Stop trying to reclaim this Orwellian doublespeak bullshit. We can't win fighting on the Republican's turf.

This. Dems are pro-choice. That is the line.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

This is why people fucking hate Democrats!!!! Throwing women under the bus for strategic reasons, then telling them it really will be okay, is fundamentally bullshit. It shows you don't actually think this is a basic right.

Working towards a Democrat controlled house that will do everything in its power to protect women doesn't really seem like throwing women under the bus.

Once you realize that 3-5 votes in the House amount to nothing other than +5 towards Nancy Pelosi being in charge, you realize that issues that are big issues on a larger scale are not really all that important that specific candidates follow those issues. A handful of Democrats being pro-life aren't going to fundamentally change women's health in this country.

But what will change it is a GOP controlled congress.

It's numbers. And we need that +3-5 congressmen.

 

[Holmes]

This isn't a real choice though!

The only sort of grey area I see are legacy Dems who have run on a specific position over their career and have been in power on such positions, given the parties eventual coalescing around this firm position. And even there, I really think the party should push these people to change their position or cut off funding.

Its a basic human right. The opposite position is fundamentally sexist.

This was literally a real choice in the 2015 Louisiana gubernatorial election! And was also a real choice in the Kentucky gubernatorial election that year too because Conway certainly wanted everyone to know that he wanted abortions to be as rare or non-existant as possible.

 

[PBY]

Working towards a Democrat controlled house that will do everything in its power to protect women doesn't really seem like throwing women under the buss.

Once you realize that 3-5 votes in the House amount to nothing other than +5 towards Nancy Pelosi being in charge, you realize that issues that are big issues on a larger scale are not really all that important that specific candidates follow those issues. A handful of Democrats being pro-life aren't going to fundamentally change women's health in this country.

But what will change it is a GOP controlled congress.

It's numbers. And we need that +3-5 congressmen.

1. This pragmatism sells your base and your principles for cheap votes from sexists. Fucking rad.

2. You have yet to prove that this even actually is a strategic benefit.

 

[Fenderputty]

And yet the left gets tagged with sexism. This is real sexism man. In no universe is this negotiable.

What the hell does this have to do with the Manchin example? You decry pragmatism and scream at socially moderate dems, all while ignoring that it was moderate Dems in red states that helped save the ACA.

 

[smokeymicpot]

SIREN: US to test an intercontinental ballistic missile Wednesday as tensions rise with North Korea:

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/892431857228406784

Seems like a smart idea.

 

[Barzul]

@sarahkliff

News: told to expect an announcement about bipartisan Senate health care hearings at top of today’s 2:30 HELP Committee hearing.

Wonder if this will lead to actual fixes to the law. I'm fine with the medical device tax being repealed and employer mandate loosened slightly if it means we can get a reinsurance fund and take away CSR payment responsibility from the executive.

 

[benicillin]

I still have a really hard time believing that someone would vote for an anti-choice democrat who would otherwise vote for an anti-choice republican when the party platform is pro-choice. Like I'm not really sure who that would be fooling.

 

[Fenderputty]

Wonder if this will lead to actual fixes to the law. I'm fine with the medical device tax being repealed and employer mandate loosened slightly if it means we can get a reinsurance fund and take away CSR payment responsibility from the executive.

The mandate can't and must never be loosened.

 

[PBY]

I still have a really hard time believing that someone would vote for an anti-choice democrat who would otherwise vote for an anti-choice republican when the party platform is pro-choice. Like I'm not really sure who that would be fooling.

I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to support this, totally agreed.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

1. This pragmatism sells your base and your principles for cheap votes from sexists. Fucking rad.

2. You have yet to prove that this even actually is a strategic benefit.

1. Okay, but majorities and minorities are won and lost by raw numbers and that raw number being higher than the other dude's raw number can fundamentally change the entire course of the country even if it's just a warm body in a seat.

2. Did 16 million people lose their health insurance yesterday, or is Manchin still in the senate? How could you not see the strategic benefit? I mean it's right there. A major vote only failed because of a single vote. A vote that could have gone entirely different had Manchin not been in the senate.

 

[Poodlestrike]

There's a real meaningful distinction to be had between being anti-abortion and anti-choice. I feel. Wanting to minimize the number of abortions doesn't entail making them illegal, or even hard to get, necessarily. A smarter approach would be reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies by making birth control easily available and improving sex-ed, amongst other measures. I don't think anybody would object to candidates like that running under the Democratic banner.

Pro-life is definitely a phrase we should move away from, because it's really just a monstrous lie at every level. These guys have no interest in making anybody's lives better, they just want women to have as little choice about their reproductive systems as possible.

So you then come to a point where you realize that no Democratic base is going to be up for an anti-choice candidate, and no Republicans will cross the aisle for someone who's just anti-abortion. It was a dumb way to emphasize the actual point (that the DCCC isn't excluding ANYBODY this go 'round.)

 

[PBY]

What the hell does this have to do with the Manchin example? You decry pragmatism and scream at socially moderate dems, all while ignoring that it was moderate Dems in red states that helped save the ACA.

I disagree with Manchin. You assume that he wouldn't have gotten elected if he was pro-choice, but I don't believe that.

WV has a women's health crisis. The fact that he "saved" the ACA doesn't fix that.

Its not a negotiable position.

 

[benicillin]

There's a real meaningful distinction to be had between being anti-abortion and anti-choice. I feel. Wanting to minimize the number of abortions doesn't entail making them illegal, or even hard to get, necessarily. A smarter approach would be reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies by making birth control easily available and improving sex-ed, amongst other measures. I don't think anybody would object to candidates like that running under the Democratic banner.

Pro-life is definitely a phrase we should move away from, because it's really just a monstrous lie at every level. These guys have no interest in making anybody's lives better, they just want women to have as little choice about their reproductive systems as possible.

Being pro-choice IS being anti-abortion. No one wants people to have abortions it's a horrible experience.

 

[Fenderputty]

I mean he's a democrat in an extremely red state and you think his conservative positions haven't helped him stick around? What the fuck is the point in talking to you?

 

[jtb]

There's a real meaningful distinction to be had between being anti-abortion and anti-choice. I feel. Wanting to minimize the number of abortions doesn't entail making them illegal, or even hard to get, necessarily. A smarter approach would be reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies by making birth control easily available and improving sex-ed, amongst other measures. I don't think anybody would object to candidates like that running under the Democratic banner.

Pro-life is definitely a phrase we should move away from, because it's really just a monstrous lie at every level. These guys have no interest in making anybody's lives better, they just want women to have as little choice about their reproductive systems as possible.

Right, but no politician, anywhere, is running on a pro-abortion platform - encouraging women to abort their pregnancies for funsies. It's a meaningless distinction that, again, places the argument on the Republican's turf by implying that, well, some politicians are. What good does that do anybody?

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Wonder if this will lead to actual fixes to the law. I'm fine with the medical device tax being repealed and employer mandate loosened slightly if it means we can get a reinsurance fund and take away CSR payment responsibility from the executive.

I want hearings and input and open sessions on this shit, regardless of what it is.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Right, but no politician, anywhere, is running on a pro-abortion platform - encouraging women to abort their pregnancies for funsies. It's a meaningless distinction that, again, places the argument on the Republican's turf by implying that, well, some politicians are. What good does that do anybody?

Being pro-choice IS being anti-abortion. No one wants people to have abortions it's a horrible experience.

I dunno, it's a question of degrees. I've read some arguments that normalizing the practice of abortion would probably be a good thing.

 

[jtb]

The reason why pro-life works as messaging is because it implies that the opposition is 'anti-life.' You can't run as 'anti-abortion' because it implies that the 'other side' is 'pro-abortion' which is just fundamentally a lie.

 

[Barzul]

The mandate can't and must never be loosened.

I mean taking it from companies with over 50 employees to say over 100, would that do significant damage? Companies with 50 would likely still have to offer insurance to compete for quality employees.

I'm spitballing....it's all still theoretical. Democrats are going to have to compromise with GOP if we're serious about getting a bill passed. What part of the law would you suggest modifying?

 

[PBY]

I mean he's a democrat in an extremely red state and you think his conservative positions haven't helped him stick around? What the fuck is the point in talking to you?

Lol you're so happy to just throw women under the bus. Women always have to take the shit "for the greater good." Fuck. that.

I don't know that if he were pro-choice he'd lose.

 

[Fenderputty]

I mean taking it from companies with over 50 employees to say over 100, would that do significant damage? Companies with 50 would likely still have to offer insurance to compete for quality employees.

I'm spitballing....it's all still theoretical. Democrats are going to have to compromise with GOP if we're serious about getting a bill passed. What part of the law would you suggest modifying?

I thought you meant the individual mandate.

Lol you're so happy to just throw women under the bus. Women always have to take the shit "for the greater good." Fuck. that.

I don't know that if he were pro-choice he'd lose.

The fact that you think I'm happy any of this is reality speaks volumes about you.

 

[Poodlestrike]

The reason why pro-life works as messaging is because it implies that the opposition is 'anti-life.' You can't run as 'anti-abortion' because it implies that the 'other side' is 'pro-abortion' which is just fundamentally a lie.

I'm seeing it as three positions. Pro-choice ("I have no position on abortion beyond that it's the woman's right to choose,") anti-abortion ("I want to minimize the number of abortions but still think that it's the woman's right to choose,"), and anti-choice ("I hate women therefore I'm a Republican.")

You're right that it's not the best name but I'm not in charge of coming up with names and names aren't really what I'm talking about here.

 

[PBY]

I'm seeing it as three positions. Pro-choice ("I have no position on abortion beyond that it's the woman's right to choose,") anti-abortion ("I want to minimize the number of abortions but still think that it's the woman's right to choose,"), and anti-choice ("I hate women therefore I'm a Republican.")

You're right that it's not the best name but I'm not in charge of coming up with names and names aren't really what I'm talking about here.

Positions 1 and 2 are fundamentally the same.

 

[Blader]

Being pro-choice IS being anti-abortion. No one wants people to have abortions it's a horrible experience.

You just reminded me of Lena Dunham's fucking insane comments about how she wishes she had an abortion, as if it were some club she wished she was a member of.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Lol you're so happy to just throw women under the bus. Women always have to take the shit "for the greater good." Fuck. that.

I don't know that if he were pro-choice he'd lose.

I'm not sure I follow how people wanting a Democrat majority is throwing women under the bus.

Considering a Democrat majority would protect and advance women's rights no matter the make up of the actual majority.

I think you believe that individual congressmen have a lot more power than they actually do. No women's health bill is failing because of a few anti-abortion red state Democrat congressmen.

And also, I don't think anyone is "happy" with this idea that there's portion of the country so completely stubborn they can't look outside one particular issue at the larger picture. Wait...

It's pretty frustrating having to deal with a country that's extremely conservative in places. But it is extremely conservative in places, so we have to deal with it while we slowly try to change those places.

 

[Barzul]

I thought you meant the individual mandate.

The law doesn't work without the individual market supporting the marketplaces so that's untouchable. But provisions like the one Rand Paul discussed should be on the table. This is what hearings and amendments are for. Hopefully something positive comes out of it.

 

[jtb]

I'm seeing it as three positions. Pro-choice ("I have no position on abortion beyond that it's the woman's right to choose,") anti-abortion ("I want to minimize the number of abortions but still think that it's the woman's right to choose,"), and anti-choice ("I hate women therefore I'm a Republican.")

You're right that it's not the best name but I'm not in charge of coming up with names and names aren't really what I'm talking about here.

Right, but again I think you're drawing a distinction where there is none. Anti-abortion policies have nothing to do with whether or not you have the choice to get an abortion, unless you're talking about things like waiting periods, parental consent, etc. Your definition of anti-abortion is things like healthcare access or education. You might tie them into the issue as a way of massaging your pro-choice position, but fundamentally you are either pro-choice or pro-life.

Contraception education = good. Waiting periods = bad. But one of these is directly tied to the policy of abortion access and one is not. At that point, you're just massaging the messaging - which is fine! But not an actual policy difference on the question of abortion access.

So being 'anti-abortion' is just a way of masquerading your pro-choice stance. It's not actually a middle ground.

 

[PBY]

I'm not sure I follow how people wanting a Democrat majority is throwing women under the bus.

Considering a Democrat majority would protect and advance women's rights no matter the make up of the actual majority.

I think you believe that individual congressmen have a lot more power than they actually do. No women's health bill is failing because of a few anti-abortion red state Democrat congressmen.

And also, I don't think anyone is "happy" with this idea that there's portion of the country so completely backwards they can't look outside one particular issue at the larger picture. Wait...

You have not proven that spitting in the face of your base is a good strategy to win some amorphous center votes.

And framing abortion as a negotiable right is fundamentally wrong in my opinion.

Where is the line then? Is there any position that you think is disqualifying from being a member of this party?

 

[Box of Kittens]

Honestly saying that there are no litmus tests is kind of a dumb statement because (a) of course there are and should be litmus tests and (b) the professional left loves to take statements like that and run with them.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You have not proven that spitting in the face of your base is a good strategy to win some amorphous center votes.

And framing abortion as a negotiable right is fundamentally wrong in my opinion.

But see, I firmly believe allowing anti-abortion Democrats to win their elections they probably wouldn't have won is the better solution towards progress on women's rights than having a Republican in that seat

It's a complicated issue that requires a lot of thinking, I'm sorry you just want an easy answer where Kentucky will suddenly accept abortion if we just run some far left golden child.

Where is the line then? Is there any position that you think is disqualifying from being a member of this party?

Considering we already have racist Democrats, anti-gay rights Democrats, and basically anti-whatever Democrats already that are helping us protect millions from harm, I'm not really sure.

 

[PBY]

Honestly saying that there are no litmus tests is kind of a dumb statement because (a) of course there are and should be litmus tests and (b) the professional left loves to take statements like that and run with them.

There were many centrist liberals (spoiler alert: FUCKING WOMEN) who were outraged at that statement yesterday.

But see, I firmly believe allowing anti-abortion Democrats to win their elections they probably wouldn't have won is the better solution towards progress on women's rights than having a Republican in that seat

It's a complicated issue that requires a lot of thinking, I'm sorry you just want an easy answer where Kentucky will suddenly accept abortion if we just run some far left golden child.

Lmaooooooooooooo

 

[Plinko]

So even if they have no practical effect at all other than +1 towards Democrat votes for 99% of legislation, and +1 towards a majority, you don't want that and think the opposite is better overall for women's rights

I'm really sorry this issue is more complicated than you want it to be. But it is.

100% this. Litmus tests are garbage and will only prevent democrats from gaining power.

 

[pigeon]

No, I'm acting like there are certain districts that will never elect a pro-choice candidate.

Which there are

A lot of

You want a 50 state strategy, here's your 50 state strategy.

Was Donald Trump a pro-life candidate?

Because I think it's pretty clear that he was at best indifferent to the question and at worst actively pro-choice.

So it might be worth considering why pro-life voters were willing to support him, and whether the same factors would make them unwilling to support a Democrat regardless of whether they call themselves pro-life.

 

[benicillin]

We shouldn't want people in the party who (when given the ability) would choose to enact anti-choice policies in their home state. Like I'm sorry, but pro-choice is the party platform for a reason.

Even if they're a reliable whipped vote for Nancy Pelosi, there are still a lot of state policies that can be harmful to women.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Lmaooooooooooooo

So yea, you're proving my point that this issue is more complicated and requires more thought than you want to give it, and that's frustrating you.

 

[PBY]

I disagree a good bit with Lauren Duca, but she nailed it here:

@laurenduca
Jul 31

Lauren Duca
This is a betrayal of every woman who has ever supported the Democratic party.

So yea, you're proving my point that this issue is more complicated and requires more thought than you want to give it, and that's frustrating you.

What other issues are "complicated" that require more thought? Should we jettison our support of racial justice? Gay rights?

Some stuff isn't negotiable.

 

[jtb]

100% this. Litmus tests are garbage and will only prevent democrats from gaining power.

Bullshit. The party does not exist solely to consolidate as much power as possible as an end in and of itself. The party has to stand for something. I'd rather it be in defense of its core constituents than pipe dream populism.

Should the party support candidates who would not re-authorize the Voting Rights Act?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Being pro-choice IS being anti-abortion. No one wants people to have abortions it's a horrible experience.

I think this is still needlessly buying into the right wing agenda. Being pro-choice isn't being anti-abortion.

Its being pro-having a women decide her own medical procedures. If a women gets pregnant and takes a plan b or gets an abortion, who am I to discourage that or say its a "horrible experience?"

Its their choice. Saying everybody wants to stop abortions seems needlessly paternalistic. Abortion should exist because a women should decide if she wants to have a baby not only as some last resort.

 

[Ogodei]

There are a handful of Democrats who honestly should be litmus-tested out, like that Lipinski guy from Chicago, but most of them are reliable enough to keep onside despite their views.