It's about basic human rights not special rights
The DCCC proposal to court anti-choice candidates has created a big dust up here and everywhere else.
Why do we continue to have this debate?
If you think we should court anti-choice candidates I ask you this question: what rights are negotiable to you? What other rights are you willing to give up?
LGBT rights?
Global warming?
Women's right to vote?
PoC voting rights?
If any or all seem like a ridiculous question than I ask another question:
Why are they ridiculous but a women's basic human rights negotiable?
Sometimes the argument is "it's their personal beliefs not how they vote"
Ok
So if you knew a Democratic candidate personally hated people of color or someone that identifies as LGBT, but "promised" to be supportive of them, would you still support them as a candidate because they have a "D" after their name?
My point is that it cannot just be about getting a person that claims to be a Democrat but personally does not support basic human rights for everyone, elected to office.
Most importantly, It is not a partisan issue. Supporting basic human rights, like a women's ability to obtain reproductive healthcare or an LGBT person's ability to marry who they love, does not make someone a "Democrat" it makes them a human being.
= new reply since forum marked as read
