ummm. Dems have held majorities. And we have also at time held majority of governorships.

[boston bean]

And we did it without fucking women over.

[Tiggeroshii]

1. Because having some pro life candidates in he majority

Doesn't directly equate to fucking women over. Given how the party itself is pro choice. By caucusing with Democrats pro life candidates are supporting that agenda indirectly anyways.

[mercuryblues]

3. they are not, I repeat they are not

pro life. They are Anti-choice. They can give 2 shits about the leaches and moochers the second a fetus takes a breath.

[Tiggeroshii]

6. Having some anti choice candidate in the party doesn't directly equate to

"fucking women over" either.

[mercuryblues]

2. No fucking shit

Love it when men tell us that anti-choice candidates must be accepted. But they aren't willing to give up any rights for Dem majorities.

One more time for the hard of hearing. I'll even type slow.

WITHOUT THE VERY BASIC RIGHT OVER HER OWN BODY, NO OTHER RIGHTS MATTER. A WOMAN HAS NO FREEDOM IF SHE IS DENIED BODY AUTONOMY.

[mcar]

4. Thank you!

I canot believe what I'm reading here today.

[Me.]

5. THANK YOU BEAN

The perfect counter-point

[DoodAbides]

7. Everything unusual, unprecedented happened in 2016.

Still, The first woman nominee of the Democratic Party received 3 million more votes.

It is people outside the Democratic base that are using these arguments to weaken the Democratic Party. I hope we can stand strong and united against this.