I am rabidly pro-choice

[drmeow]

My sister-in-law is an abortion provider and Planned Parenthood is one of the few charities I give to.

I also live in AZ - you know, Joe Arpaio, Jeff Flake, Doug Ducey, Jan Brewer, for those who remember him JD Hayworth, and more extremist right wingers in the state government than I care to mention. Due to term limits and public election financing, although it really is purple, the state is controlled by the extremest of the extreme right.

If I went into the voting booth and my choices were a Joe Arpaio style Republican or an anti-choice Democrat and there was a chance the Democrat might actually win, I would hold my nose and vote for the Democrat as the lesser of two evils. Its not like the Joe Arpaio type is going to be pro-choice and, if I'm going to be f**ked anyway I'd rather be f**ked by the person who is not also f**king people based on their race, religion, and economic status. If the polls showed the Joe Arpaio wannabe winning handily, I would not vote for either (write in or vote third party). In either case, I would not be happy.

[msongs]

1. many on Du are perfectly happy with a totally republican controlled house and senate nt

[Blue_true]

11. That somehow allows them to feel important. May be the street protests.

On the night that John McCain sunk the repeal of the ACA, there was a protest outside. Sorry protest lovers, the protest did not do a fucking thing, it didn't convince Kelly Capito or Dean Heller to vote against McConnell's sick bill, John McCain and two fucking republicans with a conscience sunk that bill. Protests did nothing, fucking voting Dean Heller and other republicans that we have a chance against out of office in 2018 sends a damned lightning bolt right through the repuge's picnic blanket.

[k8conant]

27. Make that Shelley Moore Capito---the one who sent me this POS letter:

[drmeow]

30. What protests did

was keep the Democrats strong and united. Had any Democrats wavered, the 3 Republicans who voted no wouldn't have mattered.

[Blue_true]

31. The Democrats were United. Protests accomplished nothing. nt

[Warpy]

2. Nope, not going to vote for my own enslavement

I'd write my name or the name of my Sufragette great grandmother or grandmother or Minnie Mouse.

[Ms. Toad]

34. That's the attitude that gave us Donald Trump.

There were a number of people who voted for Jill Stein, or didn't vote at all, because of issues that were game-stoppers se InClinton.

I voted for Clinton despite significant differences with her views, becase, push comes to shove, once we get past the primary I will vote for the major party candidate (i.e. a chance to win) whose views are most consistent with mine.

[Warpy]

35. False equivalency and you know it

Yeah, right, a personality contest is perfectly equivalent to enslaving half the human race.

Go away.

[Ms. Toad]

39. No. There are significant issues on which many differed with Clinton

Some of those, the ones who refused to see the bigger picture of what a Republican president would mean, voted third party, did not vote, or wrote in someone other than Clinton.

Personally, I find her tendency to see military force - including the execution of Bin Laden - as a viable early option inconsistent with my beliefs. I voted for her anyway, because there was no contest when I weighed all of what Clinton would bring to the job against what Trump would bring to the job - despte my knowledge that she would turn to military force far earlier than I believe is appropriate.

As unacceptable as it is to impose restrictions, or even outright bans, on abortion doing so is not "enslaving half the human race," voting, against my personal beliefs, for someone who would use military force that would result in the death of untold individuals in the Middle East - or even outright assassination in which she has already been a participant certainly is equivalent ot voting for someone with whom I differ on the issue of abortion.

[Control-Z]

3. That doesn't sound "rabidly pro-choice" to me. eom

[drmeow]

4. You are conflating

"rabidly pro-choice" with "single issue voter" - they are not the same.

[Control-Z]

16. No, actually I'm not.

Either you're pro-choice for all women all of the time, or you're not. Seems kind of simple to me.

[drmeow]

19. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one eom

[musette_sf]

13. Me neither. eom

[LeftyMom]

5. Are you a woman of reproductive age?

[drmeow]

9. Yes

And I'm currently being f**ked by my state government on this and lots of other issues

[Blue_true]

14. I am a single man, no kids, family that is mostly religious and prolife.

All of us vote for a woman's right to choose because that choice is in a basket of other policy that we all support. As a single childless man I can ask why ask why should I care about choice, or schools, or anything else that benefits children. Life isn't a fucking binary choice where there is clearly one choice versus a second equally clear choice. I know that if I vote for lower property taxes or vote against a bond issue for school construction funds or vote for a person that wants to cut funding for elderly nutrition programs because that guy feel that single men deserve more say in government, I am hurting lots of people. I think broader than a single one or two hot button issues because a single vote affects a wide range of issues.

[AngryAmish]

6. It is not about holding noses.

It is about supporting and promoting candidates who understand that humans who are not white males are not sub-human subject to the wanton killing by the state.

[onecaliberal]

29. That right there

[still_one]

7. drmeow, the discussions circulating on DU right now are not convince anyone on either side of the

issue.

1. There are those who believe that you need to look at all issues, and vote for the candidate that represents the most issues the voter agrees with the candidate.

2. There are those who believe that there are certain issues that are non-negotiable, period.

Ideally, if the only Democratic candidates that won their primaries were pro-choice, this wouldn't be an issue. However, realistically, that won't be the case, and individual voters will make that decision when they go to the polls, and people on either side of this can argue between themselves until the cows come home, and very few will change anyone's mind.

[Blue_true]

17. The person that write in Mickey Mouse.

Instead of voting for the Democrat and it ends that the republican wins by 100 votes when 200 people wrote in Mickey Mouse instead of vote for the Democrat likely doom the old shutin that relies on Meals on Wheels for hot food and a little company, or the preschooler whose only two descent meals each school day come at school, or the teacher who has been pulling money out of her pocket every school year to buy school supplies because the conservative republican majority prefers shifting funds to private schools. Votes are not binary, it does not clearly prevent one thing and allows one other thing to happen - that vote affects a large range of issues, that is the point the OP tried to make.

[still_one]

22. Your assessment is absolutely correct, but no one's mind is going to be changed by the logic. The

reason is they view it as a human rights issue.

The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights act are analogous. The Northern Democrats and the Republicans were responsible for the Civil Rights Act becoming law. The Southern Democrats did everything to try and stop it. In fact Robert Byrd led the filibuster effort to do just that. However, it was the Democratic president , and the Democratic majority in Congress that allowed the Civil Rights Act to be introduced in the first place. That is the value of having a majority in Congress, they get to set the agenda.

There will always be a balance for voters in deciding between two candidates, and those who don't vote because they believe a single issue will compromise what they stand for, are effectively letting OTHERS determine those other issues.

For one reason or another, 47% of the populace didn't bother to vote. Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican. Those 47% who didn't bother to vote, and those who voted third party, effectively let those OTHERS decide who would occupy the WH and have the majority in Congress.

The majority of those who are faced with this issue will be those in red or purple states.

[Blue_true]

25. You clearly think through the consequences of a vote.

Didn't see a single point that you didn't nail.

[TexasBushwhacker]

8. It's been my experience

that certain views tend to go together. I've never met an anti-choice person who wasn't also anti-LGBT, and some other right wing views. One can be anti-abortion, some Catholics for example, but not let their personal beliefs cloud their support of abortions remaining legal.

So it's really not a problem for abortions rights to be a deal breaker, because I usually find other issues I don't agree with the politician on.

[Blue_true]

18. Well, you can be damned certain that the republican will agree with you on nothing. nt

[still_one]

10. Everyone knew that the Supreme Court was at stake in 2016. 47% of the populace didn't bother to

even vote.

The majority of Americans are for choice according to the latest polls.

What is wrong with this picture?

[J_William_Ryan]

12. At the state

and local level, a candidate’s position on a woman’s right to privacy is frankly irrelevant – including a Democratic candidate.

The Federal Constitution protects a woman’s right to decide whether to have a child or not, regardless what state laws might be enacted, regardless whether a Democrat or Republican votes in support of such state laws.

So by all means vote for Democratic candidates – including those hostile to privacy rights – because the Republican candidate certainly is, in addition to being wrong on the rest of the issues.

[Blue_true]

20. A republican who wins a US Senate seat in a local election can determine the next USSC Justice.

The US Senate vote is local. The republican representative or State Senator who you don't prevent from getting to state government will likely vote to put in place extreme laws against women's clinics. You don't vote in isolation, the two or three things you may disagree with the democrat on are one of hundreds of issues that the person that wins will make decisions on.

[still_one]

23. at the minimum that should have been the main issue to vote for Hillary and a Democratic Congress

[eShirl]

15. It'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for an anti-choice candidate.

We have to STAND for what we BELIEVE in.

[loyalsister]

21. I get that

How pro-choice is a person who votes for someone who supports abortion rights but oppses all forms of afirmative action, any kind of social assistance that ultimately provide opportunities and choices?
I am open to seeing what it means when these candidates say prolife, and opening the tent to see if more people want to join us and find a way to work through some nuances that actually may actually result in common ground.

[NastyRiffraff]

24. The scenario you posted

is NOT what the "pro-choice isn't as important as winning" crowd here on DU. They're not talking about a done deal; a candidate who's already on the ballot. They're talking about supporting anti-choice candidates because, you know, winning. I get that we can't always have the candidate we want, and I, too, would hold my nose and vote for the Democrat in the situation you describe.

But dammit, I'd fight with everything I have to get a pro-choice candidate on the ballot.

[drmeow]

26. I agree - eom

[OregonBlue]

28. I am too. I'm a 68 year old woman and I am so pissed that we are going through this again.

I've was burning bras in 1968 but never believed I'd need to still be doing it in 2017. I hate Religious Republicans. They are the worlds biggest hypocrites.

[liquid diamond]

32. I agree.

I posted in another thread about this topic. I asked if those who wouldn't vote for a pro life dem would rather lose one right or four rights. Those who say they would rather let a republican win instead of voting for a pro life democrat are not thinking rationally but emotionally. Period. There is no logic in taking four political blows instead of just one.

Their thinking reminds me of those voters who said the lesser of two evils (Hillary) is still evil and sat out the 2016 election. Because they didn't agree with Hillary on a few issues, they burned down our whole house. Now we have lost the Supreme Court and will face another 7 and a half years of a trump presidency. But hey! At least you stood up (by sitting out) for your principles!

[drmeow]

37. I was also noticing the parallels

between the never Hillary attitude and the never anti-choice attitude. Yes, it would piss the f**k out of me if I had to vote for an anti-choice dem but if they support policies which tax the rich, help the poor and support the safety net, welcome immigrants, protect the environment, support access to health care and health insurance for everyone, and other progressive causes I'll suck it up. That does not mean I won't bitch at them the entire time they are in office about their anti-choice stance!

[liquid diamond]

38. This. So much this.

I would also add that a pro life democrat doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing an anti-abortion bill in congress. They would be outvoted and ostracized by pro choice democrats.

Purists sat out 2016 and we lost the Supreme Court. Ginsburg won't likely live through a trump term or two. Now Roe vs Wade is truly in danger. That is the result of puritanical bullshit that you see posters shouting and pounding their chests about.

[dembotoz]

33. I am sorry u don't think my having basic standards is important

There r generally multiple races to work on
I would work on one that I do not find repugnant

I will not work for
Support
Or vote anti-abortion bastards

Bother u??? Bring out the violins

[drmeow]

36. Did I say anything about

working on races? Did I say anything about your choices? What you will do is your business, I stated what I would do. You ask if your response bothers me - I'd say my statement bothers you ... a lot ... in fact, a lot more than your statement bothers me.