If only the Democrats gave up supporting abortion, we could all vote for them and their victory would be assured

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maximian

Guest
Why do they insist on keeping this point on their platform?
 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
Why do they insist on keeping this point on their platform?
Click to expand...
Which platform are you speaking of, the one this year, or one from 16 years ago, or 24, or… 48 - or even 60 years ago?

Because the platform keeps changing. Right now, they have a platform that is being shaped by a radical left, which includes aggressively left socialists and Marxists, so I fail to see how one could support them.’

Maybe that’s just me…
 
Yes, the party platforms have changed. Early on, Republicans like Reagan were pro-choice. That changed in the late 70s. Carter resisted the Democtratic move to a pro-choice platform. Since it has changed through time, it can certainly change again. It’s therefore not unreasonable to try to work within the party to push the change to a position that more completely values life.
 
christofirst said:
It’s therefore not unreasonable to try to work within the party to push the change to a position that more completely values life.
Click to expand...
There have been a number of Democrats who have tried to work within the system for several (as in, more than 2) decades; members who carry a fr bigger bat than any of us here. And their success has been… zip, nada, zilch. How many Democrats are running for office nationally with a pro life stance? How many locally? Enough to count on one’s fingers and toes? On ten fingers> Five?

The party has become so left wing led in the last 12 years that Caesar Chavez would no longer recognize it (and for those who don’t remember him, he was adamantly anti illegal immigration).

What might possibly happen, particularly if Trump wins re-election would be a splintering of the Party, with centrists bailing out to the current regime and forming a third party. And that “might possibly” is not something I would bet on - and I trade options.

There is chin chatter on YouTube of people leaving the party. How wide spread it is - that is anybody’s guess. The Party used to be the party of the little business owner and labor; and Trump won in part due to the almost total lack of support, or even mention, of labor. It is hard to say how much labor supports the party; many unions have strong medical insurance coverage which likely would go up in smoke if Medicare For All ever got passed; and it might be interesting fodder for a survey of laborers as to how they would feel funding free college for all when their taxes would go up significantly to fund it.

And labor not only would lose tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs if Joe wins; during the debates he was crystal clear fracking and oil and coal were going to come to an abrupt grinding halt, His flip flop this week is pandering to those labor unions - and I am not sure they are slow enough on the uptake level to buy that - the fact that they work with their hands does not mean they are not intelligent. Furthermore, Joe is only a figurehead; if he wins, Kamala will be president either de facto or when Joe resigns. And she has made no bones whatsoever as to how liberal she is; her voting record (when she is there) is one of if not the most liberal of senators.

So there is plenty of room for a party split, and it could conceivably pull from the small “3rd party” groups, Independents, and some Republicans.

Then, again, I have some really nice ocean front property for sale in Arizona - killer price.
 
I still wouldn’t vote democrat.
I’m not going to support same-sex “marriage”, not going to support euthanasia, not going to support open borders, not going to support rampant nanny state “how are we going to put food on their table?” In the words of harris…
 
So I’m hearing you say, no, it’s not likely they’ll change. If that’s how you feel, okay. But they have changed before, and I’ll go out on a limb and say they will change again.
 
Platform? What platform?

Their platform seems to be cobbled together from celebrity tweets and signs they see held up at protests.
 
If I do (and it won’t be tonight), my reference will be the book I’m currently reading, Voting and Faithfulness, new from Paulist Press. There’s a chapter in there that explains how the parties basically switched positions in the 70s, with many Republicans changing from pro-choice to prolife, and many Democrats moving from prolife to pro-choice. Extremists in both parties pushed the switch. I thought it pretty well explained how we got in the present mess we’re in, though you might not agree. The author even includes a quote from a prominent feminist, I forget her name (Kissling, maybe?), who now insists that the Democratic party will soon be forced to move back from their extreme pro-choice position, based on public opinion (by and large, most people do not approve of abortion, certainly not mid and late stage) and our current better understanding of science (prenatal development).
 
Last edited:
This is all an argument for ranked voting. Because as I see it I think a lot of people who vote for either party would gladly vote otherwise. The only barrier is the fact that fear of the other party winning out weighs anything else.

If that dear was alleviated then we’d see the more rational moderates leave both parties.
 
I think the Democrats know where their bread is buttered, basically. They know most pro choicers tend to be the ones that more “pro-other democrat policies”. The pro life base is more unreliable in that sense.
 
What if I don’t want to vote for the Democrats because I think their candidate would be a poor leader?
There are a lot of reasons to vote or not vote for some candidate besides the party platform, which isn’t all that reliable anyway.
 
Last edited:
HerCrazierHalf said:
This is all an argument for ranked voting. Because as I see it I think a lot of people who vote for either party would gladly vote otherwise. The only barrier is the fact that fear of the other party winning out weighs anything else.

If that dear was alleviated then we’d see the more rational moderates leave both parties.
Click to expand...
There’s two types of ranked voting.
One type seems to reinforce the two party system.

Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The other can open the door to at least 5 electable parties like in Ireland. (Of course this doesn’t work for presidential races but it may work for the House of Representatives. Though the counting system is a bit complex.)

en.wikipedia.org

Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
One can work to change a party from within without voting for its candidate who has already sworn to repeal the hyde amendment and spread abortion everywhere…
 
ATraveller said:
There’s two types of ranked voting.
One type seems to reinforce the two party system.
Click to expand...
I cannot IRV as it seems less complicated. Yes, the major 2 parties will win more often than not, but I see this as giving other parties a chance at viability but more importantly, to push existing parties towards better positions.
 
Interesting idea, but what would be a reason to vote for the democrats. Which part of their platform is so appealing?
 
Adamek said:
Interesting idea, but what would be a reason to vote for the democrats. Which part of their platform is so appealing?
Click to expand...
The Democratic Party of the past was the party of American working class Catholics.
 
Is a blue vote really a vote for the D’s or simply against the R’s. It’s pretty rare that we vote for a candidate anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top