ok, the party's fine without the votes of liberals in general.

How about the votes of women?

the DUers that blame things on Nader are the same ones that think womens' rights and gay rights are expendable. :eyes:

I'm really disappointed in DU lately. How can these people call themselves liberals?

:shrug:

hey bloom last night i had a guy, a man tell me i dont support womens right. got a real wtf from me

of people who disagree with me on how best to achieve our common goals.

I did not desmiss anyones vote, that is a rediculous allegation.

was "How about the votes of women?"

The 1st poster expressed agreement that that is a valid question and you dismissed it. That is how I read the thread.

If that is not what you think - then have at it.

I replied to the person alleging DU was full of people who think that woman's rights are expendable, which is simply not true.

People on this forum have an honest disagreement about tactics, to suggest that your opponents are in fact lying about their support of women's rights because they disagree with you about tactics is vicious and unfair.

And I don't appreciate being baited. I have said nothing that in any way disparages anyones vote. Nobody wants anyone to leave the party and no one thinks anyones issues are expendable.

involve ignoring/dismissing women's issues - then one could conclude that they are dismissing (at least some) women's votes along with those issues.

They are arguing about which issues we push in what way when.

Now you may very well feel that thier tactics put womens issues on the backburner(and I agree with you), and that is a fair criticism, but to claim that they are doing this because they dont care about womens issues or voters is unfair. They dont see it the same way you do, it is a disagreement, but unless someone says otherwise, they probably do care about womens issues and women voters.

how do you get to........we cant win a fight against this focus elsewhere (not necessarily my view) to, they dont care about womens vote.

this is the talk i have strongly had issue with. if a person doesnt feel good about fighting this guy, then on this board they called dlc, non dems, dont care about womens rights, spineless, rollovers,.....

i think it is an inevitable. fight. lots of shit is coming out, and i am going to be spreading hte shit all over the place. i want to find garbage on this guy. but without it, i think the vote will go thru. i am already positioning what i am going to do when it does

doesnt mean i am not going to fight. fuck ya. that is what i am positioning. doesnt mean women rights dont matter. i am woman, hear me roar, i have been standing up for my rights since, well, forever

it is the all or nothing on this board, agree, or, you arent a dem, you dont support women

maybe it is tough for me, because i can really see both sides of the argument. maybe some cant, and that is why they see it as a betrayal........

Once again I am reading about honest disagreements amongst people about tactics, not goals.

the DUers that blame things on Nader are the same ones that think womens' rights and gay rights are expendable.

:thumbsup:

sorry you are so disappointed with du. might you be feeding al this saying there is a dem that feels womens rights and gay rights are expendable. i know i have yet to hear that on this board. could it merely be your interpretation because you dont like what they are saying

to believe womens and gay issues should be put aside for political expediency. "we need to attract those swing voters, shhhhhh". I have participated in MANY of those threads of which you have claimed you have never seen.

Hell, there are about a thousand just today and yesterday.

:eyes:

like i really wish i could...:puke:

"I've never seen that go on at DU" UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE..

"issues" should be off the table "until after the election" then "we" can deal with them, "once elected."

"Let's just drop gay marriage until after the election"
"Let's give them (reich wingers) abortion and let the states decide"
"Women just have to compromise"
"People have to be patient about (getting their full) civil rights" -
...and that last comment (without fail) comes from a member of the one group that never waited for their civil rights in America

and it's not just women and GBLT that gets this attitude...it's been voiced about African-Americans as well...about Latinos...etc.

In over 4 years on DU, I've seen it voiced countless number of times by countless number of people. It's hard to miss.

many others have noticed this as well. The folks who threw gay rights to the wolves during the election are the same ones who say we shouldn't fight Roberts. Do you think it's OK to appoint someone with an abhorrent judicial record?

Womens rights are human rights. And we're 51% of the population.

i havent heard anyone saying that womens rights are expendable. after the election i know there were some that wanted to dump the gay issue and blamed it on the election. i know way more fought them on that. i also think a lot of those people were just on du mouthing and causing problems.

now if i tell you that i think if we were to lose the right of choice then i could see the opportunity in that in awakening a lot of people. that there are many that will be outraged and many more will come to realize the foolishness after it was done, with the repercussion

to me this is a discussion. to you, i wonder if that is interpreted that i feel womens rights are expendable.

Honestly, I don't believe that the Democratic Party can lose any group of voters right now. The hardest task will be for Democrats to keep their current stances on issues while simultaneously bringing in new groups of voters.

The Democratic party needs to frame its message so new groups of voters understand that it's stance on issues is a sane and responsible one.

Either way, it is going to be a lot of work. We The People have to get busy.

Welcome to DU!:hi:

A very good example of this is Brian Schweitzer from Montana. He won the governors race by stating the Democratic platform in clear terms that won in a traditionally very red state.

He framed a woman's right to choose as a person's right to privacy. He didn't pander to religion; he explained why separation of church and State is important. He was against the Iraq war, and even though many voters were pro-war, he told them how Dems were strong on security.

I can't remember all of his talking points, but he told the citizens of Montana why he and his Democratic values were the right way to go.
No pandering, just straight talk and a pure Democratic platform.

If you run across any links be sure to forward them to me...I will research him too.

Framing is the key...the Progressive message is a good one that most people instinctivly support...we just have to explain it to them in terms they understand. Cut through the BS noise machine.

I have seen alot of these sad comments allover here and they don't seem like real DU'ers at all

:thumbsup:

The worse things get for the * crime family the more we will see.

I have noticed this at most sites I have participated in...the closer one gets to their vulnerability, the more they crawl out of the woodwork.

We need a visual 'wolf in sheep clothing index' here...maybe a color coded BS alert level. :evilgrin:

No pun intended

Imho.