Which one of these views should liberals/progressives be more tolerant of:

[ProSense]

18 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Anti-choice
	1 (6%)
	Anti-union
	0 (0%)
	Anti-marriage equality
	0 (0%)
	Cut/privatize Social Security
	0 (0%)
	Raise the retirement age
	0 (0%)
	Privatization
	0 (0%)
	Anti-food stamps/aid to the poor
	0 (0%)
	Anti-voting rights
	0 (0%)
	None of the above
	8 (44%)
	WTF? These are RW positions.
	9 (50%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[MineralMan]

1. None of the above, clearly.

[BlueCaliDem]

54. Yep. eom

[The Magistrate]

2. None Of 'Em, Ma'am: Not a One

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. do you think the numbers ad up to form a solid majority based on both economic progressivism

and social liberalism? If we want to get anywhere with a progressive agenda we cannot keep just barely winning - We have to crush them. I ask you Mr. Magistrate - because frankly you think more strategically than I do. Given that the establishment Democratic Party has more or less adopted an economic policy that would have once been considered center-right while simultaneously taking more overtly socially liberal positions - we are just barely hanging on. I don't want the Democratic Party to abandon its pro-choice positions or ANY of its other socially liberal positions - personally I am libertine to shocking levels - But to build and sustain a base of support with working class people, many ethnic minorities and low income people - I don't think that can be done with language that excludes those who have socially conservative tendencies.

[Laelth]

66. I agree, and forgive me for butting in.

I realize your post was addressed to someone else, but, I wanted to add that I think all we'd need to give the social conservatives would be abandonment of our position on gun control. I think that alone would make a big difference and would allow us to have the majorities necessary to win resoundingly in most areas of the country.



-Laelth

[OmahaBlueDog]

3. I don't see issues in a zero-sum-game/black-white manner

So I could see a variety of positions on all of those issues by members of either party.

[ProSense]

8. That has

"So I could see a variety of positions on all of those issues by members of either party."

...nothing to do with the point. There are core issues, and they are not up for debate.

There many issues that liberals embrace and the RW reject. They're anti-immigration and deny global warming.

I mean, among those who want to address these issues, there are disagreements about how to structure policy, but simply rejecting the premise is RW.

Forget facts. Forget science. Forget strengthening civil rights and the social contract.

A troll gets banned and people move from mocking "centrist/DLC/Third Way" positions to trying to justify why RW talking points should be engaged?

Most of these talking points have been thoroughly debunked. They're either bullshit spin of right out of the deprave conservative mentality.

Just because some right leaning Democratic candidate somewhere is confused, doesn't mean these points are up for debate. A woman's choice is not up for debate.

The stance of right leaning politicians has nothing to do with the role of liberals/progressives.

Winning a seat in a conservative area is one thing, but no one should convince themselves that such politicians don't eventually stand in the way of progress.

The goal is to educate and push for progress in these areas. That's the goal with every issue...choice, global warming and Social Security.

[OmahaBlueDog]

12. No, it's not nearly as simple as you say

Not all conservatives deny global warming. Some simply don't see it as being as dire as others do.

Not all conservatives are anti-immigration, while there are pro-Union Dems who see every illegal immigrant as someone who is driving down wages and making their jobs harder.

Is a woman's right to choose not a matter of debate? Does a woman have a right to terminate an otherwise uneventful pregnancy at week 38, or is that infanticide?

Oscar Wilde said it best - "The truth is rarely pure, and never simple"

What I see is a DU in which many DUers seem to a litmus test. Some kind of orthodoxy that allows some on this site to say "you're not progressive enough"...and, in the finest political tradition, they want purging and blacklisting.

Many DUers are happy that DKF was tombstoned. I get it. But here's the thing -- DKF had 2,600 posts in 3 months and not one of them was hidden by jury decision. If DKF was such a raving, offensive wingnut, as everyone here seems to be indicting, why were none of those posts hidden? What does that say about the community.

[ProSense]

19. Again,

"Not all conservatives deny global warming. Some simply don't see it as being as dire as others do.

Not all conservatives are anti-immigration, while there are pro-Union Dems who see every illegal immigrant as someone who is driving down wages and making their jobs harder."

...the issue is not people who acknowledge global warming or support choice. What you're doing is taking the point I made in my previous comment to again reject the point in the OP, which is complete rejection.

"Is a woman's right to choose not a matter of debate? Does a woman have a right to terminate an otherwise uneventful pregnancy at week 38, or is that infanticide?"

Again, you're attempting to distort the point. No one said there is no room for debate once the right to choose is acknowledged.

Like I said: among those who want to address these issues, there are disagreements about how to structure policy, but simply rejecting the premise is RW.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Perhaps you are more Conservative than you think Blue Dog...

[OmahaBlueDog]

71. Call Earl G, I reckon

See what he has to say.

My conservative friends always peg me somewhere between Lenin & Mao; my progressive friends peg me as a moderate Republican.

I never said I was Liberal. I've always said I was a Democrat.

[moriah]

55. Yes, she can terminate the pregnancy at 38 weeks.

Many women do so. It's called going to the doctor and getting induced, or having an early c-section -- and then giving the child up for adoption.

It's more the women who would want to do this at 30 weeks I'd be concerned about, because theoretically the child could survive but there's far more risk of bad outcomes. If lungs are not developed I think asking a woman to wait for a week for steroid shots to be administered would be a reasonable compromise -- and that's a FAR less common situation than pregnancy from incest.

[Marr]

18. And *that* is how you destroy a coalition party.

If the unionists aren't there for the gay rights activists, why should the gay rights activists be there for the unionists?

[Jackpine Radical]

4. I had a lot of trouble deciding between

None of the Above and WTF…?

I went with WTF…?

[djean111]

9. Me too.

There is no reason in hell to be tolerant of any of those things.
And why? Are we getting ready for another "bargain"?

[ProSense]

10. It's like "not no, but hell no." n/t

[etherealtruth]

20. That was the difficulty I had

[bravenak]

5. I'd be shocked if there were many here that supported any of these positions.

Anti choice?? Can't even be tolerant of that one.
Who could be that cruel to want to force a woman to carry the product of a rape?
Or a child with a genetic disorder?
This is one of my pet peeves, people controlling women and taking their decision making power away. Not tolerable in the slightest.

[leftstreet]

6. Any and all if it's 'pragmatic' and helps the team!

That's what I've been told here

If a Blue Dog can take a GOP seat in Congress then the Democrats can pass meaningful, robust and affordable legislation!

Mind you it won't be legislation that helps any of the people the Tea Dogs had to throw under the bus to get there - but what the hell! Go Team!

[ProSense]

11. Like I said,

"If a Blue Dog can take a GOP seat in Congress then the Democrats can pass meaningful, robust and affordable legislation! "

...just because some right leaning Democratic candidate somewhere is confused, doesn't mean these points are up for debate. A woman's choice is not up for debate.

The stance of right leaning politicians has nothing to do with the role of liberals/progressives.

[Hoyt]

7. I can be tolerant if they don't want to vote, want to opt out of Medicare, want to starve when poor,

etc. - - but not if any of it affects others.

[LuvNewcastle]

13. We absolutely cannot compromise on any of those issues,

which is why we have to destroy the GOP. They want compromise and we can't because they're all core issues for us. That's why we can't get anything done. The only way we're going to get anything done in Washington is a full government takeover. It's all-out war, and only one of us can be left standing.

[CTyankee]

14. Hell no on all of them!

[Gormy Cuss]

15. All of them, else DU is an echo chamber.

At least that's what I keep reading in the grave dancing threads.

[ProSense]

23. It's a ridiculous assertion.

You could debate a fix to Social Security on multiple levels, and none of them has to involve cutting or privatizing it.

[Gormy Cuss]

44. On every issue there is room to debate, else we wouldn't need a discussion group.

There's a difference though between debating within a center-left framework and having endless RW or otherwise conservative posts dumped here as if it's a nonpartisan board. If I wanted to wade through conservative blather I'd check out the comments of the local newspaper site, the Yahoo boards, or Free Republic.

[treestar]

16. IMO some anti-choicers could be Catholics

who are otherwise liberal, and their stance does not have much chance of becoming law. Further, it might be possible to convince them to let the decision rest of the conscience of the women who make it. So while not willing to actually vote for it, it should be possible to accept them as politics makes strange bedfellows. Many Latino voters might fall into that category. In my family there are people who fit this profile and unfortunately vote Republican as they are so rabid about the one issue. But, if they could be focused elsewhere, the rest of their opinions are liberal.

[etherealtruth]

22. I come from a long line of Catholics

They certainly believe abortion is wrong, but see it as a personal choice . They do not vote to outlaw abortion (ie they do not vote to codify their religious/ moral beliefs)

[treestar]

25. Good.

The wing nuts of my family went the other way, letting their views on abortion make them susceptible to other right wing positions as they voted with Republicans, and started talking more like them on other issues. I can't see being that one-issue in anything. I tried telling them just as many post-born people die in Republicans wars, but that doesn't seem to bother them. Probably because a lot of those people are brown foreigners.

[etherealtruth]

30. " Probably because a lot of those people are brown foreigners."

I married a "brown foreigner" (an a Muslim) ... the marriage didn't last, but we had beautiful kids (now 17-31 years old). I bring this up because it really helped my family understand (see first hand) that people really are "just people' regardless of ethnicity or place of origin .

I don't think my family would have taken a hard turn right, but, I honestly believe their first hand experiences extinguished any possibility.

[Union Scribe]

17. Funny. I've seen some of the none of the above votes

post things that fall into the categories they don't want on DU

[stevenleser]

21. A couple of points...

First, I agree with the Liberal/Progressive positions on all of those, but what is meant by "Liberals/Progressives" and what is meant by "be more tolerant of"

Should anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal position any of those be thrown off DU? Should they not be able to consider themselves a Democrat or Liberal or Progressive? In talking with Democrats around the country, I frequently encounter individual Democrats who disagree with the Liberal position on one or two of these issues. The most frequent disagreements I have is about unions. The Repugs have definitely done a masterful propaganda job on unions.

But should we kick anti-union people out of DU or out of the party?

[Jackpine Radical]

24. There is a difference between being tolerant of a position and

being tolerant of the person who holds it.

As the fundies say (without actually meaning it), "Hate the sin but love the sinner."

[ProSense]

26. See, that's

"Should anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal position any of those be thrown off DU? Should they not be able to consider themselves a Democrat or Liberal or Progressive? In talking with Democrats around the country, I frequently encounter individual Democrats who disagree with the Liberal position on one or two of these issues. The most frequent disagreements I have is about unions. The Repugs have definitely done a masterful propaganda job on unions."

...the problem. You seem to be talking about a specific group among liberals and progressives. Clearly, you don't see your disagreement on unions as the same as the RW's anti-union position ("propaganda&quot .

I purposefully didn't use the word Democrat. I mean these as core issues that are embraced across the left spectrum.

Like I said: among those who want to address these issues, there are disagreements about how to structure policy, but simply rejecting the premise is RW.

You could debate a fix to Social Security on multiple levels, and none of them has to involve cutting or privatizing it.

[stevenleser]

50. Not sure you understood my position on unions. I'm very pro-Union. nt

[gopiscrap]

27. Fuck any of that shit

if you're thinking that way then you're not a liberal/progressive

[Prism]

28. You should just put who you're callin out in the thread title

It makes a passive aggressive pile-on attempt at least a bit more respectable.

(Background: ProSense got into it with an anti-abortion Democrat in another thread).

That said, while I'm personally pro-choice because I don't think the power of the state should be making these kinds of personal decisions for women, I recognize abortion is one of the trickiest and most difficult political, philosophical, and moral issues of our time. There is a vast, vast spectrum of belief for a vast variety of reasons - some more valid than others. I can respect certain anti-abortion views on a principled level while disagreeing firmly on how those views should be reflected in the law.

A party that makes room for complex thought is a strengthened party.

I respect Th1one from their history as a poster even if I don't agree on this particular issue. In fact, I disagree with him/her pretty strongly as a matter of law.

[grantcart]

29. Well said

That said, while I'm personally pro-choice because I don't think the power of the state should be making these kinds of personal decisions for women, I recognize abortion is one of the trickiest and most difficult political, philosophical, and moral issues of our time. There is a vast, vast spectrum of belief for a vast variety of reasons - some more valid than others. I can respect certain anti-abortion views on a principled level while disagreeing firmly on how those views should be reflected in the law.

[ProSense]

32. No.

You should just put who you're callin out in the thread title

It makes a passive aggressive pile-on attempt at least a bit more respectable.

(Background: ProSense got into it with an anti-abortion Democrat in another thread).

That said, while I'm personally pro-choice because I don't think the power of the state should be making these kinds of personal decisions for women, I recognize abortion is one of the trickiest and most difficult political, philosophical, and moral issues of our time. There is a vast, vast spectrum of belief for a vast variety of reasons - some more valid than others. I can respect certain anti-abortion views on a principled level while disagreeing firmly on how those views should be reflected in the law.

A party that makes room for complex thought is a strengthened party.

I respect Th1one from their history as a poster even if I don't agree on this particular issue. In fact, I disagree with him/her pretty strongly as a matter of law.

The thread is about a lot of the sentiments being expressed by several people, and was intended as a serious question and discussion.

You are the one who chose to call out another DUer.

[Prism]

33. Uh huh.

[ProSense]

34. ? n/t

[Demit]

35. I'm not so sure about the passive part.

As you can see in the pugnacious & bellicose tone of the responses, when anyone has made a reply that departs from the OP's thinking in any way. I've seen it before. I'll be curious to see if this post of mine gets such a response, even though I have replied to your post, and am talking to you.

[ProSense]

37. I'm responding to points and

"As you can see in the pugnacious & bellicose tone of the responses, when anyone has made a reply that departs from the OP's thinking in any way. I've seen it before. I'll be curious to see if this post of mine gets such a response, even though I have replied to your post, and am talking to you."

...people are free to respond back. You appear to be engaging in psychoanalysis because you have no point to make relevant to the subject.

Was that "pugnacious & bellicose" in tone enough for you?

[Demit]

38. LOL Bingo!

You're so predictable.

[ProSense]

41. LOL!

Still lame.

I mean, the one who's "predictable" is you with your lame attempt to pre-empt a response.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. I neither tolerate them or vote for politicians that support them.

[MiniMe]

39. I personally don't care if somebody is anti-choice, as long as they don't expect everybody to agree

If they are anti-choice for themselves, they may not realize it, but that is their choice. Just don't try to force your choice on anybody else.

[ProSense]

42. Do you care if someone is anti-marriage equality/LGBT rights?

What about anti-union?

[moriah]

52. There is a difference. I am anti-abortion, but extremely pro-choice.

If you're anti-gay marriage, don't get gay married. If you're anti-union, don't join one. If you're anti-abortion, don't have one.

All God's children have choices.

[pitbullgirl1965]

57. Not all of us believe in God

Please, there is enough god bothering in real life.

[moriah]

60. All of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's children have choices, too. ;)

I was making a play on the old Southern saying "All God's children have issues."

[pitbullgirl1965]

62. :D I've never heard that saying before.

props for the Flying Spaghetti Monster reference.

One of my signature lines is "One Nation under Cthulhu"

[moriah]

63. My dorm room was the headquarters for the Campus Crusade for Cthulhu.

Or at least, that's what I put on my markerboard so that the rival organization with those same initials would stop knocking on my door.

[pitbullgirl1965]

64. That is beyond cool I had no idea that existed.

brb. Off to Google.

[MiniMe]

68. I doubt if I'd be friends with those people

But they have a right to their own opinion, misguided as it may be. Like I said, if you are anti-choice, fine. Don't have an abortion. That is your choice. But I don't want your choice to be legislated, because your choice may not be my choice.

[Fumesucker]

40. Liberals and progressives should be more tolerant of drug warriors

They only want what's best for us after all, drugs will ruin your life so the drug warriors want to put you in prison to keep you away from drugs and thus make your life so much better.

[ProSense]

43. I guess this is snark, but who is it aimed at?

Or do you really believe that "liberals and progressives should be more tolerant of drug warriors"?

Do you think there is room for debate there? What's your position?

[Fumesucker]

45. The drug war is remarkably bipartisan

Hence it is, by definition, "centrist".

Liberals and progressives need to be more tolerant of centrism and centrists, no?

[ProSense]

46. I don't get your point.

You're saying liberals and progressives need to "be more tolerant" of "centrism and centrists" and of the "drug war" because it's "bipartisan"?

That doesn't make sense.

[Fumesucker]

47. I was under the impression that areas of agreement between Democrats and Republicans is a good thing

Perhaps I'm mistaken?

[ProSense]

48. Do you

"I was under the impression that areas of agreement between Democrats and Republicans is a good thing

Perhaps I'm mistaken?"

...think that this is "good thing":

The Seven Lying Democrats That Betrayed Democracy, and Joined GOP on HR 368 to Deny Vote on Clean CR
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023848527

If not, then you're definitely "mistaken."

[Fumesucker]

49. I was referring more to when large majorites of both parties agree

Which they do on the subject of my first post in this subthread.

Including the POTUS, I might add.

Is it not good when the POTUS, a large majority of the Democratic party, a huge majority of the Republican party and an overwhelming majority of the judiciary agree on policy?

[ProSense]

53. Still,

"I was referring more to when large majorites of both parties agree"

...why would you characterize it as a "good thing" if you don't agree? Also, why should liberals and progressives be tolerant of it?

The goal is to make progress.

ACLU: How to Process Eric Holder’s Major Criminal Law Reform Speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451453

Kudos to Obama and Holder: Mandatory minimum' sentences to end for many drug offenders
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023449810

For First Time, Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

[Gravitycollapse]

56. Those are conservative positions, not necessarily right wing.

In other words, they can be the views of traditional Democrats who are left wing conservatives. Not that it matters much. I get what you're saying and I agree we should not tolerate any of them in life or on this message board.

This may be the first time I've ever agreed with you ProSense.

[ProSense]

59. Well,

"Those are conservative positions, not necessarily right wing. In other words, they can be the views of traditional Democrats who are left wing conservatives."

...that's a first: "left wing conservatives."

I think your comment implies that some Democrats are stuck in the past. Looking at Congress and candidates for office, there is absolutely no reason to embrace RW positions, other than believing one is in an area too conservative to get elected. It happens.

Still, look at how many conservative Democrats tried to run away from health care reform initially. Now even Republicans, with all the disdain they have for the law, and even while trying to kill it, are lying to people about wanting to make it work.

So let me repeat this because:

There many issues that liberals embrace and the RW reject. They're anti-immigration and deny global warming.

I mean, among those who want to address these issues, there are disagreements about how to structure policy, but simply rejecting the premise is RW.

Forget facts. Forget science. Forget strengthening civil rights and the social contract.

A troll gets banned and people move from mocking "centrist/DLC/Third Way" positions to trying to justify why RW talking points should be engaged?

Most of these talking points have been thoroughly debunked. They're either bullshit spin of right out of the deprave conservative mentality.

Just because some right leaning Democratic candidate somewhere is confused, doesn't mean these points are up for debate. A woman's choice is not up for debate.

The stance of right leaning politicians has nothing to do with the role of liberals/progressives.

Winning a seat in a conservative area is one thing, but no one should convince themselves that such politicians don't eventually stand in the way of progress.

The goal is to educate and push for progress in these areas. That's the goal with every issue...choice, global warming and Social Security.

[Logical]

58. I assume for you Chained CPI. n-t

[ProSense]

61. Don't assume. Speak for yourself. n/t

[Laelth]

65. Anti-gun control. Purely from a strategic point of view. n/t

-Laelth

[ProSense]

67. You see how that debate is unfolding, but there are other factors. n/t

[el_bryanto]

69. Kind of a push poll - but i've done those before

I would have voted for privitization - as there may be individual cases where that's a good idea. But it might be more interesting to put up some issues which are a little more grey.

Like Free Trade, for example, or some environmental issues, or some regulator issues.

Bryant

[Starry Messenger]

70. .

Interesting that none of DU's resident anti-union posters are willing to nail their colors to the mast in public.