Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(6,257 posts)

1. Sorry, but if he's anti-choice then he does not need to be the future of the party.

Mon Sep 4, 2017, 02:54 AM

Sep 2017

There are some issues I don't think we should compromise on and that's one of them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can John Bel Edwards Teach Democrats How to Win in the South? [View all] Willie Pep Sep 2017 OP

It was more about the future of southern Dems BluegrassDem Sep 2017 #3

He's my govenor Sgent Sep 2017 #2

I remember when Jindal was supposed to be the future of the GOP. white_wolf Sep 2017 #4

For once, it wasn't the racism. dawg Sep 2017 #5

I think he won because Jindal ruined LA and Vitter was so bad.... RhodeIslandOne Sep 2017 #6