I'm back

[Green Line]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

IMO it depends. If they're pro-life but are otherwise a reliable Democrat on most/all other issues, then sure. But party resources should never be squandered on Republicans in drag/Dixiecrats like Jim Justice and Parker Griffith, many of whom, like those two, end up switching parties anyway.

How about Tim Kaine?

He's not pro-life so..

[Green Line]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

I'm a bit confused still. So this just spontaneously arose in 2017 for no reason? I don't seem to recall Durbin, Perez, Daily Kos, etc. having any problems with supporting/funding pro-life candidates in the past. In fact, they didn't even have any problem with supporting/funding literal right wing in nearly all aspect Democrats like Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, etc.

But it sounds really stupid to me anyway. Democrats shouldn't be wasting their time with pointless bickering and ideological purity tests while in the political wilderness. Sure, don't sell out your entire belief system to support a Republican with a (D) after their name, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues.

You're really, really behind the times.  What era did you come out of, 2004?  This is no longer allowed.

[Green Line]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

I'm a bit confused still. So this just spontaneously arose in 2017 for no reason? I don't seem to recall Durbin, Perez, Daily Kos, etc. having any problems with supporting/funding pro-life candidates in the past. In fact, they didn't even have any problem with supporting/funding literal right wing in nearly all aspect Democrats like Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, etc.

But it sounds really stupid to me anyway. Democrats shouldn't be wasting their time with pointless bickering and ideological purity tests while in the political wilderness. Sure, don't sell out your entire belief system to support a Republican with a (D) after their name, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues.

You're really, really behind the times.  What era did you come out of, 2004?  This is no longer allowed.

lol, I don't even recall this being a "controversy" in 2016.

Things changed when the barbarians sacked Rome (Debbie).