|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 31, 2016 2:25:42 GMT
katieanna is certainly capable of speaking her own mind here, so I don't want to be putting words in her mouth. Trump has attracted a lot of people who just want change. There is a lot of money behind people not wanting change. It's anyone's guess why the media is baiting Trump with provacative questions about hypothetical abortion laws THAT DO NOT EXIST. She gave you her best guess, that the media is being influenced by the people with big money who don't want change. That's not really the point though. The point is that in asking such a loaded question, Trump was certain to give them a ridiculous sound-byte that they could lead the news cycle with. He just happened to land his answer so poorly that he rewarded them quadruple word score. Which means that we have more of this to look forward to in the very near future. Okay, so this is a conspiracy against Trump? But, in terms of abortion, for example, there is a large group of people who DO want change. Or in terms of illegal immigration. Yet, he is uninformed and misogynistic enough to alienate even large numbers of people and groups who would love to see abortion made illegal. And people who actually want to solve illegal immigration issues. Sorry, the crazy big-money backed media conspiracy theory sounds exactly like something Trump's camp would craft and put out there. The only thing that would make it better would be if it were female big money that was controlling the media. And it is insulting to the rest of us - on both sides of the aisle - committed to influencing political and societal change, to write off our reactions to Trump's offensive verbiage as being controlled by the media. No one puts a gun to his head and forces him to say these things - he does it all on his own. When someone shows you who he is, believe him. Not conspiracy theories. *I* think the media is doing this primarily for ratings. There are people who want to reverse Roe vs Wade. I don't think Trump is one of them. He's way too wishy washy to take that dramatic a stand, and he's far too savvy not to milk it for all it's worth to get votes if that is what he wanted. Personally, I tend to be a conspiracist when it comes to big money and it's influence and have been for many years. I'm far from being in Trump's camp. Maybe I should be insulted that you are implying I can't think for myself. See how that works? I haven't exactly been quiet on how asinine Trump's statements are now or have been for quite some time, including his craycray over Obama's birth certificate. What he says, how he says it and to whom his insults are directed are beyond explanation let alone defense. In other words, a target other than me would be more appropriate to argue with about him.  |
|
|
|
Post by tlsmi on Mar 31, 2016 2:35:28 GMT
Candidates usually have a boot camp style Q and A with trusted members of their campaign to pre-empt any 'problems' and go over issues and talking points, etc. (Especially important before a sit down with the left leaning MSNBC)
This is hard work, and requires you to subject yourself to questioning and criticism over a long period.
It's done so that you don't fuck up in public.
Does Trump strike you as a grateful recipient of sustained criticism?
If his 'handlers' can't handle him and the GOP can't control him this is what we get.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 31, 2016 2:40:50 GMT
I did not omit anything Gia! I posted EXACTLY what came off the news wire. I'm not trying to imply or insinuate any take on the story. She understands that you copied and pasted what came from the news wire. She's saying that you SHOULD have ADDED to what you pasted to make it be in context. The headline IS misleading, and of course you have an opinion. Why else would you just randomly paste a newswire headline here? Just feel like the board is moving slow? LOL I get that. I didn't add anything because I wanted to make sure that it was unfettered, as how the news posted the article, thus the link! I posted quickly as I was going out the door at the time. Nevertheless, this isn't about me, what I said or haven't about this article. I do have an opinion, but I have not even stated what it is! My opinion is (and has been throughout all this political season) is that the media is really pushing all limits and scenarios for these "stories" That they frequently misquote, misstate, report out of context and sensationalize. And that Trump's answers to the questions just get more unbelievable each day! This one has ALL the other candidates shaking their heads. I'm wondering now if he's getting more outrageous so that it does become "easier" to drop out (just wondering that based on others theory's that he really didn't want to actually be president). |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 31, 2016 2:43:30 GMT
Candidates usually have a boot camp style Q and A with trusted members of their campaign to pre-empt any 'problems' and go over issues and talking points, etc. (Especially important before a sit down with the left leaning MSNBC) This is hard work, and requires you to subject yourself to questioning and criticism over a long period. It's done so that you don't fuck up in public. Does Trump strike you as a grateful recipient of sustained criticism? If his 'handlers' can't handle him and the GOP can't control him this is what we get. I honestly don't think he has those kind of handlers!! Or if he does, he thinks he knows best and does not heed their advice! |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Mar 31, 2016 2:49:36 GMT
Okay, so this is a conspiracy against Trump? But, in terms of abortion, for example, there is a large group of people who DO want change. Or in terms of illegal immigration. Yet, he is uninformed and misogynistic enough to alienate even large numbers of people and groups who would love to see abortion made illegal. And people who actually want to solve illegal immigration issues. Sorry, the crazy big-money backed media conspiracy theory sounds exactly like something Trump's camp would craft and put out there. The only thing that would make it better would be if it were female big money that was controlling the media. And it is insulting to the rest of us - on both sides of the aisle - committed to influencing political and societal change, to write off our reactions to Trump's offensive verbiage as being controlled by the media. No one puts a gun to his head and forces him to say these things - he does it all on his own. When someone shows you who he is, believe him. Not conspiracy theories. *I* think the media is doing this primarily for ratings. There are people who want to reverse Roe vs Wade. I don't think Trump is one of them. He's way too wishy washy to take that dramatic a stand, and he's far too savvy not to milk it for all it's worth to get votes if that is what he wanted. Personally, I tend to be a conspiracist when it comes to big money and it's influence and have been for many years. I'm far from being in Trump's camp. Maybe I should be insulted that you are implying I can't think for myself. See how that works? I haven't exactly been quiet on how asinine Trump's statements are now or have been for quite some time, including his craycray over Obama's birth certificate. What he says, how he says it and to whom his insults are directed are beyond explanation let alone defense. In other words, a target other than me would be more appropriate to argue with about him. I continue to be puzzled why you respond to my posts, especially one I made to ANOTHER poster, not even to you, and yet when I respond to you, you have told me twice now, not to argue/respond to you. I really don't get it, honestly, I don't. If you don't want to discuss/debate/argue with me, then don't respond to my posts to other people and then accuse ME of targeting YOU. It seems pot-meet-kettle-ish, and really isn't the typical you. |
|
|
|
Post by *KAS* on Mar 31, 2016 3:21:00 GMT
But if you want to punish the man, then you take away the argument that it's her right to choose. What if he doesn't want her to have an abortion but she chooses to anyway? Should she not be allowed to, or should he still be punished even though he didn't want her to do this (hypothetical) illegal act? Huh? If you make abortion illegal, you already take away her right to choose. She won't be allowed to choose, regardless of whether the guy he got her pregnant wants her to abort or not. Your argument makes no sense. If it is legal, no one gets punished. If abortion is illegal, if you are going to punish one party responsible for the unwanted pregnancy, you should punish the other party equally. Although, I think punishing either party is reprehensible, but that isn't the point. And, in the world of legal abortion, there are plenty of guys, who when faced with the actuality of fathering a child with a person they don't want to marry, are supportive of terminating a pregnancy. My argument does make sense if it's kept in the context of what started this thread. Trump said a woman should be punished for having an abortion IF abortion was ILLEGAL. So if she 'chose' it when it was illegal, apparently she did have a choice. She found a doctor to perform it regardless of the legal status. That was the point of this discussion. It just seems odd to me that you'd want the guy to not have a say (obviously meaning if it is legal!) in what she chooses to do 'her body, her choice', unless she chooses to do something illegal, then you want him to also be punished for it (not that I'm saying there should be punishment either!). The whole thing is a moot point b/c abortion isn't illegal, Trump isn't president, and if he were, he wouldn't make it illegal anyway. I'm very aware of many guys supporting termination of pregnancy, lol. I'm in my 30s....I know a few people who had abortions in high school or college. I was just asking what if he DIDN'T support it, that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by *KAS* on Mar 31, 2016 3:27:18 GMT
She understands that you copied and pasted what came from the news wire. She's saying that you SHOULD have ADDED to what you pasted to make it be in context. The headline IS misleading, and of course you have an opinion. Why else would you just randomly paste a newswire headline here? Just feel like the board is moving slow? LOL I get that. I didn't add anything because I wanted to make sure that it was unfettered, as how the news posted the article, thus the link! I posted quickly as I was going out the door at the time. Nevertheless, this isn't about me, what I said or haven't about this article. I do have an opinion, but I have not even stated what it is! My opinion is (and has been throughout all this political season) is that the media is really pushing all limits and scenarios for these "stories" That they frequently misquote, misstate, report out of context and sensationalize. And that Trump's answers to the questions just get more unbelievable each day! This one has ALL the other candidates shaking their heads. I'm wondering now if he's getting more outrageous so that it does become "easier" to drop out (just wondering that based on others theory's that he really didn't want to actually be president). Just goes back to my theory that he's so arrogant and self-promoting and narcissistic that he truly thinks all publicity is good publicity, so yes, he just says more and more outrageous shit to keep his name in the headlines. And I mostly identify as being conservative (although I took a quiz last week that came out 60/40 liberal, so who knows these days!) |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 31, 2016 3:30:44 GMT
katieanna is certainly capable of speaking her own mind here, so I don't want to be putting words in her mouth. Trump has attracted a lot of people who just want change. There is a lot of money behind people not wanting change. It's anyone's guess why the media is baiting Trump with provacative questions about hypothetical abortion laws THAT DO NOT EXIST. She gave you her best guess, that the media is being influenced by the people with big money who don't want change. That's not really the point though. The point is that in asking such a loaded question, Trump was certain to give them a ridiculous sound-byte that they could lead the news cycle with. He just happened to land his answer so poorly that he rewarded them quadruple word score. Which means that we have more of this to look forward to in the very near future. I think it is a completely legitimate question to ask any candidate who professes to be anti-abortion. (1) does that mean you want to outlaw abortion? (2) what exactly would that cover? incest/rape, health of the mother, health of the baby, etc. (3) what would enforcement look like? (4) what would punishment (for health care workers and for women having an abortion) look like? Questions that absolutely must be asked. There are plenty of people in this country who would like to go back to the days before Roe v. Wade. They need to be very clear with voters before the election about what exactly that means to them and what direction they want to move this country in. Those are legitimate questions for someone who has made delegalizing abortion part of his campaign. Even though Cruz has not promised to make abortion illegal - he says he believes it is a state matter and not a federal issue - those questions would be appropriately directed to him since he is putting his religious values front and center. I believe Cruz would give answers in detail and it could make for an interesting interview. Directed towards Trump? IDK. Are there any policy questions Trump will answer soberly with just consideration? OVERALL, I think that questions as you, Lucy, asked here are good. They're clean questions intended to elicit real information of what a candidate would do if elected. You know as well as I do that these questions are often asked in a loaded manner in an attempt to capture ratings for the day. Is it legitimate to ask "gottcha" questions to people running for the highest office in the land? Yeah. I might not like them, but I kinda think it is. Dealing with the press is just a warmup for the real pressures that come with being POTUS. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 31, 2016 3:36:30 GMT
But do you really, really believe Trump is a true conservative who believes everything he says? Nope. Trump is not a conservative. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 31, 2016 3:59:01 GMT
I continue to be puzzled why you respond to my posts, especially one I made to ANOTHER poster, not even to you, and yet when I respond to you, you have told me twice now, not to argue/respond to you. I really don't get it, honestly, I don't. If you don't want to discuss/debate/argue with me, then don't respond to my posts to other people and then accuse ME of targeting YOU. It seems pot-meet-kettle-ish, and really isn't the typical you. I've got a bit of a headache going on here and totally missed that you weren't talking to me. I've got absolutely no beef with you. I don't disagree with you. If you wanted to argue about Trump, you'd do better arguing with someone else because I don't disagree with you. It would be a pretty dull argument. Talk about getting wires crossed here! Why can't you just read my mind? Then you'd be all "Oh, but off course that's what Lefty meant." But no. There you go being all real person who can't read minds. I like you, Elaine. I like how you get so passionate about things that matter to you. I think that you are intelligent and worth discussing things with. I did not want to argue with you about something the other day because I prefer to listen when someone is as passionate as you are. It makes it really hard for me to say anything at all and IRL I don't. It is a challenge for me to do so here. I really hate it when wires get crossed like they did here.  |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Mar 31, 2016 4:34:31 GMT
I continue to be puzzled why you respond to my posts, especially one I made to ANOTHER poster, not even to you, and yet when I respond to you, you have told me twice now, not to argue/respond to you. I really don't get it, honestly, I don't. If you don't want to discuss/debate/argue with me, then don't respond to my posts to other people and then accuse ME of targeting YOU. It seems pot-meet-kettle-ish, and really isn't the typical you. I've got a bit of a headache going on here and totally missed that you weren't talking to me. I've got absolutely no beef with you. I don't disagree with you. If you wanted to argue about Trump, you'd do better arguing with someone else because I don't disagree with you. It would be a pretty dull argument. Talk about getting wires crossed here! Why can't you just read my mind? Then you'd be all "Oh, but off course that's what Lefty meant." But no. There you go being all real person who can't read minds. I like you, Elaine. I like how you get so passionate about things that matter to you. I think that you are intelligent and worth discussing things with. I did not want to argue with you about something the other day because I prefer to listen when someone is as passionate as you are. It makes it really hard for me to say anything at all and IRL I don't. It is a challenge for me to do so here. I really hate it when wires get crossed like they did here. I'm sorry we crossed wires, lefty, really I am, which is why I said I was puzzled. (((Hugs))) to you and I hope that you feel better soon. And thank you for your kind words - I often agree with you, and enjoy your well-thought out posts whether I agree with all of the points or not. I appreciate a good mind. |
|
|
|
Post by littlemama on Mar 31, 2016 12:30:33 GMT
That is actually a true "pro-choice" stand. I don't think there is anyone out there who thinks that abortion is an ideal solution and there are many who are morally opposed to it - a true pro-choice person believes that each person should make their own decisions about what to do with their body - whether they decide to have an abortion for whatever reasons or they decide not to for whatever reasons. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion at all.
ETA: I don't know what happened to the quote!
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 31, 2016 12:39:39 GMT
I get that. I didn't add anything because I wanted to make sure that it was unfettered, as how the news posted the article, thus the link! I posted quickly as I was going out the door at the time. Nevertheless, this isn't about me, what I said or haven't about this article. I do have an opinion, but I have not even stated what it is! My opinion is (and has been throughout all this political season) is that the media is really pushing all limits and scenarios for these "stories" That they frequently misquote, misstate, report out of context and sensationalize. And that Trump's answers to the questions just get more unbelievable each day! This one has ALL the other candidates shaking their heads. I'm wondering now if he's getting more outrageous so that it does become "easier" to drop out (just wondering that based on others theory's that he really didn't want to actually be president). Just goes back to my theory that he's so arrogant and self-promoting and narcissistic that he truly thinks all publicity is good publicity, so yes, he just says more and more outrageous shit to keep his name in the headlines. And I mostly identify as being conservative (although I took a quiz last week that came out 60/40 liberal, so who knows these days!) Lol! I can't say that I really even considered him a REAL candidate, he's one hot mess of a circus!! |
|
|
|
Post by katieanna on Mar 31, 2016 12:55:41 GMT
I don't think that is what she meant though, given her later response to me that the "voting public sick of the status quo" loves the fact he speaks his mind, and that she thinks that it is the media that is trying to dissuade them. I don't think you can argue the fact that Trump's voting public loves him. I think they love him because (my opinion only) he speaks his mind and because they feel disenfranchised by the status quo. I, personally, have my doubts as to his sincerity and his intentions for running for office in the first place. The media hates him and, typical of the media, will try/do anything to turn his adoring public away from him. I guess my point is that I would prefer that the media stick to the relevant issues. Abortion is legal in this country and I honestly can't see any president (at this point in time) reversing that decision. The whole political circus out there of focusing on the "what ifs", personal matters, etc. of our candidates drives me up a wall. Rather, the media should address the real issues that we are struggling with not only as a nation, but in the world: terrorism for one, illegal immigration, the economy. He needs to have some plans, some ideas of how he will handle these situations if he becomes president. Personally, I don't think he has the foggiest idea of what he'd do and his adoring public needs to realize that. Quite frankly, I don't think ANY of the current candidates have what it would take to effectively handle these issues, least of all Trump. At this point, I still have NO IDEA who to vote for. I can't ever remember feeling this way about a presidential election. |
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,670
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Mar 31, 2016 13:33:33 GMT
I don't think that is what she meant though, given her later response to me that the "voting public sick of the status quo" loves the fact he speaks his mind, and that she thinks that it is the media that is trying to dissuade them. I don't think you can argue the fact that Trump's voting public loves him. I think they love him because (my opinion only) he speaks his mind and because they feel disenfranchised by the status quo. I, personally, have my doubts as to his sincerity and his intentions for running for office in the first place. The media hates him and, typical of the media, will try/do anything to turn his adoring public away from him. I guess my point is that I would prefer that the media stick to the relevant issues. Abortion is legal in this country and I honestly can't see any president (at this point in time) reversing that decision. The whole political circus out there of focusing on the "what ifs", personal matters, etc. of our candidates drives me up a wall. Rather, the media should address the real issues that we are struggling with not only as a nation, but in the world: terrorism for one, illegal immigration, the economy. He needs to have some plans, some ideas of how he will handle these situations if he becomes president. Personally, I don't think he has the foggiest idea of what he'd do and his adoring public needs to realize that. Quite frankly, I don't think ANY of the current candidates have what it would take to effectively handle these issues, least of all Trump. At this point, I still have NO IDEA who to vote for. I can't ever remember feeling this way about a presidential election. I'm shocked that you think abortion is not a relevant issue in this country. The pro-life movement is huge here in the bible belt. They work everyday to overturn roe v wade. They try to get bill after bill to undermine and make abortions impossible to get passed at the state level. People here about this almost every Sunday at churches all over the South. If the pro-choice people are not working as hard, roe v wade will be over turned. |
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,648 
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Mar 31, 2016 14:01:13 GMT
He used to be pro-choice. He only says these things to pander to the far right. He doesn't really believe it. I would be much more concerned with the fact that he will change what he "believes" on a whim just to get votes. You cannot trust a thing he says. Oh – by the way – the Bible is his favorite book. Oh--OK. I agree that he changes his beliefs so often it's hard to tell what he really believes. I don't think he believes half of what he says. I think he partly says stuff to pander and partly to try to sink his campaign - I've never believed that he actually wants to be president (maybe he wants to say he could've been president or run this country, but I don't think he actually wants to serve as president for four years). On a side note, I constantly hear him and his supporters tout his business sense as an asset and I think it's complete BS. An investigative reporter dug into his business dealings in Atlantic City and it's amazing how much he flat out lied and the shady things he did. The review with the reporter was interesting: Robert O'Harrow interview on Fresh Air |
|
|
|
Post by utmr on Mar 31, 2016 14:49:48 GMT
And what consequence should there be for the man who got them Pregnant. They don't get that way themselves. I don't think anyone is going to be making pregnancy illegal. Not yet, but this is a slippery slope. Once you allow politicians to force childbirth, it's not too much farther to assume they could either compel pregnancy (Handmaidens Tale) or prohibit it (China). At some point, a doctors note will be required to purchase tampons, to prove its a legitimate period and not a miscarriage or termination. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 31, 2016 17:36:08 GMT
I don't think you can argue the fact that Trump's voting public loves him. I think they love him because (my opinion only) he speaks his mind and because they feel disenfranchised by the status quo. I, personally, have my doubts as to his sincerity and his intentions for running for office in the first place. The media hates him and, typical of the media, will try/do anything to turn his adoring public away from him. I guess my point is that I would prefer that the media stick to the relevant issues. Abortion is legal in this country and I honestly can't see any president (at this point in time) reversing that decision. The whole political circus out there of focusing on the "what ifs", personal matters, etc. of our candidates drives me up a wall. Rather, the media should address the real issues that we are struggling with not only as a nation, but in the world: terrorism for one, illegal immigration, the economy. He needs to have some plans, some ideas of how he will handle these situations if he becomes president. Personally, I don't think he has the foggiest idea of what he'd do and his adoring public needs to realize that. Quite frankly, I don't think ANY of the current candidates have what it would take to effectively handle these issues, least of all Trump. At this point, I still have NO IDEA who to vote for. I can't ever remember feeling this way about a presidential election. I'm shocked that you think abortion is not a relevant issue in this country. The pro-life movement is huge here in the bible belt. They work everyday to overturn roe v wade. They try to get bill after bill to undermine and make abortions impossible to get passed at the state level. People here about this almost every Sunday at churches all over the South. If the pro-choice people are not working as hard, roe v wade will be over turned. And not just that, but we are literally one Supreme Court vote away from an anti-abortion-rights majority (or at least we were before Justice Scalia's passing ... for now, I guess, it's two). I want to know in depth every candidate's stance on the subject. Supreme Court appointments are my number one priority in choosing a president, and that is why I will probably always vote for the Democrat, even if I like the Republican otherwise. Because there hasn't been a pro-choice Republican since, what, Gerald Ford? Back in the day, Republicans used to support abortion rights. I grieve for those days. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 31, 2016 18:22:15 GMT
Robert O'Harrow interview on Fresh Air That was excellent. The one thing I wish they had included was Trump's on-air comment during a Feb debate... He said it on-stage and no one has ever picked that up and run with it. I think it's noteworthy because this is Trump's pattern. Someone is wonderful, great, beautiful, fantastic until they aren't when they suddenly become horrible, disgusting, ugly, liars. And he NEVER forgets a grievance, no matter how slight, and he never lets it go. Chris Matthews nips at people all the time. He can be obnoxious. His questions are framed to garner attention and create national news. He intentionally tries to trip Republicans up. But he is absolutely consistent. This is who he is. This is what he does. He didn't just ask Trump about abortion, he hammered him with questions based on false assumptions. Again. This is what Matthews does. Matthews is WINNING big with Trump's response. So of course, just like the sun coming up, he went back for more. This time, he did the same thing with whether Trump would rule out using Nukes. Trump tells a bewildered Matthews he can't rule out using nukes in Europe.Based on the assertion that you can't take anything off the table (publicly) when you're talking about war. While I think it is important for a candidate for president to learn how to adroitly handle these kinds of "gotcha" questions - questions based on false assumptions with conclusions that are hypothetical only and not based on actual probability - I've got to tell you that this approach may really backfire. This is exactly what frustrated people of the country are sick of. These questions based on such false generalizations are making these false assumptions about their own personal beliefs. Over and over. Year after year. For example, people are against abortion because there are two lives involved, not just the mother's. They see the unborn child the same as the born child. They are both alive. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the mother's rights. It's all about the rights of the child. Now, you may disagree with that view. You may agree with it but determine that the life of the mother takes priority. You may have an entirely different perspective. It really doesn't matter. People have believed that the unborn are children since time began. It's deeply rooted in our psyches. We nurture the mothers-to-be so they can grow healthy babies. Since Roe vs Wade overturned the natural order of things, there has been this constant drumming that people want to dominate a woman's reproduction. After all these years, after millions of unborn lives never came to be, with all the forms of ready contraception available, the Democrats are still pounding this line that people who don't like abortions are only interested in controlling women. And that's how you get someone like Trump as one of the frontrunners for the Republican candidate for president. He says "that's stupid," and people cheer. Personally, I'm concerned with Trump's mercurial personality. I don't want him as the nominee specifically for that reason. I don't want people feeling like Trump is fighting for them. I don't want him gaining support. I don't want people climbing on his bandwagon because he is being hammered with questions that they too think are stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 31, 2016 18:25:57 GMT
And not just that, but we are literally one Supreme Court vote away from an anti-abortion-rights majority (or at least we were before Justice Scalia's passing ... for now, I guess, it's two). I want to know in depth every candidate's stance on the subject. Supreme Court appointments are my number one priority in choosing a president, and that is why I will probably always vote for the Democrat, even if I like the Republican otherwise. Because there hasn't been a pro-choice Republican since, what, Gerald Ford? Back in the day, Republicans used to support abortion rights. I grieve for those days. It is without a doubt a driving force for Democrat voters this election. And it is an issue that needs to be discussed by each candidate. But it needs to be discussed. Soberly. Sincerely. With time for thoughtful answers. All Matthews did was drive that possibility further away. |
|
|
|
Post by tinydogmafia on Mar 31, 2016 18:26:53 GMT
Excuse my language, but fuck this asshole.
He should be punished for being the world's biggest woman hating piece of shit, but sadly he is not.
What gives me pleasure is knowing he is so afraid of powerful women, or woman in general really, that his only defense is to trash talk them. Pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Mar 31, 2016 19:10:53 GMT
I'm shocked that you think abortion is not a relevant issue in this country. The pro-life movement is huge here in the bible belt. They work everyday to overturn roe v wade. They try to get bill after bill to undermine and make abortions impossible to get passed at the state level. People here about this almost every Sunday at churches all over the South. If the pro-choice people are not working as hard, roe v wade will be over turned. And not just that, but we are literally one Supreme Court vote away from an anti-abortion-rights majority (or at least we were before Justice Scalia's passing ... for now, I guess, it's two). I want to know in depth every candidate's stance on the subject. Supreme Court appointments are my number one priority in choosing a president, and that is why I will probably always vote for the Democrat, even if I like the Republican otherwise. Because there hasn't been a pro-choice Republican since, what, Gerald Ford? Back in the day, Republicans used to support abortion rights. I grieve for those days. I'm going to take it step further. My governor just signed a new law here in Florida that is equal to (or worse) than the restrictive laws in Texas. For one, it not only disallows funding in Medicare clinics FOR abortion services, it disallows ANY Medicare funding to a clinic that offers the service. In other words, you have a hangnail and need to go to the Medicare clinic in your town? If they offer any type of abortion services, they will receive NO funding for ANY service. NONE. Irrespective of what the other medical services provided, they can be banned from receiving funding. There is a lot more than that of course, but my governor is absolutely hell bent on doing an end run around Roe v. Wade. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Mar 31, 2016 19:34:04 GMT
I don't think that is what she meant though, given her later response to me that the "voting public sick of the status quo" loves the fact he speaks his mind, and that she thinks that it is the media that is trying to dissuade them. I don't think you can argue the fact that Trump's voting public loves him. I think they love him because (my opinion only) he speaks his mind and because they feel disenfranchised by the status quo. I, personally, have my doubts as to his sincerity and his intentions for running for office in the first place. The media hates him and, typical of the media, will try/do anything to turn his adoring public away from him. I guess my point is that I would prefer that the media stick to the relevant issues. Abortion is legal in this country and I honestly can't see any president (at this point in time) reversing that decision. The whole political circus out there of focusing on the "what ifs", personal matters, etc. of our candidates drives me up a wall. Rather, the media should address the real issues that we are struggling with not only as a nation, but in the world: terrorism for one, illegal immigration, the economy. He needs to have some plans, some ideas of how he will handle these situations if he becomes president. Personally, I don't think he has the foggiest idea of what he'd do and his adoring public needs to realize that. Quite frankly, I don't think ANY of the current candidates have what it would take to effectively handle these issues, least of all Trump. At this point, I still have NO IDEA who to vote for. I can't ever remember feeling this way about a presidential election. If you think abortion issues aren't current and real, you live in a bubble somewhere. I live in the state that started the proposed mandated transvaginal ultrasound legislation. Currently there are a variety of states that are doing all the can to circumvent Roe v Wade by placing absurd regulations on clinics, pulling funding, trying to wipe Planned Parenthood off the face of the earth, etc. DH was just telling me of new proposed legislation last night requiring women to get anesthesia for abortion procedures, which would eliminate the possibility of doing it in many clinics, because you would need an anesthesiologist. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a pro-life dominated Supreme Court would overturn Roe v Wade. The right to choose may not be important to you, but that doesn't make it unreal, irrelevant, or change the FACT that it IS an issue that millions of Americans fight for, one way or the other. And that people who follow the news KNOW is being impinged upon all around the country. |
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on Mar 31, 2016 19:35:04 GMT
And not just that, but we are literally one Supreme Court vote away from an anti-abortion-rights majority (or at least we were before Justice Scalia's passing ... for now, I guess, it's two). I want to know in depth every candidate's stance on the subject. Supreme Court appointments are my number one priority in choosing a president, and that is why I will probably always vote for the Democrat, even if I like the Republican otherwise. Because there hasn't been a pro-choice Republican since, what, Gerald Ford? Back in the day, Republicans used to support abortion rights. I grieve for those days. I'm going to take it step further. My governor just signed a new law here in Florida that is equal to (or worse) than the restrictive laws in Texas. For one, it not only disallows funding in Medicare clinics FOR abortion services, it disallows ANY Medicare funding to a clinic that offers the service. In other words, you have a hangnail and need to go to the Medicare clinic in your town? If they offer any type of abortion services, they will receive NO funding for ANY service. NONE. Irrespective of what the other medical services provided, they can be banned from receiving funding. There is a lot more than that of course, but my governor is absolutely hell bent on doing an end run around Roe v. Wade. This kind of policy is so offensive to me. It's also nothing new. Back in the Reagan administration, the global gag rule caused immeasurable harm to women and children's health services in developing countries. It was shown, for example, that in countries where basic sanitation was lacking, if you could provide a pregnant woman with a clean sheet or tarp, a clean pair of scissors to cut the cord with (instead of the lid of a can you found in the trash heap), clean towels, and some other basic supplies, you could reduce maternal and newborn mortality by a significant measure. This was actually one of my dad's projects with the State Department in the 1980s. But under the global gag rule, even groups that did not provide abortion but counseled women regarding abortion or referred to legal abortion services lost their funding, even for programs that were intended to save the lives of women and babies. Never mind that a $3 kit can save two lives - abortion kills babies so you can't have your birth kit because some white politician in Washington who probably has never set foot in your country thinks he knows better for you. Infuriating to me in any country. It's all the same short-sighted manipulative political nonsense. And it's one reason why the viewpoint of our elected leaders matters to me, because all this was accomplished subsequent to Roe v. Wade - even though abortion is likely to remain legal in this country and no candidate is likely to reverse that decision, that doesn't mean that there aren't other issues relating to abortion that still matter. Since the institution of the global gag rule, each Republican President has reinstated it while each Democrat has rescinded it. This is one reason I have always voted Democrat and can't picture myself changing that anytime soon. Sorry, I ranted. |
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Mar 31, 2016 19:35:33 GMT
I don't think that is what she meant though, given her later response to me that the "voting public sick of the status quo" loves the fact he speaks his mind, and that she thinks that it is the media that is trying to dissuade them. I don't think you can argue the fact that Trump's voting public loves him. I think they love him because (my opinion only) he speaks his mind and because they feel disenfranchised by the status quo. I, personally, have my doubts as to his sincerity and his intentions for running for office in the first place. The media hates him and, typical of the media, will try/do anything to turn his adoring public away from him. I guess my point is that I would prefer that the media stick to the relevant issues. Abortion is legal in this country and I honestly can't see any president (at this point in time) reversing that decision. The whole political circus out there of focusing on the "what ifs", personal matters, etc. of our candidates drives me up a wall. Rather, the media should address the real issues that we are struggling with not only as a nation, but in the world: terrorism for one, illegal immigration, the economy. He needs to have some plans, some ideas of how he will handle these situations if he becomes president. Personally, I don't think he has the foggiest idea of what he'd do and his adoring public needs to realize that. Quite frankly, I don't think ANY of the current candidates have what it would take to effectively handle these issues, least of all Trump. At this point, I still have NO IDEA who to vote for. I can't ever remember feeling this way about a presidential election.
I think you are being woefully obtuse if you think this presidential election will not impact roe v. wade. The SC is not the youngest bunch. I think they said the next president has the potential to nominate 2-4 justices if they go 8 years (I could be slightly off, I know I read it somewhere right after Scalia passed away).
If you want to understand how the states are pushing this right now you should watch this clip from John Oliver. It takes what rodeomom and anxiousmom posted and goes into more details.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRauXXz6t0Y
If you really don't want to learn more about it, you can at least see a bucket of sloths.... (*TIC - watch the video to get it)
|
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 31, 2016 21:49:56 GMT
I'm going to take it step further. My governor just signed a new law here in Florida that is equal to (or worse) than the restrictive laws in Texas. For one, it not only disallows funding in Medicare clinics FOR abortion services, it disallows ANY Medicare funding to a clinic that offers the service. In other words, you have a hangnail and need to go to the Medicare clinic in your town? If they offer any type of abortion services, they will receive NO funding for ANY service. NONE. Irrespective of what the other medical services provided, they can be banned from receiving funding. There is a lot more than that of course, but my governor is absolutely hell bent on doing an end run around Roe v. Wade. This kind of policy is so offensive to me. It's also nothing new. Back in the Reagan administration, the global gag rule caused immeasurable harm to women and children's health services in developing countries. It was shown, for example, that in countries where basic sanitation was lacking, if you could provide a pregnant woman with a clean sheet or tarp, a clean pair of scissors to cut the cord with (instead of the lid of a can you found in the trash heap), clean towels, and some other basic supplies, you could reduce maternal and newborn mortality by a significant measure. This was actually one of my dad's projects with the State Department in the 1980s. But under the global gag rule, even groups that did not provide abortion but counseled women regarding abortion or referred to legal abortion services lost their funding, even for programs that were intended to save the lives of women and babies. Never mind that a $3 kit can save two lives - abortion kills babies so you can't have your birth kit because some white politician in Washington who probably has never set foot in your country thinks he knows better for you. Infuriating to me in any country. It's all the same short-sighted manipulative political nonsense. And it's one reason why the viewpoint of our elected leaders matters to me, because all this was accomplished subsequent to Roe v. Wade - even though abortion is likely to remain legal in this country and no candidate is likely to reverse that decision, that doesn't mean that there aren't other issues relating to abortion that still matter. Since the institution of the global gag rule, each Republican President has reinstated it while each Democrat has rescinded it. This is one reason I have always voted Democrat and can't picture myself changing that anytime soon. Sorry, I ranted. I'm not. This is exactly what needs to be discussed by all of the candidates.  |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 31, 2016 22:07:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Mar 31, 2016 22:08:47 GMT
I'm going to take it step further. My governor just signed a new law here in Florida that is equal to (or worse) than the restrictive laws in Texas. For one, it not only disallows funding in Medicare clinics FOR abortion services, it disallows ANY Medicare funding to a clinic that offers the service. In other words, you have a hangnail and need to go to the Medicare clinic in your town? If they offer any type of abortion services, they will receive NO funding for ANY service. NONE. Irrespective of what the other medical services provided, they can be banned from receiving funding. There is a lot more than that of course, but my governor is absolutely hell bent on doing an end run around Roe v. Wade. This kind of policy is so offensive to me. It's also nothing new. Back in the Reagan administration, the global gag rule caused immeasurable harm to women and children's health services in developing countries. It was shown, for example, that in countries where basic sanitation was lacking, if you could provide a pregnant woman with a clean sheet or tarp, a clean pair of scissors to cut the cord with (instead of the lid of a can you found in the trash heap), clean towels, and some other basic supplies, you could reduce maternal and newborn mortality by a significant measure. This was actually one of my dad's projects with the State Department in the 1980s. But under the global gag rule, even groups that did not provide abortion but counseled women regarding abortion or referred to legal abortion services lost their funding, even for programs that were intended to save the lives of women and babies. Never mind that a $3 kit can save two lives - abortion kills babies so you can't have your birth kit because some white politician in Washington who probably has never set foot in your country thinks he knows better for you. Infuriating to me in any country. It's all the same short-sighted manipulative political nonsense. And it's one reason why the viewpoint of our elected leaders matters to me, because all this was accomplished subsequent to Roe v. Wade - even though abortion is likely to remain legal in this country and no candidate is likely to reverse that decision, that doesn't mean that there aren't other issues relating to abortion that still matter. Since the institution of the global gag rule, each Republican President has reinstated it while each Democrat has rescinded it. This is one reason I have always voted Democrat and can't picture myself changing that anytime soon. Sorry, I ranted. I'm not sorry at all. As leftturnonly said, this is a conversation that needs to be had-not just among the candidates, but with the public at large. I understand that the topic of abortion is a difficult one to be had, but it needs to happen. Considering the statistics on the numbers of procedures I guarantee that someone you (the global you) know has had an abortion. A conversation in a judgement free environment where they aren't treated like a pariah, a victim, or a slut would go a long way in understanding the ramifications of these draconian laws. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Mar 31, 2016 22:28:40 GMT
I understand that the topic of abortion is a difficult one to be had, but it needs to happen. Considering the statistics on the numbers of procedures I guarantee that someone you (the global you) know has had an abortion. A conversation in a judgement free environment where they aren't treated like a pariah, a victim, or a slut would go a long way in understanding the ramifications of these draconian laws. I 100% agree. This is not something people talk about. You would never know your friend/sister/mother/aunt/grandmother/cousin/co-worker has had an abortion if they wanted to keep this to themselves. I do think that these new laws are not in the spirit of the Roe vs Wade decision. The effect is to make abortions illegal for many women and that is not something that the majority of the pubic supports. Even for those who see abortion more of a moral issue, I don't think that many percentage wise think that this is good law creation. Argue against abortion for the life of the unborn child. Good. That's a serious and real position. Close down clinics because they don't have 8 feet wide hallways. Bad. This is why we don't trust government. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Mar 31, 2016 22:42:43 GMT
I understand that the topic of abortion is a difficult one to be had, but it needs to happen. Considering the statistics on the numbers of procedures I guarantee that someone you (the global you) know has had an abortion. A conversation in a judgement free environment where they aren't treated like a pariah, a victim, or a slut would go a long way in understanding the ramifications of these draconian laws. I 100% agree. This is not something people talk about. You would never know your friend/sister/mother/aunt/grandmother/cousin/co-worker has had an abortion if they wanted to keep this to themselves. I do think that these new laws are not in the spirit of the Roe vs Wade decision. The effect is to make abortions illegal for many women and that is not something that the majority of the pubic supports. Even for those who see abortion more of a moral issue, I don't think that many percentage wise think that this is good law creation. Argue against abortion for the life of the unborn child. Good. That's a serious and real position. Close down clinics because they don't have 8 feet wide hallways. Bad. This is why we don't trust government.   |
|
