login
Hillary (Page 6)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-03-18 8:32 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Extreme Veteran  3025    Maryland |  Subject: RE: HillaryOriginally posted by mdg2003 Oh oh, seems like I hit a nerve. Yer right Tony. Pretty much did everything but call me an ignorant flat earther! My favorite is asking, no, telling me to look up my point and prove myself wrong! That's fcuking brilliant strategizing right there. OK, I'll play. I looked it up and found out that I am correct and they are wrong. What's next? I bet it has something to do with me needing to prove I'm not a racist homophobe... what are you, some kind of flat earther!? |
| 2016-03-18 9:48 AM in reply to: crusevegas |
Master 2802  Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Thanks for continuing to reinforce my assertion above versus adding something meaningful or tangible to the discussion... Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Typical R approach: Deflect from topic and avoid using science or rational thought. :-) Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by mdg2003 I know you are real excited and feel good about the big R primary turnout and that Trump is “creating new voters” (whatever that means) this cycle, but I hate to burst your bubble – primary turnout has been shown to have no correlation to general election turnout. If you don’t trust me on it, do some political science/stats research and see for yourself. Also, just Google "not enough white voters" and read some of the articles that pop up. Unless you are delusional, I think your view of Trump’s chances in the general will take a bit of a downturn. Show me some real research from respected sources showing a high likelihood of Trump winning in November (Electoral College, not popular vote please) and I will happily eat my words and be quiet on this topic going forward. Originally posted by jeffnboise Interesting take on the whole political situation you got there. I see CNN running 24/7 coverage about how someone needs to stop Trump. 24/7 they're propping up anyone who owns a suit and tie, getting their personal strategy and take on how to stop trump. Look at the trump thread here. it's lit up like a fcuking slot machine. Seems like someone is far from shore, but it might not be who you think it is. Look at the GOP primary turn out numbers compared to the democrats. Not even close. That should be an alarming trend for anyone supporting hilarry clinton or bernie. Just an observation. As far as payback for obama? I see the tables flipped this cycle. Like it or not, trump is the obama story this time around. Hillary, she's your Romney, McCain. i don't think julian Castro for veep is going to be able to generate enough support to help her overcome the deficit. Trump has the shiite stirred up. The left hates him with equal or more intensity than the right hates obama. Problem the left has is that the right is more fizzed than the left is. We're motivated and out voting in numbers that is scaring the crap out of the dnc. DNC defaults back to their tired playbook of yelling racist/phobia at anything they can't get on top of. It's not working this time around. Middle class white America is tired of being called names and labeled as ignorant every time the DNC doesn't get their way. Only thing that stops the landslide victory for Trump or Cruz is if the republicans broker the convention. They fcuk around and put Rubio or bush in there and I will vote for hilarry clinton. Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by tuwood Rule number one in Politics/Business. Don't ever tick off the IT guy: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness'
OMG a 'Devastating Witness'....... BREAKING FOX NEWS....(these are headlines previously used by Faux News) New Questions...Scandal deepens...Hillary "grilled"...Hillary 'Skewered'...Judge Rips Hillary...Fox Reporter Schools State Dept...Huge (Yuge?) Breaking Scandal...Secret Weapon Will Wreck Campaign...Fox Exposes Criminal Case..... yet in reality..........(crickets chirping) Really, Tony? Did all the Trump rally cancellations take away from your Saturday of play?? Ironically the Trump rally cancellation showed America which side really has the hate and bigotry going on. Of course! Because speaking out against his rhetoric, exercising THEIR 1st Amendment Rights, absolutely warrants a physical assault. Remember when I said Trump supporters were going to find themselves so far away from the shore they couldn't swim back? Congratulations! I get it. People think this is funny. That it's some kind of 'pay back' for electing Obama. The black/Muslim/African/Liberal/Democrat/Socialist/traitor (pick one). They're so easily willing to trample the American flag underneath their feet while they fight for traction on some sick kind of perceived moral 'high ground'. The far Right Wing have obviously lost the intellectual argument (while their presidential candidates debate the size of their manhood). So, like a typical playground bully that doesn't have the capacity to outthink his opponent; they resort to violence. We'll see soon enough who gets the payback. After the Dems win in November (and they ARE going to win in November-1600 Penn Av. and likely the Senate, too) Liberals will have an even stronger say in SCOTUS nominees. And the rancor and resentment from this election will not be so easily forgotten. I could offer them my sympathy, nay, my PITY for feeling so hopeless, so helpless and so very afraid......but, I won't. 'Cuz this is a HILLARY thread.
This is excellent news for Hillary. Heck, she won't even have to campaign or spend any money because it's already a done deal. I wonder if she'll take your overconfidence and run with it? Typical D approach, mock and make fun of anyone who isn't like minded. In all fairness, this discussion is a duplicate of one you two have already had,,,,, Pete and Re-Pete,,,, So, technically, you haven't brought anything new to the discussion either, I don't believe. I did have a question about something you said regarding the political polls, science or studies and you mentioned that it was a pretty small sampling and without going back and seeing exactly what you said but it was like 20 years based on the 1xx years of data wasn't a big enough sample for it to carry weight, scientifically. Now I'm paraphrasing and don't have your post in front of me so please correct what I have wrong or mis-characteristic. NOW chaining topics somewhat to Climate change, I think you mentioned we have some relative data that is 130ish years old plus 30 ish years of some pretty accurate data. I'm pretty sure you knew I was joking around about the earth being a couple of thousands of years old. According to Google (which I want to thank you for turning me on to by the way) the earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old. I'm not going to figure out the percentage that we have data for the earth but it's less than 0.0001% yet that is good enough to make your evidence or science solid, yet when you have 20% it is insufficient on the other hand. (which coincidentally goes against your opinion). Now here is my OPINION, why I think Trump not only has a chance but is a favorite in the general election, is primarily that a large portion of the voting population is pissed off at the powers at be in both parties. Combine that with the fact people will forget about how harsh Trump has been when he changes his tone going into the general election. People will accept someone who has acted poorly and comes around and acts decent. Trump has proven he knows how to work the press. The Barking Dog President or the Reality TV President. Two points: 1. I did bring something new to the table - my point about there being "not enough white voters" for Trump to win. 2. I did not post recently about climate change that I know of, but I remember skimming the thread. My stats related post was about an article that Tony linked: "Trump Near-Certain to Defeat Democrat in November According To Primary Model". My main beef (and that of many statisticians that I read) with Norpoth's predictive model showing that Trump will win "with 97% certainty' that Tony posted and I responded to, is that he built the model using all data points at his disposal versus only a subset of data and then validating the model by predicting the remaining data points. That is know as "over fitting". It is easy to build a model to fit data points, but that doesn't mean it is truly predictive looking forward. I don't even know what to make of your comparing his limited data set to climate change temp data versus the age of the Earth. Those two things seem completely unrelated with no statistical significance that I can think of. I'd be interested in learning more if you can shed some light on that. |
| 2016-03-18 10:00 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Hillary Timely article posted by Nate Silver on 538! http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-f... |
| 2016-03-18 4:15 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
| Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by crusevegas Two points: 1. I did bring something new to the table - my point about there being "not enough white voters" for Trump to win. 2. I did not post recently about climate change that I know of, but I remember skimming the thread. My stats related post was about an article that Tony linked: "Trump Near-Certain to Defeat Democrat in November According To Primary Model". My main beef (and that of many statisticians that I read) with Norpoth's predictive model showing that Trump will win "with 97% certainty' that Tony posted and I responded to, is that he built the model using all data points at his disposal versus only a subset of data and then validating the model by predicting the remaining data points. That is know as "over fitting". It is easy to build a model to fit data points, but that doesn't mean it is truly predictive looking forward. I don't even know what to make of your comparing his limited data set to climate change temp data versus the age of the Earth. Those two things seem completely unrelated with no statistical significance that I can think of. I'd be interested in learning more if you can shed some light on that. Originally posted by ejshowers.. In all fairness, this discussion is a duplicate of one you two have already had,,,,, Pete and Re-Pete,,,, So, technically, you haven't brought anything new to the discussion either, I don't believe. I did have a question about something you said regarding the political polls, science or studies and you mentioned that it was a pretty small sampling and without going back and seeing exactly what you said but it was like 20 years based on the 1xx years of data wasn't a big enough sample for it to carry weight, scientifically. Now I'm paraphrasing and don't have your post in front of me so please correct what I have wrong or mis-characteristic. NOW chaining topics somewhat to Climate change, I think you mentioned we have some relative data that is 130ish years old plus 30 ish years of some pretty accurate data. I'm pretty sure you knew I was joking around about the earth being a couple of thousands of years old. According to Google (which I want to thank you for turning me on to by the way) the earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old. I'm not going to figure out the percentage that we have data for the earth but it's less than 0.0001% yet that is good enough to make your evidence or science solid, yet when you have 20% it is insufficient on the other hand. (which coincidentally goes against your opinion). Now here is my OPINION, why I think Trump not only has a chance but is a favorite in the general election, is primarily that a large portion of the voting population is pissed off at the powers at be in both parties. Combine that with the fact people will forget about how harsh Trump has been when he changes his tone going into the general election. People will accept someone who has acted poorly and comes around and acts decent. Trump has proven he knows how to work the press. The Barking Dog President or the Reality TV President. This seems to be something that you are uniquely qualified to discuss, the statistics and have a much more in depth understanding than I. I looked for the post I was referring to which I thought was in the climate thread but couldn't find it. Based on what you said here, I will assume I was wrong about it being a time thing but a data point thing, which honestly is over my head. On things I don't understand so well, I try to draw comparison to something I do understand to help me grasp a concept or subject better. My logical mind still doesn't understand how higher primary turnout, generally speaking doesn't equate to higher general election, at least for the one party or side. This isn't direct at you at all but the saying Statistics don't Lie but Liars use Statistics is true and alive and well, I think one example is the ice chart Tony posted in the other thread. I appreciate the the contributions you make here, thank you. This will be an interesting 7 months. |
| 2016-03-20 1:29 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by mdg2003 Oh oh, seems like I hit a nerve. Yer right Tony. Pretty much did everything but call me an ignorant flat earther! My favorite is asking, no, telling me to look up my point and prove myself wrong! That's fcuking brilliant strategizing right there. OK, I'll play. I looked it up and found out that I am correct and they are wrong. What's next? I bet it has something to do with me needing to prove I'm not a racist homophobe... what are you, some kind of flat earther!? Wait… Did you just call me ignorant?  |
| 2016-03-20 7:25 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 Wait… Did you just call me ignorant? Originally posted by mdg2003 Oh oh, seems like I hit a nerve. Yer right Tony. Pretty much did everything but call me an ignorant flat earther! My favorite is asking, no, telling me to look up my point and prove myself wrong! That's fcuking brilliant strategizing right there. OK, I'll play. I looked it up and found out that I am correct and they are wrong. What's next? I bet it has something to do with me needing to prove I'm not a racist homophobe... what are you, some kind of flat earther!? Wait a second... The earth isn't flat? |
| 2016-03-20 7:48 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 Wait… Did you just call me ignorant? Originally posted by mdg2003 Oh oh, seems like I hit a nerve. Yer right Tony. Pretty much did everything but call me an ignorant flat earther! My favorite is asking, no, telling me to look up my point and prove myself wrong! That's fcuking brilliant strategizing right there. OK, I'll play. I looked it up and found out that I am correct and they are wrong. What's next? I bet it has something to do with me needing to prove I'm not a racist homophobe... what are you, some kind of flat earther!? Wait a second... The earth isn't flat? The funny thing is, human beings carried on just fine when they thought it was. Edited by Left Brain 2016-03-20 7:48 PM |
| 2016-03-20 8:29 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 Wait… Did you just call me ignorant? Originally posted by mdg2003 Oh oh, seems like I hit a nerve. Yer right Tony. Pretty much did everything but call me an ignorant flat earther! My favorite is asking, no, telling me to look up my point and prove myself wrong! That's fcuking brilliant strategizing right there. OK, I'll play. I looked it up and found out that I am correct and they are wrong. What's next? I bet it has something to do with me needing to prove I'm not a racist homophobe... what are you, some kind of flat earther!? Wait a second... The earth isn't flat? The funny thing is, human beings carried on just fine when they thought it was. Brilliant |
| 2016-03-21 12:56 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 Wait… Did you just call me ignorant? Originally posted by mdg2003 Oh oh, seems like I hit a nerve. Yer right Tony. Pretty much did everything but call me an ignorant flat earther! My favorite is asking, no, telling me to look up my point and prove myself wrong! That's fcuking brilliant strategizing right there. OK, I'll play. I looked it up and found out that I am correct and they are wrong. What's next? I bet it has something to do with me needing to prove I'm not a racist homophobe... what are you, some kind of flat earther!? Wait a second... The earth isn't flat? The funny thing is, human beings carried on just fine when they thought it was. Brilliant I wouldn't say they carried on fine. They carried on like violent, ignorant, xenophobic, superstitious, religious zealots. Not like now... |
| 2016-03-21 3:08 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by mdg2003 I wouldn't say they carried on fine. They carried on like violent, ignorant, xenophobic, superstitious, religious zealots. Not like now... Originally posted by Left Brain Brilliant Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 Wait… Did you just call me ignorant? Originally posted by mdg2003 Oh oh, seems like I hit a nerve. Yer right Tony. Pretty much did everything but call me an ignorant flat earther! My favorite is asking, no, telling me to look up my point and prove myself wrong! That's fcuking brilliant strategizing right there. OK, I'll play. I looked it up and found out that I am correct and they are wrong. What's next? I bet it has something to do with me needing to prove I'm not a racist homophobe... what are you, some kind of flat earther!? Wait a second... The earth isn't flat? The funny thing is, human beings carried on just fine when they thought it was.
Not sure why you feel it's necessary to demonize Bernie's supporters like that? |
| 2016-03-21 4:37 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by mdg2003 I wouldn't say they carried on fine. They carried on like violent, ignorant, xenophobic, superstitious, religious zealots. Not like now... Originally posted by Left Brain Brilliant Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 Wait… Did you just call me ignorant? Originally posted by mdg2003 Oh oh, seems like I hit a nerve. Yer right Tony. Pretty much did everything but call me an ignorant flat earther! My favorite is asking, no, telling me to look up my point and prove myself wrong! That's fcuking brilliant strategizing right there. OK, I'll play. I looked it up and found out that I am correct and they are wrong. What's next? I bet it has something to do with me needing to prove I'm not a racist homophobe... what are you, some kind of flat earther!? Wait a second... The earth isn't flat? The funny thing is, human beings carried on just fine when they thought it was.
Not sure why you feel it's necessary to demonize Bernie's supporters like that? See, now who's struggling with reading comprehension? Did you miss the part where I said "religious zeolots"? If I'd been talking about Bernie's supporters, I would have said "G-dless heathens" |
| 2016-03-21 4:46 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by crusevegas See, now who's struggling with reading comprehension? Did you miss the part where I said "religious zeolots"? If I'd been talking about Bernie's supporters, I would have said "G-dless heathens" Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by mdg2003 I wouldn't say they carried on fine. They carried on like violent, ignorant, xenophobic, superstitious, religious zealots. Not like now... Originally posted by Left Brain Brilliant Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 Wait… Did you just call me ignorant? Originally posted by mdg2003 Oh oh, seems like I hit a nerve. Yer right Tony. Pretty much did everything but call me an ignorant flat earther! My favorite is asking, no, telling me to look up my point and prove myself wrong! That's fcuking brilliant strategizing right there. OK, I'll play. I looked it up and found out that I am correct and they are wrong. What's next? I bet it has something to do with me needing to prove I'm not a racist homophobe... what are you, some kind of flat earther!? Wait a second... The earth isn't flat? The funny thing is, human beings carried on just fine when they thought it was.
Not sure why you feel it's necessary to demonize Bernie's supporters like that? That's exactly the part I was referring to! lol |
| 2016-03-22 9:39 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by crusevegas See, now who's struggling with reading comprehension? Did you miss the part where I said "religious zeolots"? If I'd been talking about Bernie's supporters, I would have said "G-dless heathens" Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by mdg2003 I wouldn't say they carried on fine. They carried on like violent, ignorant, xenophobic, superstitious, religious zealots. Not like now... Originally posted by Left Brain Brilliant Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 Wait… Did you just call me ignorant? Originally posted by mdg2003 Oh oh, seems like I hit a nerve. Yer right Tony. Pretty much did everything but call me an ignorant flat earther! My favorite is asking, no, telling me to look up my point and prove myself wrong! That's fcuking brilliant strategizing right there. OK, I'll play. I looked it up and found out that I am correct and they are wrong. What's next? I bet it has something to do with me needing to prove I'm not a racist homophobe... what are you, some kind of flat earther!? Wait a second... The earth isn't flat? The funny thing is, human beings carried on just fine when they thought it was.
Not sure why you feel it's necessary to demonize Bernie's supporters like that? I'm fairly confident that they are fully worshiping themselves as well as at the altar of Global Warming. Everybody has a God; some go to church, many just look in the mirror. |
| 2016-03-22 4:29 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Bill, the gift that keeps on giving: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Ja6miJZGE I know he's trying to spin it now that he was referring to the Republican Congress, but I think that would be a little hard to believe considering the Republicans have had majority control for a little over a year in the senate and five years in the house. |
| 2016-04-02 5:30 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Hey, at least she comes right out and says it. https://www.facebook.com/winstonwaikiki/videos/792111747588308/
|
| 2016-04-03 8:25 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Apparently Hillary doesnt understand the abortion issue either. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/ |
| 2016-04-04 10:21 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood Apparently Hillary doesnt understand the abortion issue either. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/ It's not that she "doesn't understand the issue", it's that she made comments that use terminology that the pro-choice side prefers to avoid. If you read the transcript of her comments, she's clearly referencing the terminology used by the person asking the question. On the contrary, if one reads her full comments and looks at them objectively, she makes her position, the same position she's held for years, very clear in her first response. TODD: Give me your straightforward position on the issue of abortion. CLINTON: My position is in line with Roe v. Wade, that women have a constitutional right to make these moment intimate and personal and difficult decisions based on their conscience, their faith, their family, their doctor. And that it is something that really goes to the core of privacy. And I want to maintain that constitutional protection. Under Roe v. Wade as you know there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions after a certain point in time. I think the life, the health of the mother are clear. And those should be included even as one moves on in pregnancy. So I have been — I’ve had the same position for many years. TODD: When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights? CLINTON: Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that, you know, don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions. And I think that’s an important distinction that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had refined under our Constitution. I love how Trump can say that he thinks that women should be punished for having abortions one minute, and "oops, I meant, they shouldn't be punished for having abortions" five minutes later, and that's just NBD for you, but somehow this one comment is a HUGE deal that suggests that she "doesn't understand the abortion issue". Please. Hillary's been on the front line of the abortion debate for years. Your boy, on the other hand, said, as recently as 1999, "Well, I'm very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debate the subject. But, you still, I just believe in choice." The only abortion debate he's ever been a part of is the one he's apparently been having with himself over what position to assume. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-04-04 10:36 AM |
| 2016-04-04 10:25 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Apparently Hillary doesnt understand the abortion issue either. It's not that she "doesn't understand the issue", it's that she made comments that use terminology that the pro-choice side prefers to avoid. And, what your article (conveniently) avoids, is the transcript of her comments where she's clearly referencing the terminology used by the person asking the question. On the contrary, if one reads her full comments and looks at them objectively, she makes her position, the same position she's held for years, very clear. TODD: Give me your straightforward position on the issue of abortion. CLINTON: My position is in line with Roe v. Wade, that women have a constitutional right to make these moment intimate and personal and difficult decisions based on their conscience, their faith, their family, their doctor. And that it is something that really goes to the core of privacy. And I want to maintain that constitutional protection. Under Roe v. Wade as you know there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions after a certain point in time. I think the life, the health of the mother are clear. And those should be included even as one moves on in pregnancy. So I have been — I’ve had the same position for many years. TODD: When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights? CLINTON: Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that, you know, don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions. And I think that’s an important distinction that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had refined under our Constitution. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/ I'll never argue that Hillary isn't and hasn't been pro-choice for a long time. I just got a chuckle out of how people get riled up if you don't use the "right words" when discussing the topic. |
| 2016-04-04 10:41 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Apparently Hillary doesnt understand the abortion issue either. It's not that she "doesn't understand the issue", it's that she made comments that use terminology that the pro-choice side prefers to avoid. And, what your article (conveniently) avoids, is the transcript of her comments where she's clearly referencing the terminology used by the person asking the question. On the contrary, if one reads her full comments and looks at them objectively, she makes her position, the same position she's held for years, very clear. TODD: Give me your straightforward position on the issue of abortion. CLINTON: My position is in line with Roe v. Wade, that women have a constitutional right to make these moment intimate and personal and difficult decisions based on their conscience, their faith, their family, their doctor. And that it is something that really goes to the core of privacy. And I want to maintain that constitutional protection. Under Roe v. Wade as you know there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions after a certain point in time. I think the life, the health of the mother are clear. And those should be included even as one moves on in pregnancy. So I have been — I’ve had the same position for many years. TODD: When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights? CLINTON: Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that, you know, don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions. And I think that’s an important distinction that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had refined under our Constitution. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/ I'll never argue that Hillary isn't and hasn't been pro-choice for a long time. I just got a chuckle out of how people get riled up if you don't use the "right words" when discussing the topic. Ah, yes, but that's not what you said. What you said was, "Apparently Hillary doesn't understand the abortion issue either" You CLEARLY posted this article to smear her on this topic, and either didn't bother to read the full transcript, or just assumed no one else would. Tacky. |
| 2016-04-04 10:46 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Ah, yes, but that's not what you said. What you said was, "Apparently Hillary doesn't understand the abortion issue either" You CLEARLY posted this article to smear her on this topic, and either didn't bother to read the full transcript, or just assumed no one else would. Tacky. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Apparently Hillary doesnt understand the abortion issue either. It's not that she "doesn't understand the issue", it's that she made comments that use terminology that the pro-choice side prefers to avoid. And, what your article (conveniently) avoids, is the transcript of her comments where she's clearly referencing the terminology used by the person asking the question. On the contrary, if one reads her full comments and looks at them objectively, she makes her position, the same position she's held for years, very clear. TODD: Give me your straightforward position on the issue of abortion. CLINTON: My position is in line with Roe v. Wade, that women have a constitutional right to make these moment intimate and personal and difficult decisions based on their conscience, their faith, their family, their doctor. And that it is something that really goes to the core of privacy. And I want to maintain that constitutional protection. Under Roe v. Wade as you know there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions after a certain point in time. I think the life, the health of the mother are clear. And those should be included even as one moves on in pregnancy. So I have been — I’ve had the same position for many years. TODD: When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights? CLINTON: Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that, you know, don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions. And I think that’s an important distinction that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had refined under our Constitution. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/ I'll never argue that Hillary isn't and hasn't been pro-choice for a long time. I just got a chuckle out of how people get riled up if you don't use the "right words" when discussing the topic. My statement was with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Lighten up francis. :-P She understands the issue completely, it's just ironic that for somebody like Hillary to be attacked for not "saying the right things" shows the ridiculousness of some people (not Hillary). You also might be surprised that I agree with Hillary on the statements she made. I do believe that it is an unborn person in the womb, but I also agree that our constitutional rights and laws aren't in effect until the person has been legally born. I don't necessarily like it, but it is true. |
| 2016-04-05 2:20 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary First I've heard talk of a brokered convention on this side of the race: Would be very interesting if we had brokered conventions from both parties. |
| 2016-04-05 2:29 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| 1731 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood First I've heard talk of a brokered convention on this side of the race: Would be very interesting if we had brokered conventions from both parties. I hate when they keep including superdelegates in counts. It's a number of 700 that can change completely. It's so misleading :/ |
| 2016-04-05 2:33 PM in reply to: marysia83 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by tuwood I hate when they keep including superdelegates in counts. It's a number of 700 that can change completely. It's so misleading :/ First I've heard talk of a brokered convention on this side of the race: Would be very interesting if we had brokered conventions from both parties. Agree, I tend to look at the actual delegates when comparing how close their race is. It's pretty darn close. Then again, I suspect many of those super delegates are pretty hard core Hillary supporters and don't really care what the people think.
|
| 2016-04-06 8:10 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by tuwood I hate when they keep including superdelegates in counts. It's a number of 700 that can change completely. It's so misleading :/ First I've heard talk of a brokered convention on this side of the race: Would be very interesting if we had brokered conventions from both parties. Agree, I tend to look at the actual delegates when comparing how close their race is. It's pretty darn close. Then again, I suspect many of those super delegates are pretty hard core Hillary supporters and don't really care what the people think.
The thing is, Clinton is still leading Sanders by almost 2.5 Million popular votes, so it's not as if "the people" haven't made their voices heard. The 500 people who voted for Sanders in Alaska notwithstanding, the popular vote still resoundingly favors Clinton, so if you're saying that the superdelegates ought to vote with the people, then clearly, casting their ballot for Hillary is the correct thing to do. By contrast, Trump has a little over 9 million popular votes, considerably more than any of the other GOP candidates (Cruz is second with 6.3M), but it still means that considerably more than half of the GOP voters voted for someone other than Trump. That, in my opinion, makes a much stronger case for a brokered convention that what's happening on the D side. Regardless, it'll all be over soon. I doubt Bernie's going to win New York, and if he loses, I don't see a path to victory for him. He really needs to win both CA and NY at this point, and I don't see him winning either. He hasn't done well in states with diverse populations. |
| 2016-04-06 9:04 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Hillary Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood The thing is, Clinton is still leading Sanders by almost 2.5 Million popular votes, so it's not as if "the people" haven't made their voices heard. The 500 people who voted for Sanders in Alaska notwithstanding, the popular vote still resoundingly favors Clinton, so if you're saying that the superdelegates ought to vote with the people, then clearly, casting their ballot for Hillary is the correct thing to do. By contrast, Trump has a little over 9 million popular votes, considerably more than any of the other GOP candidates (Cruz is second with 6.3M), but it still means that considerably more than half of the GOP voters voted for someone other than Trump. That, in my opinion, makes a much stronger case for a brokered convention that what's happening on the D side. Regardless, it'll all be over soon. I doubt Bernie's going to win New York, and if he loses, I don't see a path to victory for him. He really needs to win both CA and NY at this point, and I don't see him winning either. He hasn't done well in states with diverse populations. Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by tuwood I hate when they keep including superdelegates in counts. It's a number of 700 that can change completely. It's so misleading :/ First I've heard talk of a brokered convention on this side of the race: Would be very interesting if we had brokered conventions from both parties. Agree, I tend to look at the actual delegates when comparing how close their race is. It's pretty darn close. Then again, I suspect many of those super delegates are pretty hard core Hillary supporters and don't really care what the people think.
popular vote in the primaries is nearly meaningless. caucus states, in which Bernie does better, have WAY WAY fewer voters due to the nature of how they are run. Bernie could have a big delegate lead and still be losing by popular vote. There is a reason that they have delegates. Sanders just crushed in 7 or the last 8 states, and is barely behind now. makes me laugh that you all still want to count him out. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK