Speculative press is reporting that the Democrat leadership is looking to hedge Hillary's issues by fostering Al Gore.
While his sources are saying the whole thing is way overblown in the press, no one has denied that discussions on Gore's viability in light of current events has taken place.
Seems they would rather have Elizabeth Warren. I guess Bernie Sanders is just not annointed enough.
they will need someone. Hard to imagine how Hillary gets past the server issue. The most recent analysis is that having a server is itself a criminal act regardless of what's on it. My guess is that Uncle Joe will ride in on a promise of a one term presidency.
I guess we are going to party like its 1999
The Democrats should be able to keep the White House fairly easily based on the right's clown show. But somehow they are going to screw this up.
Hillary isnt without precedent.
Petreaus passed classified data to his mistress.
CIA Director Deutsch was busted for saving classified materials on his home computer.
Neither got jail time.
Karl Rove used his RNC email account while in the WH.
Accountability in communication is a drag when you are in public office. Just ask Lois Lerner.
This is why politicos prefer to work on sidelines in private.
except it isn't legal. This is going to be the last straw. The millennials can't stand her, because they see her for what she it. They like Bernie for now.
Petraeus was convicted.
If Colin Powell did it too, then he broke the law and s/b punished.
Dont care what party it is. The guilt of one does not absolve the guilt of the others.
Quoteum right. like Benghazi, or the birth certificate or any of the other manufactured 'scandals' from the republican machine over the past twenty three eight years.
Fixed it for you.
Then I guess we will let the facts speak for themselves.
If she committed a crime, let it be known.
If its just another unproven accusation, let it be known it cant be proven.
I personally dont know why the Clintons collect so much political lint,
Well, indeed Gore managed to garner a fair number of votes in the past,yes?......subject to folks flying in to south Florida, pounding on the doors at the recount offices, and Supreme Court involvement.
Will be interesting to see where this goes.
Quote from: stephendare on August 14, 2015, 02:06:31 PM
Quote from: spuwho on August 14, 2015, 01:55:22 PM
If Colin Powell did it too, then he broke the law and s/b punished.
Dont care what party it is. The guilt of one does not absolve the guilt of the others.
this wasn't the tune anyone on these forums was singing back when it was an issue. Things can't only be questionable only when Democrats are in office.
I have no problem with Colin Powell going to jail if he did the same thing. I also agree that this country would have been so much better off if we hadn't of being distracted by the Lewinsky blowjob. Things were actually getting done until that basically brought things to a halt in 98
Last time I checked, Al Gore wasnt accused of committing perjury when he told the world he invented the internet. And to top it off the Republicans didnt form a grand jury to prove it either.
Doggone it, some people just get away with the biggest lies! :)
Quote from: spuwho on August 15, 2015, 05:24:25 PM
Last time I checked, Al Gore wasnt accused of committing perjury when he told the world he invented the internet. And to top it off the Republicans didnt form a grand jury to prove it either.
Doggone it, some people just get away with the biggest lies! :)
A lot like Ronald Reagan and Iran Contra (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB483/bookCover.jpg)
And look here Republicans if you can remove your blinders. (https://madpissedandangry.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/10704153_731520733570542_6590828661015230167_n.jpg?w=614)
Quote from: spuwho on August 15, 2015, 05:24:25 PM
Last time I checked, Al Gore wasnt accused of committing perjury when he told the world he invented the internet. And to top it off the Republicans didnt form a grand jury to prove it either.
Doggone it, some people just get away with the biggest lies! :)
I know you're joking (and realise that Gore wasn't under oath anyway) - but he said, "I took the initiative in creating the internet". He never claimed to invent it - though I suppose I feel he overstated his role to some extent. Or maybe he was correct - he took the initiative to develop an act that was instrumental in the development of the internet. But (according to the article on Wikipedia):
The meaning of Gore's statement, referring to his legislative support of the early Internet, was widely reaffirmed by notable Internet pioneers, such as Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, who stated, "No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_Act_of_1991 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_Act_of_1991)
So I don't think, even if he were under oath at the time, he could've been done for perjury.
Quote from: spuwho on August 15, 2015, 05:24:25 PM
Last time I checked, Al Gore wasnt accused of committing perjury when he told the world he invented the internet. And to top it off the Republicans didnt form a grand jury to prove it either.
Doggone it, some people just get away with the biggest lies! :)
Hint, hint.....sarcasm at work.
Yes, Dems hate Reps and Reps hate Dems. The biggest problem both Reps and Dems have is that independents don't like ANY of their candidates. Two parties is not enough.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on August 16, 2015, 09:00:57 AM
Yes, Dems hate Reps and Reps hate Dems. The biggest problem both Reps and Dems have is that independents don't like ANY of their candidates. Two parties is not enough.
There are plenty of third parties, though. If most Americans thought that two parties weren't enough, they could vote for the other guys. The fact that they don't indicates that the two main parties certainly are viewed by most Americans as reflecting their views.
Quote from: Adam White on August 16, 2015, 10:42:25 AM
There are plenty of third parties, though. If most Americans thought that two parties weren't enough, they could vote for the other guys. The fact that they don't indicates that the two main parties certainly are viewed by most Americans as reflecting their views.
I think you'd better check those facts. True, 3rd parties aren't running away with everything, but many 3rd party candidates have taken office. The libertarian party is also the only party that is growing while the big 2 continue to shrink in membership. Gary Johnson (libertarian) got just shy of 1.3 million votes in the last election. A drop in the bucket, true, but the number grows each year.
The green party is also doing well.
I think it's very possible that we lose the republican party and end up with the libertarian and democratic party as the big 2. Unless the republicans change that is. It's happened in the past and can certainly happen again.
Quote from: coredumped on August 16, 2015, 02:35:23 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 16, 2015, 10:42:25 AM
There are plenty of third parties, though. If most Americans thought that two parties weren't enough, they could vote for the other guys. The fact that they don't indicates that the two main parties certainly are viewed by most Americans as reflecting their views.
I think you'd better check those facts. True, 3rd parties aren't running away with everything, but many 3rd party candidates have taken office. The libertarian party is also the only party that is growing while the big 2 continue to shrink in membership. Gary Johnson (libertarian) got just shy of 1.3 million votes in the last election. A drop in the bucket, true, but the number grows each year.
The green party is also doing well.
I think it's very possible that we lose the republican party and end up with the libertarian and democratic party as the big 2. Unless the republicans change that is. It's happened in the past and can certainly happen again.
The Democratic and Republican parties have far more registered voters than any other parties by a long shot. I am not disputing that some third parties are growing. But you know what? The so-called "Libertarian" Party has never managed to match the national electoral success of the old Socialist Party of America (who garnered 6% of the vote in the 1912 Presidential election). And what happened to that party? It's easy to look at a trend and make assumptions about what that means for the future. And although things
may change, the truth is that two parties have represented the vast majority of US voter opinion for hundreds of years - in spite of occasional limited success by third parties (like the Socialists, Communists, Greens and "Libertarians").
Quote from: coredumped on August 16, 2015, 02:35:23 PM
Gary Johnson (libertarian) got just shy of 1.3 million votes in the last election. A drop in the bucket, true, but the number grows each year.
He still got ZERO votes that actually count.
I feel like a broken record bringing this up in every presidential election conversation, but our broken system doesn't have any room for a 3rd party. They're irrelevant.
Why do you think Sanders is running Dem? That alone should tell us that he's somewhat serious about winning the presidency and not just running to 'get his message' out. The only chance he stands is by winning the primary. If he loses that, he might get 3 votes from the EC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_elections
I only control one vote and I hope that's true for every other voter. The only election in which my vote decides the election is when my choice wins by one vote. In every other election my vote only counts as an expression of which direction I would like to see government take. There are very very few Dems or Reps that deserve my vote.
Quote from: Adam White on August 16, 2015, 03:33:47 PM
The Democratic and Republican parties have far more registered voters than any other parties by a long shot. I am not disputing that some third parties are growing. But you know what? The so-called "Libertarian" Party has never managed to match the national electoral success of the old Socialist Party of America (who garnered 6% of the vote in the 1912 Presidential election). And what happened to that party? It's easy to look at a trend and make assumptions about what that means for the future. And although things may change, the truth is that two parties have represented the vast majority of US voter opinion for hundreds of years - in spite of occasional limited success by third parties (like the Socialists, Communists, Greens and "Libertarians").
HUNDREDS of years? Not even 200, the democratic party started in 1828 and the republican in 1854. Remember, the republicans and democrats were one party (I honestly think they are today too :D :D :D ), and then there was the whig and the very short lived, but still had presidents elected whig party.
Times change, and if the parties don't evolve they'll fade out and some other party will take over.
Quote from: coredumped on August 17, 2015, 04:18:26 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 16, 2015, 03:33:47 PM
The Democratic and Republican parties have far more registered voters than any other parties by a long shot. I am not disputing that some third parties are growing. But you know what? The so-called "Libertarian" Party has never managed to match the national electoral success of the old Socialist Party of America (who garnered 6% of the vote in the 1912 Presidential election). And what happened to that party? It's easy to look at a trend and make assumptions about what that means for the future. And although things may change, the truth is that two parties have represented the vast majority of US voter opinion for hundreds of years - in spite of occasional limited success by third parties (like the Socialists, Communists, Greens and "Libertarians").
HUNDREDS of years? Not even 200, the democratic party started in 1828 and the republican in 1854. Remember, the republicans and democrats were one party (I honestly think they are today too :D :D :D ), and then there was the whig and the very short lived, but still had presidents elected whig party.
Times change, and if the parties don't evolve they'll fade out and some other party will take over.
Okay - I got that wrong. I should've typed "over a hundred". But the point is still valid. Short-term trends are common and rarely amount to anything long-lasting. Who knows what will happen - but I doubt the idiots in the "Libertarian" party will replace the Republicans as the second-largest party in the USA.
the barrier to a third party is and will always be money. That's it and they will work together to make sure a national third party is nothing more than fringe.
Quote from: Adam White on August 17, 2015, 05:09:08 PM
Okay - I got that wrong. I should've typed "over a hundred". But the point is still valid. Short-term trends are common and rarely amount to anything long-lasting. Who knows what will happen - but I doubt the idiots in the "Libertarian" party will replace the Republicans as the second-largest party in the USA.
Well we
were having a civilized discussion...sad Adam.
If you're happy with the way things are going, keep voting the same. It's not a horse race, you get no prize for picking the "winner."
Quote from: Adam White on August 17, 2015, 05:09:08 PM
Quote from: coredumped on August 17, 2015, 04:18:26 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 16, 2015, 03:33:47 PM
The Democratic and Republican parties have far more registered voters than any other parties by a long shot. I am not disputing that some third parties are growing. But you know what? The so-called "Libertarian" Party has never managed to match the national electoral success of the old Socialist Party of America (who garnered 6% of the vote in the 1912 Presidential election). And what happened to that party? It's easy to look at a trend and make assumptions about what that means for the future. And although things may change, the truth is that two parties have represented the vast majority of US voter opinion for hundreds of years - in spite of occasional limited success by third parties (like the Socialists, Communists, Greens and "Libertarians").
HUNDREDS of years? Not even 200, the democratic party started in 1828 and the republican in 1854. Remember, the republicans and democrats were one party (I honestly think they are today too :D :D :D ), and then there was the whig and the very short lived, but still had presidents elected whig party.
Times change, and if the parties don't evolve they'll fade out and some other party will take over.
Okay - I got that wrong. I should've typed "over a hundred". But the point is still valid. Short-term trends are common and rarely amount to anything long-lasting. Who knows what will happen - but I doubt the idiots in the "Libertarian" party will replace the Republicans as the second-largest party in the USA.
The Libertarians IMO are worst then the Tea Party Members to me. And if they got into power I believe another civil war would take America once again.
Quote from: coredumped on August 17, 2015, 05:52:24 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 17, 2015, 05:09:08 PM
Okay - I got that wrong. I should've typed "over a hundred". But the point is still valid. Short-term trends are common and rarely amount to anything long-lasting. Who knows what will happen - but I doubt the idiots in the "Libertarian" party will replace the Republicans as the second-largest party in the USA.
Well we were having a civilized discussion...sad Adam.
If you're happy with the way things are going, keep voting the same. It's not a horse race, you get no prize for picking the "winner."
There is nothing civilized about the "Libertarian" party.
As far as voting goes, when I lived in the US, I was a member of the SP-USA. But I am not certain if I even voted in the last few elections before I moved (I can't recall if I voted for McReynolds and I know I didn't vote for Brown). I'm not saying you shouldn't join or vote for a third party - I'm saying I don't believe that Americans (as a rule) are dissatisfied with the Democratic and Republican parties.
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are 'genuine' candidates, whether you agree with them or not. People are flocking to their messages because they see them as telling the truth about what they think, and what they will do, without bowing down to special interests for money, or saying whatever people wish to hear to get elected and then do whatever they wish for those who pay them.
And make no mistake, the mainstream establishment in the US, in the media and the professional political ranks, hate and fear both of them. The establishment candidates, duly anointed by the moneyed interests, are Hillary and Jeb!, with some designated stand-ins should either of them stumble too badly. And the established party machines and their enablers will do everything in their power to make sure that you can only choose one or the other of their approved products next year.
Quote from: finehoe on August 18, 2015, 10:25:56 AM
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are 'genuine' candidates, whether you agree with them or not. People are flocking to their messages because they see them as telling the truth about what they think, and what they will do, without bowing down to special interests for money, or saying whatever people wish to hear to get elected and then do whatever they wish for those who pay them.
And make no mistake, the mainstream establishment in the US, in the media and the professional political ranks, hate and fear both of them. The establishment candidates, duly anointed by the moneyed interests, are Hillary and Jeb!, with some designated stand-ins should either of them stumble too badly. And the established party machines and their enablers will do everything in their power to make sure that you can only choose one or the other of their approved products next year.
"And the established party machines and their enablers will do everything in their power to make sure that you can only choose one or the other of their approved products next year." GOOD!
Quote from: finehoe on August 18, 2015, 10:25:56 AM
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are 'genuine' candidates, whether you agree with them or not.
Agreed. And only because whether THEY agree or not, they're each running with the only party that gives them a legitimate chance to be elected.
Times of great change can bring great dangers. The people are starting to wake up, slowly but surely, almost one person at a time. They are getting angry, and motivated, as the overreach and pride of the financial interests continues to grow. They are not buying the globalists' message of rule by multinational corporations and a remote elite. And with this brings both opportunity, and danger.
American government has been a two-party system almost since the beginning. All that's changed has been the parties themselves, which have either evolved with the times (Democrats and Republicans, so far) or collapsed (goodbye, Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, and Whigs). Historically, there have been one of two rolls for third parties: either serving to replace a collapsing existing party, or being forever delegated to a minority status. Of course as minority parties they've still been able to influence even national elections, generally at the expense of whatever major party is the most similar to them. Neither Ross Perot in 1992 or Ralph Nader in 2000 got any electoral votes, but they got enough popular votes to disrupt the final outcome.
I don't see either Sanders or Trump as being as successful as even Ralph Nader, let alone Ross Perot. I see them more like Ron Paul in 2004 and 2008: able to generate a lot of noise and draw a vocal core followers, but unable to get large enough support to influence the primaries, let alone the actual election. Sanders get past Clinton. And Trump's seeming advantage will shrink once some of the other candidates start getting out of the clown car and the mainstream support gels.
Of the two Trump may well throw in as third party, but I doubt he'll be as successful as Perot was. The deck is too stacked against third party candidates now, and an even larger percentage of the electorate view him negatively.
Quote from: Tacachale on August 18, 2015, 11:18:03 AM
Neither Ross Perot in 1992 or Ralph Nader in 2000 got any electoral votes, but they got enough popular votes to disrupt the final outcome.
It might just be my own personal misunderstanding, but how does the popular vote affect the final outcome?
It's my understanding and belief that the popular vote in the national presidential election is absolutely irrelevant. If I'm wrong, then I've been wrong for over a decade, but if you have something to shed some light otherwise, I'm willing to listen.
Edit:
Just for clarification, my suspicion for all that is national politics began after I researched not only the EC, but it was also around that time when I realized the Federal Reserve was neither a government entity nor a public one. My tin-foil hat went on right around the time the towers collapsed. While I'm far from a full-blood conspiracy theorist, sometimes there's just too many breadcrumbs to ignore.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 18, 2015, 11:30:40 AM
It might just be my own personal misunderstanding, but how does the popular vote affect the final outcome?
It's my understanding and belief that the popular vote in the national presidential election is absolutely irrelevant. If I'm wrong, then I've been wrong for over a decade, but if you have something to shed some light otherwise, I'm willing to listen.
Popular vote matters because that's how electors are apportioned. So if Sanders were to win the Democratic Party nomination and went on to win the popular vote, he'd most likely end up as President. I say "most likely" because there are scenarios (I believe) whereby a person could win the popular vote nationally, but still not win the most electors, depending on what States he wins.
There are all sorts of issues with a winner-takes-all system of voting. And the electoral college seems an anachronism at best. But in spite of the occasional rogue elector, I've not seen any evidence to suggest that whomever wins the most electors won't become President.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 18, 2015, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 18, 2015, 11:18:03 AM
Neither Ross Perot in 1992 or Ralph Nader in 2000 got any electoral votes, but they got enough popular votes to disrupt the final outcome.
It might just be my own personal misunderstanding, but how does the popular vote affect the final outcome?
It's my understanding and belief that the popular vote in the national presidential election is absolutely irrelevant. If I'm wrong, then I've been wrong for over a decade, but if you have something to shed some light otherwise, I'm willing to listen.
It's complicated, but yes, the popular vote affects the electoral vote and therefore the election. It just happens state by state. Electors are chosen by the states, and today in every state, this is done through the popular vote in the presidential election. In other words, the popular vote in a particular state determines the candidate that gets the state's electoral votes. In 48 states, whoever wins the popular vote gets all the electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska, the electoral votes can be split between candidates, again based on popular voting. There are a few cases where the electors voted against their "pledge"; it's called being a "faithless elector" and it's rare. I don't think it's ever affected the outcome of an election.
A state gets the same number of electors as it has members of Congress. In general, this makes smaller states' popular votes count more, by design. Additionally, because most states send all their electoral votes to whatever candidate won the popular vote, swing states have a lot of influence in determining the election.
Quote from: Adam White on August 18, 2015, 11:49:09 AM
...there are scenarios (I believe) whereby a person could win the popular vote nationally, but still not win the most electors...
This is exactly what happened in the election of 2000. Gore won the popular vote, but Bush got more electoral votes (thanks to the Supremes' decision in
Bush v. Gore giving FL to W).
Quote from: Adam White on August 18, 2015, 11:49:09 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 18, 2015, 11:30:40 AM
It might just be my own personal misunderstanding, but how does the popular vote affect the final outcome?
It's my understanding and belief that the popular vote in the national presidential election is absolutely irrelevant. If I'm wrong, then I've been wrong for over a decade, but if you have something to shed some light otherwise, I'm willing to listen.
Popular vote matters because that's how electors are apportioned. So if Sanders were to win the Democratic Party nomination and went on to win the popular vote, he'd most likely end up as President. I say "most likely" because there are scenarios (I believe) whereby a person could win the popular vote nationally, but still not win the most electors, depending on what States he wins.
There are all sorts of issues with a winner-takes-all system of voting. And the electoral college seems an anachronism at best. But in spite of the occasional rogue elector, I've not seen any evidence to suggest that whomever wins the most electors won't become President.
As we saw in 2000, it's possible for a candidate to win the (overall) popular vote and still lose the election, based on the states they win. This happened three other times: 1824, 1876, and 1888. It isn't possible to win without winning the most electoral votes; that's what determines the president. There have been a few "faithless electors", but it usually happens as a protest (in 2000, one of the DC electors voted for no one as a protest of the district's lack of congressional representation) or by mistake (sometimes they put the wrong name). I don't think there's been a genuine faithless elector, who voted against the way the people voted, since the 1970s. And either way, I'm not aware of any case where it had an effect on the election.
I'm aware of all of this, but as you stated, there is no 'requirement' for the electors to vote with the majority. Faithless voter as it's called.
Finehoe is also correct.
The system is set up to maintain itself. I don't believe it was always so, but it's a broken system in today's world.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 18, 2015, 12:10:31 PM
I'm aware of all of this, but as you stated, there is no 'requirement' for the electors to vote with the majority. Faithless voter as it's called.
Finehoe is also correct.
The system is set up to maintain itself. I don't believe it was always so, but it's a broken system in today's world.
It's not "required" I guess, but it's very rarely happened that a state's electors didn't vote the way of the popular vote. This is the extent of the times it has happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
I am aware of all of that, thanks.
QuoteIn general, this makes smaller states' popular votes count more, by design. Additionally, because most states send all their electoral votes to whatever candidate won the popular vote, swing states have a lot of influence in determining the election.
Soooo... it is working exactly as designed. 8)
I have heard this thrown around from time to time? If Hilliary is in trouble with her emails and since Mr sanders has a snowball chance in hell of winning. Maybe President Barack Obama should stay on for a third term? Problem solved lets move on to another easy fix. ;D
Yeah, Obama for a third term would be great... That's sarcasm.
I think if Biden ran he'd win the nomination, and the presidency if he was up against Bush.
Quote from: coredumped on August 18, 2015, 06:19:16 PM
Yeah, Obama for a third term would be great... That's sarcasm.
I think if Biden ran he'd win the nomination, and the presidency if he was up against Bush.
Hilary is pretty much tanked at this point, and Sanders doesn't have a chance in hell (he's the Ron Paul of the Dems, who by the way also had a huge following, giant gatherings, etc & he went nowhere in the real world). Everyone else they have are pretty weak to be honest & no one is talking about them, which is quite the opposite of the Reps this time around. Like it or not, people are talking about them & they have a few very strong candidates who don't sound like extremist morons (hey, its a nice change).
I'm a moderate so I don't care either way honestly, but I see it going to them. The country usually swings back & forth every decade or so anyway, so its going back to the right IMO.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 18, 2015, 08:47:11 PM
...they have a few very strong candidates who don't sound like extremist morons
And who might they be?
QuoteLike it or not, people are talking about them & they have a few very strong candidates who don't sound like extremist morons (hey, its a nice change).
It take it you are being sarcastic. Trump is getting all the ink these days. Walker is hemorrhaging badly, Bush is fading, Rubio is plateauing, Paul has declined more than anyone else, Perry is losing what little support he had to begin with. Huckabee just said a 10 year rape victim shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. Foriana is the only one that has gained recently and she is still way back in the pack. Gillmore, Pataki and Graham together don't have 1 point in the polls.
Quote from: finehoe on August 19, 2015, 06:38:36 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 18, 2015, 08:47:11 PM
...they have a few very strong candidates who don't sound like extremist morons
And who might they be?
I guess it depends on how you define "extremist". The current crop of Republican candidates is extremely right wing, though. And a few of them really come across as morons and/or crackpots (Trump, Paul, Carson, Perry, Cruz come immediately to mind).
The most moderate candidate is probably Pataki? It's hard to tell, really. But there are some really scary candidates right now.
Quote from: Adam White on August 19, 2015, 08:39:57 AM
The current crop of Republican candidates is extremely right wing
Exactly. Whatever differences may exist in their respective personas and styles, there is virtually no differences in each of their platforms and positions.
Quote from: finehoe on August 19, 2015, 09:25:36 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 19, 2015, 08:39:57 AM
The current crop of Republican candidates is extremely right wing
Exactly. Whatever differences may exist in their respective personas and styles, there is virtually no differences in each of their platforms and positions.
Well, some are really right wing and some are basically lunatics (Carson, Trump).
Quote from: Adam White on August 19, 2015, 09:36:11 AM
Well, some are really right wing and some are basically lunatics (Carson, Trump).
That is just a function of how they express the same tired, brain-dead policies the Republicans have been pushing for decades.
Most are only scary from a total leftist world view though. Each side looks scary from the other side, and I get both arguments. Flipping it around, Hilary is def a crook & a liar, Sanders is a socialist & shows poor leadership qualities (letting random people shout him down at his own gathering then going to his corner w his head down). I think most would see those as very problematic unless you've totally drank the flavor-aid down & asked for seconds.
That's prob scary to a lot more people than talking about outlawing abortion under certain circumstances & illegal immigration. Depends on who you ask I guess.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 09:50:42 AM
Most are only scary from a total leftist moderate world view though. Each side looks scary from the other side, and I get both arguments. Flipping it around, Hilary is def a crook & a liar, Sanders is a socialist social democrat & shows poor leadership qualities (letting random people shout him down at his own gathering then going to his corner w his head down). I think most would see those as very problematic unless you've totally drank the flavor-aid down & asked for seconds.
That's prob scary to a lot more people than talking about outlawing abortion under certain circumstances & illegal immigration. Depends on who you ask I guess.
Fixed.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 09:50:42 AM
That's prob scary to a lot more people than talking about outlawing abortion under certain all circumstances & illegal immigration. Depends on who you ask I guess.
At least be accurate.
Quote from: finehoe on August 19, 2015, 10:37:29 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 09:50:42 AM
That's prob scary to a lot more people than talking about outlawing abortion under certain all circumstances & illegal immigration. Depends on who you ask I guess.
At least be accurate.
Uh, no. Only a coupe have said all instances. http://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_abortion Most go with the "rape, incest or life of the mother" line for being grounds for it. Which I personally don't have a problem with (I think most people wouldn't). This to me is a moderate view point. The extreme views are either going all in or nothing.
The far left's problem with this is they've turned abortion into almost a complete woman's rights issue, turning focus away from the actual act of extinguishing a life. Making it an easier pill to swallow no doubt.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 10:58:25 AM
Only a coupe have said all instances.
That's all it takes when your talking about what people find "scary".
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 10:58:25 AMThe far left's problem with this is they've turned abortion into almost a complete woman's rights issue, turning focus away from the actual act of extinguishing a life. Making it an easier pill to swallow no doubt.
So I guess half the country is "far left":
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lvpscaisx0-1lofvujngwa.png)
Quote from: finehoe on August 19, 2015, 11:08:15 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 10:58:25 AM
Only a coupe have said all instances.
That's all it takes when your talking about what people find "scary".
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 10:58:25 AMThe far left's problem with this is they've turned abortion into almost a complete woman's rights issue, turning focus away from the actual act of extinguishing a life. Making it an easier pill to swallow no doubt.
So I guess half the country is "far left":
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lvpscaisx0-1lofvujngwa.png)
Liberal doesn't equate to far left. The clue is in the word "liberal".
Rhetoric like this just poisons the national dialogue.
Quote from: finehoe on August 19, 2015, 11:08:15 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 10:58:25 AM
Only a coupe have said all instances.
That's all it takes when your talking about what people find "scary".
Sure, but no one is taking them seriously & its just par for the course for those candidates who are sticking to that line (Huckabee for instance). Besides, you said "all" & I was clarifying that that isn't the case. No need to use scare tactics that aren't true if we're having a civil debate & we all know better.
Quote from: finehoe on August 19, 2015, 11:08:15 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 10:58:25 AMThe far left's problem with this is they've turned abortion into almost a complete woman's rights issue, turning focus away from the actual act of extinguishing a life. Making it an easier pill to swallow no doubt.
So I guess half the country is "far left":
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lvpscaisx0-1lofvujngwa.png)
That's a very open to interpretation & vague graph. There are many values you'd have to take into consideration when clarifying what is pro-life & pro-choice to people in a survey, hence why they used quotations around the wording.
Quote from: Adam White on August 19, 2015, 11:15:55 AM
Liberal doesn't equate to far left. The clue is in the word "liberal".
Rhetoric like this just poisons the national dialogue.
It isn't rhetoric. The position of the far left by & large is that abortion should be totally legal (and in many instances paid for by Gov funds) to anyone who wants it for any reason. That's what I was referring to.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 11:54:33 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 19, 2015, 11:15:55 AM
Liberal doesn't equate to far left. The clue is in the word "liberal".
Rhetoric like this just poisons the national dialogue.
It isn't rhetoric. The position of the far left by & large is that abortion should be totally legal (and in many instances paid for by Gov funds) to anyone who wants it for any reason. That's what I was referring to.
Okay then - what far-left party advocates that? I am sure there are some. But most people who support abortion rights are just moderates (whether liberal or conservative).
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 11:54:33 AM
That's a very open to interpretation & vague graph. There are many values you'd have to take into consideration when clarifying what is pro-life & pro-choice to people in a survey, hence why they used quotations around the wording.
The quotations are there because they are quoting from the question that was asked, which is right below the graph. It's actually pretty straightforward
With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life? no quotes, nothing vague.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 11:54:33 AM
It isn't rhetoric. The position of the far left by & large is that abortion should be totally legal (and in many instances paid for by Gov funds) to anyone who wants it for any reason. That's what I was referring to.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 11:54:33 AM
No need to use scare tactics that aren't true if we're having a civil debate & we all know better.
Pot, kettle, black.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 10:58:25 AM
Quote from: finehoe on August 19, 2015, 10:37:29 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 09:50:42 AM
That's prob scary to a lot more people than talking about outlawing abortion under certain all circumstances & illegal immigration. Depends on who you ask I guess.
At least be accurate.
Uh, no. Only a coupe have said all instances. http://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_abortion Most go with the "rape, incest or life of the mother" line for being grounds for it. Which I personally don't have a problem with (I think most people wouldn't). This to me is a moderate view point. The extreme views are either going all in or nothing.
The far left's problem with this is they've turned abortion into almost a complete woman's rights issue, turning focus away from the actual act of extinguishing a life. Making it an easier pill to swallow no doubt.
Personally, I'd take the pro lifers more seriously if they did not stop caring once the baby was born (or cared in the first place).
Personally, I think there should be certain limits (in terms of until when a woman can have an abortion) unless there are important medical or other reasons.
Quote from: Adam White on August 19, 2015, 11:57:53 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 11:54:33 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 19, 2015, 11:15:55 AM
Liberal doesn't equate to far left. The clue is in the word "liberal".
Rhetoric like this just poisons the national dialogue.
It isn't rhetoric. The position of the far left by & large is that abortion should be totally legal (and in many instances paid for by Gov funds) to anyone who wants it for any reason. That's what I was referring to.
Okay then - what far-left party advocates that? I am sure there are some. But most people who support abortion rights are just moderates (whether liberal or conservative).
Not even just far left. Try both Sanders & Clinton, who are both pro "reproductive rights" & say leaving it up to the woman & her doctor of choice is the way, which basically means "sure, you want one. Find a doctor who'll do it & go for it" because that's exactly what it is. Many go to Planned Parenthood, which is federally funded. Like I said, it sounds better when you make the argument about woman's rights instead of the Gov funding to kill developing babies whenever the mom feels like it.
Planned Parenthood doesn't use Federal funds for abortions.
Quote from: finehoe on August 19, 2015, 12:38:33 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 11:54:33 AM
That's a very open to interpretation & vague graph. There are many values you'd have to take into consideration when clarifying what is pro-life & pro-choice to people in a survey, hence why they used quotations around the wording.
The quotations are there because they are quoting from the question that was asked, which is right below the graph. It's actually pretty straightforward With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life? no quotes, nothing vague.
The question itself is still vague though. Do you not understand that there are many variables to a question like "are you pro-choice"? That's why there's so much argument about it & it can mean a lot of different things under different circumstances. It also depends on who's asking the questions, how they're phrasing them, who's funding the survey, etc.
QuotePot, kettle, black.
Nice recovery. And totally not the same as trying to paint all Rep candidates as banning abortions across the board, but OK. What I said is basically true (see above). They don't come right out & say that, but its exactly what it leads to. That's not to say that's ALL they support & I realize they do a lot of advocating for prevention, education, etc, which is def a good thing.
Quote from: finehoe on August 19, 2015, 01:34:54 PM
Planned Parenthood doesn't use Federal funds for abortions.
Indirectly they most certainly do. If I'm funding your business every year with a sizable check that you put into a big pot, but said you couldn't use what I gave you to do a certain thing that I know you're going to do, am I not indirectly still helping you fund the other thing since I gave you a huge check?
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 01:32:31 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 19, 2015, 11:57:53 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 11:54:33 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 19, 2015, 11:15:55 AM
Liberal doesn't equate to far left. The clue is in the word "liberal".
Rhetoric like this just poisons the national dialogue.
It isn't rhetoric. The position of the far left by & large is that abortion should be totally legal (and in many instances paid for by Gov funds) to anyone who wants it for any reason. That's what I was referring to.
Okay then - what far-left party advocates that? I am sure there are some. But most people who support abortion rights are just moderates (whether liberal or conservative).
Not even just far left. Try both Sanders & Clinton, who are both pro "reproductive rights" & say leaving it up to the woman & her doctor of choice is the way, which basically means "sure, you want one.
You've just undercut your own argument. If "not even just the far left" are pro-reproductive rights, then it supports Finehoe's graph and contention. Beyond that, the Democratic party, a center-right party and the largest party in the USA generally supports reproductive rights.
So - it's not an issue of finding these candidates scary when only viewing them from a "total leftist point of view". Many of their views are actually scary to moderates.
I'd like to add that many of the Republican candidates' views aren't so much scary as crazy, weird or confusing.
Quote from: finehoe on August 19, 2015, 11:08:15 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 10:58:25 AM
Only a coupe have said all instances.
That's all it takes when your talking about what people find "scary".
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 10:58:25 AMThe far left's problem with this is they've turned abortion into almost a complete woman's rights issue, turning focus away from the actual act of extinguishing a life. Making it an easier pill to swallow no doubt.
So I guess half the country is "far left":
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lvpscaisx0-1lofvujngwa.png)
BTW, you left this part out (and this is exactly what I was saying in the vagueness):
(http://i.imgur.com/mCT6MzM.png)
QuoteBottom Line
The pro-choice view is not as prevalent among Americans as it was in the mid-1990s, but the momentum for the pro-life position that began when Barack Obama took office has yielded to a pro-choice rebound. That rebound has essentially restored views to where they were in 2008; today's views are also similar to those found in 2001. Some of the variation in public views on abortion over time coincides with political and cultural events that may have helped shape public opinion on the issue, including instances of anti-abortion violence, legislative efforts to ban "partial-birth abortion" or limit abortion funding, and certain Supreme Court cases. While events like these may continue to cause public views on abortion to fluctuate, the broader liberal shift in Americans' ideology of late could mean the recent pro-choice expansion has some staying power.
Gallup
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx?utm_source=position2&utm_medium=related&utm_campaign=tiles
Translation: The data just shows that labeling people "Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life" varies & isn't a catchall (which is exactly what I said). For instance, only half the people who see themselves as pro-choice say that abortion should be legal under any circumstances.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 02:27:42 PM
For instance, only half the people who see themselves as pro-choice say that abortion should be legal under any circumstances.
Since no candidate is running on a platform of Federally-funded abortions under any circumstances, it is irrelevant. There are, however, candidates running on a platform of no abortions whatsoever.
Quote from: peestandingup on August 19, 2015, 01:35:52 PM
Do you not understand that there are many variables to a question like "are you pro-choice"?
You're grasping at straws. Every voter in the United states who is of at least average intelligence understands what the terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' means in relation to abortion. Yes, there exists an area between 'none-at-all' and 'abortions-at-nine-months-for-everybody' but again, no one in the real world is calling for the later, while a number of current Republican candidates are calling for the former.
Rush Limbaugh tells his Ditto Heads ::) that if the Democrats would just look at these video's showing the aborted babies as the Republicans want you to believe. Then everyone would change their minds about Abortion. I say "BS" besides to me it's up to the Mother 100% who has to carry a fetus to term if she whats to. Why do we waste so much time on Abortion with all the other problems we have in America. And a last note if your Pro-Life you should also be against the Death Penalty.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 20, 2015, 01:03:03 PM
Rush Limbaugh tells his Ditto Heads ::) that if the Democrats would just look at these video's showing the aborted babies as the Republicans want you to believe. Then everyone would change their minds about Abortion. I say "BS" besides to me it's up to the Mother 100% who has to carry a fetus to term if she whats to. Why do we waste so much time on Abortion with all the other problems we have in America. And a last note if your Pro-Life you should also be against the Death Penalty.
You listen to Rush? :-\
Quote from: spuwho on August 20, 2015, 05:57:24 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 20, 2015, 01:03:03 PM
Rush Limbaugh tells his Ditto Heads ::) that if the Democrats would just look at these video's showing the aborted babies as the Republicans want you to believe. Then everyone would change their minds about Abortion. I say "BS" besides to me it's up to the Mother 100% who has to carry a fetus to term if she whats to. Why do we waste so much time on Abortion with all the other problems we have in America. And a last note if your Pro-Life you should also be against the Death Penalty.
You listen to Rush? :-\
I listen to Rush & Sean and laugh at a lot what they say. I have felt it's always best to try and listen what other people think. But I also get a kick out how in the world Rush, Sean, Cain and the other right wing media people manly just talk to their ditto heads and to people like me they think they're going to change my mind. FAT CHANCE! I just use them as entertainment. A little like dealing with some here on MetroJacksonville. :)
They are speaking to your lowest common denominator and it pays off for them.
Quote from: fsquid on August 21, 2015, 09:09:16 AM
They are speaking to your lowest common denominator and it pays off for them.
Very true the Right Wing Media Rush, Sean, Herman and the rest of them are Entertainers plain & simple.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 21, 2015, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: fsquid on August 21, 2015, 09:09:16 AM
They are speaking to your lowest common denominator and it pays off for them.
Very true the Right Wing Media Rush, Sean, Herman and the rest of them are Entertainers plain & simple.
yup, same with your race baiters on the other side. It makes them all very rich.