2016 Presidential Horse Race

[connor_in]

Trump makes pitch to African-American voters: ‘What the hell do you have to lose?’ [video, transcript] – twitchy.com

 

[Bogtrotter07]

May I ask if you ever met a person who voted D because they thought the R would "take away abortion "rights""?

I have met a lot of people that have voted for Democratic candidates because they thought the Republicans would take a way women's rights, including but not limited to reproductive rights.

I have met a few who would vote against Republicans, solely because they believe Republicans would take away women's reproductive rights.

But in neither case does 'abortion' consist of a reason; because, and I mean respectfully, if you would have gleamed even a bit of what I was intending to communicate, you would have seen that anti-abortion is not pitted against Pro-abortion. Anti-abortion is pitted against pro-women's rights.

This was a stunningly effective political strategy developed and employed by the religious right and some Republicans forty years ago.

I will let you all argue it back and forth, but as many have mentioned the lie of including this conflation in the political discourse, and letting it grow, along with others, is why both major political parties (but especially the Republicans), have taken such a hit.

You can't absolutely lie, and abuse the electorate with misinformation, etc., for thirty or forty years, in this modern era of light-speed information communication, and not eventually pay the price. The Republicans are paying the price with Donald, and the Democrats with Hillary.

Let me remove one or more degrees of separation : We are all paying the price. I love people complaining about the poor quality of candidates. If we did our jobs as an electorate, and bounced such uninformed, morally ambiguous candidates off of the stage, the product any national party put forth would improve dramatically.

And this isn't about bitching about the opposing candidate. People have to stop believing this health conspiracy, murder, bullshit put forth by the spin-doctors of the opposing party.

It isn't a Republican castigating the Clintons, for whatever stupid things the did, or didn't. It is about Republicans telling their own people to shut up, get back to reality, and build a viable candidate.

It isn't about the Democrats claiming that Trump is mentally ill, or spending countless hours bitching about him, or ridiculing him. It is about Democrats expressing outrage to the leaders of the DNC for putting up a candidate (HRC) that hadn't already buried Donald Trump. If Barack Obama were running this time, the election would probably be over. (I picked BO because I know how particularly fond some of you are of him.)

Aren't you all tired of being awash in bullshit? Even if it is good bullshit that supports your beliefs?

 

[connor_in]

I have met a lot of people that have voted for Democratic candidates because they thought the Republicans would take a way women's rights, including but not limited to reproductive rights.

I have met a few who would vote against Republicans, solely because they believe Republicans would take away women's reproductive rights.

But in neither case does 'abortion' consist of a reason; because, and I mean respectfully, if you would have gleamed even a bit of what I was intending to communicate, you would have seen that anti-abortion is not pitted against Pro-abortion. Anti-abortion is pitted against pro-women's rights.

This was a stunningly effective political strategy developed and employed by the religious right and some Republicans forty years ago.

I will let you all argue it back and forth, but as many have mentioned the lie of including this conflation in the political discourse, and letting it grow, along with others, is why both major political parties (but especially the Republicans), have taken such a hit.

You can't absolutely lie, and abuse the electorate with misinformation, etc., for thirty or forty years, in this modern era of light-speed information communication, and not eventually pay the price. The Republicans are paying the price with Donald, and the Democrats with Hillary.

Let me remove one or more degrees of separation : We are all paying the price. I love people complaining about the poor quality of candidates. If we did our jobs as an electorate, and bounced such uninformed, morally ambiguous candidates off of the stage, the product any national party put forth would improve dramatically.

And this isn't about bitching about the opposing candidate. People have to stop believing this health conspiracy, murder, bullshit put forth by the spin-doctors of the opposing party.

It isn't a Republican castigating the Clintons, for whatever stupid things the did, or didn't. It is about Republicans telling their own people to shut up, get back to reality, and build a viable candidate.

It isn't about the Democrats claiming that Trump is mentally ill, or spending countless hours bitching about him, or ridiculing him. It is about Democrats expressing outrage to the leaders of the DNC for putting up a candidate (HRC) that hadn't already buried Donald Trump. If Barack Obama were running this time, the election would probably be over. (I picked BO because I know how particularly fond some of you are of him.)

Aren't you all tired of being awash in bullshit? Even if it is good bullshit that supports your beliefs?

Please expand upon which women's reproductive rights R's want to take away besides abortion (or at least limiting it).

 

[ickythump1225]

Abortion is the stupidest issue to vote on because it is never going to change. Republicans held the Executive Branch, both houses of Congress, and had a (supposedly) conservative majority on the SC during the aughts and there was ZERO traction on the issue. It is just a distraction issue.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Please expand upon which women's reproductive rights R's want to take away besides abortion (or at least limiting it).

Contraception.


The majority of PP and every organization the GOP has attacked has put 90% of their effort into education and education about contraception. I am not minimizing the terrible negatives of Abortion, but it is almost the whole focus of the conservative counterattack. And therefore a bit of a smoke screen? Isn't it? Back to PP, and what they do. Their name : Planned Parenthood. And if considering their name isn't proof enough, consider :

The year it was founded? Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic was founded in 1933 by a group of women including Margaret Sanger. 'Hudson' and 'Peconic 'refers to the place.) The original charter was to provide education and legal contraception.

And in looking at it, the contraception, or reproductive rights issue followed suffrage itself by what, less than twenty years?
r
So, I believe that there are a whole lot of people who still believe that woman don't deserve the same rights as men :

• Mostly fostered among groups of rich old white men, and religious organizations that don't see women as equals.
• Based upon the truth that there is a way women can be controlled by their biology, (whereas men can wear rubbers, or just plain skate.)

Look at all the peop's with a world view that would be turned upside down if women were really held as equal. It is easy when you think of Chinese murdering girl children; or Imam's preaching a radical theology. But how hard is it for you when you think of a Kenneth Starr, or an Art Briles? Should we go on. Because we can get to everyday people who hold Anti-women views. And that is exactly what the 'One issue voting is about.' It is never really one issue. It is really about deep running and oft hidden bias.

And interesting, and ironically enough, the only thing I have for the Dems and HRC in this cycle above the Republicans and DT, is that I wonder how much of her negative ratings are as a result of that, the fact that she is a woman.

 

[kmoose]

Contraception.


The majority of PP and every organization the GOP has attacked has put 90% of their effort into education and education about contraception. I am not minimizing the terrible negatives of Abortion, but it is almost the whole focus of the conservative counterattack. And therefore a bit of a smoke screen? Isn't it? Back to PP, and what they do. Their name : Planned Parenthood. And if considering their name isn't proof enough, consider :

The year it was founded? Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic was founded in 1933 by a group of women including Margaret Sanger. 'Hudson' and 'Peconic 'refers to the place.) The original charter was to provide education and legal contraception.

And in looking at it, the contraception, or reproductive rights issue followed suffrage itself by what, less than twenty years?
r
So, I believe that there are a whole lot of people who still believe that woman don't deserve the same rights as men :

• Mostly fostered among groups of rich old white men, and religious organizations that don't see women as equals.
• Based upon the truth that there is a way women can be controlled by their biology, (whereas men can wear rubbers, or just plain skate.)

Look at all the peop's with a world view that would be turned upside down if women were really held as equal. It is easy when you think of Chinese murdering girl children; or Imam's preaching a radical theology. But how hard is it for you when you think of a Kenneth Starr, or an Art Briles? Should we go on. Because we can get to everyday people who hold Anti-women views. And that is exactly what the 'One issue voting is about.' It is never really one issue. It is really about deep running and oft hidden bias.

And interesting, and ironically enough, the only thing I have for the Dems and HRC in this cycle above the Republicans and DT, is that I wonder how much of her negative ratings are as a result of that, the fact that she is a woman.

The Republicans' beef with PP is that they provide abortions, not family planning. There might be some staunch Catholics who oppose the contraception provided by Planned Parenthood, but they oppose it because they are Catholic, not because they are Republican.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

The Republicans' beef with PP is that they provide abortions, not family planning. There might be some staunch Catholics who oppose the contraception provided by Planned Parenthood, but they oppose it because they are Catholic, not because they are Republican.

I understand your sincere point. But what doesn't come up (fact wise) is important. Where has the Republican Party, or anyone against PP ever stated that they just want to remove funding for the abortion portion of their services? And that their family planning, contraception services could be left in tack? Or that abortion funding could be deflected to contraception or education?

 

[kmoose]

Where has the Republican Party, or anyone against PP ever stated that they just want to remove funding for the abortion portion of their services? And that their family planning, contraception services could be left in tack? Or that abortion funding could be deflected to contraception or education?

Federal funds cannot be used to provide abortions. That has been the law since 1976. There are no federal "abortion funds" to cut off, or to redirect. The Republicans have used funding as leverage to try to get PP to drop their abortion services, not as an attack on women's rights. If Planned Parenthood stopped providing abortions, then the Republicans would stop threatening their funding. It has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood providing contraception services.

 

[MJ12666]

Judge orders Clinton to answer written answers to questions on private email use | Fox News

Published August 19, 2016

I originally thought this might be a problem for HRC; but then I learned that the judge also stated that no follow-up questions would be allowed. As a result you can bet that HRC will be so vague with her answers that the answers will basically be meaningless.

 

[wizards8507]

I understand your sincere point. But what doesn't come up (fact wise) is important. Where has the Republican Party, or anyone against PP ever stated that they just want to remove funding for the abortion portion of their services? And that their family planning, contraception services could be left in tack? Or that abortion funding could be deflected to contraception or education?

You can buy contraception at goddamn Walmart, you don't need Planned Parenthood for that. Defending abortion factories on the basis of their "health services" is like defending Nazi Germany on their efficient public transportation system. It's completely beside the point and a blatant obfuscation. I'm personally opposed to contraception but I've never even heard of a politician wanting to ban it, nor would I support such a statute.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Federal funds cannot be used to provide abortions. That has been the law since 1976. There are no federal "abortion funds" to cut off, or to redirect. The Republicans have used funding as leverage to try to get PP to drop their abortion services, not as an attack on women's rights. If Planned Parenthood stopped providing abortions, then the Republicans would stop threatening their funding. It has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood providing contraception services.

Yeah, true all. Which is exactly my point. Lock stock and barrel. Legal funding is being threatened to cut services that lower the amount of abortions! All that because of providing legal services that are not federally funded, and presenting no hint of breaking the law!

These conservative, religious, and Republican took a page from Westmorland's Viet Nam campaign to win the hearts and minds!

I have never agreed with you more than when you said "It has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood providing contraception services." You are so right. It has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood at all! Instead it is all a bunch of idiots that have way too much power, and time on their hands!

You can buy contraception at goddamn Walmart, you don't need Planned Parenthood for that. Defending abortion factories on the basis of their "health services" is like defending Nazi Germany on their efficient public transportation system. It's completely beside the point and a blatant obfuscation. I'm personally opposed to contraception but I've never even heard of a politician wanting to ban it, nor would I support such a statute.

I appreciate your effort, Wiz. But your analogy falls flat on its face. I don't know why anyone from conservatives to reactionaries want to paint the liberals or Democrats as being akin to Nazi's in any way.

'Abortion factories' is a misleading term. As abortions are, and have been legal in American since 1973, and the number of abortions has fallen in the last thirty years, during most of the time in question, the rather capitalistic, free market, sales oriented, private industry reference to the service is off. IF these folks had much of anything in common with your free marketeers, wouldn't the number of abortions risen significantly? After all, market share is king!

Further, abortions are legal in America. A little known fact is that the final solution provided by the death camps was never seriously pursued on a legal basis. The same people that were pursuing it to an end were aware that they were breaking the law; which is why they were referred to by at least American Prosecution at Nuremberg as gangsters. And even if they would have taken the time to amend the German Constitution, scabby as it was; it would still have been deemed genocide, and against all international law at the time.

After all, you are obviously making the point that Nazi's were murdering people by the bushels. So it is no longer hyperbole to cross compare health care with transportation, when they have nothing to do with the emotional impact you are intending. And to finish it, this sleigh of hand - (mouth?) you are intending is actually quite interesting in light of the term you use in your own post : obfuscation! I love that word! But the only obfuscation I see is talking about abortion, health care, genocide, and transportation, and leaving abortion and genocide on the table together. Clear attempt, false comparison.

And just for full disclosure, I have seven kids, mostly wonderful, none of whom I would take back, and do not have a thing for or against contraception, that is a private, personal choice that could be highly moral for some or many. I do not see abortion as a viable choice for any human being, but it is legal, and I am unwilling to judge anyone based upon their own feelings on the subject.

 

[kmoose]

Yeah, true all. Which is exactly my point. Lock stock and barrel. Legal funding is being threatened to cut services that lower the amount of abortions! All that because of providing legal services that are not federally funded, and presenting no hint of breaking the law!

These conservative, religious, and Republican took a page from Westmorland's Viet Nam campaign to win the hearts and minds!

I have never agreed with you more than when you said "It has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood providing contraception services." You are so right. It has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood at all! Instead it is all a bunch of idiots that have way too much power, and time on their hands!

But you contended that the Republicans were waging an attack on women's rights(not abortion), by attacking their access to contraception through Planned Parenthood. My point is that the Republicans' beef with Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with attacking women's rights, and everything to do with attacking abortion.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

But you contended that the Republicans were waging an attack on women's rights(not abortion), by attacking their access to contraception through Planned Parenthood. My point is that the Republicans' beef with Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with attacking women's rights, and everything to do with attacking abortion.

Remember when we had either conversation?

We cannot assume what everyone in a group thinks, or has as motivation.

Sometimes what you see matters, not what you think, or what you said, not what you meant.

We've talked about both of these lately. And I will bet you a dollar to a dime, neither you group of 'Republicans' nor women's right voters have any alignment of each others motivations that would translate to an affirmative for your point in this conversation. Gotta go!

 

[kmoose]

Remember when we had either conversation?

We cannot assume what everyone in a group thinks, or has as motivation.

Sometimes what you see matters, not what you think, or what you said, not what you meant.

We've talked about both of these lately. And I will bet you a dollar to a dime, neither you group of 'Republicans' nor women's right voters have any alignment of each others motivations that would translate to an affirmative for your point in this conversation. Gotta go!

I remember you saying this, when asked which women's rights the Republicans were trying to take away:

Contraception.


The majority of PP and every organization the GOP has attacked has put 90% of their effort into education and education about contraception. I am not minimizing the terrible negatives of Abortion, but it is almost the whole focus of the conservative counterattack. And therefore a bit of a smoke screen? Isn't it?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I remember you saying this, when asked which women's rights the Republicans were trying to take away:

I apologize if I broke my own rules, but I did use a wild ass guess of 90%. As far as assumptions, I thought I took proper responsibility for mine by languaging exactly, "but it is almost the whole focus" as an open interpretation actions based upon what I have seen, not a guess as to what they were thinking.

Sorry if my wording was obtuse. But their really is a difference in referring to the objective end results of actions, and guessing what the actors intended. I really don't care what the Republicans intended. It came off looking wholly dysfunctional and impotent compared to it's stated, or your stated goal.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The FBI Just Found Another 15K Of Hillary Clinton's Emails <a href="https://t.co/6j3dV5XfwY">https://t.co/6j3dV5XfwY</a></p>— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) <a href="https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/767797982800535552">August 22, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Not sure what the FBI are going to do with all those 15K emails about yoga, recipes, and being granny tho...

 

[connor_in]

Also...


I'll just leave this here as well for your consideration...


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">One wrong move can be the difference between life and death when you're president.<a href="https://t.co/Tpo3Spps9z">https://t.co/Tpo3Spps9z</a></p>— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/767757680316342273">August 22, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[NorthDakota]

Abortion is the stupidest issue to vote on because it is never going to change. Republicans held the Executive Branch, both houses of Congress, and had a (supposedly) conservative majority on the SC during the aughts and there was ZERO traction on the issue. It is just a distraction issue.

There is no better hill to die on.

 

[phgreek]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The FBI Just Found Another 15K Of Hillary Clinton's Emails <a href="https://t.co/6j3dV5XfwY">https://t.co/6j3dV5XfwY</a></p>— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) <a href="https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/767797982800535552">August 22, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Not sure what the FBI are going to do with all those 15K emails about yoga, recipes, and being granny tho...

Hilarious...she is a peach for sure.

I saw a press conference today that made me laugh my ass off. The State department spokesman got up there and tried to do arm waving and double talk to make everyone think that there was no issue with the Clinton Sate department providing access to folks based on donations to the Clinton Foundation

...then the state department call log is brought up, where chief of staff Mills is shown to have received an order of magnitude more calls from the Clinton Foundation than from any other person or entity...The Spokesperson's response was....Mrs. Clinton signed the Conflict of Interest paperwork, not CHIEF OF STAFF Mills....let that sink in for a minute. He didn't claim there were legitimate reasons for that...he didn't claim that those call log numbers were false, incomplete, or taken out of context. He basically said, yea well we thought of that, and what are you going to do about it...

You can't make this shit up.

Criminal Enterprise....

 

[connor_in]

Hilarious...she is a peach for sure.

I saw a press conference today that made me laugh my ass off. The State department spokesman got up there and tried to do arm waving and double talk to make everyone think that there was no issue with the Clinton Sate department providing access to folks based on donations to the Clinton Foundation

...then the state department call log is brought up, where chief of staff Mills is shown to have received an order of magnitude more calls from the Clinton Foundation than from any other person or entity...The Spokesperson's response was....Mrs. Clinton signed the Conflict of Interest paperwork, not CHIEF OF STAFF Mills....let that sink in for a minute. He didn't claim there were legitimate reasons for that...he didn't claim that those call log numbers were false, incomplete, or taken out of context. He basically said, yea well we thought of that, and what are you going to do about it...

You can't make this shit up.

Criminal Enterprise....

Yeah, that and the Clinton Foundation has stated that they will stop taking foreign donations...once HRC is elected

ATTENTION SHOPPERS...TIME IS RUNNING OUT TO PURCHASE PAY FOR PLAY SO BE SURE TO GET YOUR ORDERS IN NOW

 

[phgreek]

Yeah, that and the Clinton Foundation has stated that they will stop taking foreign donations...once HRC is elected

ATTENTION SHOPPERS...TIME IS RUNNING OUT TO PURCHASE PAY FOR PLAY SO BE SURE TO GET YOUR ORDERS IN NOW

So true....

I did see where the spokes person tried to indicate the phone calls were for coordination for disaster relief...for one period of time...mmmhmm.

 

[IrishBroker]

Yeah, that and the Clinton Foundation has stated that they will stop taking foreign donations...once HRC is elected

ATTENTION SHOPPERS...TIME IS RUNNING OUT TO PURCHASE PAY FOR PLAY SO BE SURE TO GET YOUR ORDERS IN NOW

One of the most hilarious headlines I've read in a while...

And they call Trump the most outlandish candidate


I've said since the beginning, If it were anyone but Trump running, the GOP would win in a landslide as Hillary is just an awful human being.

Romney would've smoked her.

 

[Circa]

A guy at work stated he had heard or read that 47 people have been killed that had previous ties to the Clinton's and that they were I guess 'assassinated' because of what they knew.. Has anyone read anything to the fact? He's a friend but this was a bit weird and I wasn't gonna argue with him.

 

[IrishLax]

A guy at work stated he had heard or read that 47 people have been killed that had previous ties to the Clinton's and that they were I guess 'assassinated' because of what they knew.. Has anyone read anything to the fact? He's a friend but this was a bit weird and I wasn't gonna argue with him.

I thought it was 46, and they're just "suspicious circumstances".... some of them truly are a bit suspicious, most are stretching.

 

[Circa]

I thought it was 46, and they're just "suspicious circumstances".... some of them truly are a bit suspicious, most are stretching.

So there is some truth to this. Hmm

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So there is some truth to this. Hmm

No.

Clinton Body Bags : snopes.com

 

[zelezo vlk]

No.

Clinton Body Bags : snopes.com

Psh. The original author had a different conclusion, but then he caught a bad case of "self inflicted gunshot wound to the back of the head", so Snopes had to find somebody else.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No.

Clinton Body Bags : snopes.com

Only tangentially related, but every time I see a link to Snopes, Politifact, etc., I think of this Tweet now:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">how fucked is Trump when everyone finds out the fact-checkers from Ahem! dot org gave this speech 52 Excuse Mes</p>— Dollars Horton (@crushingbort) <a href="https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/756326385254293504">July 22, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Only tangentially related, but every time I see a link to Snopes, Politifact, etc., I think of this Tweet now:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">how fucked is Trump when everyone finds out the fact-checkers from Ahem! dot org gave this speech 52 Excuse Mes</p>— Dollars Horton (@crushingbort) <a href="https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/756326385254293504">July 22, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Heh.

I try to link the sites that Snopes links. In this case, there were too many.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Hilarious...she is a peach for sure.

I saw a press conference today that made me laugh my ass off. The State department spokesman got up there and tried to do arm waving and double talk to make everyone think that there was no issue with the Clinton Sate department providing access to folks based on donations to the Clinton Foundation

...then the state department call log is brought up, where chief of staff Mills is shown to have received an order of magnitude more calls from the Clinton Foundation than from any other person or entity...The Spokesperson's response was....Mrs. Clinton signed the Conflict of Interest paperwork, not CHIEF OF STAFF Mills....let that sink in for a minute. He didn't claim there were legitimate reasons for that...he didn't claim that those call log numbers were false, incomplete, or taken out of context. He basically said, yea well we thought of that, and what are you going to do about it...

You can't make this shit up.

Criminal Enterprise....

They're the same clowns who let donors sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. Though the donations weren't related, I'm sure...