The fix is in: Hillary will be elected president in 2016
by Carder
Short of death, they ain’t nothin’ stopping the reality of President Hillary Clinton. The fix is already in.
The media are already running the Queen Bee thru the rehab and sanitizing cycle -holding her up as the brave suffering martyred wife of husband Bill’s sex scandals and of course, polishing her squeaky clean in the Benghazi failure – absolving her of every possible wrongdoing 30 months before the election…
This of course makes for high drama and intrigue in political war rooms all over the country as Republicans are now forced to confront the rising tide of political ignorance brought on by personal immorality.
If you are wondering what the connection might be between political ignorance and personal immorality, it is quite simply – sin.
Sin deadens the intellect. So as people more and more descend into sin and depravity, they will lose their natural virtues – one of which is the ability to distinguish between good and evil.
As God says in the Old Testament – “I will turn them over to a reprobate mind.”
~ Catholic apologist Michael Voris, stating his reasons why the 2016 election of President Hillary Clinton is inevitable, Church Militant.TV, February 21
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
She wont get my vote.
We cannot let this happen. I think the GOP has a chance this year. But we must get our message out and it can’t simply be repeal ObamaCare we have to replace it with something!
Voris is forgetting one thing: Rick Santorum
OH HECK NO!!!!
I will do whatever I can to stop this madness.
To be honest, all the talk of Hillary inevitability convinces me that she WON’T win. I mean, honestly, are the pundits ever right this far ahead of the election?
Yes, but who among us thought that our once great country would vote chief-advocate-for-the-right-to-kill-innocent-children back for a second term?
The church needs to wake up and repent. We need to do 2Chr 7.14, especially the “turn from our wicked ways” part. God has not been answering our prayers for our country because of our sin. If He did, He would be affirming our disobedience, and many of us would be lost forever.
“Lord, may our hearts be broken by what breaks Your Heart. Show us the sin that threatens to separate us from You forever. Grant us mercy and grace to repent, we pray.”
I seem to recall that Hillary was inevitable in the early leading up to the 2008 primary, as well.
http://lewismct.wikispaces.com/file/view/hillary_inevitable.jpg/38613160/hillary_inevitable.jpg
Not if Republicans can keep her alive her “accomplishments” as the SOS and the deal she made with Pres O in 2008 to get that post instead.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/24/americans-obama-not-respected-around-the-world/
I think if the Republicans could find a candidate (preferably female) that can actually appeal to the non-radical Dems and the Independent they could win in 2016. Problem is the GOP seems to think putting up people that are more and more right wing is the answer, when that’s probably going to fail if they try that strategy again. You simply can’t win a presidency if you have zero appeal to independent voters, and I believe the Dems are vulnerable because so many liberals are disappointed with Obama over various things like the NSA and such. The GOP has a chance if they put up a moderately right candidate in my opinion.
DLPL, I”m curious what you think of Rand Paul? He’s more “liberal” in a lot of his stances – especially war. I’d like to see him win.
Also, Romney was moderately right and he lost because he was so…. meh. Meely. Boring. Milquetoast.
But woops here we go with politics…
JDC, they are never right. During the Bush midterm thwacking of the Dems they were talking about a “realignment” and a new GOP that can’t be taken down. Then in 2006 and 2008 it was a Dem “realignment,” then 2010 happened. The Soviet Union was invincible in the 1980s and Japan was going to rule the economic world. What may happen may happen and it might not, everybody is making barely-educated guesses.
“DLPL, I”m curious what you think of Rand Paul? He’s more “liberal” in a lot of his stances – especially war. I’d like to see him win. ”
Idk much about him, I don’t think anyone who isn’t super pro-military has a chance in the GOP though, sadly. If I had to pick a libertarian I’d go with Gary Johnson if he weren’t pro-choice. :/
“Also, Romney was moderately right and he lost because he was so…. meh. Meely. Boring. Milquetoast. ”
I more think he lost because he was hugely hypocritical on a few crucial subjects. Come on now, he put the precursor to the ACA in place in Massachusetts and he was pretty darn pro-choice… until he wanted to run on the Republican ticket where he magically started disliking abortion and claiming that the ACA (and Romneycare?) was awful and evil and he was going to dismantle it. Lol. And I saw a lot of religious bigotry against him because people dislike the LDS church. There were a lot of factors in him losing I think. The GOP needs a super consistent candidate to counteract Hillary.
I do chuckle when people say things like “Rick Santorum” though. Guy has no chance, at all. I wish I could take his pro-life viewpoints and add them to a more moderately right candidate, I’d like voting for that guy/gal.
Looking back, i wonder if we would have fared better with a one term Hillary than a two term Barry. Still, I refuse to cast a vote for an ambitious politician who I think is looking to win an argument with her husband overwho was a better president. We need to vote for the most qualified person. Too many of my friends admitted to voting to ” be part of history” by helping to elect the first “black” president.
ninek that’s why I want the GOP to put up a moderately right woman, to take the low information voter “oh I want a female president” thing out of the running. And plus I’d like to see a female president as long as she’s competent and has good political views.
Another sunday funnies spillover!
I thought someone like Voris would encourage political ignorance, more gop voters that way. He certainly encourages intellectual deadening.
I think its early to say her election is inevitable, but her chances are good. Even if the GOP runs a decent candidate the changing demographics of this country are just not in their favor.
I think the author has a bit of a flair for the dramatic. If he think that it is some good vs evil thing, then it makes it hard to explain why the Dems are doing well in the POTUS races and Senate, but not the House and Governors. ”It’s good vs evil, but only at the federal levels but not the house”. I mean, come on – we’re smarter than that.
Hillary has a real good shot at winning because the Dems are now good at picking a candidate, letting them raise money and build field offices, and they run smarter campaigns. The GOP now has slug it out primaries, putting their candidate about 8 steps behind – and to rally the “base”, they alienate two massively important types of voters – women and minorities. Until the GOP can figure that out – I don’t care what people like Michael Voris say – the GOP is going to have a tough time in elections. You can’t be less organized and appeal to fewer voters (seemingly by choice) and expect to win.
And to some of the other comments – Rick Santorum has less of a chance of winning than I do. Rand Paul is a longshot as well. Christie was the guy until these problems – he could have done it. GOP best option at this point might be Jeb Bush. Yes, you guys have issues.
That’s what I’ve been saying too Jack – the GOP absolutely must run a woman. They seem so ignorant about how bloody important perception is for voters versus reality.
So what will they be called? President and First Flasher?
I bet Billy is already drooling over those interns!
Seriously folks, if her name was Hillary Rodham Schultz, would she even be a blip on the radar?
Come on now Mary. Love her or hate her she’s pretty politically savvy and has made a career for herself apart from Bill. I don’t particularly care for her views on some subjects but there’s no denying she’s done her own thing.
Please Jack,
She’s who she is and where she is because of who she married and her willingness to be humiliated time and again by her sexual predator of a husband. It also helped that she and Billy boy had goons to go after any woman who threatened to expose Bill and intimidate her into silence. Toadies like Carville were a great help too.
Seriously Jack, if her name was Hillary Rodham Schultz, would she be where she is today?
Mary –
Maybe not – but you could say the exact same thing for Bush – he was where he was because of his father – or Jeb, who might be running for the GOP. Or Rand Paul.
Hillary maybe got the first opportunities because of Bill, but has since then gotten a lot of experience. She has a heck of a lot more experience than any name I’ve seen on the GOP lists so far.
EGV,
Yes people have always used their family names for political advancement, the Kennedys certainly come to mind, but that doesn’t necessarily make it right or a good thing, correct? I mean Ted Kennedy, despite leaving a woman to die and notorious for satyr like behavior was elected time and again because of his name.
And let’s face it that ‘s the only reason Hillary is even where she is, wouldn’t you agree? But don’t count your chickens too soon EGV, a week is a lifetime in politics, imagine 2 years. A lot can happen.
Would Hillary have been a senator and Secratary of State? Probably not – we’ve had how many people in history in that role? To think she would have stumbled into it is pretty far odds.
I’d beg conservatives to figure out what you want though. If somebody has too much experience, you say they are an insider. If somebody has too little experience you bash that. The Clinton dynasty is bad, but do you hear right wingers say that about the Bush dynasty?
A lot can happen – I’m probably the most practical person on the board when it comes to political predictions. If you were going to place a bet right now, Hillary would be your safest bet – but who knows – she might not even run. There’s a lot of progressives who also think she’s too moderate and another candiate could drag out the primaries. But if you had to bet right now, take Hillary over the field – especially after Christie’s meltdown.
The heck with it – I’m voting a straight Bull Moose ticket.
EGV,
Let’s stay in the present OK? I could ramble about the Kennedy dynasty as well. There’s not a Kennedy running for President.
I’m glad you acknowledge that on her own, Hillary would likely have not “stumbled” into much of anything if she hadn’t tolerated her philandering husband for years and helped silence his accusers.
As for Christie I’m glad he’s been sent packing.
I think her standing is meaningless at this juncture. By the time it matters things may be the same or they may have changed a little or a lot.
Doesn’t really matter though, the gop seem fundamentally unwilling to nominate anyone with a chance. It’s like they’re living in an alternative universe. A candidate fails because of a,b & c so they choose one with A, B & C. They might as well nominate Bluto.
“I think its early to say her election is inevitable, but her chances are good. Even if the GOP runs a decent candidate the changing demographics of this country are just not in their favor. ”
Well, that’s mostly the GOPs fault. The biggest growing minority group in the US is Hispanics. Even with the varying cultures there (Mexico/Cuba/Puerto Rico to name the bigger immigration countries have very different cultures), Hispanics do tend conservative on quite a few issues because of the massive Catholic influence in South and Central America, and the Caribbean. Problem is the GOP seems to do the best job they can to alienate Hispanic voters with their immigration policies and such. Even Rubio (Teapublican extraordinaire) tried to get his fellows to compromise on the DREAM act to appeal to Hispanics, they responded with ridiculousness as usual. If you can get such a heavily traditional Catholic demographic to go so Dem you’re doing something wrong.
GOP just seems ridiculously out of touch with the reality of politics in the country and seem to be doubling down on appealing to an ever shrinking demographic.
Two questions Jack: would the Dream Act curtail ILLEGAL immigration of any group, not only Latino? You are forgetting that the operative term here is illegal. Should the US, thus, naturalize illegals on a circular basis, since the influx of illegal immigrants will not end – but of course we want them to benefit from the Dream Act? Any limitations on this maybe? (third question, oops).
So the politics of GOP in your opinion, should be geared toward total acceptance of illegal status on an ongoing basis because eventually an illegal will qualify for the Dream Act consideration? Is that it? If so, how do you suppose this would work out for border security and other immigration concerns?
Hispanics do tend conservative on quite a few issues because of the massive Catholic influence in South and Central America, and the Caribbean.
You would know more about this than me Jack, but even though many Hispanics are Catholic by tradition, they still have a high abortion rate. and the out of wedlock birth rate is over fifty percent. Most of the Latinos here are Puerto Rican (though more and more Dominicans, Mexicans, etc. are moving in) and they vote strongly Democrat. Immigration is not an issue with them because they are already American citizens.
I think if the Republicans could find a candidate (preferably female) that can actually appeal to the non-radical Dems and the Independent they could win in 2016.
Maybe Kelly Ayotte? She is young, smart a mother, attractive (yeah, I know that shouldn’t matter, but it does) and conservative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Ayotte
“You would know more about this than me Jack, but even though many Hispanics are Catholic by tradition, they still have a high abortion rate. and the out of wedlock birth rate is over fifty percent.”
Tis’ true, it’s mostly socioeconomic reasons imo from what I have observed. And the abortion rates seem to tie in to “hiding the evidence”. Bearing in mind I’ve mostly been involved in the Cuban community as opposed to other country’s immigrants, so what I know is pretty specific to that community.
What I’m talking about is that I’ve observed in general they do tend socially right and (in regards to Cubanos at least, because there are so many small business owners) somewhat right on fiscal issues as well, regardless of the problems with higher abortion rates and such. The main issue I hear Hispanics complain about in regards to the GOP is immigration (like over half the complaints) and social safety nets being reduced without another solid plan to support those in need. I really think that if the GOP doesn’t find some way to appeal on those issues, particularly immigration, they really won’t stand a chance ever again considering the Hispanic immigration and birth rates. I’ve seen die-hard conservative Catholic Cubans vote Dem because they were afraid of children getting punished for their parent’s immigration status and such.
Thomas I’m not arguing about my views on immigration, I’m just stating what I see. I will say that our immigration policy towards Cuba for decades was “they can naturalize if they show up” and the Cuban-American community has been pretty successful and prosperous compared to other Hispanic groups. Of course a lot of Cuban immigrants were middle and upper class in the first place which probably had something to do with that, but I do think our immigration policies need a look over. But that’s besides the fact, I’m just musing on the GOP’s problem with Hispanic voters.
Deluded lib pro lifer said :”I think if the Republicans could find a candidate (preferably female) that can actually appeal to the non-radical Dems and the Independent they could win in 2016″. The question that comes to my mind, are there any republican women who are not confined to the bedroom and/or kitchen by their husbands?
“The question that comes to my mind, are there any republican women who are not confined to the bedroom and/or kitchen by their husbands? “
If only there was some way to answer that meaningful question…
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=influential+Republican+women
I grant you that the problem with Mexican illegals is a totally different bowl of wax Jack. GOP’s problem is exactly that. That is not anything to be musing about though. The border issue coupled with all the problems caused by illegal status in terms of the economy and just day to day appeasement such as back-door acceptance of illegals as semi-legal (driver’s licenses, guaranteed public education on the US dime, etc) is not a cause of concern for the dems in your opinion? Seriously….
Edit: Also in terms of naturalizing never-ending illegal influx from Mexico. Dream Act as I stated will not curtail illegal immigration but will have the opposite effect. Something to think about…
“The question that comes to my mind, are there any republican women who are not confined to the bedroom and/or kitchen by their husbands? ”
Can you really not see how sexist this is, by you? You accuse pro-lifers of thinking women can’t make decisions (when that’s not true) yet you completely remove agency from women if they belong to a political group that you don’t like. Pretty gross. I personally don’t think women suddenly become stupid or weak if they are right of center politically, but that’s apparently what you think.
Thomas nothing you say in your comment has anything to do with what I said. You have an amazing ability to imagine what I think and then accuse me of holding beliefs you made up!
And I’m also not as terrified of Mexican immigration as some people are, I guess, lol. Whatever.
Um Christine, that’s incredibly sexist.
I’m a registered Republican woman (oh dear lord save us all, amirite?) (wait …. I have access to the internet?!) And I’m young. And I can tell you that a for one, my husband does not confine me to the kitchen or the bedroom. Most Republican women I know (not all) are smart and have reached their political conclusions on their own. Quite a few are active in their communities and local politics.
What you said is ridiculously insulting to all women, actually. Assuming that just because a woman holds different beliefs than you that she is automatically subjugated by her husband (assuming, you know, she has a husband) is small-minded.
And I totally agree with you, Jack! Immigration is one of my main issues I have with the GOP. :P I don’t know why people seem to be scared of immigrants.
“What you said is ridiculously insulting to all women, actually. Assuming that just because a woman holds different beliefs than you that she is automatically subjugated by her husband (assuming, you know, she has a husband) is small-minded. ”
Right? I mean, if she would like to return to the previous century where women couldn’t vote, one reason being that they would “just double their husband’s vote” among other things, I think her view would fit in there pretty well.
It’s like that one feminist (can’t remember who) who mused that conservative women are like “men with breasts” because apparently fiscal conservatism and social issues that don’t line up perfectly with all the Democratic party’s policies is male segregated. No girls allowed! Lol. I don’t see why people can’t see why that’s insulting to all women. Men who vote liberal aren’t generally accused of being women (except by Ken the birther here lol), I don’t know why men are given the agency to make their own political decisions while women are castigated or accused of all kinds of things if they don’t follow a certain script. Pretty sexist, “feminists”.
DLPL, it’s especially ironic that this rhetoric comes from those who call themselves feminists most of the time…. It blows my minds.
Honey, if that’s feminism, I don’t want it. Because my brain (wait. I think with my brain and not my reproductive organs? For shame.) is vibrant and healthy and I want to actually use it. I want to be allowed to think of different possibilities and even be allowed to change my mind based on compelling truths and evidence. What you’re selling is limiting and insulting to me as human being.
I am an immigrant don’t forget that. And yes Jack – you claim not discussing your views on immigration and yet your first comment eluded to your views and discussed EXACTLY that. I think you missed that but whatev…
Who said that people are scared of Mexican immigrants, I? I believe that I plainly wrote that the Dream Act will not solve the border security issues and some other concerns worth examining in terms of this immigration debate. Is that so hard to comprehend?
I have wrote once that my views on immigration reform align with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, so there. The issue that you are missing in this debate, however, is the applicability of the Dream Act.
I think that more and more you sound as if you would just disband ICE, open up the borders all around and sponsor everyone who steps their foot on this soil with no questions asked ?????
“I am an immigrant don’t forget that. And yes Jack – you claim not discussing your views on immigration and yet your first comment eluded to your views and discussed EXACTLY that. I think you missed that but whatev… ”
I don’t forget you’re an immigrant and I do consider your views in regards to immigration. But don’t forget I’m a second generation immigrant, and considering I have a white American father I probably wouldn’t exist if my mother’s family hadn’t been able to come here so easily when things started to go bad in Cuba. So I do have a lot of sympathy for families fleeing really bad situations (that, oftentimes if we’re talking about South America in particular, the US contributed to the instability quite a bit, we’ve been messing around in the Western Hemisphere for a couple centuries) even if they haven’t followed the law. My sympathy for them doesn’t mean that I think they are all in the right or they all should get automatic citizenship or whatever, but I do think it’s hard to penalize people for trying to get out of wartorn countries, or economic crises on a scale we’ve not seen in the US, or drug cartels, or the other fun stuff happening in a lot of these countries.
I didn’t say “the GOP should accept every provision of the DREAM act and our borders should be 100% open to every person at all times”. I do think they should consider their policies though. Someone who was brought here (with no input by them, obviously) at eighteen months old shouldn’t be penalized because of their parents. Considering that every dollar the US spends on education we get back tenfold in taxes when people get better jobs, I don’t see the sense in penalizing these kids with deportation or not being able to go to school. It doesn’t make economic or moral sense. And it allows businesses to unscrupulously exploit undocumented people brought here as children who cannot support themselves any other way.
And I have a huge, huge issue with tearing apart families because one or both parents are undocumented. Would you send American citizens (“anchor babies” who were born here) “back” to third world countries, or throw them in foster care while you take away their parents? I don’t know the answer to that, but I do not believe that children should be penalized like that because their desperate parents came here illegally.
I think border control should be focused on drug cartels, convicted criminals and such, and that hunting down and penalizing hard-working undocumented immigrants (who could be paying taxes and improving the economy if we gave them a simpler path to naturalization) wastes our resources and takes the focus off of what protecting our borders should mean.
But yeah, specific policies I don’t know, I’m not an expert nor do I claim to be smart. But there are some things I think are just plain old immoral, and others I think don’t make any sense. And the GOP definitely doesn’t have immigration policies that line up with the USCCB, so I don’t know why you bring that up. I’m criticizing the GOP, not the USCCB.
Thomas here’s a breakdown from the White House website of exactly who the DREAM act would apply to. I really don’t understand why you dislike it so much. It’s not like small children have a choice in if they come to the US or not, and there are regulations that the kids have to follow if they want to attend college or be eligible for legal citizenship:
“Young people must meet several requirements in order to qualify for the conditional status it will provide them. These requirements include entering the country when they were under 16 years old, proving they have continuously lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years and graduated from a U.S. high school or obtained a GED; demonstrating their good moral character; proving they have not committed any crimes that would make them inadmissible to the country. Only then can they obtain a conditional status for a limited period of time.
After their six year conditional status, these same individuals will need to meet additional requirements to move on to the next phase of this process. Specifically, they must have attended college or served in the U.S. military for at least 2 years, and once again, pass criminal background checks, and demonstrate good moral character. If young people are unable to fulfillthese requirements, they will lose their legal status and be subject to deportation.
Only applies to individuals who entered the U.S. as children. According to DREAM Act’s provisions, beneficiaries must have entered the United States when they were under 16 years old.
DREAM Act applicants will be responsible for paying fees to cover the costs of USCIS processing their applications.According to Section 286(m) of Immigration and Nationality Act provisions, the cost of having U.S. Customs and Immigration Services process DREAM Act applications will be covered by the application fees.
DREAM Act applicants would be subject to rigorous criminal background checks and reviews. All criminal grounds of inadmissibility and removability that apply to other aliens seeking lawful permanent resident status would apply and bar criminal aliens from gaining conditional or unconditional LPR status under the DREAM Act. Additionally, decisions to grant status are discretionary, and any alien with a criminal record not automatically barred by these provisions would only be granted status when and if the Secretary exercises her discretion favorably.
Fact: The DREAM Act only applies to young people already in the United States who were brought here as children, it would not apply to anyone arriving later, so it cannot act as a “magnet” encouraging others to come. Furthermore,. DREAM Act applicants would not be able to petition for any family member until fulfilling lengthy and rigorous requirements outlined above, and even then, they would have to wait years before being able to successfully petition for parents or siblings..“
This is what Mike Huckabee (who I generally can’t stand) says about it:
Bravo, I agree completely.
I am not against the DREAM ACT. My comments were very plain in proposing that the Act will not solve the illegal immigration issue, that’s all. I would see it being applied without a glitch if the US secured its borders first so that those who are already here and qualify, could be processed. But, if the border is not secured and those that do not qualify roam the streets, what then?
Why did I bring up the USCCB? My views align with them and I wanted to share that because for some reason you seemed to imply that I am terrified of Mexican immigration, with a flare at that LOL. But I also understand GOP’s concerns on the issue: we can’t even enforce our immigration code successfully and yet we’re leaping forward?
Okay then I misunderstood you, because I thought you were saying that the DREAM act was a bad thing. My mistake.
The thing is, Thomas, is that we differ in what a “secured border” looks like. I don’t believe that as long as things are so horribly unstable in Central and South America, and the Caribbean, that we will ever be able to make a dent in people coming here to seek a better life. Sometimes I feel like people live under a rock, and then I remember not everyone grew up around drug cartels and gangs lol. Cartels basically own several South and Central American countries (and it’s directly contributed to by drug policies the US has, our culture of criminal drug enterprise fuels theirs because most of their drugs end up here). Other countries have such bad economies that people have basically no options besides either coming here or committing crimes to eat. There’s basically civil wars between guerrilla groups and corrupt governments in other countries as well, people want to escape that especially so their sons don’t get snatched by either side. It’s pretty bad. And you can see that with our immigration stats. People die, often, trying to get here. They pile twenty in the back of a filthy van and suffocate, they drown on rafts coming here from Cuba or other Caribbean countries, they get shot by border control, they die of dehydration in Arizona, etc. And yet that hasn’t put a dent in them trying to get here. I don’t see what can be done at the border security level for these types of immigrants besides building a wall across the entire border and shooting everyone who comes across it, and even then I bet you’d have people building rafts and boats like they do in Cuba, only instead of Florida, Mexicans and others would try to land in Cali.
I think the only thing that will really stem the tide is working on our policies that help create the problems in these countries (like the “War on Drugs” and such), or maybe make naturalization for non-criminals easier to do. I don’t know. Like I said, I don’t know what specific policies could help. But I don’t see the point in delaying the DREAM act, punishing kids who had no choice in coming here, would be.
And I didn’t say you personally were afraid of Mexican immigration, but it certainly seems like a lot of the Republican party is.
An immigrant is never afraid of another immigrant. Basta.
I hear you, although in the Republicans defense – illegal immigration has not exactly been peaches and cream…..
Yeah, well, a lot of problems with illegal immigration doesn’t come from the immigrants themselves, it comes from how we react as a country and our policies towards their countries of origin. Like I said with the drug cartels, our policies are directly fueling these people coming here not to seek a better life, but to sell drugs to gangs in the US and such. I do think that fixing our drug policies would put a damper on illegal immigrant crime problems in that way.
And I can’t blame desperate immigrants for working for pennies if they need to eat, but I CAN blame companies that exploit this and deliberately employ illegals just so they can basically have what amounts to indentured servitude. Also results in those businesses skipping out on their taxes by paying these people under the table, which negatively affects the economy. I think people focus so much on the “illegals” themselves when really fixing the issue involves a lot more than continually punishing people for trying to escape terrible circumstances they were born into.
Back to an earlier point – the reason Hillary looks like the early favorite for 2016 is polls like this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/massive-82-democrats-hillary-clinton-run-president-poll-article-1.1702573
The leader for the GOP (Jeb Bush) has twice the people against this running than Hillary (from within the party).
I can, if I stretch myself until it hurts, understand that white middle and upper class men support the GOP. They are the only ones who have anything to win from that sick partys politics. Women, minorities, those less unfortunate economically will all be losers in their society. But they have managed to create a coalition where religiously brainwashed women, bible quoting white trash and gun fetishists support them.
If that party wins; enjoy your burkhas, ladies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWzPka0Wk1Q
Yes, women are weak little manipulated flowers and the only reason they would have different views on politics than you do is because they are brainwashed. Man, you certainly give women a lot of credit as human beings capable of making their own decisions. And I can’t even stand the GOP, I just think it’s stupid you think the Dems are much better.
And you live in Europe anyway, don’t you? Why are you whining so much about American politics?
Because what happens in the USA matters to us too, our “pro life” groups draw inspiration from yours. So stopping “pro lifes” advance in USA helps us stop them here too.
I do not think democrats are much better. But I think they are better.
Good luck stopping us Christine.
Have fun with Femen. Show your true colors.
Hi Carla
If you intended to insult me by bringing Femen up, you failed. Although I think some of their actions are a bit childish, I must admit to liking them, their views and acting out with lots of humour.
But just returning to the subject – how can any woman vote republican? It is beyond my comprehension.
Not insulting at all.
Keep it up.
How can women screech about protecting women while supporting the killing of preborn girls???
Beyond my comprehension.
If that party wins; enjoy your burkhas, ladies.
Just so you know Christine, in 2011 the UK democratic government and previous labor government rejected a ban on burqas and has not taken this issue up since then. Is it because the Brits despise the French?
In the USA, to contrast that, the current democratic government as early as 2010 fought full force to defend the burqa, but the Republican Party opposes the burqa for safety/security reasons and just in general, as not symbolizing women’s freedom.
So how you arrive at the conclusion that the Republicans want women to wear burqas is beyond my comprehension. Do some research about democrats before commenting again. Bye….
“Just so you know Christine, in 2011 the UK democratic government and previous labor government rejected a ban on burqas and has not taken this issue up since then. Is it because the Brits despise the French? ”
Well, if you look at France, the banning of the burqa was correlated with an over 30% increase in violent attacks on Muslim women, which is horrifying and like the opposite of what the ban was supposed to do. And plus I believe they view it like I do, that banning an article of clothing is acting like a band-aid and will never actually fix or even improve the lot of women in Islam. The burqa is a symptom, not a cause. And there are women (especially in the US) that choose to wear head coverings and their wishes should be respected.
And for safety and security reasons, you might as well ban hoodies. I think the law should be you can wear whatever you want, but at an airport or bus station, or state or federal offices, or if a police officer asks you have to show your ID.
But I get your point, the Republicans don’t want to put women in burqas. Christines comment was general though. Again she was insulting women who make different decisions than she does, implying that they are subjugated just because they don’t agree with her. And she apparently thinks all men that lean right or at least more right than she does want to control women to the point that radical Muslims do. Whatever. I’ve honestly never met someone who claims to be fighting for women be so darn misogynistic about it, lol.
Femen does a lot of damage, with the way they try to get their points across they end up alienating people in my opinion. If you have conversations at the level of rebellious teenagers, don’t be surprised when you’re treated like one.
“Well, if you look at France, the banning of the burqa was correlated with an over 30% increase in violent attacks on Muslim women, which is horrifying and like the opposite of what the ban was supposed to do.”
Jack, can you look up what the profile of the perpetrators of such attacks was? Were they Muslim men or non-Muslims? If the violence increased from Muslim men, than no commentary is needed and the only question I would have is – how did the French gov address the violence and did they prosecute the perpetrators? I think that did both…..
If you are attempting to somehow disqualify the French ban on the basis of the violence from muslim men that followed, than I think you would not want to support any national policy that is remotely controversial…
They were non-Muslims from the reports I’ve read, because France currently has some super anti-Muslim sentiment going on. The women attacked were wearing nijabs usually, which is a much less “covering” than a burqa type of hair cover. And it was still legal. But apparently these women needed to be punished for following their religion the way that they believe God intends for them. I don’t like Islam, at all, but religious suppression has terrible side effects as long as the religion isn’t breaking laws. For example, some parents have been prosecuted for denying their children medical treatment because of religious reasons, but an adult is free to refuse medical treatment because of religious reasons. Religious suppression can be turned around to ANY religious group once it starts, it’s not the answer to extremism in Islamic immigrants.
For Christians who think suppression of religion for things that are not inherently evil like the burqa and other head coverings (stuff like FGM should be illegal, obviously, because it causes harm to innocent little girls who cannot make a choice), I would like them to consider what would happen when your more controversial aspects of religion start coming under fire legally. For example, a lot of people hate religious homeschooling and consider it brainwashing, do you think it’s okay to make homeschooling illegal because of this?
Sorry, I meant hijabs, spelled the name wrong.
“For example, some parents have been prosecuted for denying their children medical treatment because of religious reasons, but an adult is free to refuse medical treatment because of religious reasons.”
Don’t understand your point. Can Muslim men in this country beat their children/wife and claim religious beliefs.
Do you think that parents have the right to deny medical treatment for their children based on religious beliefs? If so, you would not have a problem with the above paragraph….
You 100% missed my point. I don’t believe in suppressing religious beliefs unless they harm other people. If you wanna deny yourself medical care or self-flagellate or whatever, have fun. If you want to deny your children medical care or beat your wife, nope. If you want to get yourself, male or female, circumcized, whatever. if you want to get your newborn of either gender circumcized, not okay with me.
What the burqa ban is doing is preventing people from expressing their religious beliefs, not preventing violence or subjugation. Like I said, it’s a band-aid. Taking the burqa off of Afghani immigrants in France might have made people feel like they are so awesome for doing so, but did it change the male patriarchal views? Did it lessen violence against Muslim women? Did it loosen religious restrictions on women who practice Islam? Of course not, all it did was make women more targeted because it went after the wrong thing. And plus, a lot of Muslim women who come from less domineering areas and such choose to wear religious head coverings, which is there right to do so and shouldn’t be interfered with. They shouldn’t be able to be legally forced, but banning it makes us similar to the countries that require it. We’re basically telling women that us the government and religion is in charge of how you dress, not you.
Thanks for clarifying the medical treatment issue, I breathed relief.
The “anti-burqa” law is specifically tailored for France and its security concerns Jack. There may be anti-Islamic sentiment but the issue is the very real threat of terrorism and this group is not singled out without just cause.
No, that’s not why. Terrorism was a very minor part of why they are trying to ban the burqa and to a lesser extent other head coverings such as the hijab. They’ve been expelling young girls from school for refusing to uncover their heads (you know, because preventing Muslim girls from being educated is a fantastic way to counteract fundamentalism, lol), they’ve been claiming that Muslims (and other religions) wearing outward signs of religion in a public school is wrong and should be illegal, etc. Don’t try to boil this one down to anti-terrorism (and Muslims aren’t even close to the only terrorist groups, and they do not make up the majority even in France which has the largest Muslim population of a western country), because that’s not what it’s about. What it is is about the government assuming the right to choose citizen’s ability to practice their religion when it’s not causing harm to another party.
I am imagining the anger and fit-throwing from Americans if France were treating Christian women like Muslim women. Christianity is objectively (in it’s modern form) a safer religion than Islam, but that doesn’t mean people lose their rights because we don’t like their religion.
Oh dear, the burqa was a metaphor for how GOPers see women. I do not believe it will be mandatory.
But what I really do believe is that the views of Todd Akin, Richard Mourdoch, Joseph Walsh, Rick Santorum and other GOPers are not purely their own, and that the criticism they justifiably had for their outrageous comments (“there are ways a female body can shut down pregnancy during a ‘legitimate’ rape”, “rape is just another means of conception”,”no abortion saves a womans life”) was not aimed at what they said, but that they said it. Mitt Romney hurried out to defend Mourdoch… their mistake, from a GOPers point of view, was that they said what they all think.
Yeah Christine, its always better to say what you don’t mean or think or just blatantly lie about what you think. That always gets us moving forward…
Hey, there are so many children out there conceived from rape who have been given the opportunity to be born, who now thrive and glorify their existence. So who is wrong here: you or Paul Ryan? :)
Thomas R:
I can give them that they were honest. But that is all the credit I will ever give them. Because they are either evil or insane.
These children (source, examples?) were born because their mothers made a choice not to abort them. And that is perfectly fine with me. But when you want to take away the right to choose from women who were victims of rape, it makes me sick. Ask me, ask 90 % of women, you will get get the same reaction: Paul Ryan is not right. Paul Ryan is a misogynist and a sicko. The mere thought of me carrying a rapists child in me, or my daughter doing that, or anyone who does not want to doing that, makes me sick. And since your name is Thomas R, the only thing you should do in a discussion regarding womens rights and reproductive health is keep quiet. I could express my true feelings about people with your views, but that would probably ban me from this site.
I am surprised though that you admit that sicko Todd Akin was wrong – there really are children conceived in rape? A rapeublican who is wrong… not the first, definitely not the last.
It still blows my mind how it suddenly becomes a child when you can put “rapist’s” in front of it.
“I am surprised though that you admit that sicko Todd Akin was wrong ”
Uh, did you miss the absolute horror that most pro-lifers reacted to Akin’s comments with?
No, deluded, it did not escape me. But for every rapeublican who outraged justly over disturbed Akins words, two other applauded, see comment from Navi above.
And Navi, demanding that women carry a rapists child for 40 weeks equals torture. I wish I could explain to you, but anyone who questions that is uncapable of understanding that explanation. Statements like that make me sick, but, it is good that “pro lifers” and rapeublicans expose their true agenda – women are vessels to be filled with your the sperm. Words fail me trying to express my disgust. The humiliation of a ten minute-one hour rape is not enough for you? 40 weeks; now we’re talking! Teach her a lesson, right?
You make me sick, Navi.
Navi is a woman, she doesn’t have sperm to fill anyone with.
That a child would receive a death sentence for the crime of the father makes me sick. Thankfully, most women that conceive due to being raped choose not to kill the innocent baby.
Christine, my comment has nothing to do with Todd Akin’s remarks. I was only expressing my bemusement with common pro-choice rhetoric (ie insisting that the entity in the womb is a mere tissue mass and certainly not a baby or child, before turning around and admitting that it’s a child when you can put “rapist’s” in front of it, all without noticing any cognitive dissonance).
If you’re interested in a respectful dialogue, I would be happy to discuss abortion in the case of rape with you (along with related issues, like Todd Akin’s comment, and any other important topics). If you’re not, that’s fine too. Just let me know and I won’t bother.
Lrning: how about providing a link to a credible source that proves your statement of most women giving birth after rape?
That “pro lifers” think the total humiliation of women should last 40 weeks and probably more is awful but not surprising.
Navi, I am amazed you want a respectful dialogue with me, since you obviously value women (and someone said you are one) lower than shit. You might find it OK being an involuntary imcubator for a rapists child, I do not. But keep on displaying what GOPers stand for. And no I have no problems saying it is a child that never will be born. Maybe I kill one every fourth week too?
Finally Navi, a quote (it is retranslated into english, so it might not be word by word) by Germaine Greer:”Having to become a mother involuntarily, is being reduced to thr level of a slave, a pet or livestock”.
I’m not sure how you could profess to know so much about where I stand and how I value women when I haven’t even stated my view, let alone argued for it. But my offer is still on the table. Just so we’re on the same page, the following ground rules should apply:
– We will assume the best about each other’s motivations and interpret arguments in the most charitable way possible.
– We won’t call each other names.
– We will try to avoid posting textwalls with lots of arguments (instead focusing on only one or two main points at a time).
Offer rejected.
You think that if that woman in India had survived and become pregnant after being raped by six men, while watching her bf being beaten to death with iron poles by those who did not, for the moment, bless her with pregnancy (referring to sicko Mourdoch), should have been forced to carry that child? Repulsive is what I say…a “pro lifer” or a GOPer probably thinks differently.
I am sorry, but I can not respect those who value women that low.
You might respect me in your words. Your opinions however equals spitting in my face.
Suit yourself then. If you ever are willing to seriously engage your adversaries so you can better understand them (rather than assuming the worst every chance you get) and think more carefully about your own position (so you can either revise it or become more persuasive in defending it), feel free to shoot me a comment sometime. Until then, I wish you the best.
What you think is the best for me is to be held as hostage by my own reproductive capacity. I do assume the worst of you anti women/anti choicers. You never cease to astound me
Christine to Thomas R: “And since your name is Thomas R, the only thing you should do in a discussion regarding women’s rights and reproductive health is keep quiet. “
Newsflash Christine: although you are a woman – you do not speak for all women, but although I am a man – I speak for all pro-lifers. This must be hard for your feminist mind to wrap itself around so I’ll give you as long as you need. Until then, offer to keep quiet rejected.
Christine to Thomas R: “I am surprised though that you admit that sicko Todd Akin was wrong – there really are children conceived in rape?”
I’ve heard your jaw drop to the floor, hope it did not do damage…. :)
Christine to Navi: “What you think is the best for me is to be held as hostage by my own reproductive capacity.”
No Christine, you are doing very well being hostage to your disdain for human life and pro-life women.
I have never claimed to speak for all women. But since I am a woman, I have the right to speak for those women who share my opinions (a majority – Albuquerque, mister…). You might speak for all “pro lifers” (anti women) but you have no right to interfere in my decisions regarding my life.
My jaw did not reach the floor when I dropped it, because I rarely read in a position where it would reach the floor. And a person like Akin might seem extreme, but he does two kinds of work for “pro lifers”. 1. He is testing how far they can go in their statements. This time he went too far (although his fellow extremist R Mourdoch had support from Romney, so his views were not too extreme). 2. They make the more mainstream “pro life” appear normal, like some people you could actually have a discussion with. They are not. Either I have my rights, or I do not. There is no third.
I am not held hostage by any disdain for human life or “pro life” women. I value the life of women, and since choices are a part of being human, I will never back an inch on my position. Re “pro life” women they can have their opinions as much as they like. If you do not like abortions, do not have one. It is as simple as that.
“Finally Navi, a quote (it is retranslated into english, so it might not be word by word) by Germaine Greer:”Having to become a mother involuntarily, is being reduced to the level of a slave, a pet or livestock.”
Christine: First I corrected yourt spelling and punctuation. Second and this pay attention to, I have another of her quotes for you:
“Loneliness is never more cruel than when it is felt in close propinquity with someone who has ceased to communicate.”
Feminists have this charm about them to isolate even those who may be somewhat sympathetic, something to ponder.
Greer claims that all men hate women but also contradicted herself by claiming that women are much more realistic than men. Her quotes are non-sequitur but obviously you don’t pay attention….
Thomas R
Jag är ledsen att du måste korrigera min engelska och de missförstånd som därigenom kan uppkomma. Om du tycker det känns bättre att jag skriver på svenska, där jag vet att jag kan åstadkomma en helt perfekt text, så kan jag naturligtvis ställa upp med den servicen. Men jag tror ändå du skulle föredra att jag skriver på engelska, eller har jag helt fel där?