Poll: Clinton leads Trump by double digits

[dullard]

Should Clinton win, I'd very much like for her to affirm Obama's Constitutional obligation & right to pick Garland & call on Repubs to confirm him in the lame duck session of Congress. She might even point out that it's unreasonable for her to be called upon to say anything & thus affirm the Constitution & the rule of law.

It would affirm her integrity while emphasizing the fact that Repubs have shown none.

That assumes that neither Obama nor Garland withdraws the nomination. It will by then have been the longest vacancy in the supreme court (depending on your definition of a vacancy). So, it would be reasonable for either one of them to give up and have someone else nominated before Clinton has a chance.

 

[fskimospy]

That assumes that neither Obama nor Garland withdraws the nomination. It will by then have been the longest vacancy in the supreme court (depending on your definition of a vacancy). So, it would be reasonable for either one of them to give up and have someone else nominated before Clinton has a chance.

I wouldn't be surprised if things look grim in mid October or so if the Republicans suddenly decide that what The People really wanted was for them to fill Scalia's vacancy with Garland after all.

 

[Paratus]

That isn't very generous of you brother. Like our Lord I answer at times in questions. My number 1 issue is abortion. The murder of the unborn is simply anathema to me. Abortion to me is like that Moloch affair.
Charity is supposed to be voluntary, we will always have the poor, remember? Remember "if a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat?" The democrats have a completely opposite view.
Do you really think God wants people to have that right?
Granting people the right to do evil things isn't going to look good on our resumes. This isn't about being a Christian nation but one who protects the most vulnerable.
Your wisdom is that of a sinner as is mine. If you think people should be able to rip their unborn out of their wombs then I'd suggest something is wrong with yours. There are living souls in those wombs.
Do you think Paul was a sexist? He seemed to think there were significant differences between the roles of women and men?

So your argument is if we don't want to pay people to have children then they can be killed if the mothers so choose? There are lots of poor children now, should they be killed if I don't want to personally take one in? The welfare state is slavery. After 50 years of your "help" the black family has disintegrated. After so many years of failure don't you think we should try something else? What your party's idea of help has created has been a disaster.

I don't agree with the death penalty and we shouldn't be going to war constantly. It isn't as if the Democrat party hasn't supported war in the past.

:hmm:

50-70% of eggs after conception are naturally spontaneously aborted or miscarried. Yet according to you they all have souls. You then ask emperus if he thinks God really wanted people to have that right.

Well God seems to exercise that "right" all the time. Why is that ok? You come right out and say it's evil. But it's not when God does it?

When people have to live by the rules that you think look good on your imaginary "resume" they actually suffer real hardship.

Take this woman who badly wanted a child. Who found out at 31 weeks her child's progression "was not compatible with life". Her choice was to abort or allow it to be born and suffocate to death. She chose to end the pregnancy which required a plane trip to Colorado because NY law wouldn't allow her the choice of doing it there. A $10,000 cash injection to end the pregnancy and a flight back to her doctors for an eventual cesarean.

http://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-at-1781972395

Or this mother of 4 who's IUD failed and she became pregnant with the IUD still inserted causing pain and hemorrhaging as her pregnancy continued. She had to wait 72 hours due to state law which turned into a week due to a snow storm shutting down the clinic. The pain and bleeding were bad enough to send her to the ER but she wasn't bleeding enough for them to be willing or able to do anything.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/06/north_carolina_abortion_law_s_effect_on_one_mother.html


How forcing a woman to go through 9 months of pain to risk her life to maybe give birth to a viable child or force a woman to give birth to a non viable child just to watch it die painfully "looks good on your imaginary resum" I don't know.

Maybe you could explain. <- That was a joke

 

[nageov3t]

Should Clinton win, I'd very much like for her to affirm Obama's Constitutional obligation & right to pick Garland & call on Repubs to confirm him in the lame duck session of Congress. She might even point out that it's unreasonable for her to be called upon to say anything & thus affirm the Constitution & the rule of law.

It would affirm her integrity while emphasizing the fact that Repubs have shown none.

I'd imagine it's going to depend entirely on how the Senate elections turn out.

if Dems gain a majority in the Senate, Obama may withdraw Garland's nomination to allow Clinton to nominate someone younger and more liberal after her inauguration (pretty much the doomsday event for Senate Republicans, who may take another serious look at appointing Garland now while they can if Trump's numbers stay down)

 

[Mxylplyx]

I'd imagine it's going to depend entirely on how the Senate elections turn out.

if Dems gain a majority in the Senate, Obama may withdraw Garland's nomination to allow Clinton to nominate someone younger and more liberal after her inauguration (pretty much the doomsday event for Senate Republicans, who may take another serious look at appointing Garland now while they can if Trump's numbers stay down)

It would be a shame if Republicans were allowed to avert the punishment for their reckless, shortsighted political opportunism. Obama selected a moderate like Garland knowing that he would get a hearing before a Republican controlled senate, which is a necessary compromise made up front that was not reciprocated by Republicans. They most certainly should not get off the hook when Hillary is elected, even if they retain control of the Senate. Even if Garland is withdrawn and replaced by a much more liberal nominee, Republicans have put themselves in a position where they must confirm any remotely qualified candidate that Clinton picks, as I'm hoping they will have much less appetite for more pointless obstruction after getting pummeled in November. Republicans leaders, if there are any, might want to use this humiliating outcome to pummel their rank and file for putting themselves in this situation.

 

[jackstar7]

My number 1 issue is abortion.

Boy that is a dumb issue to pin your vote to.

Almost the dumbest.

 

[dullard]

Boy that is a dumb issue to pin your vote to.

Almost the dumbest.

To explain why, point to the Bush years of 2003 to 2007. The GOP had majority in the house, senate, presidency, and a 5-4 lead in the supreme court. What happened to abortion? Nothing.

Pinning your vote entirely on a single party issue when that party does nothing about that issue is dumb. And that says nothing about whether the issue is valid or not. Honestly, why would anyone put all their eggs into one basket and then give that basket to people who don't care about it? The national GOP only gives lip service to abortion. They don't actually want to do anything to change it since then they lose their single-issue voters.

Not to mention that the GOP used to be pro-choice, until Nixon's advisors determined that they can get votes by pretending to be pro-life. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/this-is-forty-the-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade

turning abortion into a partisan issue had been part of a strategy, crafted by Nixon&#8217;s advisers, to reinvent the G.O.P. and get Nixon reëlected&#8212;before Roe. &#8220;No American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition,&#8221; Nixon said in 1969. Anticipating the opponents he would face in his run for reëlection, Nixon began to rethink his positions on contraception and abortion. &#8220;If the President should publicly take his stand against abortion, as offensive to his own moral principles,&#8221; Patrick Buchanan advised, in a memo dated March 24, 1971, &#8220;we can force Muskie to make the choice between his tens of millions of Catholic supporters and his liberal friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post.&#8221; A week later, Nixon issued a statement expressing his &#8220;personal belief in the sanctity of human life&#8212;including the life of the yet unborn.&#8221;

 

[Thump553]

Trump is no longer constantly crowing about the polls. Instead he now refers to them as "phony polls."

Given Trump's very erratic behavior I almost think there is a 50/50 chance he will pull out of the whole show on the eve of the convention.

 

[First]

What does that have to do with anything?

Your boring, inane judgement, and everyone laughing at you for it.

That's all.

 

[emperus]

That isn't very generous of you brother. Like our Lord I answer at times in questions. My number 1 issue is abortion. The murder of the unborn is simply anathema to me. Abortion to me is like that Moloch affair.
Charity is supposed to be voluntary, we will always have the poor, remember? Remember "if a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat?" The democrats have a completely opposite view.

That is not the full verse. Why is it that conservative Christians always choose to misquote it? It's actually frustrating whenever I see a Christian quote it that way. Jesus is only talking about his upcoming death. There is a plethora of verses that speak to our duty to help the poor. In fact helping the poor is not supposed to be voluntary it is commanded. You should know in the Gospels there is no greater emphasis by Jesus than the poor and needy (the least of us).

6While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, 7a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
8When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. &#8220;Why this waste?&#8221; they asked. 9&#8220;This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.&#8221;
10Aware of this, Jesus said to them, &#8220;Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11The poor you will always have with you,a but you will not always have me. 12When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.&#8221;

Do you really think God wants people to have that right? Granting people the right to do evil things isn't going to look good on our resumes. This isn't about being a Christian nation but one who protects the most vulnerable.
Your wisdom is that of a sinner as is mine. If you think people should be able to rip their unborn out of their wombs then I'd suggest something is wrong with yours.

We seem to have a differing views on our faith. In my faith God gives us free will, even the will to make bad choices and sin. In my faith, I worry about being the best Christian I can be, trying to be more like Jesus and controlling the things I can control, and letting God decide, control and judge the rest. Btw, what makes you think the sin of someone who commits abortion is greater than the sins you've committed? Who gives you the right to decide that?

Honestly, I'm not fond of the Republican view of Christianity. I think it purposefully misinterprets the Christian faith (relying heavily on misquoted texts especially the Old Testament). Nothing spoke to this more than how Republicans attacked the Pope because he rightfully said he didn't believe Trump was a Christian.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd imagine it's going to depend entirely on how the Senate elections turn out.

if Dems gain a majority in the Senate, Obama may withdraw Garland's nomination to allow Clinton to nominate someone younger and more liberal after her inauguration (pretty much the doomsday event for Senate Republicans, who may take another serious look at appointing Garland now while they can if Trump's numbers stay down)

That would merely tend to confirm the Repubs' bullshit position wrt Obama's right to nominate Garland & the Senate's obligation to advise & consent. Regardless of who wins the Senate Repubs must be forced to consider Obama's choice. If they won't act in the lame duck session then Clinton should re-nominate Garland her first day in office.

Choke on it, boys.

 

[Jhhnn]

The national GOP only gives lip service to abortion. They don't actually want to do anything to change it since then they lose their single-issue voters.

Quite true. They love permanent issues, particularly ones as emotional & as hopeless as banning abortion.

Besides that, unwanted children are just for the little people. Women of the true Bush constituency can just pop off for a holiday in Canada or Sweden so it really doesn't matter at the Country Club.

 

[Mxylplyx]

That would merely tend to confirm the Repubs' bullshit position wrt Obama's right to nominate Garland & the Senate's obligation to advise & consent. Regardless of who wins the Senate Repubs must be forced to consider Obama's choice. If they won't act in the lame duck session then Clinton should re-nominate Garland her first day in office.

Choke on it, boys.

I'm curious, why do you feel that Clinton should re-nominate Garland, who while well qualified is likely more moderate than Obama would ideally like, as opposed to putting in her own nominee for the court? When it comes to tipping the balance of the court, I dont think the dems should take any changes with a moderate.

 

[DrPizza]

That would merely tend to confirm the Repubs' bullshit position wrt Obama's right to nominate Garland & the Senate's obligation to advise & consent. Regardless of who wins the Senate Repubs must be forced to consider Obama's choice. If they won't act in the lame duck session then Clinton should re-nominate Garland her first day in office.

Choke on it, boys.

I've rarely seen it mentioned on these forums, but it's possible that when Hillary nominates a Supreme Court Justice, she'll be doing to to a Senate controlled by the Democrats.

If that's the case, then the Republicans really deserve to lose big on this one. If you told the Republicans a few months ago that if Hilary wins, she's going to renominate Garland, then what difference would it make to the Republicans - they can wait and see if somehow there's a big R next to the next President - and if not, then Garland it is.

 

[BurnItDwn]

then he may want to let them out and breathe every once in a while. con artist, sure, manipulator, sure, smart, not so sure.

I'd like to think that most people aren't quite gullible enough to fall for a dumb con artist. But a smart con artist, that's dangerous.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm curious, why do you feel that Clinton should re-nominate Garland, who while well qualified is likely more moderate than Obama would ideally like, as opposed to putting in her own nominee for the court? When it comes to tipping the balance of the court, I dont think the dems should take any changes with a moderate.

It's a matter of integrity & of affirming the Constitutional roles of the President & the Senate. It's a matter of affirming Obama's legitimacy. It's a matter of fairness for Garland, as well, a man who is well qualified to serve on the Scotus.

It's a place where Repub obstructionism cannot be allowed to stand because the Scotus is more important than that.

 

[Jhhnn]

I've rarely seen it mentioned on these forums, but it's possible that when Hillary nominates a Supreme Court Justice, she'll be doing to to a Senate controlled by the Democrats.

If that's the case, then the Republicans really deserve to lose big on this one. If you told the Republicans a few months ago that if Hilary wins, she's going to renominate Garland, then what difference would it make to the Republicans - they can wait and see if somehow there's a big R next to the next President - and if not, then Garland it is.

Garland won't suit them better than any nominee they'd filibuster. They need another right wing ideologue on the court rather than honest & reasonable people of any sort. Garland hurts them just as much as anybody else they didn't pick.

I don't support changing filibuster rules any more than they have been. The Scotus is an institution where we're all best served when a president's pick isn't too ideological for the opposition to accept. Garland is such a pick. Otherwise the legitimacy of the court comes into question along with the legitimacy of everything else Repubs rave about. Hell- the Teahad & Trump show that they've even destroyed their own legitimacy. It's no way to run a country.

 

[fskimospy]

Garland won't suit them better than any nominee they'd filibuster. They need another right wing ideologue on the court rather than honest & reasonable people of any sort. Garland hurts them just as much as anybody else they didn't pick.

I don't support changing filibuster rules any more than they have been. The Scotus is an institution where we're all best served when a president's pick isn't too ideological for the opposition to accept. Garland is such a pick. Otherwise the legitimacy of the court comes into question along with the legitimacy of everything else Repubs rave about. Hell- the Teahad & Trump show that they've even destroyed their own legitimacy. It's no way to run a country.

I think it's probably wrong to think that either party won't do away with the SCOTUS filibuster exception the next time it is relevant. Might as well get rid of it now.

 

[dullard]

I think it's probably wrong to think that either party won't do away with the SCOTUS filibuster exception the next time it is relevant. Might as well get rid of it now.

The filibuster was meant to be a rare situation to protect the minority in an extreme case from abuses of the majority. Now it has become the go-to tool for crybabies. Someone didn't smile at you today? Filibuster! Didn't get exactly your way? Filibuster!

I'd be okay if filibusters went back to what they used to be. Someone would go through extreme misery to show the world how important a specific topic was to them. Now, all you have to do is say you might consider filibustering and it is a done deal. Filibustering has been watered down to make it essentially useless for society.

But, since that is unlikely, it is long time to get rid of it entirely. Maybe when we start electing noble gentlemen again, it may be worthy of bringing back. But not until then.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it's probably wrong to think that either party won't do away with the SCOTUS filibuster exception the next time it is relevant. Might as well get rid of it now.

I don't think Dems will do that. They only modified the rules in the face of near total obstructionism of presidential appointees of all stripes.

There's only one thing wrong with govt- Republicans. They're incompetent in power & damned if they'll let anybody do any better when out of power.

 

[buckshot24]

That is not the full verse. Why is it that conservative Christians always choose to misquote it? It's actually frustrating whenever I see a Christian quote it that way. Jesus is only talking about his upcoming death. There is a plethora of verses that speak to our duty to help the poor. In fact helping the poor is not supposed to be voluntary it is commanded. You should know in the Gospels there is no greater emphasis by Jesus than the poor and needy (the least of us).

How do you think I misused it? We will always have the poor. There will always be a need that needs to be met.

We are commanded to help the poor, absolutely! How is forcing a person to "help the poor" via the threat of armed officers helping us fulfill these commands? And you're not helping the poor with the Democrat agenda anyway. You didn't answer my question about the disintegration of the black family. It isn't working.

We seem to have a differing views on our faith. In my faith God gives us free will, even the will to make bad choices and sin. In my faith, I worry about being the best Christian I can be, trying to be more like Jesus and controlling the things I can control, and letting God decide, control and judge the rest. Btw, what makes you think the sin of someone who commits abortion is greater than the sins you've committed? Who gives you the right to decide that?

God has judged nations for promoting evil which is what your candidate does by supporting abortion. Remember Moloch?

What makes you think I think my sins are somehow better than others? If a person has an abortion there is forgiveness with repentance just like there is for any other sin.

As a nation if we support evil we will pay the price, eventually. We ought not support murder and that is how I view it. That doesn't mean we outlaw all sins, not the point, but 3000 a day are being wiped out for the most part out of convenience. Pure evil.

Honestly, I'm not fond of the Republican view of Christianity. I think it purposefully misinterprets the Christian faith (relying heavily on misquoted texts especially the Old Testament). Nothing spoke to this more than how Republicans attacked the Pope because he rightfully said he didn't believe Trump was a Christian.

I don't think Trump is a Christian either. So what? I hope you're not insinuating that I am purposely misinterpreting anything. If I misinterpret anything it isn't out of

I am curious how you think I "misquoted" the "you will always have the poor" text. What point do you think I was making?

 

[buckshot24]

Your boring, inane judgement, and everyone laughing at you for it.

That's all.

So an ad hom. Thank you mr fallacious. To the list.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I wonder how speedy is doing, haven't really heard much since drumpf started his rapid decent.
<drumpfspeak on> and let me tell you, nobody goes into a smoking tailspin like me, ask anyone, ask the gays, as them. People, smart people tell me this, and I only talk to the best people, and they're saying nobody crashes and burns like this, only me, go ahead, ask them. <drumpfspeak off>

 

[buckshot24]

:hmm:

50-70% of eggs after conception are naturally spontaneously aborted or miscarried. Yet according to you they all have souls. You then ask emperus if he thinks God really wanted people to have that right.

Quit with the "according to you" crap.

Well God seems to exercise that "right" all the time. Why is that ok? You come right out and say it's evil. But it's not when God does it?

Where is your evidence that God is aborting these babies? I'd like you to support your assertion here. Why do you think God is actively making these things happen?

When people have to live by the rules that you think look good on your imaginary "resume" they actually suffer real hardship.

Therefore lets murder children? Lots of hardship is being placed on mothers because of their mature children, why not kill them? Also prove that my "resume" is imaginary. Can't? Quit making baseless assertions.

Take this woman who badly wanted a child. Who found out at 31 weeks her child's progression "was not compatible with life". Her choice was to abort or allow it to be born and suffocate to death. She chose to end the pregnancy which required a plane trip to Colorado because NY law wouldn't allow her the choice of doing it there. A $10,000 cash injection to end the pregnancy and a flight back to her doctors for an eventual cesarean.

A completely horrible situation, what would you like me to say? Therefore perfectly viable babies can be ripped from their mother's womb simply because they "aren't ready" to have children? How many of the 3000 per day are anything like this?

Can we agree to allow only abortions of these types? You've already told me no so quit bringing these extreme cases up.

 

[brycejones]

So an ad hom. Thank you mr fallacious. To the list.

Oh NO not THE LIST!

Where will the inhumanity end?