pst please, rich white girls have permissive "friend" mommies who get them birth control pills early & often to avoid such unpleasantness, and to be a "bestie" to their daughterMan, learn rich white girls. Kidding me?
pst please, rich white girls have permissive "friend" mommies who get them birth control pills early & often to avoid such unpleasantness, and to be a "bestie" to their daughterMan, learn rich white girls. Kidding me?
This is a prime example of how you are slow.I was poking fun at you jumping at the chance to use such a weak argument. One guy didn't stop you from putting him in his place.
Dude, little rich girls that get knocked up in high school and college have abortions all the time. No way daddy can have is little girl preggo with some bastard child.To be fair it's the minorities mostly that this is basically being allowed for. I know white trash does it to, but rarely is it the case that successful people don't keep an unplanned baby.
That said how do minorities that really is her base not see this for what it is? I get it......it's your body, but think about the the attack on your own damn people.
BLM- Babies Lives Matter
Did anyone hold a gun to their head and march them to the clinic?In healthy pregnancies, 79 black babies were aborted every day vs 66 being born during 2013 in NYC
Which party is racist again?
I'm not a communist or even particularly liberal. I'm anti abortion in nearly every circumstance, but I also know that the Republicans have never really tried and never will try to do away with it. They'll dance around it and mess with Planned Parenthood and talk a lot, but they don't want it to go away or they'll lose all those one issue voters. Catholics in this country voted almost uniformly Democratic for generations until Roe Vs. Wade. If abortion becomes illegal again and is settled law, a ton of them will go back to voting Democratic. The GOP leadership knows this. Heck, Reagan could have been elected King in 84 and had the sway to get a constitutional amendment to outlaw it. Did he try? Bush had all the political capital in the universe after 9/11. Did he try to outlaw it?
No, Reagan used his popularity to cut taxes with the richest getting a 60% cut. While all you righties whine about Obama nearly doubling the debt you forget that Reagan tripled it, and that was without inheriting two wars and a recession. Reagan could have done everything he did without doing that. Obama has had much smaller annual deficits by GDP than Reagan or either Bush. In fact, all of the top ten smallest annual deficits of the last 50 years have come under Democrats.
And what about Bush and his political capital and all the patriotic zeal after 9/11? Did he use it for any good for the country or for any morally righteous legislation? Nope. He invaded Afghanistan with a US Army that could only field about half the men it did in 90 and then split his forces and invaded Iraq under false pretenses and cut taxes during war time for the first time in US history. So now over 4500 American service people are dead from the Iraq war [ the reasoning and justification for the invasion has never been fully investigated even ONCE by a Republican controlled Congress, while Benghazi, with the FOUR deaths, has been investigated SEVEN times] and about four trillion dollars are gone. So it's a war which has cost the average living taxpayer nothing. The only casualties have been our best and bravest[ the military and their families -BTW, I could have never been in the service due to my back but am the son, grandson and great grandson of men who have fought in Korea, WWII, WWI and the Civil War] and our children and grandchildren, who will inherit the debt we keep passing on.,
I could go on and on. I'm not a Communist. I'm a pretty conservative person who is simply sickened by the astonishing hypocrisy of a party which wraps itself in the flag and meanwhile sells the country out with lies while crying about the tax and spend of the Democrats while borrowing and spending itself. The Republicans cut nothing but continue to spend and unlike the Democrat, they refuse to pay as they go at least a little. It's a shell game that is gong to choke our heirs to death.
I'd rather vote for people I don't totally agree with who aren't using my own morality and patriotism against me to ruin our country. Righties cry about socialism but seem to be content to endure eventual feudalism, because that's where the GOP has tried to lead us to.
Checkpoint Charlie? Seriously, do you not understand the difference between a wall on the Mexican border and the Berlin Wall? If the purpose of the wall was to prevent American citizens to flee a tyrannical regime by way of an escape to Mexico, that would be a good comparison. That's not the case.He wants border walls (complete with Checkpoint Charlie?), brown-shirted deportation forces, stop and frisk, prosecution and imprisoning of his political opponents and possibly refusing to concede if he loses.
She wants to "go after the money" and use the force of government to confiscate more of the assets of the wealthy, making them pay an even more unfair share of taxes while claiming that they don't pay enough. She then promises to spend us into oblivion.
It's not just MacArthur and Patton that are spinning in their graves. It's Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, et al. How anyone can still support either of those two is beyond me! Both have promised more government, more debt, and less liberty.
Dude, little rich girls that get knocked up in high school and college have abortions all the time. No way daddy can have is little girl preggo with some bastard child.
It is also amazing how much pro-life people focus on the 1% of abortions that happen after 20 weeks. Most of those being on fetuses that are known to be malformed or disabled in some way.
I'm sure that pro-choice forces defend late-term abortions for the same reason that 2nd amendment advocates want to protect the gun show loopholes for firearms sales. It's the give-an-inch-take-a-mile mentality.
Considering that Trump currently leads the highest rated 538 poll (IBD), as well as the most accurate '12 poll (LA Times), you may want to reconsider your prophecies of doom. If you really are a "NeverTrump" conservative, and not really a progressive who is "with her" (which I doubt), I would also say this in response- if Clinton does win, and she very well might, it will only be because of the withholding of support from the same "conservatives" that insist that Trump had no chance in the first place. These people will have created the very situation that they predicted in the first place.Here's a big SCREW YOU to Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Gallagher and all of the radio talking dickheads that pimped Trump for months. Lemmings listening to all the anger about "establishment" and "do nothing" Republicans gave us Donald effing Trump. And now we are going to possibly lose the Senate and soon the House thanks to the angry children in America who threw a tantrum. You wanted to beat Hillary? You had 4-5 actual real chances (some great chances) and picked this clown show.
I believe it was Fuzz about 6mo ago regarding tearing down the Berlin Wall. It was noted at the time to be one of the worst takes in The Political Thread history.Checkpoint Charlie? Seriously, do you not understand the difference between a wall on the Mexican border and the Berlin Wall? If the purpose of the wall was to prevent American citizens to flee a tyrannical regime by way of an escape to Mexico, that would be a good comparison. That's not the case.
For those who inclined to search, they can also search for "rqarnold" posts; it's the same person.I believe it was Fuzz about 6mo ago regarding tearing down the Berlin Wall. It was noted at the time to be one of the worst takes in The Political Thread history.
If anyone has a second to search for it, make it so....
One question- which of the candidates would be more likely to beat her, at this point? The ones that come to my mind either didn't run (Pence, Abbott, Flynn), or dropped out early (Walker). The one guy that I think would be solidly defeating her, of those who stayed in the primary (Kasich) is better than Clinton, by far, but is not someone that I would even go to the polls to vote for, against anyone other than Clinton. The candidates that would be a serious, legitimate upgrade over Clinton (Cruz, Carson, Paul) would be getting trounced right now.Here's a big SCREW YOU to Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Gallagher and all of the radio talking dickheads that pimped Trump for months. Lemmings listening to all the anger about "establishment" and "do nothing" Republicans gave us Donald effing Trump. And now we are going to possibly lose the Senate and soon the House thanks to the angry children in America who threw a tantrum. You wanted to beat Hillary? You had 4-5 actual real chances (some great chances) and picked this clown show.
Does it amaze anyone else how the left pivots no matter who the candidate is? They have no hard stance as long as there is a 'D' by their name.
Dems who were anti- Wall Street, big banks and against war are now for a candidate who is backed by Wall Street, Big Pharma and wants to go to war with Russia.
Think about that for a second.
The look on Hillary's face when Trump started to talk about Putin...you knew she had her line cued up and ready to nail him on it. And this all sarted with a question around Wilileaks.
She had haymakers all night long. Chinese steel, not paying takes, puppett, etc...
She was clearly prepared and baited Trump all night long. Idiot took the cheese each time and got his neck snapped.
Speaking of Hypocrites, certain Dems are all up in arms about the UofL sex scandal. UofL has no morals, UofL will win at all costs, yada yada all the while being in the tank for a party who has been proven to be involved in criminal activity, you name it to win this and other elections.They're hypocrites. OWS was sucking Obama's pecker back in the day. Hillary is backed by Wall street. I have 0 respect for that bitch. I'm still deciding if I want to start spitting in the faces of democrats. I'm 90% sure I will start spitting my snot saliva mix into their face. Hillary voters deserved to be spit on.
Speaking of Hypocrites, certain Dems are all up in arms about the UofL sex scandal. UofL has no morals, UofL will win at all costs, yada yada all the while being in the tank for a party who has been proven to be involved in criminal activity, you name it to win this and other elections.
The look on Hillary's face when Trump started to talk about Putin...you knew she had her line cued up and ready to nail him on it. And this all sarted with a question around Wilileaks.
She had haymakers all night long. Chinese steel, not paying takes, puppett, etc...
She was clearly prepared and baited Trump all night long. Idiot took the cheese each time and got his neck snapped.
I've saw 538 mentioned a few times, but from their site it has Clinton dominating. Where are you getting that 538 actually shows Trump leading? The LA Times shows a 0.6% lead for Trump.Considering that Trump currently leads the highest rated 538 poll (IBD), as well as the most accurate '12 poll (LA Times), you may want to reconsider your prophecies of doom. If you really are a "NeverTrump" conservative, and not really a progressive who is "with her" (which I doubt), I would also say this in response- if Clinton does win, and she very well might, it will only be because of the withholding of support from the same "conservatives" that insist that Trump had no chance in the first place. These people will have created the very situation that they predicted in the first place.
One question- which of the candidates would be more likely to beat her, at this point? The ones that come to my mind either didn't run (Pence, Abbott, Flynn), or dropped out early (Walker). The one guy that I think would be solidly defeating her, of those who stayed in the primary (Kasich) is better than Clinton, by far, but is not someone that I would even go to the polls to vote for, against anyone other than Clinton. The candidates that would be a serious, legitimate upgrade over Clinton (Cruz, Carson, Paul) would be getting trounced right now.
Since they're such big game hunters, guess you could say the Trump boys eat pussy.
There's little doubt that she lost and even most of the MSM more or less concedes that. (it's sad when one gets a more objective analysis from the WashPo than the National Review). That said, Trump did make several errors in the response to the "gotcha" question about accepting the results.Not sure what you were watching but Hillary lost the debate last night. That is why the media talking point today is all about Trump's unwillingness automatically accept the election result as valid should he lose.
Checkpoint Charlie? Seriously, do you not understand the difference between a wall on the Mexican border and the Berlin Wall? If the purpose of the wall was to prevent American citizens to flee a tyrannical regime by way of an escape to Mexico, that would be a good comparison. That's not the case.
538 does not have Trump leaning. However, the highest rated poll, according to the site (and it's probably no longer the case, since 538 is a far left propaganda site), the IBS poll, does have Trump in front. As does Rasmussen and the LA Times, and probably the PPD poll also.I've saw 538 mentioned a few times, but from their site it has Clinton dominating. Where are you getting that 538 actually shows Trump leading? The LA Times shows a 0.6% lead for Trump.
Wall or no wall, I can assure you that anyone with a valid passport will free to travel to Mexico anytime they please. If only the East Berliners had the same luxury of travelling to West Berlin after the Berlin Wall went up.Oh, so this would be one of those special one-way walls? People traveling north would be blocked, couldn't climb over it and couldn't tunnel under it. But people traveling south will be able to pass right through it. Sounds awesome!
There's little doubt that she lost and even most of the MSM more or less concedes that. (it's sad when one gets a more objective analysis from the WashPo than the National Review). That said, Trump did make several errors in the response to the "gotcha" question about accepting the results.
First, although he sort of mitigated this later, his immediate response should have been something to the effect of, "I have every expectation of winning this thing, so what in the world would I NOT want to accept about the results".
Second, he should have followed it up with a reference to 2000, and to Al Gore. That rebuts the false implication that a challenge to election results in the Presidential race was unrebutted.
Next, he should have made it clear that the O'Keefe tapes show voter fraud, so there's actual reason to be concerned about the integrity of the process.
Finally, he should have made it clear that contesting or challenging the results doesn't mean some kind of street revolution (that's more along of the lines of a Soros tactic if Trump wins)- that a challenge is a LEGAL challenge, done through the courts, and only if there's a good basis for doing it.
I remember those days well."Bush was selected, not elected" - Hillary Clinton, 2002
Two years after the fact Hillary was still unable to concede that Gore lost the election. Don't you just love that talking out of both side of their mouth, boomerang, liberal logic?
Yeah, that's why 538 gives Trump a 13% chance of winning.Considering that Trump currently leads the highest rated 538 poll (IBD), as well as the most accurate '12 poll (LA Times), you may want to reconsider your prophecies of doom. If you really are a "NeverTrump" conservative, and not really a progressive who is "with her" (which I doubt), I would also say this in response- if Clinton does win, and she very well might, it will only be because of the withholding of support from the same "conservatives" that insist that Trump had no chance in the first place. These people will have created the very situation that they predicted in the first place.
The no fly zone Clinton is considering in Syria could actually trigger a war with Russia. A war that could end the world. I'm voting for the anit-apocalypse candidate.
Just check her emails. She detailed exactly who they wanted to run against (Cruz, Trump) and who they feared. But there is no doubt whatsoever that there were more qualified people in the primary than this clown. But the electorate was too focused on a stupid wall (that will never be built) in Mexico to do the right thing.
Some ran crappy campaigns for sure (Walker, Bush, Paul) and some were just there for decoration(Fiorina, Carson) but we have frothing at the mouth masses that are so angry at the world that they wanted different. Welp...you got different. And the media (Fox News had Trump on nearly every day while completely ignoring others) and talk radio anger mongers got their lemmings to do just what happened. Ignore others who are more qualified than Trump, for whatever reasons(anyone not Cruz or Trump was considered establishment trash), and crush the "establishment". Boy, that sure worked out. Neither are ever going to be President.
And anyone else who wanted and worked for a good, solid candidate got what we got and now we will have a Hillary presidency. Congrats Trumpsters. Mission accomplished. Pretty much why I changed my party affiliation after 40 years from Rep to Ind.