alienating women for future elections and proposing laws that have no chance. i'm not sure how they have the time to work on this in between trying to repeal obamacare for the 40th time but as long as they aren't focusing on the critical issues that have some chance of progress, everything is right with the rightwing.
alienating women for future elections and proposing laws that have no chance. i'm not sure how they have the time to work on this in between trying to repeal obamacare for the 40th time but as long as they aren't focusing on the critical issues that have some chance of progress, everything is right with the rightwing.
after the 2012 election debacle, no point in you posting polling information, at least no point that hasn't already been made.
What "debacle"? You seem to think you making these flip assertions mean anything.
Anyway:
A December Gallup poll
found roughly six in 10 saying abortion should be legal in the first
three months of pregnancy, but support plummeted for abortion in the
second or third trimesters (27 and 14 percent, respectively).
And while the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey
found overwhelming support for abortion in the case of danger to the
mother’s health, rape or a chance of serious defect to the baby,
majorities opposed allowing abortion “for any reason” or if the mother
simply didn’t want another child.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
after the 2012 election debacle, no point in you posting polling information, at least no point that hasn't already been made.
What "debacle"? You seem to think you making these flip assertions mean anything.
Anyway:
A December Gallup poll
found roughly six in 10 saying abortion should be legal in the first
three months of pregnancy, but support plummeted for abortion in the
second or third trimesters (27 and 14 percent, respectively).
And while the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey
found overwhelming support for abortion in the case of danger to the
mother’s health, rape or a chance of serious defect to the baby,
majorities opposed allowing abortion “for any reason” or if the mother
simply didn’t want another child.
in the states, Republicans had another banner election year, [E.d - that would be 2012 the year of this alleged "debacle"]making it
easier for abortion opponents to enact restrictions. There are 23 states
where Republicans now control the governorship and the state
legislature, compared with 14 where Democrats hold such an advantage.
in the states, Republicans had another banner election year, [E.d - that would be 2012 the year of this alleged "debacle"]making it
easier for abortion opponents to enact restrictions. There are 23 states
where Republicans now control the governorship and the state
legislature, compared with 14 where Democrats hold such an advantage.
in the states, Republicans had another banner election year, [E.d - that would be 2012 the year of this alleged "debacle"] making it easier for abortion opponents to enact restrictions. There are 23 states where Republicans now control the governorship and the state legislature, compared with 14 where Democrats hold such an advantage.
in the states, Republicans had another banner election year, [E.d - that would be 2012 the year of this alleged "debacle"] making it easier for abortion opponents to enact restrictions. There are 23 states where Republicans now control the governorship and the state legislature, compared with 14 where Democrats hold such an advantage.
Since nobody has proposed banning abortion, and the news article referenced to start this thread isn't about banning abortion, the question has no relevance.
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
How many of these states have banned abortion?
Since nobody has proposed banning abortion, and the news article referenced to start this thread isn't about banning abortion, the question has no relevance.
What "debacle"? You seem to think you making these flip assertions mean anything.
Anyway:
A December Gallup poll
found roughly six in 10 saying abortion should be legal in the first
three months of pregnancy, but support plummeted for abortion in the
second or third trimesters (27 and 14 percent, respectively).
And while the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey
found overwhelming support for abortion in the case of danger to the
mother’s health, rape or a chance of serious defect to the baby,
majorities opposed allowing abortion “for any reason” or if the mother
simply didn’t want another child.
14 - You really want to go down the road of citing Gallup polls to support your argument? Need me to bump an old thread to show how that worked out for you last time?
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
What "debacle"? You seem to think you making these flip assertions mean anything.
Anyway:
A December Gallup poll
found roughly six in 10 saying abortion should be legal in the first
three months of pregnancy, but support plummeted for abortion in the
second or third trimesters (27 and 14 percent, respectively).
And while the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey
found overwhelming support for abortion in the case of danger to the
mother’s health, rape or a chance of serious defect to the baby,
majorities opposed allowing abortion “for any reason” or if the mother
simply didn’t want another child.
14 - You really want to go down the road of citing Gallup polls to support your argument? Need me to bump an old thread to show how that worked out for you last time?
North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed legislation to prohibit abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks.
I bet he loses re-election!
I agree with you, he won't be losing re-election anytime soon. It is North Dakota which is a conservative state. In another thread you hinted about how the 2012 election was a fluke in part because of increased turnout of single women. Doesn't this article strike you as a reason why single women increased their turnout in the last Presidential election?
It really makes no sense for the GOP to do this. This has zero chance of becoming law. I've said it before but smart people can lose elections and stupid people lose elections for the same reasons again and again. Not sure who is in charge of GOP strategy but it is a stupid one from both a political and policy standpoint.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed legislation to prohibit abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks.
I bet he loses re-election!
I agree with you, he won't be losing re-election anytime soon. It is North Dakota which is a conservative state. In another thread you hinted about how the 2012 election was a fluke in part because of increased turnout of single women. Doesn't this article strike you as a reason why single women increased their turnout in the last Presidential election?
It really makes no sense for the GOP to do this. This has zero chance of becoming law. I've said it before but smart people can lose elections and stupid people lose elections for the same reasons again and again. Not sure who is in charge of GOP strategy but it is a stupid one from both a political and policy standpoint.
14 - You really want to go down the road of citing Gallup polls to support your argument? Need me to bump an old thread to show how that worked out for you last time?
I rather enjoy the fact you don't see a difference between polls on issues and polls on how people will vote.
Of course since there is no reason to believe Gallup is incorrect, you're trying to change the subject.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Cool_Arrow:
14 - You really want to go down the road of citing Gallup polls to support your argument? Need me to bump an old thread to show how that worked out for you last time?
I rather enjoy the fact you don't see a difference between polls on issues and polls on how people will vote.
Of course since there is no reason to believe Gallup is incorrect, you're trying to change the subject.
In another thread you hinted about how the 2012 election was a fluke in part because of increased turnout of single women. Doesn't this article strike you as a reason why single women increased their turnout in the last Presidential election?
No I didn't, and therefore, no.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Cool_Arrow:
In another thread you hinted about how the 2012 election was a fluke in part because of increased turnout of single women. Doesn't this article strike you as a reason why single women increased their turnout in the last Presidential election?
14 my friend you are just way too easy to debate with. Two points this morning.
#1 – Gallup is a joke. Their final poll had Romney 49% - Obama 48% with 95% confidence that it would be +/- 2% of the final outcome. Well the final was Obama 51% - Romney 47% where they claimed this had a 5% chance of happening. They were so bad that USA Today fired them. Why would you quote them given this track record?
Some issues bring people to vote others do not. By in large the public is overwhelmingly for expanded background checks on guns but will that mean that 80% of voters will vote out those who are against expanded background checks? Not a chance. Most people who say they are for it won’t punish politicians who are against it. This contrasts to people who are against it who will absolutely punish those politicians who are for it.
Abortion issues matters very much to conservative Evangelicals and to single women. Single women have been voting a lot more lately on this issue which could be a problem to GOP candidates in some areas.
#2 –Your memory is funny. In the thread talking about Phyllis Schlafly saying the GOP needed to write off Latinos and get more white voters in post #81 you said “Obama’s campaign benefited from a 17% turnout increase among unmarried people, a 9% increase among unmarried women, a 10% increase in Hispanic voters and a 6% rise in the youth vote…so how is Schlafly crazy”.
So back to my original point. You don’t see any connection with the GOP pushing for this pointless bill and an increase in single women voting? That is all my friend. Perhaps one of your buddies can help you here?
0
14 my friend you are just way too easy to debate with. Two points this morning.
#1 – Gallup is a joke. Their final poll had Romney 49% - Obama 48% with 95% confidence that it would be +/- 2% of the final outcome. Well the final was Obama 51% - Romney 47% where they claimed this had a 5% chance of happening. They were so bad that USA Today fired them. Why would you quote them given this track record?
Some issues bring people to vote others do not. By in large the public is overwhelmingly for expanded background checks on guns but will that mean that 80% of voters will vote out those who are against expanded background checks? Not a chance. Most people who say they are for it won’t punish politicians who are against it. This contrasts to people who are against it who will absolutely punish those politicians who are for it.
Abortion issues matters very much to conservative Evangelicals and to single women. Single women have been voting a lot more lately on this issue which could be a problem to GOP candidates in some areas.
#2 –Your memory is funny. In the thread talking about Phyllis Schlafly saying the GOP needed to write off Latinos and get more white voters in post #81 you said “Obama’s campaign benefited from a 17% turnout increase among unmarried people, a 9% increase among unmarried women, a 10% increase in Hispanic voters and a 6% rise in the youth vote…so how is Schlafly crazy”.
So back to my original point. You don’t see any connection with the GOP pushing for this pointless bill and an increase in single women voting? That is all my friend. Perhaps one of your buddies can help you here?
I get why you are against abortion for religious purposes. However, do you really want a bunch of low income mothers spawning even more children that you're most likely going to end up paying for through welfare anyway?
I haven't looked at any stats so I'm just guessing here but I think the most likely candidate for an abortion would be a low income, single mother. Do we really need people having children who really can't support them financially?
0
14,
I get why you are against abortion for religious purposes. However, do you really want a bunch of low income mothers spawning even more children that you're most likely going to end up paying for through welfare anyway?
I haven't looked at any stats so I'm just guessing here but I think the most likely candidate for an abortion would be a low income, single mother. Do we really need people having children who really can't support them financially?
One more thing, I just see more detriment to our society if abortion were made illegal. You would push abortions underground in a similar manner to drugs because some people would still get them. These underground abortions would be far more dangerous. America would also see an increase in population that it doesn't need, especially in segments where it's needed least. The GOP's voting base would shrink, in relative terms, because 20 years from now these kids probably aren't going to be voting republican if they're voting at all.
Aside from religious reasons, I can't see why conservatives are against abortion.
0
One more thing, I just see more detriment to our society if abortion were made illegal. You would push abortions underground in a similar manner to drugs because some people would still get them. These underground abortions would be far more dangerous. America would also see an increase in population that it doesn't need, especially in segments where it's needed least. The GOP's voting base would shrink, in relative terms, because 20 years from now these kids probably aren't going to be voting republican if they're voting at all.
Aside from religious reasons, I can't see why conservatives are against abortion.
I'm personally against abortion but I don't like the govt giving unwed mothers welfare checks either so I'm torn.
I wish people would take responsibility but I get the impression that is asking people too much.
on the unwed mother issue, you know what happens, not a little bit but a lot, is you have a woman in some kind of relationship with a guy, maybe they plan on getting married, maybe they are married, maybe they just plan on being together, maybe they are engaged, or maybe they are just in a short term relationship, and then the guy just takes off. he never pays a dime to raise the kid. the mother has to support the kid(s) somehow. she can try and get a job but then what happens to the kid all day. she can stay home but then what will she and the kid(s) do for money.
this does not happen a little bit. it happens all the time.
you don't think that mother needs assistance? you don't think that kid(s) needs assistance.
i know rightwingers love the abortion issue because it's all about control of women and hate the fuckin slimy thing once it's born unless it's rich and white but i had some hope for you on this issue.
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
K Train:
I'm personally against abortion but I don't like the govt giving unwed mothers welfare checks either so I'm torn.
I wish people would take responsibility but I get the impression that is asking people too much.
on the unwed mother issue, you know what happens, not a little bit but a lot, is you have a woman in some kind of relationship with a guy, maybe they plan on getting married, maybe they are married, maybe they just plan on being together, maybe they are engaged, or maybe they are just in a short term relationship, and then the guy just takes off. he never pays a dime to raise the kid. the mother has to support the kid(s) somehow. she can try and get a job but then what happens to the kid all day. she can stay home but then what will she and the kid(s) do for money.
this does not happen a little bit. it happens all the time.
you don't think that mother needs assistance? you don't think that kid(s) needs assistance.
i know rightwingers love the abortion issue because it's all about control of women and hate the fuckin slimy thing once it's born unless it's rich and white but i had some hope for you on this issue.
on the unwed mother issue, you know what happens, not a little bit but a lot, is you have a woman in some kind of relationship with a guy, maybe they plan on getting married, maybe they are married, maybe they just plan on being together, maybe they are engaged, or maybe they are just in a short term relationship, and then the guy just takes off. he never pays a dime to raise the kid. the mother has to support the kid(s) somehow. she can try and get a job but then what happens to the kid all day. she can stay home but then what will she and the kid(s) do for money.
this does not happen a little bit. it happens all the time.
you don't think that mother needs assistance? you don't think that kid(s) needs assistance.
Welfare approaches its maximum utility and serves this country most optimally when used on children, you know the FUTURE of this country...
Right wing losers who preach a pro-life gospel and then proceed to alienate single moms for needing assistance after they've had the kid need to be rounded up and put on display.
good stuff club
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
on the unwed mother issue, you know what happens, not a little bit but a lot, is you have a woman in some kind of relationship with a guy, maybe they plan on getting married, maybe they are married, maybe they just plan on being together, maybe they are engaged, or maybe they are just in a short term relationship, and then the guy just takes off. he never pays a dime to raise the kid. the mother has to support the kid(s) somehow. she can try and get a job but then what happens to the kid all day. she can stay home but then what will she and the kid(s) do for money.
this does not happen a little bit. it happens all the time.
you don't think that mother needs assistance? you don't think that kid(s) needs assistance.
Welfare approaches its maximum utility and serves this country most optimally when used on children, you know the FUTURE of this country...
Right wing losers who preach a pro-life gospel and then proceed to alienate single moms for needing assistance after they've had the kid need to be rounded up and put on display.
Agree with you on people taking responsibility. Pretty much my main reason for being pro choice IS that it can become burdensome for the rest of the country for others decisions.
Women's health is my other reason. I wouldn't want a woman dying because of a complicated pregnancy and her death being medically preventable.
Other than that I would most likely be pro life.
Club,
Excellent point about men not upholding their end of the bargain. I want to say that I'm not blaming anything solely on women. This is definitely a two way street.
In a perfect society where everyone took responsibility for their actions I would most likely be pro life. However, there is no perfect society.
0
Cano,
Agree with you on people taking responsibility. Pretty much my main reason for being pro choice IS that it can become burdensome for the rest of the country for others decisions.
Women's health is my other reason. I wouldn't want a woman dying because of a complicated pregnancy and her death being medically preventable.
Other than that I would most likely be pro life.
Club,
Excellent point about men not upholding their end of the bargain. I want to say that I'm not blaming anything solely on women. This is definitely a two way street.
In a perfect society where everyone took responsibility for their actions I would most likely be pro life. However, there is no perfect society.
Asked what the moral difference is between what Dr. Kermit Gosnell did to babies born alive and aborting those same infants moments before birth, Pelosi refused to answer.
"As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this," Pelosi said. "I don't think it should have anything to do with politics."
You really can't parody the left anymore.
0
Asked what the moral difference is between what Dr. Kermit Gosnell did to babies born alive and aborting those same infants moments before birth, Pelosi refused to answer.
"As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this," Pelosi said. "I don't think it should have anything to do with politics."
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
