Clinton says Republican candidates, terrorist groups hold similar views of women's rights

During a speech in Cleveland Thursday, Hillary Clinton compared her Republican challengers’ views on women to those of terrorist groups.

“Marco Rubio brags about wanting to deny victims of rape and incest access to health care, to abortion. Jeb Bush says Planned Parenthood shouldn’t get a penny. Your governor right here in Ohio banned state funding for some rape crisis centers because they sometimes refer women to other health facilities that do provide abortions,” Clinton said.

“I would like these Republican candidates to look a mom in the eye who caught her breast cancer early because she was able to get a screening for cancer. Or the teenager who didn’t get pregnant because she had access to contraception. Or anyone who’s ever been protected by an HIV test.

“Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, but it’s a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States, yet they espouse out of date, out of touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st century America. We are going forward, we are not going back.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/hillary-clinton-compares-gop-views-on-women-to-those-of-terr#.ogD1gOrzyl

Just speaking the blunt truth! Isn't that what Republicans say they find so refreshing about Trump?

I've not really got into the whole Trump debate, but you can like someone because you find their honesty refreshing, yet dislike some of their views.

eddie wrote:I've not really got into the whole Trump debate, but you can like someone because you find their honesty refreshing, yet dislike some of their views.

I love the fact that Trump is saying what conservative Americans really think, and putting that message out to, for example, the 24 million people who watched the GOP debate he was in.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I've not really got into the whole Trump debate, but you can like someone because you find their honesty refreshing, yet dislike some of their views.

I love the fact that Trump is saying what conservative Americans really think, and putting that message out to, for example, the 24 million people who watched the GOP debate he was in.

Yes, it certainly is a boon for Democrats that all of these guys have to show their dicks.  But this has been going on for some time.  

America was shocked at what Republicans wreaked with Iraq.  And it wasn't just the kidnapping, rape, torture and the all the lives it cost us. It was also shocking how much debt Republicans could amass. Before that, it was assumed that debt was a function of liberal spending.

From there, a black president brought out the Republican racist instincts.  From there is was Katy bar the door.  Abortion.  Voter suppression.  Anti-Hispanics.  Police shooting/killing black males.  All of these showed Americans what Republicans are all about.  

Hell, the only thing advanced by Trump is they now speak openly about it all.  Before Trump, they had to speak in code.

is anyone else a little concerned that so many 'predictions of US decay' start with Trump being elected president? for almost 20 years it has been said to be the for-teller of the end for the USA..

while many have been in 'entertainment' the sheer number makes the odds of it being coincidence pretty slim. if there was ever a believable conspiracy... it is the destruction and moral bankruptcy bought about trump

veya_victaous wrote:is anyone else a little concerned that so many 'predictions of US decay' start with Trump being elected president? for almost 20 years it has been said to be the for-teller of the end for the USA..

while many have been in 'entertainment' the sheer number makes the odds of it being coincidence pretty slim.    if there was ever a believable conspiracy... it is the destruction and moral bankruptcy bought about trump

It's worrisome for sure, a lot less so, though, since he has no chance of beating any Democrat even if he gets the nomination for the GOP, which is still far from a sure thing. If he does get the nomination, though, I'll predict right here that he'll get no more than 50 million votes at the very most (Romney lost in 2012 with almost 61 million).

Gallup's latest poll shows Trump with a 31 percent favorability vs. 57 percent unfavorability rating. America as a whole really doesn't like him, and thanks to his fame, everybody knows about him and has formed their opinion.

veya_victaous wrote:

I read somewhere that The Simpsons has often foretold future events....

One of the things about Trump is that people misjudge what he--or his group of supporters--is rebelling against.  While he pays lip-service toward Democrats, he is basically being critical of Republicans.  He condemns ‘politicians’ and who are they?  Republicans control Congress, where all the politicians sleep and poop.

The attention he is drawing is from people who are angry at politicians, and that means angry at Republicans.  

It’s sometimes hard to read the polls.  But that’s at least one theory.  This is the backlash that Democrats predicted when Mitch McConnell and John Boehner said they would work against the US as long as there was a black president.

@eddie
i know you like conspiracies
Consider that the Simpsons also has Way more high level Science degrees in the production team than any cartoon has any right to have.

@Quill
beware placing too much faith in people having sensible judgement
that's how we ended up with Abbott, and Bush was elected TWICE.

Sorry but I have zero faith in the voting public making a sensible decision... the prediction is literally that Trump will win through political circus tricks OVER any sensible opponent.... 31% favorable IS WAY TOO high, then combine with optional voting and voter apathy, he could easily get in on those numbers if the democrats don't have a good candidate.

veya_victaous wrote:@Quill
beware placing too much faith in people having sensible judgement
that's how we ended up with Abbott, and Bush was elected TWICE.

Sorry but I have zero faith in the voting public making a sensible decision...  the prediction is literally that Trump will win through political circus tricks OVER any sensible opponent....  31% favorable IS WAY TOO high, then combine with optional voting and voter apathy, he could easily get in on those numbers if the democrats don't have a good candidate.  

Well...before you criticize me for calling the public sensible, you have to prove to me they are not sensible this time. In fact, Bush lost the election in 2000; the stall in the Florida count threw the decision into the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court elected Bush.

By the second term, the Bush/Cheney cabal had started a war, and America rarely changes presidents in the middle of a war (see Roosevelt, FD). Of course, after the public learned the Iraq War was a fraud, it was all bets off!

@quill
see other thread post from hotwire
I win


and 'this time' well most of the time they are not, so really you should say why you think it will be different

Sanders isn't scandalous or polarizing. Clearly not worth mentioning.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/08/30/kanye-west-rants-at-vmas-have-decided-to-run-for-president/

shame we have to wait 4 more years

veya_victaous wrote:@quill
see other thread post from hotwire
I win

Don't know what thread you are talking about. You didn't specify.

veya_victaous wrote:and 'this time' well most of the time they are not, so really you should say why you think it will be different

It's important to clarify. Republicans are not sensible. Democrats are.

I don't know Abbot, but Bush lost the general election in 2000. That means that Democrats were sensible and prevailed. It took a malevolent Supreme Court to countermand the democratic will of the people.

veya_victaous wrote:

Sanders isn't scandalous or polarizing. Clearly not worth mentioning.

Frankly, all the concern about Trump on MSNBC is getting boring. I usually watch Hardball, but right now it's all Trump, Trump, Trump... I turn it off.

I think that MSNBC believes Trump is the Republican Party in its death throes, and any way they can help out they will.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t11139-brothers-who-assaulted-homeless-hispanic-man-donald-trump-was-right#219858
you even replied with the point about Rick Santorum


You are mistaken to think the Left is any brighter (kinder definitely) most people on either side a sheep, both as easily manipulated.


And Bush won an election like Obama did by convincing half of the half that bothered to vote. 40% of the US electorate have not voted since 1968
the last election with over 70% turn out was 1900

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections


If Democrats were sensible Hillary would already have zero, she is openly a corporate shill. either side is just as corrupt as the other. we both know any one with even a shred of decency like Sanders stands no chance of getting pre-selection. and that is hardly unique the the USA we have Rupert's lapdog (abbott) over Multiple other more popular candidates from either side of politics

veya_victaous wrote:http://www.newsfixboard.com/t11139-brothers-who-assaulted-homeless-hispanic-man-donald-trump-was-right#219858
you even replied with the point about Rick Santorum

You are mistaken to think the Left is any brighter (kinder definitely) most people on either side a sheep, both as easily manipulated.

I disagree.  RW ideology is based on selfish interests; LW ideology is based on common interests.

The RW has a two-fold task: to deceive, and then to try to come up with valid arguments.  How can you lie and still succeed?  You can't; you'll get caught...somewhere, somehow.  That's why the RW always fails.  Indeed, that's why the RW always sounds so irrational.  Their only play is to appeal to passion, not intellect.

The Left assumes a much simpler task.  If you adopt the premise that government exists to help all people, and then go about the task, all you have to do is seek the truth, and put it to valid use.

Most of a successful argument is about adopting a truthful premise.  It's the inverse of garbage in, garbage out; it is good stuff in, good stuff out.  The reason why the RW always fails is because they are trying to turn garbage into something good.  It simply can't be done.  That's why RW arguments are always irrational, and so they limit themselves to loose associations and cheap innuendos.

veya_victaous wrote:And Bush won an election like Obama did by convincing half of the half that bothered to vote. 40% of the US electorate have not voted since 1968
the last election with over 70% turn out was 1900

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

Bush lost the 2000 election.  He won the 2004 election.

Intrepreting voter no-show is a tricky business.  In some countries--OZ, I hear--you have the negative vote.  In the US, you only get to vote positively.  So, US voters cast a negative vote by no-show.  It's interpreted as: I don't like my party's candidate, but I can'be bring myself to vote for the other party, so I'll simply not show up.  It's still a measurable political action, it's just constrained by the limited choices of the system.  

veya_victaous wrote:If Democrats were sensible Hillary would already have zero, she is openly a corporate shill. either side is just as corrupt as the other. we both know any one with even a shred of decency like Sanders stands no chance of getting pre-selection. and that is hardly unique the the USA we have Rupert's lapdog (abbott) over Multiple other more popular candidates from either side of politics

But it's a pluralistic political system...many different boxes to look into.  Hillary is also a woman.  2016 is the Year of the Woman in the US (see my post on news pundit Tomi Lahren, in US, Canada and Latin Americas News, conservative anchor becomes viral star).  Hillary may be saddled with corporate and financial baggage, but she is also the best chance for the population to bring women into political self-awareness.

Yes, it's unfortunate that a weaker, but right-thinking candidate like Sanders cannot be chosen.  But think: someone from the other side--say a Hitler--stands an equally minimal chance of being chosen (GWB was chosen in 2000 by the Supreme Court, not the voters).  That just means the political glacier moves like molasses, not mercury.