Democratic National Convention

sushilover

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 12:58 pm

Amarante wrote:

If you don't blame Hilary, why bring it up especially when the Republican candidate actually is a serial philanderer who has three baby mamas and is on record using vile disgusting language to describe women.

What does that say about supporters of Trump.

Trump is gross.

Amarante wrote:

As between Hilary and Trump, I know who is the one who is actually working for the rights of women. I can't think of a single plank in the Republican platform that supports women - an absolute ban on abortion for any reason;

Untrue. Here is the GOP website's position:The Republican Party is proud to stand up for the rights of the unborn and believe all Americans have an unalienable right to life as stated in The Declaration of Independence; Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend healthcare coverage to children before birth. Republicans have also passed laws for informed consent, mandatory-waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. Thanks to Republican legislative initiatives, there has been a tremendous increase in adoptions
Most importantly, not a single one of the major candidates has said anything about banning abortion for any reason. Every single one believes in an exception to abortion when the mother's life is in danger. The one with the most hard line position, IIRC was Cruz who said that in cases of rape and incest where the mother's life was not in danger, abortion should not be allowed, "... But at the same time, as horrible as that crime is, I don't believe it's the child's fault. And we weep at the crime, we want to do everything we can to prevent the crime on the front end, and to punish the criminal, but I don't believe it makes sense to blame the child," Cruz said.

Amarante wrote:

no paid family leave; no rise in minimum wages (which disproportionately impacts single working women);

Trump actually flirted with the idea of raising the minimum wage. (Which would disproportionately impact single working women by making them lose their jobs.)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti.....52b46

Amarante wrote:

no calls to enforce true equal pay for equal wages.

what does that mean?

Fox

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 1:01 pm

Amarante wrote:

Your point was that notable Democrats are appearing to endorse Clinton, unlike the Republicans. President Clinton counts as a notable endorsement because he served as President for two terms.

My point is that a serial s-xual predator doesn't count in my book as much of an endorsement, regardless of what offices he's held.

Amarante wrote:

The Clintons have a long complicated relationship and who among us should judge how they have worked out their partnership.

As between Hilary and Trump, I know who is the one who is actually working for the rights of women. I can't think of a single plank in the Republican platform that supports women - an absolute ban on abortion for any reason; no paid family leave; no rise in minimum wages (which disproportionately impacts single working women); no calls to enforce true equal pay for equal wages.

Oh, now I understand. Being a s-xual predator is okay if (a) your wife appears to forgive you; and (b) you mouth the "correct" attitudes. Gosh, somebody should have explained that to Brock Turner!

I'm not judging Hillary Clinton. I'm judging President Clinton and whoever thought it was a good idea to have him speak. You don't recall the Republicans inviting Richard Nixon to endorse Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan!

The presence of President Clinton on the stage of the Democratic National Convention is an insult to all women and tells me everything about how they work for the "rights" of women. With friends like that, we don't need enemies.

DrMom

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 1:07 pm

Fox wrote:

Oh, now I understand. Being a s-xual predator is okay if (a) your wife appears to forgive you; and (b) you mouth the "correct" attitudes. Gosh, somebody should have explained that to Brock Turner!

The presence of President Clinton on the stage of the Democratic National Convention is an insult to all women and tells me everything about how they work for the "rights" of women. With friends like that, we don't need enemies.

Actually, Hillary Clinton is known to have helped her DH "get rid of" women who caused him problems after their affairs (see Juanita Broaddrick's account of her encounter with the Clintons). Some of the women (Gennifer Flowers, for example) even claim she enables these affairs.

She's no helpless wife-of-SA victim.

I'd say her presence on stage -- and at the top on the DNC ticket -- is a pretty good indicator of the party's attitude toward women.

PAMOM

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 1:10 pm

Fox, while I disagree with several points you make above, I completely understand your point of view. I'd be more inclined to simply pooh-pooh the s-xual predator characterization since there were no minors involved except, of course , that his intern(s) were involved--and that's predatory. I couldn't be married to him and my heart still bleeds for what that poor women (ML) went through. BUT I can't vote for Trump and Hillary's positions are fairly close to mine overall.
Still, I wanted to thank you for explaining your point of view in a way that makes sense.

Fox

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 1:36 pm

PAMOM wrote:

BUT I can't vote for Trump and Hillary's positions are fairly close to mine overall.

I can completely respect that. There are lots of excellent reasons not to vote for Trump, but IMHO they hinge more on his potential inability to achieve the cooperation necessary to make government work than on whether he's a nice guy or not.

One thing I'd like to clarify, though. The fact that President Clinton targeted women above the age of consent is all very well and good, but his predation hinged not on an age difference but on a power/status difference.

He wasn't hitting on, say, Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein. Both as Governor of Arkansas and President, he targeted women of significantly lower status who would be impressed and intimidated by his office and who would therefore lack credibility if their involvement became known -- I believe the Democratic handlers referred to them as "bimbo eruptions."

Hey, maybe it's not too late to get Roger Ailes to endorse Hillary Clinton, too!

tzatza

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 2:09 pm

sushilover wrote:

what does that mean?

It means Socialism/Communism/Soviet Union. My mother-in-law was a teacher before she left USSR. It did not matter how good/bad/efficient/ or grossly incompetent a teacher was. Everyone had the same (I hate wasting a nice word like "equal") on this garbage. SAME, irrespective of merits and accomplishments.
You can read this, http://www.israelnationalnews......9252. Pretty spot on analysis.
Just in the interest of full disclosure, I immigrated from the heart of Russia at the age of 19 (not Ukraine or Moscow ). We built up Jewish community in my hometown from ground up in late 80-s early 90-s. I went through undergraduate and graduate schools in NY and have been working in Social Services for 13 years now in two different states. Why am I saying this? Because my experience overwhelmingly showed that Americans know close to nothing what it was like to live there. "Iron Curtain" worked both ways. The same way, ashamedly, I have to tell my American-born children, when asked questions about American History, that "let's look it up, because I never learnt it".

tzatza

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 2:19 pm

Amarante wrote:

Since you are terrified of the Soviet Union, why aren't you terrified of the proven ties of Trump to Putin as well as his expressed admiration for Putin and other dictators.

He also is on record as threatening to violate Article 5 of the NATO treaty which is catnip to Putin's ears as there is nothing more that Putin would like than to have NATO weakened and the European alliance destabilized so he can swoop into the Eastern European countries and dominate them again.

May I see verifiable proof of such ties? Or it is based on "expressed admiration"?
I express admiration or distaste over people's post here, but have no "ties" to even those I know personally.
Easter Alliance destabilized itself! It took Putin quite some time to rise in power. Do not tell me Europe was not watching (let's not even go into refugee's issue). How is that working out for France and Germany? or Britain for that matter?

Amarante

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:33 pm

sushilover wrote:

How can you talk about media bias and mediamatters at the same time? Media matters is completely biased!
Mass media is prejudiced. Does it not worry you that not a single one of the 72 White House Press Corps admitted to be registered Republicans? http://www.politico.com/magazi.....false
Tell me, what major news source do you consider to be fair and balanced? MSNBC? CNN? CBS? ABC?

You sent me to a meaningless statistic - Of those who responded 73% are either independent (13%) or not registered (60%). Who knows what the political affiliation is of the 73%?

This hardly indicates a mass prejudice in favor of one political party. Are you aware that Woodward who brought down a Republican President in part was a Republican?

None of the cable networks are what I would call independent as that is not what their intent is as they are in essence audiovisual Op Ed Pages. Of course, it is sad when people are unable to discriminate between propaganda from either sources. I don't get hard news from dailykos anymore than I would hope no one actually gets their hard news quote from breitbart or Fox news.

Major newspapers like NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA Times are widely viewed by most sane individuals as covering "hard" news fairly and separating OP ED from news stories.

Are you aware that most media organizations are to a great extent owned by Republicans and/or are public corporations with no discernible political bias?

Amarante

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:55 pm

tzatza wrote:

It's all over the news going back awhile but if I cited any of the "mass media" you would no doubt think it was "biased"

Perhaps you would be willing to accept it from The National Review which is the conservative magazine founded by William Buckley. A source less likely to favor ANY Democratic would be them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ceful

There are no sharks left to jump. At long last, we have reached the extinction point: US presidential hopeful Donald Trump has said it is a “great honour” to receive a compliment from Russian President Vladimir Putin. The property tycoon hailed Mr Putin as a man “highly respected within his own country and beyond”. It comes after Mr Putin said Mr Trump was a “very colourful, talented person” during his annual news conference.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ceful

Amarante

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 6:07 pm

sushilover wrote:

Here is the GOP website's position:The Republican Party is proud to stand up for the rights of the unborn and believe all Americans have an unalienable right to life as stated in The Declaration of Independence; Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend healthcare coverage to children before birth. Republicans have also passed laws for informed consent, mandatory-waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. Thanks to Republican legislative initiatives, there has been a tremendous increase in adoptions

You seem to be unaware that all of these positions would restrict a woman's right to abortion except in the most extreme cases.

If you are familiar with Roe v. Wade, abortion in the third trimester is already restricted which is when "partial birth" would occur and it almost never done - and when it is done occurs because of very severe health issues.

Informed consent includes the requirement by some states of woman being REQUIRED to have a vaginal ultrasound even for the earliest abortion.

Mandatory waiting periods are intended to fall especially heavily on poorer working women especially in many of those states which have very few legal abortion centers and so they must travel far distances once and then again.

The health protective clinic regulation was recently determined to be unconstitutional because it served no valid interest since there is no medical need for most abortions to occur in hospital settings.

I am not sure what they mean by healthcare coverage to children before birth. As far as I know, it is the Republicans who are behind restricting the expansion of Medicaid in many red states which would enable poor women and their children access to medical care. They also fight tooth and nail social welfare programs which might actually help the BORN CHILDREN.

In my opinion, the last thing any religious community should be supporting is the legislation of religious beliefs and the restriction of abortion as something that is between a woman and her doctor and conscience is the essence of interjecting religious belief. If you don't want an abortion, fine - but don't restrict the rights of other men and women for choice and dominion over the bodies.

marina

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 1:49 am

tzatza wrote:

“We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people.”

Funny, I don't see "Abortion on demand at any stage" anywhere above, even though that's what I specifically asked you to show me.

Also see nothing remotely controversial about the above statement. A woman who, in consultation with her rav, for example, decided to have an abortion, should have a safe and legal one. Is this really worth debating even?

marina

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 1:59 am

tzatza wrote:

Having experienced communism, I absolutely detest everything modern left stands for. For me it is not much about individual candidates (hey, Clinton made history as first woman nominee...I would prefer her making history as front-runner politician withdrawing from the race on the grounds of all the scandals, including rigging the party's race...but too much asking for some integrity nowadays). I do not like Trump's style, but I cannot vote for status quo to continue. He won fair and square and guess which demographic is doing best for him: white working class. That is me and my extended family. All who came with nothing on their back (legally!), worked from day one, paid and continue paying taxes (not a day on welfare). I don't want to pay for free healthcare for thousands of illegal immigrants while Obamacare destroyed my insurance options.
I believe it was s Churchill (not 100% sure, though) who said: "If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are 30 and not a conservative, you have no brain" (I hope I am quoting it correctly, but that is the idea). I am 38.
Call me "fear monger" all you want. I would much rather be fearful (which, by the way, does not preclude being hopeful...emunah still works) and have my fears proven unfounded at the end, than to wear rose-colored glasses and have them shattered.

Tzatza, the economic world is much more complete now than painting all democrats as communists and all republicans as free market capitalists.

I'm sure you disagree, so perhaps you can expound upon the Glass Steagall Act and why Trump would like to bring back a law that will break up the six largest banks and essentially bar private entities from certain types of investments. In sharing your opinion on this Act, please also comment on how you think reinstating this law will affect free markets and why, as an ardent capitalist, you think it's okay for government to control private businesses in that way.

I find your overall views lacking in nuance and in understanding the complexities of immigration, government economies, etc.

Do you know how much money illegal immigrants contribute to the states and how a mass exodus would affect our economy? Do you know what the economic results have been in states which have enacted very harsh immigration laws?

Do you know how much an application for citizenship costs? For a visa? Do you know how much you need to save annually compared to your income in Guatemala for that application? Do you know what the current quota is for immigrants from various countries? Regardless of refugee status or family support?

I sort of doubt that you're interested in learning anything about this, but if you are, you can start here http://business.time.com/2012/.....laws/

Last edited by marina on Sun, Jul 31 2016, 2:30 am; edited 1 time in total

marina

Thu, Jul 28 2016, 2:06 am

sushilover wrote:

http://www.imamother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=299383&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=220
I really went into the most current research in this thread. If you have a problem or question about any statistic or research, I'll gladly discuss it.

The most current research, as you and I discussed, shows that AA men are assaulted by officers 3x as much as whites. You yourself offered me this study and then you backpedaled when you realized its implications.

Anyone who really thinks there's no systemic racism in police departments or society at large has just not been paying attention. And until this election, I was one of you- not paying attention. Now I see how many people are willing to vote for someone who blatantly makes bigoted and misogynistic remarks, I fully accept the realities of systemic bigotry. Half the voting population are willing to vote for such a man, to my great horror. Of course many of them are willing to subtly discriminate against AA or allow it to happen on their watch.

Last edited by marina on Thu, Jul 28 2016, 2:16 am; edited 1 time in total