I’m almost certain Hillary will be the nominee, but I agree with MB, the electorate has a very short memory.I don’t think Bernie can do it this year, LB, but I would support him 100% if he were the nominee.
My deepest desire is that we NOT forget his message.
But your relative, Fr. Frank Pavone, says that Hillary is pro-abortion.I’m almost certain Hillary will be the nominee, but I agree with MB, the electorate has a very short memory.
I’ll definitely vote for Hillary. I applaud the way Hillary and Bernie have conducted their campaign with dignity.
Keep chasing me with that statement. LOLBut your relative, Fr. Frank Pavone, says that Hillary is pro-abortion.
How? I’m pretty certain no Democratic president is going to make abortion mandatory. So how?And they will deliver on that, sadly.
I agree with you, Little Sheep. The Republicans just keep attacking her and attacking her, and she always manages to come out on top. None of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, are perfect, but I think Hillary is sincere and honestly wants to help people. I don’t agree with her on everything, either, but I agree with most of her platform.I trust her a lot and always have. Like you, I believe she is sincere and genuinely wants to help people. I agree with what she said at one of the debates - she’s not a natural politician like her husband. She doesn’t have charisma. What she does have is an unstoppable intellect and a round-the-clock work ethic. Also, I admire how she has (for decades) handled the unbelievable amount of bunk that is hurled at her non-stop.
She is not perfect and I don’t agree with every decision she has made or with all of her policy positions. But I feel that way about every person I have ever voted for.
I will be proud to cast my vote for her in November and I hope she will be our next President.
I agree.Even if HC has many shortcomings and reasons for Catholics to not want to vote for her, surely she would do less harm than Emperor Trump.
And believe me, world leaders would breathe a big sigh of relief. I think she is on the whole quite respected.
By nominating pro-abortion judges to SCOTUS.How? I’m pretty certain no Democratic president is going to make abortion mandatory. So how?
How many times do I have to remind you that it was REPUBLICAN nominated justices that upheld Roe v. Wade and MADE ABORTION LEGAL, so you can’t count on that?By nominating pro-abortion judges to SCOTUS.
ANCIENT HISTORY!!! At the time they were nominated,*** a half-century ago***, abortion was not the issue it is today.How many times do I have to remind you that it was REPUBLICAN nominated justices that upheld Roe v. Wade and MADE ABORTION LEGAL, so you can’t count on that?
Abortion has always been a HUGE issue.ANCIENT HISTORY!!! At the time they were nominated,*** a half-century ago***, abortion was not the issue it is today.
Just remember: presidential elections are about 3 things… JUDGES, JUDGES & JUDGES!
Abortion has always been a HUGE issue.
The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t even hear a case involving abortion now. It’s the law, and the Supreme Court concerns itself with cases that make NEW law.
Wrong! SCOTUS is hearing oral arguments on the Texas abortion mill regulations this week.
Nothing is ancient history that is affecting us today.
The judges have proven they are not the pawns of the presidents who appointed them.
I’m not in favor of abortion, but I"m a realist. Abortion’s not going anywhere anytime soon, so it doesn’t matter who appoints whom with regard to the abortion issue.
The reality is that your actions ADVANCE the cause of abortion.
No presidential candidate is pro-abortion; Clinton is pro-choice. To say she’s pro-abortion would mean she thinks every pregnancy should end in abortion, and I’m pretty sure she doesn’t think that.
Wrong again! Your relative, Fr. Frank Pavone says that she is PRO-ABORTION.
1992 was hardly ancient history. That was the year the Supreme Court heard Planned Parenthood v Casey. That was considered by the pro-life movement to be the best chance of overturning Roe v Wade because the court had EIGHT Republican appointed justices in 1992. Kennedy, Souter, Blackmun, O’Connor and Stevens voted to uphold Roe. All five were appointed by Republican Presidents.ANCIENT HISTORY!!! At the time they were nominated,*** a half-century ago***, abortion was not the issue it is today.
Just remember: presidential elections are about 3 things… JUDGES, JUDGES & JUDGES!
And all of them were wrong and violated the fundamental rights of human beings in the Constitution.1992 was hardly ancient history. That was the year the Supreme Court heard Planned Parenthood v Casey. That was considered by the pro-life movement to be the best chance of overturning Roe v Wade because the court had EIGHT Republican appointed justices in 1992. Kennedy, Souter, Blackmun, O’Connor and Stevens voted to uphold Roe. All five were appointed by Republican Presidents.
I think that Ted Cruz would try hard to get people who are pro-life. The real question is would Congress approve.Abortion has always been a HUGE issue.
The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t even hear a case involving abortion now. It’s the law, and the Supreme Court concerns itself with cases that make NEW law.
Nothing is ancient history that is affecting us today.
The judges have proven they are not the pawns of the presidents who appointed them; no one can count on the judges following the ideology of the president who appointed them. History has shown that.
I’m not in favor of abortion, but I"m a realist. Abortion’s not going anywhere anytime soon, so it doesn’t matter who appoints whom with regard to the abortion issue.
No presidential candidate is pro-abortion; Clinton is pro-choice. To say she’s pro-abortion would mean she thinks every pregnancy should end in abortion, and I’m pretty sure she doesn’t think that.
But that doesn’t mean we should just run into the arms of liberals who are even more pro-choice.How many times do I have to remind you that it was REPUBLICAN nominated justices that upheld Roe v. Wade and MADE ABORTION LEGAL, so you can’t count on that?
You can’t get more pro-choice than the seven justices who decided to make abortion on demand legal in the US, five of them Republican appointed. Even one of the dissenters was appointed by a Democrat.But that doesn’t mean we should just run into the arms of liberals who are even more pro-choice.
I believe that Roe might be further narrowed with more restrictions, but I also can’t imagine the Supreme Court actually overturning it completely.I wish they hadn’t made it constitutional, but now that it is, I think it has to be eradicated in a different way. The Supreme Court isn’t the route.
I can’t, either. Unfortunately, there are many women who want the legal freedom to abort on demand.I believe that Roe might be further narrowed with more restrictions, but I also can’t imagine the Supreme Court actually overturning it completely.