Hillary Clinton Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Monkey1976 said:
Is there any recognized religion today - other than the Democratic Party - that requires abortion on demand as a tenet of faith?
Click to expand...
I think that the Democratic Party is the only one with abortion on demand as a chief tenet of its faith. Meltzerboy says that Orthodox Judaism requires that a mothers life be saved even if requires killing the child. However, medical situations in which abortion is an actual necessity to save the life of the mother are extremely rare, so I presume that the church would not object to strict limitations for on abortion for other, non life threatening reasons.
 
meltzerboy said:
Not that I know of. This brings us back to the individual woman, her family, and her physician, who may be acting not according to her faith or may not have any faith. Should she be allowed to make this most personal choice or should the law of the state step in and tell her what is best for her and her family?
Click to expand...
But that’s the hidden problem of the choice: If a woman killing her child within the womb is a “most personal choice”, why is that same woman a criminal and a murderer if she kills that exact same child after it has been born? Same child, same woman, same circumstances. But once that child is born, what reasons people appeal to in defense of unrestricted legal abortion cannot be applied to any child?
 
Lily_Bernans said:
To expand on LS’s great post, we’re bound by our Constitution here, as you probably know. It is up to our Supreme Court to determine whether or not a law is constitutional or not. In 1973, the case of Roe v. Wade came before the Supreme Court. The Court, in a 7-2 majority, upheld Roe v. Wade and declared abortion every US woman’s constitutional right. Abortion became legal in all 50 states.

The president cannot sign an order striking down Roe v. Wade. Congress cannot legislate against it. The people who want to stop abortion want very conservative judges appointed to the SC so that maybe, some day, these conservative judges will strike down Roe v. Wade and abortion will not then be legal in the US.

There seems little chance of that happening, though. Five of the justices who upheld Roe v. Wade were conservative, and strict constructionists as opposed to liberal or fluid constructionists. Five were Republican appointed justices. So, being conservatives, and probably strict constructionists, they had to be pretty convinced that abortion on demand did not violate the US constitution. Subsequent decisions, heard under a different mix of justices, have upheld Roe v. Wade. One of the most recent was 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Again, a Republican appointed court upheld Roe v. Wade.

So, it seems that those wanting abortion on demand made illegal in the US will have to take a different path for that to happen.
Click to expand...
Thanks for enlightening me on how things work in the US!🙂
 
ATeNumquam said:
Thanks for enlightening me on how things work in the US!🙂
Click to expand...
But States have greatly limited abortion through making laws; also, the industry has been defunded of funds in individual states. States like Texas, Wisconsin and so on have made great strides.

Hillary Clinton has won the Sanger award from Planned Parenthood, one should study as to what kind of woman Margaret Sanger was. She is the pioneer of Planned Parenthood.

States like California and New York have much higher rates of abortion than most other states, higher than the national average.

States like Utah and Wyoming have very low rates.
 
What would happen if Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination, but then was indicted by the FBI afterwards?

Or is there actually a 0% chance of that happening because she’s above the law?
 
Exiled_Child said:
What would happen if Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination, but then was indicted by the FBI afterwards?

Or is there actually a 0% chance of that happening because she’s above the law?
Click to expand...
She thinks she is above the law that is for certain:mad:
 
Exiled_Child said:
What would happen if Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination, but then was indicted by the FBI afterwards?

Or is there actually a 0% chance of that happening because she’s above the law?
Click to expand...
There’s 0% chance of that happening because Secretaries of State before Hillary (including Republican SOS) did the exact same thing she did and were subsequently investigated in the exact same way.

Our government, like the rest of us, is still trying to keep up with the extraordinary changes in technology we have experienced since the birth of the Internet.
 
Little_Sheep said:
There’s 0% chance of that happening because Secretaries of State before Hillary (including Republican SOS) did the exact same thing she did and were subsequently investigated in the exact same way.
Click to expand...
:confused: This is just not true.
 
I’m just wondering if the party would try to find some way to take back the nomination and give it to Sanders instead, were Clinton to be indicted.

I’m guessing that wouldn’t actually be possible, but I don’t know.

As far as I know, neither party has ever been in this predicament before…

And please correct me if I’m wrong, by the way…
 
Little_Sheep said:
There’s 0% chance of that happening because Secretaries of State before Hillary (including Republican SOS) did the exact same thing she did and were subsequently investigated in the exact same way.

Our government, like the rest of us, is still trying to keep up with the extraordinary changes in technology we have experienced since the birth of the Internet.
Click to expand...
Exactly which other Secretaries of State sent classified information via email to non-cleared third parties using a private server with zero oversight hosted out of their own home?
 
Exiled_Child said:
I’m just wondering if the party would try to find some way to take back the nomination and give it to Sanders instead, were Clinton to be indicted.

I’m guessing that wouldn’t actually be possible, but I don’t know.

As far as I know, neither party has ever been in this predicament before…

And please correct me if I’m wrong, by the way…
Click to expand...
Fair enough. My personal opinion is that the Party hasn’t spent much meaningful time on the issue because the Party is able to recognize a witch hunt when it sees one. And no one in politics draws a witch hunt like Hillary Clinton!

That said, yeah, I think the Democrats would have to reconfigure if they found themselves with a Presidential front runner facing indictment.
 
Monkey1976 said:
Exactly which other Secretaries of State sent classified information via email to non-cleared third parties using a private server with zero oversight hosted out of their own home?
Click to expand...
Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice used personal email servers to disseminate information. Powell, in particular and specifically, but both really, sent and received information that was deemed classified.

Like I said before - we’re catching up with ourselves. But, as you can see, some people only care about it when Hillary does it.
 
Little_Sheep said:
Fair enough. My personal opinion is that the Party hasn’t spent much meaningful time on the issue because the Party is able to recognize a witch hunt when it sees one. And no one in politics draws a witch hunt like Hillary Clinton!

That said, yeah, I think the Democrats would have to reconfigure if they found themselves with a Presidential front runner facing indictment.
Click to expand...
So we might have TWO political conventions in disarray?!
 
Little_Sheep said:
Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice used personal email servers to disseminate information. Powell, in particular and specifically, but both really, sent and received information that was deemed classified.

Like I said before - we’re catching up with ourselves. But, as you can see, some people only care about it when Hillary does it.
Click to expand...
Condi Rice and Colin Powell received classified emails, did they also send them? Hillary Clinton sent emails that have been deemed classified. I don’t think it’s been reported either Powell or Rice had a home server, Clinton did. I don’t believe it has been reported that either Rice or Powell sent classified emails, or that either had a home server. I don’t know about Rice but Powell was questioned by the FBI and 12 emails that are classified between Rice and Powell so far have been determined: thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/268228-report-colin-powell-and-condoleezza-rice-staff-received-classified-emails-on

It’s obviously not right for anyone in their position to have classified emails but there are differences between what Clinton did and what Powell and Rice did.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Condi Rice and Colin Powell received classified emails, did they also send them? Hillary Clinton sent emails that have been deemed classified. I don’t think it’s been reported either Powell or Rice had a home server, Clinton did. I don’t believe it has been reported that either Rice or Powell sent classified emails, or that either had a home server. I don’t know about Rice but Powell was questioned by the FBI and 12 emails that are classified between Rice and Powell so far have been determined: thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/268228-report-colin-powell-and-condoleezza-rice-staff-received-classified-emails-on

It’s obviously not right for anyone in their position to have classified emails but there are differences between what Clinton did and what Powell and Rice did.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about emails deemed classified retroactively?
 
I wonder whether the upcoming Democratic Party Platform will end up being even more pro-abortion than the one from four years ago. It seems to become more pro-abortion with each election cycle. No doubt Hillary will embrace the pro-abortion planks enthusiastically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top