Hillary Clinton Thread

[grotto]

It doesn’t even make the top ten with most people:

takepart.com/photos/10-social-issues-americans-talk-about-twitter-most/

huffingtonpost.com/j-randall-obrien/sanctity-of-life-presidential-campaign_b_8068464.html

I’m sure it’s number one with most Catholics, but not with most Americans in general.

Homelessness concerns me more. People, including children, are sleeping in cardboard boxes under bridges and lack food and medicine. That should be unthinkable in the richest country in the world.

---

Start a thread! This one is dedicated to discussing Hillary Clinton and her record.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

---

Start a thread! This one is dedicated to discussing Hillary Clinton and her record.

I am discussing Hillary Clinton. Eradicating homelessness is one of her top priorities. The Clinton Foundation provides aid to the homeless.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It doesn’t even make the top ten with most people:

takepart.com/photos/10-social-issues-americans-talk-about-twitter-most/

huffingtonpost.com/j-randall-obrien/sanctity-of-life-presidential-campaign_b_8068464.html

I’m sure it’s number one with most Catholics, but not with most Americans in general.

Homelessness concerns me more. People, including** children and babies**, are sleeping in cardboard boxes under bridges and lack food and medicine. That should be unthinkable in the richest country in the world.

And one of Hillary’s solutions is to tell the poor to kill their young.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I am discussing Hillary Clinton. Eradicating homelessness is one of her top priorities.

Eradicating homelessness is also a priority of the Church and most Catholics on this forum.

The Clinton Foundation provides aid to the homeless.

And enriches the Clintons.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Eradicating homelessness is also a priority of the Church and most Catholics on this forum.
And enriches the Clintons.

How does homelessness enrich the Clintons? I don’t see it. The Clintons don’t have money that should have gone to the homeless.

One of the teachers here received a free home from the Clinton Foundation after losing hers in a hurricane. Another worked with the Clinton Foundation in Africa vaccinating children I don’t see how that’s enriching the Clintons…

 

[Tomdstone]

It seems like a vote for a third party doesn’t give one much of anything but a wasted vote. Has a third party candidate ever won the US presidency? I don’t think so, but I don’t know.

Edit: No, a third party candidate has never won a presidential election…

I don’t see anything wrong with voting for a third party candidate. Actually, I think the USA would be better off with a multiparty system where there is a runoff in case no one candidate gets the majority vote. Do away with the electoral college and go by the majority popular vote. The problem with a two party system is what we see now with both candidates having large negatives.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I don’t see anything wrong with voting for a third party candidate. Actually, I think the USA would be better off with a multiparty system where there is a runoff in case no one candidate gets the majority vote. Do away with the electoral college and go by the majority popular vote. The problem with a two party system is what we see now with both candidates having large negatives.

I agree with you that the US would be better with a multi-party system. I’d like to see that happen, but right now we have a two-party system, and all I meant was that as of today a third-party candidate stands almost no chance of being elected. Hopefully, in the future that will change.

There’s nothing wrong with voting for a third-party candidate, or even a write-in, but as of this year, a third-party candidate almost certainly would not win.

 

[qui_est_ce]

How does homelessness enrich the Clintons? I don’t see it. The Clintons don’t have money that should have gone to the homeless.

One of the teachers here received a free home from the Clinton Foundation after losing hers in a hurricane. Another worked with the Clinton Foundation in Africa vaccinating children I don’t see how that’s enriching the Clintons…

Do you deny the Clintons benefit richly from the Foundation?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Do you deny the Clintons benefit richly from the Foundation?

Bill and Hillary take no salary from it. Hillary isn’t even working with it at present. Bill is on the board in an unpaid position.

So yes, I deny Bill and Hillary take any money from the Clinton Foundation.

If Hillary should be elected president, Bill would be prohibited from taking any money from it. A First Spouse cannot hold an outside job.

Most of the money raised by the Clinton Foundation goes to the poor:

factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

When people like Carly Fiorina make accusations that the Clinton Foundation gave little to other charities, it’s because the Clinton Foundation helps people directly, rather than giving to other charities. About 89-90% of the foundation’s income went to charitable causes. That’s more than the Red Cross, etc.

So, yes, I deny the Clintons profit “richly” from their foundation.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Sorry, as far as I know, she has not had an abortion. The women who chose to have an abortion are culpable, not those who support their ability to have abortion.

Please stop excusing people who have an abortion. They are the real sinners.

The latest figures we have suggest that 1/3 of women have had an abortion. Like you, I don’t believe that Hillary has had an abortion, but we can’t truly know, can we? Women, HRC included, are under no obligation to share their medical history with others.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The latest figures we have suggest that 1/3 of women have had an abortion. Like you, I don’t believe that Hillary has had an abortion, but we can’t truly know, can we? Women, HRC included, are under no obligation to share their medical history with others.

False! No, 1 in 3 Women Will NOT Have an Abortion in Her Lifetime

lifenews.com/2014/08/13/false-no-1-in-3-women-will-not-have-an-abortion-in-her-lifetime/

 

[Peter_J]

The latest figures we have suggest that 1/3 of women have had an abortion.

Have we actually gotten to the point where you don’t even figure that you need to post evidence for such an unbelievable assertion?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

“Twenty-one percent of all U.S. pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. (AGI).”

abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

At one point, it was 1 in 3, but under Obama, abortion has declined.

“37% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 28% identify themselves as Catholic (AGI).”

“On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).”

Does not sound like coercion to me.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Someone disagrees:

“So there we have it. The Republicans are the party of ‘moral values’ only if those values happen to be corruption; cronyism; elitism; looting of the U.S. Treasury to benefit Republican corporations, financiers, and wealthy men; and self-righteous posturing.”

extremelysmart.com/andmodest/RepsVsDemsInHistory.php

Personally, I don’t think one party is inherently better than the other, and there isn’t much difference between them any longer. But the chart does lay out facts, history.

100% this. Also, thanks for that chart.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Have we actually gotten to the point where you don’t even figure that you need to post evidence for such an unbelievable assertion?

Fair enough. The 1/3 figure was accepted as fact for quite sometime, but I was not figuring in that abortion has decreased under Obama. Yes, I nee to remember to post links! Thanks for the reminder!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

100% this. Also, thanks for that chart.

You’re welcome, LS.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“Twenty-one percent of all U.S. pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. (AGI).”

abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

At one point, it was 1 in 3, but under Obama, abortion has declined.

“37% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 28% identify themselves as Catholic (AGI).”

“On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).”

Does not sound like coercion to me.

The numbers are probably right, if not underestimated.

One should not credit a decline in abortions to Obama, who would have his own daughter have one if a baby “burdened” (inconvenienced) her. As the population ages, it will naturally decline. Also, the use of abortifacient drugs blurs the numbers because nobody “registers” an abortifacient-produced abortion.

I would say “having problems” with a husband or partner is as close to coercion as one would want to come. There are almost always people who are complicit in every abortion.

And, of course, that 37% of protestants and 28% of Catholics are a built in constituency for abortion supporting politicians like Hillary Clinton. And there would also be those who think maybe sometime in the future they’ll want to take that same road; also natural constituents for someone like Hillary Clinton.

It’s a shame that our populace has been reduced to this. But it’s no surprise that abortion-supporting politicians want to make it as easy and inexpensive as possible.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Bill and Hillary take no salary from it. Hillary isn’t even working with it at present. Bill is on the board in an unpaid position.

So yes, I deny Bill and Hillary take any money from the Clinton Foundation.

If Hillary should be elected president, Bill would be prohibited from taking any money from it. A First Spouse cannot hold an outside job.

Most of the money raised by the Clinton Foundation goes to the poor:

factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

When people like Carly Fiorina make accusations that the Clinton Foundation gave little to other charities, it’s because the Clinton Foundation helps people directly, rather than giving to other charities. About 89-90% of the foundation’s income went to charitable causes. That’s more than the Red Cross, etc.

So, yes, I deny the Clintons profit “richly” from their foundation.

Chelsea Clinton was an employee. So her pay was part of the very significant amount going to “salaries”. Other large amounts go to other Clinton entities.

Even the cited article admits the author doesn’t really know where the money goes, and the only source cited for the proposition that most of it goes to “charity” is the Clinton Foundation itself.

Others have a different view, and it isn’t just Carly Fiorina. thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

 

[_Abyssinia]

Cecile Richards on Hillary Clinton: She’s “The Pinnacle of Everything We’ve Fought For”

lifenews.com/2016/04/04/cecile-richards-on-hillary-clinton-shes-the-pinnacle-of-everything-weve-fought-for/

 

[Peter_J]

Fair enough. The 1/3 figure was accepted as fact for quite sometime,

I never accepted the line that 1/3 of women had an abortion.

but I was not figuring in that abortion has decreased under Obama.

“Under Obama”? Has Obama now claim credit for decreases in abortion rates during his presidency? (I don’t mean that as a rhetorical question – I’m no expert on BHO.)