Hillary Clinton Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorolfr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorolfr said:
Is giving many people who had serious health issues but had no healthcare at all merely a “supposed benefit”? Going to the emergency room is not a substitute for having regular healthcare. For people who couldn’t previously afford to go to a doctor or get medication for serious health problems, I don’ think that Obamacare, especially the expansion of Medicaid, was just a “supposed benefit”. It’s inexplicable that almost every other wealthy country had some form of universal healthcare except the US.
Click to expand...
The number of uninsured after the enactment of Obamacare is the same as before. All it has done is make health insurance premiums skyrocket and caused massive expense to taxpayers for its many failures.

And perhaps you should look at those wonderful countries with universal healthcare. They all have heavy rationing, poor performance metrics, rising costs, and people being wait-listed to death.

Anyone who wants to know the future of Obamacare only has to look at the VA.
 
randomuser said:
“Pro-life” is a healthcare issue and I’m still amazed that it isn’t being treated as such by more in the pro-life community. If Hillary Clinton’s plan specifically includes healthcare options for families “regardless of immigration status” – that is, healthcare options that typically cover prenatal care and delivery – when Trump’s plan specifically EXCLUDES the same coverage for unborn babies if their mothers aren’t U.S. citizens – that’s not “pro-life.” Being “pro-life” means your policies help the mother (regardless of immigration status) choose life and not risk miscarriage because the unborn baby wasn’t conceived in the U.S.
Click to expand...
I thought Obamacare fixed all this already. Are you telling me that a leftist politician’s promises didn’t materialize???

And it doesn’t matter how many good things Hillary promises, she supports the slaughter of children in the womb, paid for by taxpayers. There is NO justification for a Christian to ever vote for her.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Must every good deed be accompanied by a trumpet fanfare?
Click to expand...
Until recently Hillary’s key pillars of success were touted as the success of the Foundation and her success in the Middle East. Now she can’t discuss the foundation and when she talks about Sec of State, it’s about how many countries she visited and that she’s had tea with all the leaders. No talk of her Russia reset or actual foreign policy successes.

She has tried to take credit for increased exports (which had zero to do with her). Exports naturally increase after a global recession has ended (when she took office)
 
Theo520 said:
Until recently Hillary’s key pillars of success were touted as the success of the Foundation and her success in the Middle East. Now she can’t discuss the foundation and when she talks about Sec of State, it’s about how many countries she visited and that she’s had tea with all the leaders. No talk of her Russia reset or actual foreign policy successes.

She has tried to take credit for increased exports (which had zero to do with her). Exports naturally increase after a global recession has ended (when she took office)
Click to expand...
Can you really blame her for not wanting to discuss the foundation?

Scandal Without End: Is The Clinton Foundation A Fraud?

investors.com/politics/editorials/scandal-without-end-is-the-clinton-foundation-a-fraud/
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What do you mean, she “can’t discuss the Foundation”? She chooses not to. You can speculate all you want about the reasons, but it is still just speculation.
Click to expand...
So you think she’s just gotten humble?

Stop deflecting, practically everything about politics includes some degree of speculation. Feel free to try explain why she would avoid discussing the major life work of Bill and herself after leaving the White House.
 
Theo520 said:
So you think she’s just gotten humble?

Stop deflecting, practically everything about politics includes some degree of speculation. Feel free to try explain why she would avoid discussing the major life work of Bill and herself after leaving the White House.
Click to expand...
Can I also feel free to decline to speculate on that question?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Not necessarily. But there is no doubt that the Clinton Foundation has done laudable good works.
Click to expand...
At spending $0.06 on the dollar not to much laudable. Makes the unindicted Hillary and Bill and Chelsea very rich.
 
7_Sorrows said:
is she on the Clinton payroll?

mental gymnastics.

is this part of a blog. what is Vox?
Click to expand...
Vox Media. They’re a digital media company that runs over 300 websites over 8 brands. They’ve got about 150 million users.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Excellent and realistic article:

I’m a pro-life Christian. Here’s why I’m voting for Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
There are two very powerful personal stories of women in this article that I urge everyone–both pro-life and pro-choice advocates, as well as those who never even think about the issue of abortion–to read. If one is able to keep an open mind despite one’s religious, moral, or personal convictions, one may be able to realize that whether or not to have an abortion is not always such a clear-cut case.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Not necessarily. But there is no doubt that the Clinton Foundation has done laudable good works.
Click to expand...
So the ends justify the means? Even if we acknowledge that the Clinton Foundation has done good works (though I fail to see how pushing contraceptives and abortion services does so), does that warrant her corrupt dealings with foreign interests to gather funds for the Foundation?

I don’t care how much good her Foundation did. She used her influence and power to trade favors (and possibly information) to gather funds. This kind of behavior is corrupt, and no amount of good the Foundation may have done or will do in the future can offset the taint.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Not realistic for Catholics. This is from a non-Catholic point of view. Among other absurdities, it proclaims that being 'pro choice is not the same as being pro abortion".

Most of it is just another statement of the tired old moral relativism we see every pro-abortion person exhibit.
Click to expand...
👍
 
meltzerboy said:
There are two very powerful personal stories of women in this article that I urge everyone–both pro-life and pro-choice advocates, as well as those who never even think about the issue of abortion–to read. If one is able to keep an open mind despite one’s religious, moral, or personal convictions, one may be able to realize that whether or not to have an abortion is not always such a clear-cut case.
Click to expand...
Whoever said it was “a clear-cut case”? What is 100% clear from Catholic teaching is that direct abortion that intends the death of the unborn child is always and everywhere wrong. Period.

And the article is full of “better dead than underfed” arguments. For example:
For me, it’s not just about being pro-birth; it’s about being pro-life. All children deserve to live in a home and in a culture that welcomes them and can meet their basic needs. Every mother deserves the chance to thrive. Forcing millions of women to have children they can’t support, or driving them to Gosnell-style black market clinics, will not do.
So, much better to murder the child outright than worry about whether they will “live in a home and in a culture that welcomes them.” And what does “a culture that welcomes them” even mean?

Another example is the complete conflation of direct abortion, indirect abortion, and natural cases of termination. For example:
While it would be easier to debate one another if reproductive issues fell neatly into black and white categories of right and wrong, good and evil, most of us recognize this is simply not the case. The fact that a woman’s body naturally rejects hundreds of fertilized eggs in her lifetime raises questions about where we draw the line regarding the personhood of a zygote. Do we count all those “natural abortions” as deaths? When does personhood begin — at fertilization? Implantation? The presence of brainwaves? The second trimester?
There’s an obvious equivocation on the use of abortion here. Abortion is an intended act. So whether or not the woman’s body rejects unborn children is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. Is the author so clueless to recognize the difference? How many people mourn miscarriages?

And the whole thing wraps with with a love fest for contraception. First, there is no issue with access to contraception. PP and other organizations give it out like candy. It’s not expensive. And now Obamacare guarantees free access. Also, there’s no evidence that increased access to contraception reduces the instances of unintended pregnancies. Indeed, access to contraception has grown tremendously in the last 50 years. Despite this, even Guttmacher recognizes that the US has a significantly higher rate of unintended pregnancies than other developed countries.

Nowhere at any point is there any appeal to individual responsibility. Nowhere is any expectation placed on the man and woman involved to show restraint. And nowhere is there any appeal to alternatives that involve something other than murder.

This article is chock full of the usual left obfuscations, hand waving, and rationalizations. It seems to me that the author is pro-life only in the sense that abortion is “icky.” She shows no understanding or knowledge of what is at stake for the unborn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top