- This topic has 75 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
bearishgurl.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 3, 2016 at 11:27 AM #798259June 3, 2016 at 11:37 AM #798260
scaredyclassic
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=all][quote=FlyerInHi]
Why do people expect Hillary to divorce?
[/quote]Because her husband is a philanderer?[/quote]
That’s not a conservative viewpoint. With the help of God, you work it out.[/quote]
perhaps He killed JFK for all his extramarital fucking. what a dope Jackie o. was…to be consistent shouldn’t we all be contemptuous of that gold digging loser chick?
June 3, 2016 at 11:47 AM #798261bearishgurl
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi] … BTW, people who have gone trough a lot should be admired, not hated.
Contrast Princess Di to Hillary. Di was a needy, insecure woman and people loved her. Hillary is smart, intelligent and resourceful; and people hate her.[/quote]Apples to oranges, FIH. As “needy and insecure” as you make Diana Spencer (aka Princess of Wales) out to be, she actually voted with her feet fairly early on (at the age of 31 after 11 years of marriage). By 1986, Di could see with her own eyes and hear with her own ears that what her spouse really wanted was not her but the “one that got away.” However, they had two young sons at the time and so instead of addressing their problems (which were not fixable, IMO), they put on a facade of trying to make their marriage “work” by continuing to fulfill their royal duties together for over five more years while constantly in the public eye … which had to be very hard. (Camilla Shand was married at the time as well but that didn’t stop either she nor Charles from conducting their liaison “under the radar”). Charles and Di’s tumultuous “marriage” is a prime example of not choosing one’s partner wisely. Di was too young at the time to get married and, at the age of 19, got caught up in the pomp and circumstance of planning her opulent wedding (paid for by the monarchy), IMO, and Charles just ended up “settling” at the age of 34 due to incessant family pressure to get married and produce an heir to the throne ASAP. By that time (1981), his “one true love” had married someone else due to his effing around in his youth and not making a decision to commit to her. Charles Windsor (aka the Prince of Wales) was lucky in life in that he was finally able to marry his one true love at the age of ~59 but many, many others are not. He is a prime example of why we should ALL counsel our kids to choose their spouses very wisely and marry based ONLY upon true love and NOT “convenience,” money, security or how they feel they others will perceive them if they are married.” I speak from experience in this matter and have been on every side of the fence imaginable in this regard. By the time most people are able to take the time and energy out of their busy lives to even locate (and hopefully converse with) their one true love in life (often 30-45 years later), that person is frequently “attached” to another person, very ill or deceased or dies shortly after becoming “unattached.” There comes a time in life where one has to realize that the egregious errors made in their youth are not fixable and no one wants to die with major regrets.
Hill and Bill would have been married 11 years in 1986, at which time they were ~38 and 39. They could have thrown in the towel then but at that time, he was the Governor or AR and the Clinton’s were enjoying their power, prestige and connections. (I forgot to add to my earlier post that Bill was appointed AG in the state of AR in 1977. This was 2 years BEFORE he was elected Governor of that state so that makes 34 years that Hill has either been in a supporting role of a an elected or appointed official in high office OR occupied those positions herself.)
It’s a shame that many (most?) US voters are too caught up in the institution of marriage in that they expect their president to be “married” and “straight.” It doesn’t matter much to them whether their president should be married to a particular person … or should even be married at all! It only matters that they are married because on the surface, a married person “gives a public appearance of being settled in life.” In actuality, I believe a single president would likely have more time and energy than a married one to devote to running the nation properly. This “married public official” voter preference was undoubtedly the conumdrum that Hill and Bill felt they had to wrestle with their entire lives in order to attempt to achieve their goals. Maybe one day, this voter mindset will change but I’m not so sure of it in my lifetime.
June 3, 2016 at 11:58 AM #798262Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=all][quote=FlyerInHi]
Why do people expect Hillary to divorce?
[/quote]Because her husband is a philanderer?[/quote]
That’s not a conservative viewpoint. With the help of God, you work it out.[/quote]
perhaps He killed JFK for all his extramarital fucking. what a dope Jackie o. was…to be consistent shouldn’t we all be contemptuous of that gold digging loser chick?[/quote]scaredy, Jacqueline Bouvier was born into a family with money. She didn’t need to hang with JFK for money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Kennedy_Onassis
Jackie was widowed 10 years into her marriage (at the age of 34) and had she not been, she would have likely dumped JFK as soon as he left office. Of course, we’ll never know as both of them have been long deceased.
June 3, 2016 at 12:02 PM #798263SK in CV
ParticipantIt’s so easy to be judgmental from afar. To decide how others should live their lives, having no clue what actually goes on in those lives. They say you can’t judge a book by its cover. But you sure can judge them by how they judge others.
June 3, 2016 at 12:06 PM #798264Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=all][quote=FlyerInHi]
Why do people expect Hillary to divorce?
[/quote]Because her husband is a philanderer?[/quote]
That’s not a conservative viewpoint. With the help of God, you work it out.[/quote]The “divorce a (habitual) philanderer” opinion has absolutely nothing to do with G@d. And not all “conservatives” are “evangelicals.” Only a small portion of them are.
And btw, I voted for a Republican in the presidential primaries this year but I do NOT consider myself as a “conservative.”
Far from it. You’re “categorizing” people again. That mindset is going to send you into left field outer orbit in this election year, FIH :=0
June 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM #798265Participant[quote=SK in CV]It’s so easy to be judgmental from afar. To decide how others should live their lives, having no clue what actually goes on in those lives. They say you can’t judge a book by its cover. But you sure can judge them by how they judge others.[/quote]Totally agree with the italicized portion of your post. However, everyone has the right to vote (or not vote) for a candidate running for the highest public office in the land based on how they “feel” about them and how they “judge” their character. I posted earlier on this thread that if Hill and Bill were living in obscurity, no one would give a sh!t about their personal lives.
By campaigning hard for President of the United States on a platform of women and family issues and putting out a hodgepodge pieced together multi-million dollar national “attack ad” (which took her opponent’s statements in partiality and/or out of context) on Trump’s (supposed) distaste and/or disrespect for women, Hill is now experiencing the fallout of having her own personal life heavily scrutinized.
I’m sure you’re aware by now that all is fair and love and politics. The Clintons certainly are. And yes, political campaigns can get to rolling in the mud at the local level as well. I’ve seen it, heard and lived it … multiple times. We can’t change any of this so don’t shoot the messenger.
disclaimer: I’m currently not involved in any candidate’s campaign this election year.
June 3, 2016 at 12:32 PM #798267FlyerInHi
GuestFrom afar, I see Bill and Hillary as having a good marriage. They are intellectually compatible. They raised a daughter well. They don’t have disfunction they air in public. They don’t have disputes or fights. That’s really a model marriage.
Bill’s past philandering are his own issues.
June 3, 2016 at 12:35 PM #798268Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV]It’s so easy to be judgmental from afar. To decide how others should live their lives, having no clue what actually goes on in those lives. They say you can’t judge a book by its cover. But you sure can judge them by how they judge others.[/quote]Totally agree with the italicized portion of your post. However, everyone has the right to vote (or not vote) for a candidate running for the highest public office in the land based on how they “feel” about them and how they “judge” their character. I posted earlier on this thread that if Hill and Bill were living in obscurity, no one would give a sh!t about their personal lives.
By campaigning hard for President of the United States on a platform of women and family issues and putting out a hodgepodge pieced together multi-million dollar national “attack ad” (which took her opponent’s statements in partiality and/or out of context) on Trump’s (supposed) distaste and/or disrespect for women, Hill is now experiencing the fallout of having her own personal life heavily scrutinized.
I’m sure you’re aware by now that all is fair and love and politics. The Clintons certainly are. And yes, political campaigns can get to rolling in the mud at the local level as well. I’ve seen it, heard and lived it … multiple times. We can’t change any of this so don’t shoot the messenger.
disclaimer: I’m currently not involved in any candidate’s campaign this election year.[/quote]
Wow. Seriously. Just wow. You defend Trump, and his outrageously disgusting comments against women, and criticize Clinton for her women and family policies. And you’re willing to vote for a man who has vowed to put judges on the supreme court that would take women back more than 40 years, and put thousands of women’s health and lives at risk. How can you hate women that badly? I can’t imagine how anyone who cares about women could ever vote for that man.
June 3, 2016 at 1:29 PM #798269Participant[quote=SK in CV]Wow. Seriously. Just wow. You defend Trump, and his outrageously disgusting comments against women, and criticize Clinton for her women and family policies. And you’re willing to vote for a man who has vowed to put judges on the supreme court that would take women back more than 40 years, and put thousands of women’s health and lives at risk. How can you hate women that badly? I can’t imagine how anyone who cares about women could ever vote for that man.[/quote]I never defended Trump’s statements re: women (half statements and stmts taken out of context in the Clinton campaign ad). As a matter of fact, I never gave them a second thought because I don’t take them seriously. I realize they were just “campaign bluster” and they don’t represent who he is in real life. And I never criticized any of Hill’s policies … here or anywhere.
I want the ACA to be abolished/repealed ASAP (2017 would be great, thank you) and the Big Carriers offering nationwide medical coverage to come back into the states to compete for customers. I’m standing by ready to do what it takes to “re-qualify” for one of those policies. Hillary Clinton has no plans to do that. I voted for the candidate that does.
Roe v Wade has little chance of being overturned in my (or your) lifetime … or ever, imho. It doesn’t matter who is sitting on the Supreme Court. A viable case which has made it all the way to them has to actually be before them for them to opine on it. I just don’t see that happening, regardless if any of Trump’s current “picks” for Supreme Court justices end up actually being interested in the job (at the time the nomination is offered to them) and they survive the vetting process and actually take the job on his “watch.”
And I really haven’t studied Trump’s list to determine if any of his SC picks are actually “moderates.” (I consider Trump a moderate, NOT a conservative.)
I think it’s way too soon to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned. Trump will be 70 years old at the time he takes office if he is elected. He may or may not want or be able to run a second term and if he does, he may or may not be elected again. Theoretically, by January 2021 (4 years from the next presidential inauguration), zero, one or two of Trump’s choices for supreme court justices would actually accept the nomination and make it far enough in the vetting process to sit on the bench during his first term … IF he is actually elected POTUS.
We cannot presume the sitting supreme court justices are going to become terminally ill or die in the next four years (or die early enough for Trump to be able to successfully appoint his choice of nominee before the next election cycle ends) IF he is elected. Yes, even if 2-3 of them are currently octogenarians.
June 3, 2016 at 2:24 PM #798275Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Roe v Wade has little chance of being overturned in my (or your) lifetime … or ever, imho. It doesn’t matter who is sitting on the Supreme Court. A viable case which has made it all the way to them has to actually be before them for them to opine on it. I just don’t see that happening, regardless if any of Trump’s current “picks” for Supreme Court justices end up actually being interested in the job (at the time the nomination is offered to them) and they survive the vetting process and actually take the job on his “watch.”And I really haven’t studied Trump’s list to determine if any of his SC picks are actually “moderates.” (I consider Trump a moderate, NOT a conservative.)
I think it’s way too soon to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned. Trump will be 70 years old at the time he takes office if he is elected. He may or may not want or be able to run a second term and if he does, he may or may not be elected again. Theoretically, by January 2021 (4 years from the next presidential inauguration), zero, one or two of Trump’s choices for supreme court justices would actually accept the nomination and make it far enough in the vetting process to sit on the bench during his first term … IF he is actually elected POTUS.
We cannot presume the sitting supreme court justices are going to become terminally ill or die in the next four years (or die early enough for Trump to be able to successfully appoint his choice of nominee before the next election cycle ends) IF he is elected. Yes, even if 2-3 of them are currently octogenarians.[/quote]
Are you fucking nuts? Every single one of Trump’s list of SC justices is from a list acceptable to the anti-abortion right. Every one of them. Are you aware of the hundreds of laws that have been passed in the last 10 years, across the country, limiting women’s access to care? Louisiana just passed a law outlawing D&E as an abortion method. We just passed the 7th anniversary of the death of George Tiller, killed at the hands of pro-forced-birth radicals in Kansas. Do you know how many abortion providers there are in Kansas now? Zero. Not a single one.
It’s not wild speculation that Roe v. Wade will be overturned if Trump is elected. The next president will name at least 3, possibly more SC judges. Trump has said he will nominate anti-abortion judges. I guarantee you, if Trump is elected. Roe v. Wade will be overturned. It’s fortunate you live in CA, where Clinton will win. But your vote is a vote that represents the most vile hatred of women. Remember that, as you cast that hateful vote. And stop pretending you care about women.
June 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM #798281Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Roe v Wade has little chance of being overturned in my (or your) lifetime … or ever, imho. It doesn’t matter who is sitting on the Supreme Court. A viable case which has made it all the way to them has to actually be before them for them to opine on it. I just don’t see that happening, regardless if any of Trump’s current “picks” for Supreme Court justices end up actually being interested in the job (at the time the nomination is offered to them) and they survive the vetting process and actually take the job on his “watch.”And I really haven’t studied Trump’s list to determine if any of his SC picks are actually “moderates.” (I consider Trump a moderate, NOT a conservative.)
I think it’s way too soon to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned. Trump will be 70 years old at the time he takes office if he is elected. He may or may not want or be able to run a second term and if he does, he may or may not be elected again. Theoretically, by January 2021 (4 years from the next presidential inauguration), zero, one or two of Trump’s choices for supreme court justices would actually accept the nomination and make it far enough in the vetting process to sit on the bench during his first term … IF he is actually elected POTUS.
We cannot presume the sitting supreme court justices are going to become terminally ill or die in the next four years (or die early enough for Trump to be able to successfully appoint his choice of nominee before the next election cycle ends) IF he is elected. Yes, even if 2-3 of them are currently octogenarians.[/quote]
Are you fucking nuts? Every single one of Trump’s list of SC justices is from a list acceptable to the anti-abortion right. Every one of them. Are you aware of the hundreds of laws that have been passed in the last 10 years, across the country, limiting women’s access to care? Louisiana just passed a law outlawing D&E as an abortion method. We just passed the 7th anniversary of the death of George Tiller, killed at the hands of pro-forced-birth radicals in Kansas. Do you know how many abortion providers there are in Kansas now? Zero. Not a single one.
It’s not wild speculation that Roe v. Wade will be overturned if Trump is elected. The next president will name at least 3, possibly more SC judges. Trump has said he will nominate anti-abortion judges. I guarantee you, if Trump is elected. Roe v. Wade will be overturned. It’s fortunate you live in CA, where Clinton will win. But your vote is a vote that represents the most vile hatred of women. Remember that, as you cast that hateful vote. And stop pretending you care about women.[/quote]It took three years (1970 – 1973) for Roe v. Wade to even get from a US District Court in TX to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to finally come before the US Supreme Court for its decision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
How long do you think that path will take today, SK? Be reasonable, now.
If Trump is elected POTUS, he will select nominee(s) to replace Justice Scalia. We don’t know if he’ll get any other chance to do so thru his term ending January 2021 (meaning, actually nominate a replacement up to 3 years from now.)
Do you know of any suits currently in the pipeline anywhere in the US which (directly or indirectly) challenge Roe v Wade?
Oh, and I already voted over a month ago. You don’t need to be calling people “vile” or “hateful” because they didn’t vote for the same candidate you did.
June 3, 2016 at 4:52 PM #798286Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Roe v Wade has little chance of being overturned in my (or your) lifetime … or ever, imho. It doesn’t matter who is sitting on the Supreme Court. A viable case which has made it all the way to them has to actually be before them for them to opine on it. I just don’t see that happening, regardless if any of Trump’s current “picks” for Supreme Court justices end up actually being interested in the job (at the time the nomination is offered to them) and they survive the vetting process and actually take the job on his “watch.”And I really haven’t studied Trump’s list to determine if any of his SC picks are actually “moderates.” (I consider Trump a moderate, NOT a conservative.)
I think it’s way too soon to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned. Trump will be 70 years old at the time he takes office if he is elected. He may or may not want or be able to run a second term and if he does, he may or may not be elected again. Theoretically, by January 2021 (4 years from the next presidential inauguration), zero, one or two of Trump’s choices for supreme court justices would actually accept the nomination and make it far enough in the vetting process to sit on the bench during his first term … IF he is actually elected POTUS.
We cannot presume the sitting supreme court justices are going to become terminally ill or die in the next four years (or die early enough for Trump to be able to successfully appoint his choice of nominee before the next election cycle ends) IF he is elected. Yes, even if 2-3 of them are currently octogenarians.[/quote]
Are you fucking nuts? Every single one of Trump’s list of SC justices is from a list acceptable to the anti-abortion right. Every one of them. Are you aware of the hundreds of laws that have been passed in the last 10 years, across the country, limiting women’s access to care? Louisiana just passed a law outlawing D&E as an abortion method. We just passed the 7th anniversary of the death of George Tiller, killed at the hands of pro-forced-birth radicals in Kansas. Do you know how many abortion providers there are in Kansas now? Zero. Not a single one.
It’s not wild speculation that Roe v. Wade will be overturned if Trump is elected. The next president will name at least 3, possibly more SC judges. Trump has said he will nominate anti-abortion judges. I guarantee you, if Trump is elected. Roe v. Wade will be overturned. It’s fortunate you live in CA, where Clinton will win. But your vote is a vote that represents the most vile hatred of women. Remember that, as you cast that hateful vote. And stop pretending you care about women.[/quote]It took three years (1970 – 1973) for Roe v. Wade to even get from a US District Court in TX to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to finally come before the US Supreme Court for its decision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
How long do you think that path will take today, SK? Be reasonable, now.
If Trump is elected POTUS, he will select nominee(s) to replace Justice Scalia. We don’t know if he’ll get any other chance to do so thru his term ending January 2021 (meaning, actually nominate a replacement up to 3 years from now.)
Do you know of any suits currently in the pipeline anywhere in the US which (directly or indirectly) challenge Roe v Wade?
Oh, and I already voted over a month ago. You don’t need to be calling people “vile” or “hateful” because they didn’t vote for the same candidate you did.[/quote]
Anthony Kennedy is a couple months shy of 80. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 83 and has pancreatic cancer. Breyer is just a couple years shy of 80. That would be 4. Two are guaranteed for the next president unless the Dems retake the Senate, in which case Ginsberg will retire immediately if Trump wins, and Obama will get 2. And probably two during the next term.
The Louisiana law just signed is probably headed to the SCOTUS.
You’re not vile because you already voted, or because you want a candidate different than me. The vote is vile. You support a candidate that is vile and hateful. Particularly to women. Hope you feel good about that. Just stop pretending to care about women. You don’t.
June 3, 2016 at 5:43 PM #798287Participant[quote=SK in CV]Anthony Kennedy is a couple months shy of 80. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 83 and has pancreatic cancer. Breyer is just a couple years shy of 80. That would be 4. Two are guaranteed for the next president unless the Dems retake the Senate, in which case Ginsberg will retire immediately if Trump wins, and Obama will get 2. And probably two during the next term.
The Louisiana law just signed is probably headed to the SCOTUS.
You’re not vile because you already voted, or because you want a candidate different than me. The vote is vile. You support a candidate that is vile and hateful. Particularly to women. Hope you feel good about that. Just stop pretending to care about women. You don’t.[/quote]If, as you say, Obama will replace Scalia (and possibly Ginsburg), what are you worried about, SK? If Ginsburg is worried about who will replace her, then why doesn’t she just retire now? (My understanding is that she was in remission from Stage 1 panc after undergoing the Whipple procedure over 6 years ago but I understand the odds). She is very, very lucky to have caught it when she did, having been diagnosed with colon cancer (stage 2) nearly ten years before that where she had part of her colon removed. So I agree that Justice Ginsburg may not last thru January 2021.
If Obama selects the next two SC justice posts before his term is out and they are successfully installed before he leaves office, then how will the political makeup of the court look at the time of the next presidential inauguration in January 2017?
Why are you worried that the replacement of J. Breyer (age 78) and J. Kennedy (age 79) is an eminent possibility? Are either of them currently in ill health?
And can you point me to the LA law just passed that you are certain will be litigated?
Do you know how long is it taking from the filing a civil rights case today in Federal Court (for example) to successfully arguing it before the US Supreme Court? And how long is the current wait time after oral argument to get their decision? Another 1-3 years? And what is the percentage of cases brought before the Supreme Court which they end up accepting? My educated guess is that IF a case is accepted by the SCOTUS today (AFTER spending 2+ years in District/Circuit Court), it could now take at least 3 more years to be processed through the Supreme Court (total of 5+ years). If the case originates from very busy District/Circuit Courts (such as CASD/9th Cir), then figure on 6-8 years total all the way up thru SCOTUS decision (assuming they accept it).
I think you’re really jumping the gun with worry, here, SK … especially if Obama is able, by hook or crook, to fill TWO Supreme Court seats on his way out the door.
And if not currently ill, Breyer and Kennedy could easily outlive Trump’s first term (should he be elected POTUS).
I DO care about women’s issues (that should already be very apparent by now) and that is part of the reason why I’m now engaging you on this very important topic.
June 3, 2016 at 6:30 PM #798288Participant[quote=bearishgurl]If, as you say, Obama will replace Scalia (and possibly Ginsburg), what are you worried about, SK? If Ginsburg is worried about who will replace her, then why doesn’t she just retire now? (My understanding is that she was in remission from Stage 1 panc after undergoing the Whipple procedure over 6 years ago but I understand the odds). She is very, very lucky to have caught it when she did, having been diagnosed with colon cancer (stage 2) nearly ten years before that where she had part of her colon removed. So I agree that Justice Ginsburg may not last thru January 2021.
[/quote]
Jesus fucking Christ. Do you not pay attention to what’s going on in the world? The racist republicans in control of the US Senate, have decided on a new rule, that has never existed before, that black presidents in the final year of their terms, can’t get a hearing on a supreme court justice.
The only way that Obama will get an opportunity to get a vote on a SC nomination is if Democrats take back control of the Senate. New senators will take office before Obama leaves office. He’ll have about 3 weeks to confirm a justice. If Trump wins (highly unlikely, unless there are way too many women like you casting vile votes), AND dems take back the Senate, then RBG will retire immediately. If Clinton wins, she’ll wait until Clinton is inaugurated. If Trump wins and Dems don’t take back the senate, women are fucked. Not maybe. That’s an absolute.
You might remember there was a douchebag hypocrite SC justice by the name of Antonin Scalia. He suddenly died, at the age of 79. Both Breyer and Kennedy, though neither are burdened with the douchebag disease, could similarly die unexpectedly. The risk is just too great to take the chance and leave it to a disgusting man like Trump.
If you cared about women, you could never vote for Trump. End of story.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.