• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

sugarhigh4242
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:24 AM)

Originally Posted by A Fish Aficionado

Most candidates know vaccines are safe. Stein and Trump are both antivax.

Your vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote massacring Libya, arming Al Nusra (aka Al Qaeda in Syria) and Saudi Arabian despots, Honduras' brutal coup regime, total impunity for criminal fraud at Wall St investment banks that nearly destroyed the global economy and so on.

Of course I support vaccination, but a few bougy hipsters wanting to be special snowflakes doesn't rate to me compared to the real-world damage Clinton has done. And I have nothing nice to say about Trump either before you start throwing accusations around.

BTW Jill Stein is unequivocally pro-vax, so your whole argument is just a smear anyway
tbm24
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:25 AM)
tbm24's Avatar

Originally Posted by Herr Schwarz

No instead she said "Pokemon Go to the polling booths" or something like that.

She's got the charisma of a potted plant. And lost to a candidate that had those approval ratings, and that experience. Eugh.

That's nothing compared to being an anti-vaxxer peddling dangerous and life threatening propaganda.
Herr Schwarz
Junior Member
(01-12-2017, 12:26 AM)
Herr Schwarz's Avatar

Originally Posted by tbm24

That's nothing compared to being an anti-vaxxer peddling dangerous and life threatening propaganda.

Yes, I mean that'd be a good point if I asserted somewhere Jill Stein was a better candidate.

Just flavors of bad.
StrategyFan
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:27 AM)
this was hilariously bad

i don't think the media will want him gone. their profit margins will be so high when the news just writes itself for 4 years
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
(01-12-2017, 12:29 AM)
A Fish Aficionado's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

Your vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote massacring Libya, arming Al Nusra (aka Al Qaeda in Syria) and Saudi Arabian despots, Honduras' brutal coup regime, total impunity for criminal fraud at Wall St investment banks that nearly destroyed the global economy and so on.

Of course I support vaccination, but a few bougy hipsters wanting to be special snowflakes doesn't rate to me compared to the real-world damage Clinton has done. And I have nothing nice to say about Trump either before you start throwing accusations around.

BTW Jill Stein is unequivocally pro-vax, so your whole argument is just a smear anyway

Just asking questions amirite


Her positions on science are hilariously bad. Anti GMO , fear mongering rhetoric.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...android-google
Last edited by A Fish Aficionado; 01-12-2017 at 12:32 AM.
Link
The Autumn Wind
(01-12-2017, 12:29 AM)
Link's Avatar
If the examples on the last page are what represents our far left, it's no wonder the Dems got slaughtered. Holy hell.
tbm24
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:29 AM)
tbm24's Avatar

Originally Posted by Herr Schwarz

Yes, I mean that'd be a good point if I asserted somewhere Jill Stein was a better candidate.

Just flavors of bad.

I f One is going to be shoved in your mouth no matter what you do, you'd hopefully pick the one least likely to kill you.
Breads
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:30 AM)
Breads's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

Your vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote massacring Libya, arming Al Nusra (aka Al Qaeda in Syria) and Saudi Arabian despots, Honduras' brutal coup regime, total impunity for criminal fraud at Wall St investment banks that nearly destroyed the global economy and so on.

Of course I support vaccination, but a few bougy hipsters wanting to be special snowflakes doesn't rate to me compared to the real-world damage Clinton has done. And I have nothing nice to say about Trump either before you start throwing accusations around.

BTW Jill Stein is unequivocally pro-vax, so your whole argument is just a smear anyway

What does a vote for Trump mean?

Trick question: You don't know. He tells people what they want to hear and backpedals whenever it's convenient to do so.
sugarhigh4242
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:30 AM)

Originally Posted by A Fish Aficionado

Just asking questions amirite


Her positions on science are hilariously bad. Anti GMO , fear mongering rhetoric.

as if you didn't just get pwned ok.
sugarhigh4242
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:32 AM)

Originally Posted by Breads

What does a vote for Trump mean?

Trick question: You don't know. He tells people what he wants to hear and backpedals whenever it's convenient to do so.

Lol, just look at his cabinet. It's billionaire executives, racists, and members of his family. Not the kind of team I'd expect to deliver for regular working class people.
Village
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:32 AM)
Village's Avatar

Originally Posted by HP_Wuvcraft

There are already news stories of how the alt-right is planning on overthrowing Trump if he strays "too far".

How ?
They gonna get fucked like everyone else

Hell if The republicans get an out on trump, they will be scapegoated to cold fuck. And then get fucked like everyone else.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
(01-12-2017, 12:34 AM)
BlueTsunami's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Fish Aficionado

Just asking questions amirite


Her positions on science are hilariously bad. Anti GMO , fear mongering rhetoric.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...android-google

She appeals to the pseudo intellectual, contrarian. And apparently, idealists.
Spyder_Monkey
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:37 AM)
Spyder_Monkey's Avatar
Lol Jill Stein is a terrible candidate who was no more qualified for high office than Trump.
CrispyBoar
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:40 AM)

Originally Posted by Link

If the examples on the last page are what represents our far left, it's no wonder the Dems got slaughtered. Holy hell.

They're just telling the truth. Trump will be impeached, eventually.
Herr Schwarz
Junior Member
(01-12-2017, 12:42 AM)
Herr Schwarz's Avatar

Originally Posted by tbm24

I f One is going to be shoved in your mouth no matter what you do, you'd hopefully pick the one least likely to kill you.

That'd make sense if Jill Stein was actually a contender at any point.

People had a choice between Trump and Hillary. Hillary is the candidate the majority of dems put forward, thinking she'd be great in the GE.

Dems failed to take the temperature of the politcal climate, and sent a clown to a funeral.

It's not Jill Stein voters fault, it's not people that didn't bother voting.

Dems put a shit candidate out there with zero charisma, own up to it instead of vilifying others that didn't participate in the echo chamber.

It's that echo chamber that lost the election. She was a hopelessly shit candidate.
sugarhigh4242
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:43 AM)

Originally Posted by BlueTsunami

She appeals to the pseudo intellectual, contrarian. And apparently, idealists.

I listed a few of the substantive reasons I opposed Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I left some major ones out, including that Clinton opposed gay marriage (on religious grounds) until 2013.

Assuming you're bothered by these things, even if you support a lesser-evil voting strategy, how would you go about having candidates with better policies in the next election?
CrispyBoar
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:43 AM)

Originally Posted by BlueTsunami

And flirted with anti-vaxers. She was a trash candidate and people should feel bad for voting for her.

I'd rather vote for someone who has at least 3 decades of political experience than to vote for some loudmouth, rude rich celebrity that doesn't know a thing about running for a country.
WiiredShawn
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:46 AM)
WiiredShawn's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Fish Aficionado

Just asking questions amirite


Her positions on science are hilariously bad. Anti GMO , fear mongering rhetoric.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...android-google

To be fair, Jill Stein's positions on most issues should be exceptionally palatable to most liberals. She also expresses support for vaccines, so she's not anti-science. It seems like her concern over GMOs is more about corporate shenanigans than the GMOs themselves. I think she may be a little in the "we don't know the health risks, they could be dangerous!" camp, which is annoying to me, but I also see that as a PR strategy among progressives to target corporations in an indirect way (it's easier to stoke outrage in the public if the food is "dangerous" than to take the more abstract argument of "they're creating monopolies and exploiting the marketplace").

As has been said before, liberals are going to keep being decimated as long as you're playing with these purity tests. Look at the candidates' stated positions and take a pragmatic perspective. I can see Jill Stein's positions, in general, are pretty sound - a magnitude better for people than Trump, at least. But Hillary was the only competitive candidate in this race, and people should have acted on that if they wanted a seat at the table. Better that 50% of your values get across than 0%.
Last edited by WiiredShawn; 01-12-2017 at 12:51 AM.
Ogodei
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:47 AM)
Ogodei's Avatar

Originally Posted by HP_Wuvcraft

He said that publishing the Russia Blackmail story is something the Nazis would do.

His base is going fucking eat that shit up.

His base includes literal Nazis. I don't see the issue they would have.
King Kye
Junior Member
(01-12-2017, 12:48 AM)
King Kye's Avatar

Originally Posted by Link

If the examples on the last page are what represents our far left, it's no wonder the Dems got slaughtered. Holy hell.

Pretty much.

I'm as left as they come, but I don't think I'll be posting much in political threads here.
Huw_Dawson
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:48 AM)
Huw_Dawson's Avatar

Originally Posted by Herr Schwarz

It's that echo chamber that lost the election. She was a hopelessly shit candidate.

Care to elaborate? I don't understand how someone can be a terrible candidate and score as many votes as she did.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:49 AM)
Snowman Prophet of Doom's Avatar
lol at the "Stein is anti-vax" lie being perpetuated. Every fucking politician triangulates themselves to capture a subclass of voter viewed as undesirable by the general populace, but it's apparently only reprehensible when a third-party politician does so, and does so with language that doesn't even actually endorse the worldview of the subclass in question.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
(01-12-2017, 12:49 AM)
A Fish Aficionado's Avatar

Originally Posted by WiiredShawn

To be fair, Jill Stein's positions on most issues should be exceptionally palatable to most liberals. She also expresses support for vaccines, so she's not anti-science. It seems like her concern over GMOs is more about corporate shenanigans than the GMOs themselves. I think she may be a little in the "we don't know the health risks, they could be dangerous!" camp, which is annoying to me, but I also see that as a PR strategy among progressives to target corporations in an indirect way (it's easier to stoke outrage in the public if the food is "dangerous" than to take the more abstract argument of "they're creating monopolies and exploiting the marketplace").

Proposing a moratorium on gm foods is a paranoid delusion.

Originally Posted by Snowman Prophet of Doom

lol at the "Stein is anti-vax" lie being perpetuated. Every fucking politician triangulates themselves to capture a subclass of voter viewed as undesirable by the general populace, but it's apparently only reprehensible when a third-party politician does so, and does so with language that doesn't even actually endorse the worldview of the subclass in question.

She questions the FDA and CDC. She's not a credible source.
StrategyFan
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:49 AM)

Originally Posted by Huw_Dawson

Care to elaborate? I don't understand how someone can be a terrible candidate and score as many votes as she did.

a lot of people voted against trump

you don't need to take any imaginative leaps. the simplest explanation is often adequate
Big Baybee
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:50 AM)
Big Baybee's Avatar
Why are we talking about Jill Stein?
Nafai1123
dirty Netflix p00rs!
breathing my air
(01-12-2017, 12:52 AM)
Nafai1123's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

I listed a few of the substantive reasons I opposed Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I left some major ones out, including that Clinton opposed gay marriage (on religious grounds) until 2013.

Assuming you're bothered by these things, even if you support a lesser-evil voting strategy, how would you go about having candidates with better policies in the next election?

By not letting the country move in the complete opposite direction? Progress was made between Obama's platform in '08 and Hillary's in '16, and yet some progressives cared more about being contrarian and opposing anyone who wasn't left of them. If you think Trump winning means we get more progressive policies in the next election, you're delusional.
Herr Schwarz
Junior Member
(01-12-2017, 12:53 AM)
Herr Schwarz's Avatar

Originally Posted by Huw_Dawson

Care to elaborate? I don't understand how someone can be a terrible candidate and score as many votes as she did.

Outside of what that other guy just said as voting against Trump and not for Hillary.

It's the electoral college, she's going to get a lot of votes from the coastal cities where the populations are denser. Did she appeal to the other states that were equally as important but not as dense?

Did she campaign hard in the rust belt or sit on her hands?

Did she lose to a functioning idiot that ran his campaign on a shoe string whilst spouting diarrhea on twitter 24/7?

Did she lose to a candidate that had 0, literally ZERO experience in campaigning. Against her what, she was with Bill on his Trail, and her own back against Obama. And she still whiffs it.

Terrible, terrible candidate.
Last edited by Herr Schwarz; 01-12-2017 at 12:55 AM.
sugarhigh4242
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:53 AM)

Originally Posted by WiiredShawn

To be fair, Jill Stein's positions on most issues should be exceptionally palatable to most liberals. She also expresses support for vaccines, so she's not anti-science. It seems like her concern over GMOs is more about corporate shenanigans than the GMOs themselves. I think she may be a little in the "we don't know the health risks, they could be dangerous!" camp, which is annoying to me, but I also see that as a PR strategy among progressives to target corporations in an indirect way (it's easier to stoke outrage in the public if the food is "dangerous" than to take the more abstract argument of "they're creating monopolies and exploiting the marketplace").

Clinton sold out this year on the abortion question at a Fox News town hall as supposedly a feminist icon. Clinton supporters getting worked up about wifi scares don't have a leg to stand on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuLfyY39A0#t=1m7s
whyamihere
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:55 AM)
whyamihere's Avatar

Originally Posted by Herr Schwarz

No instead she said "Pokemon Go to the polling booths" or something like that.

She's got the charisma of a potted plant. And lost to a candidate that had those approval ratings, and that experience. Eugh.

Yes that was it, burn the witch.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
(01-12-2017, 12:55 AM)
BlueTsunami's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

Assuming you're bothered by these things, even if you support a lesser-evil voting strategy, how would you go about having candidates with better policies in the next election?

A lesser-evil voting strategy was the reality for this election. I'm not the biggest fan of Hillary either. She was an extremely flawed candidate both on foreign policy and character. But it didnt take much foresight to realize she wouldn't go and do something like instigate a trade war with China before being sworn in.

On having better quality candidates. Unfortunately, it seems like this country, the voters and its politicians, need to go through a catastrophic term to remind them why it is they vote. So maybe botching this election on a sociopath, and third party candidates may lead to stronger candidates down the line but for now this country is about to be turned upside down, inside out. We just may have swung too far in the opposite direction.
WiiredShawn
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:57 AM)
WiiredShawn's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Fish Aficionado

Proposing a moratorium on gm foods is a paranoid delusion.

She questions the FDA and CDC. She's not a credible source.

It's unrealistic, sure. It's also unnecessary. But her argument about giant corporations controlling the food supply and decimating small farmers is not unrealistic. That is the more pressing issue regarding GMOs.

Also, questioning any government body shouldn't discredit your opinion. If she claims they're spewing nothing but lies, then yeah, that's nuts, but agencies make mistakes and have failed the public before; some reasonable skepticism is warranted. Hell, we should be preparing to question the FDA harder now that drug companies will be able to pass new drugs through without waiting on FDA clinical trials.

Originally Posted by Big Baybee

Why are we talking about Jill Stein?

I'm not helping, I realize.
Last edited by WiiredShawn; 01-12-2017 at 12:59 AM.
whyamihere
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:57 AM)
whyamihere's Avatar

Originally Posted by Big Baybee

Why are we talking about Jill Stein?

Good question.
Spyder_Monkey
Member
(01-12-2017, 12:59 AM)
Spyder_Monkey's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

Clinton sold out this year on the abortion question at a Fox News town hall as supposedly a feminist icon. Clinton supporters getting worked up about wifi scares don't have a leg to stand on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuLfyY39A0#t=1m7s

Do you even watch the videos you post?
Zophar
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:00 AM)
Zophar's Avatar
Guys, Stein might have had good positions but there was absolutely zero policy and actual plans in the Green party platform. A Trump speech has more substance than what the Greens were running to accomplish.

Stein and the Greens sound appealing until you realize their entire existence is for the purpose of vanity Presidential runs and they have zero tenable solutions to put into practice. I would respect them more if they spent even a fraction of the effort they put into putting someone up for POTUS into getting Greens into actual seats down the ticket.
whyamihere
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:01 AM)
whyamihere's Avatar

Originally Posted by WiiredShawn

To be fair, Jill Stein's positions on most issues should be exceptionally palatable to most liberals. She also expresses support for vaccines, so she's not anti-science. It seems like her concern over GMOs is more about corporate shenanigans than the GMOs themselves. I think she may be a little in the "we don't know the health risks, they could be dangerous!" camp, which is annoying to me, but I also see that as a PR strategy among progressives to target corporations in an indirect way (it's easier to stoke outrage in the public if the food is "dangerous" than to take the more abstract argument of "they're creating monopolies and exploiting the marketplace").

As has been said before, liberals are going to keep being decimated as long as you're playing with these purity tests. Look at the candidates' stated positions and take a pragmatic perspective. I can see Jill Stein's positions, in general, are pretty sound - a magnitude better for people than Trump, at least. But Hillary was the only competitive candidate in this race, and people should have acted on that if they wanted a seat at the table. Better that 50% of your values get across than 0%.

And look where we are!

Originally Posted by Zophar

Guys, Stein might have had good positions but there was absolutely zero policy and actual plans in the Green party platform. A Trump speech has more substance than what the Greens were running to accomplish.

Stein and the Greens sound appealing until you realize their entire existence is for the purpose of vanity Presidential runs and they have zero tenable solutions to put into practice. I would respect them more if they spent even a fraction of the effort they put into putting someone up for POTUS into getting Greens into actual seats down the ticket.

I also don't think that people realize that we have diverse coalitions of what would normally be multiparty systems within the Democratic and Republican parties.

To use the UK as an example (and this isn't 1 to 1, don't come after me British people), elements of Greens, Labour, AND Lib Dems exist within the US. It's a party that goes from Heidi Heitkamp to Elizabeth Warren. And the Republicans have elements of the Tories and UKIP.
Last edited by whyamihere; 01-12-2017 at 01:03 AM.
sugarhigh4242
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:02 AM)

Originally Posted by Nafai1123

By not letting the country move in the complete opposite direction? Progress was made between Obama's platform in '08 and Hillary's in '16, and yet some progressives cared more about being contrarian and opposing anyone who wasn't left of them. If you think Trump winning means we get more progressive policies in the next election, you're delusional.

It's not a linear axis. It's not that I'm far left, and obama is left, and clinton is center left, and John McCain is the center of the universe, etc.

Clinton is a *neoliberal*. This means that she favors (allegedly) positive reform through privatization of public programs. That's why she's a huge advocate of charter schools.

I'm a socialist, but I support social democratic reforms, which are different in that they're universal public programs funded through progressive wealth/income taxes. Social security is an example. This is the tradition of Bernie Sanders, FDR, and most of 20th century Europe.

But these approaches are at odds. It's not like Clinton (or Obama) is really trying to do social democracy, but has to compromise on neoliberalism. They're pro-neoliberalism. The success of that philosophy is the defeat of my philosophy. I'm not a "purer" version of Clinton's politics, I'm actively opposed to them.
sugarhigh4242
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:04 AM)

Originally Posted by Spyder_Monkey

Do you even watch the videos you post?

"i have been on record in favor of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother"

Did i miss something?
TestOfTide
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:04 AM)
TestOfTide's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

I've been using your posts as my benchmark for Neogaf decorum. It's interesting.

Is it because I called out your posting habits when you were desperately defending Wikileaks?

Originally Posted by Herr Schwarz

As opposed to those Hillary voters, they had their finger on the pulse of America the whole time.

At least Hillary ran as a sane fucking candidate.

The other 3 options were a dumbass who didn't know ANY foreign policy, a far-left loon that thinks we should close down most of our military bases (because I'm sure our allies would LOVE that), and Donald fucking Trump.
Last edited by TestOfTide; 01-12-2017 at 01:08 AM.
whyamihere
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:05 AM)
whyamihere's Avatar
how is obama more left than hillary
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
(01-12-2017, 01:06 AM)
DrForester's Avatar
Fox News' Shepard Smith defends CNN on the air.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/819306390888075265
iapetus
Scary Euro Man
(01-12-2017, 01:06 AM)
iapetus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Breads

What does a vote for Trump mean?

Not even Trump knows that.

Vladimir hasn't told him yet.
Spyder_Monkey
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:06 AM)
Spyder_Monkey's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

"i have been on record in favor of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother"

Did i miss something?

Yes you did, she wants exceptions for the life and health of the mother in late pregnancy as opposed to congress which doesn't.
WiiredShawn
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:06 AM)
WiiredShawn's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zophar

Guys, Stein might have had good positions but there was absolutely zero policy and actual plans in the Green party platform. A Trump speech has more substance than what the Greens were running to accomplish.

Stein and the Greens sound appealing until you realize their entire existence is for the purpose of vanity Presidential runs and they have zero tenable solutions to put into practice. I would respect them more if they spent even a fraction of the effort they put into putting someone up for POTUS into getting Greens into actual seats down the ticket.

This is fair. For a grassroots effort, they don't seem to be doing much to win local races. Unless they're just not able to; I don't know.

Originally Posted by whyamihere

And look where we are!

I also don't think that people realize that we have diverse coalitions of what would normally be multiparty systems within the Democratic and Republican parties.

To use the UK as an example (and this isn't 1 to 1, don't come after me British people), elements of Greens, Labour, AND Lib Dems exist within the US. It's a party that goes from Heidi Heitkamp to Elizabeth Warren. And the Republicans have elements of the Tories and UKIP.

I mean, it's good in some way - it means one party represents more of the public's interests. But it's bad that subsets of the party want things their way and won't compromise with other party members. As the poster above says, some of those values are in direct conflict.

And now we have Trump.
whyamihere
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:06 AM)
whyamihere's Avatar

Originally Posted by Spyder_Monkey

Yes you did, she wants exceptions for the life and health of the mother in late pregnancy as opposed to congress which doesn't.

burn the witch
AusRoachman
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:06 AM)
AusRoachman's Avatar
Is there a summary of what was outlined ? Did the media grill him over #goldenshowers
sugarhigh4242
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:07 AM)

Originally Posted by Spyder_Monkey

Yes you did, she wants exceptions for the life and health of the mother in late pregnancy as opposed to congress which doesn't.

that's a lousy policy. I thought democrats supported an unequivocal right to abortion if they supported anything.
Revolver
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:07 AM)
Revolver's Avatar
Wow. Last month Doonesbury predicted today's presser almost verbatim.

whyamihere
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:10 AM)
whyamihere's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

that's a lousy policy. I thought democrats supported an unequivocal right to abortion if they supported anything.

Hillary went further than most in American policymaking and was attacked for it!

http://ijr.com/2016/10/718189-even-d...rtion-answers/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...tion-extremist
Herr Schwarz
Junior Member
(01-12-2017, 01:13 AM)
Herr Schwarz's Avatar

Originally Posted by TestOfTide




At least Hillary ran as a sane fucking candidate.

.

Yep she did, and she lost. Like I said, sending a clown to a funeral.
Spyder_Monkey
Member
(01-12-2017, 01:14 AM)
Spyder_Monkey's Avatar

Originally Posted by sugarhigh4242

that's a lousy policy. I thought democrats supported an unequivocal right to abortion if they supported anything.

Late term abortion is an uncommon (most abortions are done in the first trimester), but still massively complicated political issue and can potentially be dangerous. There was an effort in congress that wanted to ban abortions after the 20th week while Clinton opposed that because there are cases where the pregnancy can harm the life of the mother. There's nothing vague about this at all and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about besides repeating the same anti-Clinton smear.

Thread Tools