Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sassy--that's what I'm saying. Roberts no doubt considered the LAW. I'm no lawyer and I don't know what wording they were dealing with or what issues, that's probably way over my head. Didn't Scalia have to uphold laws that he came out and said were downright stupid...but the law, like it or not?Thank you for the perfect example of my point. Since that ruling came down when there was a 5/4 majority of supposed "conservatives" including the revered Antonin Scalia.With all due respect, Republicans and conservatives are making a HUUGGE deal out of the SCOTUS picks as if it really made a difference. Are you folks forgetting that many decisions you hate were made by your supposedly conservative Supreme Court? I have enough respect for these judges to believe they make their decisions based on the law, not their personal politics. Their own viewpoints should be a minor consideration, imo. The law can be interpreted in different ways, yes, but it is not supposed to be at heart a political appointment and it shouldn't be viewed as if that's ALL it is.As a white male I might not be adversely affected by Trump Supreme Court appointments hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the voting rights of African-Americans, but my rights and protected liberties would be jeopardized nonetheless.You know...those things that define a candidates position and persuade us to vote for one or the other...
We seem to have forgotten about them in pages of nonsense, tripe, gutter-mongering and knee-jerk defenses of the indefensible. We seem incapable of moving on.
Are we voting for the least loathsome based on media-determined moral character? Who cares really? Donald Trump IS a mysoganist. Deal with it. Bill Clinton is NOT running for office. Get over it. Hillary has some serious ethics issues. We get it.
Who's best for office based on issues, experience and temperment?
It's tough to pin The Donald down on issues because he's so distractable.
So...here are the candidates on the issues that are important to ME.
Sources
Donald Trump on the Issues
Hillary Clinton on the Issues
Abortion: I support a woman's right to choose with some restrictions (in the third trimester, it should be restricted but never fully illegal). I strongly support access to contraception, quality sex education, and emergency "morning after" pills.
Trump:
Planned Parenthood does a lot of good work for women far beyond access to abortion. So, defunding it (particularly given the right wants to continue funding religiously-based pregnancy centers) is a no-go for me.
- Millions are helped by Planned Parenthood, but defund it. (Feb 2016)
- Planned Parenthood does great work on women's health. (Feb 2016)
- Defund Planned Parenthood. (Oct 2015)
- Planned Parenthood is important, but abortions must stop. (Aug 2015)
On this, he's all over the board...what IS his position? I suspect his personal position is in conflict with the party position. This will likely be more troubling to evangelical voters. Unfortunately all we have to go on with Trump is his words. Hillary offers a lengthy public service record.
- I have evolved on abortion issue, like Reagan evolved. (Aug 2015)
- Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015)
- Undecided on embryonic stem cell research. (Apr 2011)
- I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011)
- I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories. (Apr 2011)
- I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding. (Feb 2011)
- Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion. (Jul 2000)
- Favors abortion rights but respects opposition. (Dec 1999)
Clinton
Clinton's positions on abortion and contraception mirror my own and have been consistent.
- It's big government to intervene on woman's right to choose. (Oct 2015)
- Make abortion rare by supporting adoption & foster care. (Apr 2008)
- Potential for life begins at conception, but don’t intrude. (Apr 2008)
- Opposed China’s forced abortion & Romania’s forced pregnancy. (Apr 2008)
- Long-held moderate stance focuses on reducing abortions. (Mar 2008)
- Government should have no role in abortion decision. (Oct 2005)
- We can find common ground on abortion issue. (Sep 2005)
- Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk. (Oct 2000)
- Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. (Jan 1999)
- Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems. (Jan 1999)
Contraception
Voting Record
- Hobby Lobby decision is slippery slope against women. (Jun 2014)
- 1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion. (Jul 2007)
- Fought for years to get “Plan B” contraceptive on the market. (Dec 2006)
- Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception. (Oct 2006)
- Advocates birth control but OK with faith-based disagreement. (Nov 2003)
- Supports parental notice & family planning. (Feb 1997)
- Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus. (Oct 2005)
- Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
- Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
- Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
- Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
- Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
- Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims. (Sep 2006)
- Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
- Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
- Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)
On this issue, which is pretty important to me as a woman - Clinton's record speaks for itself.
How secure I am in my civil rights and protected liberties is predicated on how secure the civil rights and protected liberties are of other Americans, particularly Americans who are neither white nor male.
SCOTUS and Obamacare.....nuff said
My point is the POS bill should have never been passed and it wouldn't have if Congress had actually read the damn thing. Then SCOTUS adds insult to injury by upholding it....I still wonder what made Roberts do the 180
Sassy--that's what I'm saying. Roberts no doubt considered the LAW. I'm no lawyer and I don't know what wording they were dealing with or what issues, that's probably way over my head. Didn't Scalia have to uphold laws that he came out and said were downright stupid...but the law, like it or not?Thank you for the perfect example of my point. Since that ruling came down when there was a 5/4 majority of supposed "conservatives" including the revered Antonin Scalia.With all due respect, Republicans and conservatives are making a HUUGGE deal out of the SCOTUS picks as if it really made a difference. Are you folks forgetting that many decisions you hate were made by your supposedly conservative Supreme Court? I have enough respect for these judges to believe they make their decisions based on the law, not their personal politics. Their own viewpoints should be a minor consideration, imo. The law can be interpreted in different ways, yes, but it is not supposed to be at heart a political appointment and it shouldn't be viewed as if that's ALL it is.As a white male I might not be adversely affected by Trump Supreme Court appointments hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the voting rights of African-Americans, but my rights and protected liberties would be jeopardized nonetheless.
How secure I am in my civil rights and protected liberties is predicated on how secure the civil rights and protected liberties are of other Americans, particularly Americans who are neither white nor male.
SCOTUS and Obamacare.....nuff said
My point is the POS bill should have never been passed and it wouldn't have if Congress had actually read the damn thing. Then SCOTUS adds insult to injury by upholding it....I still wonder what made Roberts do the 180
Anyway, that's my naive take on the situation, and I'm sticking to it.
Another important issue for me is Environment.
Trump
On this - Trump loses me on some, but I agree with on others. The abuse of elephants in circus is well documented - these highly intelligent and endangered animals need our protection, not abuse. Asbestos got a bad rap? WTF? It's bad stuff.
- Eminent domain is something you need very strongly. (Feb 2016)
- Cut the EPA; what they do is a disgrace. (Oct 2015)
- Eminent domain pays more than fair market value. (Oct 2015)
- Eminent domain is a very useful tool for job creation. (Oct 2015)
- My sons love trophy hunting, but I'm not a believer. (Sep 2015)
- Won't go to circuses that cut elephants due to animal rights. (Mar 2015)
- Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects. (Apr 2010)
- Good development enhances the environment. (Jan 2008)
- Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
- Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
- Humiliated NYC Mayor by finishing ice rink on time on budget. (Oct 1997)
- Bureaucratic land use reviews make projects unbuildable. (Oct 1997)
- FactCheck: Yes, hybrid family vehicles are available in US
Now - two things I agree on: "Good development (can) enhances the environment" and "Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects". Often the most successful enviornmental protections come from partnering with ranchers, developers, etc to help them realize that there is value in preserving wetlands, or setting aside conservation areas and that it CAN be done in conjunction with their livelihoods - it does not have to be adversarial. Nature Conservancy is an organization that is strong in this, and which I support.
Clinton
- We need green energy jobs & to build on Paris Agreement. (Mar 2016)
- Federal takeover of Flint water supply if state can't fix it. (Feb 2016)
- FactCheck: No, Hillary didn't grant eminent domain to China. (Mar 2009)
- $5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package. (Jan 2008)
- Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain. (Jan 2008)
- A comprehensive energy plan as our Apollo moon shot. (Jan 2008)
- Advocate a cap and trade system. (Dec 2007)
- Better track kids’ products for exposures to toxic materials. (Dec 2007)
- Support green-collar job training. (Aug 2007)
- Launched EPA study of air quality at Ground Zero. (Jun 2007)
- Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
- Stands for clean air and funding the EPA. (Sep 2000)
- Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health. (Jun 1998)
- Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
- Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles. (Apr 2001)
- Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
- EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
- Sponsored bill for tax credit to remove lead-based paint. (Nov 2005)
- Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act. (Apr 2008)
- Inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources. (Jul 2008)
- Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)
Clinton's record is lengthy - and much of it I support. Part of her record also ties in to children's issues - lead paint, Flint clean water etc. I would like to know more about how somethings would be paid for (dredging the Hudson) - but I agree with the positions. I would like to see all animal fighting prohibited.
I got some problems with the Clinton record here. Don't KNOW if Trump really knows anything about the issue other than what Sean Hannity tells him.
1) The largest current DANGEROUS enviro disaster in US was caused by FED govt at their nuclear weapons plants in the 60s/70s. There are THOUSANDS of leaking barrels of nuclear waste at Savannah River, Hanford and other sites. No clean-up plan on the horizon. This is why OPPOSING a national nuclear waste site that was PROMISED at Yucca Mtn is stupid. Almost as stupid as not planning for the BILLIONS of pounds of recycled and smash Lithium batteries from all the EVehicles that are being pushed.
2) Tossing money at Green Jobs has already been tried for 8 yrs. The Feds are lousy at picking market winners and losers and have lost TONS of tax money on their stupid bets. The problem there is that wind and solar are MATURE technologies, and do not require a lot of "general research" grants. They are now commodity items sold mainly on price. And in ADDITION that are not "alternatives" to reliable 24/7/365 power. When the nation is less scared by nuclear than they are by Global Warming -- I'll believe in efforts to reduce CO2. Because nuclear is the clearest path to that goal. IF -- indeed you want to believe the over-hyped 1980s GW projections that have constantly been being revised DOWNwards with little notice by the press and panicked herd.
The biggest issue with nuclear energy is what to do with the waste and it's a huge deterrent to expanding it. I don't oppose nuclear - in certain situations/locations it's the best choice. I agree though - we've got to get ahead of the curve on clean up for these various energy sources. Thing about Yucca is - residents oppose it. I don't blame them. I live in a state where Coal has long had a free hand in "waste disposal" and remediation. It's not a good record.
I think you can sell the public on nuclear if you can come up with a safe disposal system...but then, we're also still dealing with the nuclear affects of the earthquake on Japan.
It takes just 0.7 ounces of nuclear fuel to power the average US home for a year. SURELY we can handle something the size of a AA battery. ESPECIALLY, if we can handle the tonnage of battery waste that has a "half-life" LONGER then nuclear fuel in landfills. It's there literally forever. And Govt mandates are pushing about a Gigaton of toxic battery a year in EVehicles and grid storage systems designed to buffer the whacky performance of wind and solar.
ONE centralized nuclear waste storage facility is not too much to ask for if you've seen pictures of the bulldozers buried on site at Hanford that are too radioactive to use anymore. Govt needs to pay attention to their OWN poillution issues. Including the fact that TVA owns some of the dirtiest coal plants in America. Can't really get RID of much fossil fuel and pollution WITHOUT nuclear.
Clinton and the Green Squad have nothing to replace coal with. If and when they do (like nuclear tomorrow) I'm all for it.
I kind of think there is a knee-jerk reaction to green energy, just as there is to nuclear. We need it ALL if we want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Diversity is the key to success. Typically, government support is needed to initiate the industries and provide infrastructure - and I support R&D like that, but there seems to be an automatic rejection of it by the right because it's seen as "left".
I was not familiar with Hanford - I'll look it up. You might have a good point with Yucca Mountain.
To bad we can't ship it out into deep space....
Wind and solar are all that is offered as alternatives. They are not "alternatives' to anything because they don't work all the time. Solar is good as a "daytime peaking" source in some areas, but the daytime Peak demand is only about 15% higher than when solar's NOT available. And wind is just a mess of uncertainty that you cannot build into true increases in overall grid capacity. Neither needs "R&D" at this point. The people CLAIMING these are "alternatives" need a reality check on how electricity is made and scheduled for delivery..
RussiaAbortion & Climate are your top concerns?
With all the pressing issues we have and that's it? Good grief
They're pretty important to me. You may have other issues you see as more important.
Debt
ISIS
Obamacare
Civil unrest
Illegal aliens
Spending
For leftists it's:
Unisex bathrooms
SSM
Abortion rights
Civil rights
Open borders
Climate Change
Entitlements
Actually, I put unisex bathrooms high on the rightists list.
Other than that - open borders? nope.
Civil rights? always important, but not critical.
Abortion rights - yes, but it's also high on the rightists list.
Climate Change - yes, it's importabnt.
SSM - is what?
Entitlements - if you mean preserving our safetynet - yes, important. But it can always be adjusted/improved on etc.
Open borders? Only fringe support that.
Hillary supports open borders....haven't you been reading the WikiLeaks? That right there is enough for me never to vote for her
I got some problems with the Clinton record here. Don't KNOW if Trump really knows anything about the issue other than what Sean Hannity tells him.
1) The largest current DANGEROUS enviro disaster in US was caused by FED govt at their nuclear weapons plants in the 60s/70s. There are THOUSANDS of leaking barrels of nuclear waste at Savannah River, Hanford and other sites. No clean-up plan on the horizon. This is why OPPOSING a national nuclear waste site that was PROMISED at Yucca Mtn is stupid. Almost as stupid as not planning for the BILLIONS of pounds of recycled and smash Lithium batteries from all the EVehicles that are being pushed.
2) Tossing money at Green Jobs has already been tried for 8 yrs. The Feds are lousy at picking market winners and losers and have lost TONS of tax money on their stupid bets. The problem there is that wind and solar are MATURE technologies, and do not require a lot of "general research" grants. They are now commodity items sold mainly on price. And in ADDITION that are not "alternatives" to reliable 24/7/365 power. When the nation is less scared by nuclear than they are by Global Warming -- I'll believe in efforts to reduce CO2. Because nuclear is the clearest path to that goal. IF -- indeed you want to believe the over-hyped 1980s GW projections that have constantly been being revised DOWNwards with little notice by the press and panicked herd.
The biggest issue with nuclear energy is what to do with the waste and it's a huge deterrent to expanding it. I don't oppose nuclear - in certain situations/locations it's the best choice. I agree though - we've got to get ahead of the curve on clean up for these various energy sources. Thing about Yucca is - residents oppose it. I don't blame them. I live in a state where Coal has long had a free hand in "waste disposal" and remediation. It's not a good record.
I think you can sell the public on nuclear if you can come up with a safe disposal system...but then, we're also still dealing with the nuclear affects of the earthquake on Japan.
It takes just 0.7 ounces of nuclear fuel to power the average US home for a year. SURELY we can handle something the size of a AA battery. ESPECIALLY, if we can handle the tonnage of battery waste that has a "half-life" LONGER then nuclear fuel in landfills. It's there literally forever. And Govt mandates are pushing about a Gigaton of toxic battery a year in EVehicles and grid storage systems designed to buffer the whacky performance of wind and solar.
ONE centralized nuclear waste storage facility is not too much to ask for if you've seen pictures of the bulldozers buried on site at Hanford that are too radioactive to use anymore. Govt needs to pay attention to their OWN poillution issues. Including the fact that TVA owns some of the dirtiest coal plants in America. Can't really get RID of much fossil fuel and pollution WITHOUT nuclear.
Clinton and the Green Squad have nothing to replace coal with. If and when they do (like nuclear tomorrow) I'm all for it.
I kind of think there is a knee-jerk reaction to green energy, just as there is to nuclear. We need it ALL if we want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Diversity is the key to success. Typically, government support is needed to initiate the industries and provide infrastructure - and I support R&D like that, but there seems to be an automatic rejection of it by the right because it's seen as "left".
I was not familiar with Hanford - I'll look it up. You might have a good point with Yucca Mountain.
To bad we can't ship it out into deep space....
Wind and solar are all that is offered as alternatives. They are not "alternatives' to anything because they don't work all the time. Solar is good as a "daytime peaking" source in some areas, but the daytime Peak demand is only about 15% higher than when solar's NOT available. And wind is just a mess of uncertainty that you cannot build into true increases in overall grid capacity. Neither needs "R&D" at this point. The people CLAIMING these are "alternatives" need a reality check on how electricity is made and scheduled for delivery..RussiaThey're pretty important to me. You may have other issues you see as more important.
Debt
ISIS
Obamacare
Civil unrest
Illegal aliens
Spending
For leftists it's:
Unisex bathrooms
SSM
Abortion rights
Civil rights
Open borders
Climate Change
Entitlements
Actually, I put unisex bathrooms high on the rightists list.
Other than that - open borders? nope.
Civil rights? always important, but not critical.
Abortion rights - yes, but it's also high on the rightists list.
Climate Change - yes, it's importabnt.
SSM - is what?
Entitlements - if you mean preserving our safetynet - yes, important. But it can always be adjusted/improved on etc.
Open borders? Only fringe support that.
Hillary supports open borders....haven't you been reading the WikiLeaks? That right there is enough for me never to vote for her
Got a quote?
Families and Children
Again - Hillary has a long record to judge by. Why is this an important issue? Because a lot of us are getting older and it's the younger generation that supports the older generation and pays into social security. People are living much longer, many people have aging parents to take care of. That means that not only is it the right thing to do - it's necessary. Jobs, family friendly policies that help young couples raise children and pursue a career, good educational services and healthcare all play into it. This is one issue Clinton has consistently worked on, prior to her public life.
It's unclear where Trump is on this because there really is no record to judge him by. I support paid family leave for both mothers and fathers. There are a variety of ways to do this, and small business will need some sort of assistance.
And her answer is to raise inheritance taxes to 65%, raise corporate taxes although they are already the highest in the world, making investment here a no-go, and punishing the wealthy with even higher envy-taxes, making them offshore their income and further robbing us of economic growth. All you need to look at are what her policies have done in the inner-cities...chased fathers out of the home with AFDC benefits to unwed mothers, turned the schools into gang-infested nightmares, allowed open drug use on the streets to avoid "profiling" accusations, and allowed abortion on demand for children without parental consent which cheapens life in places where life is already dirt-cheap. These ghettos are far worse off than they were in the mid-60's and our debt has been doubled in the last 8 years which accomplished absolutely nothing.
On the inheritance tax - what's wrong with that? It only effects a very few people who inherit a very large amount of money.
I agree with you on raising corporate taxes and support keeping those low to attract business.
This is a lot lumped into one statement:
All you need to look at are what her policies have done in the inner-cities...chased fathers out of the home with AFDC benefits to unwed mothers, turned the schools into gang-infested nightmares, allowed open drug use on the streets to avoid "profiling" accusations, and allowed abortion on demand for children without parental consent which cheapens life in places where life is already dirt-cheap.
So the alternative would be what - not supporting single mothers?
I don't think "profiling" relates to open drug use. It's been an ongoing problem prior to when anyone even broached profiling.
Life is cheap when a pregnant child is forced to bear a baby she is neither capable of caring for nor ready for. Her education is interrupted, if not abandoned and statistically she is much more likely to remain in poverty and repeat the pattern. Clinton's support of good sex education, access to contraception is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately it seems the right resists this.
What's wrong with inheritance tax?
Well for one, Macintosh would almost certainly not exist if there was such a tax.
It's amazing how you are only concerned of your own benefits - classic liberal class warrior.
The left's obsession with solar is about the crony capitalism that we saw with Solyndra...half a BILLIOLN dollars and the panels ended up smashed to pieces in dumpsters....that's a lot of GREEN lost on criminal enterprises. As to "fossil fuels" there's no such thing...no dinosaur bones or plant material have ever been discovered at the depths we're at to drill oil. Oil and NG are abiotic resources that are constantly replenished from the Earth's core. The left's ridiculous "peak oil" has been disproved so many times it's idiotic to even discuss....old wells suddenly fill again and they always will. The left is terrified of oil because they can't control drilling on private property, which is where all our fracking is done thanks to Obozo. Hilarious he claims credit for increased domestic production when he's done everything in his power to stop it. I proved yesterday the left doesn't care if it's solar farms FRY over a million birds a year or it's wind farms are killing thousands of hawks and eagles. The best example of hypocrisy on wind is Bobby Kennedy Jr. being furious that somebody wanted to put wind turbines near his home and view...that and microwave towers are for fly-over country and us peons to live around. Bottom line? The left elite aren't leftists in the least...just well-connected scam artists who use the laws they create instead of talent to become wealthy.
The left's obsession with solar is about the crony capitalism that we saw with Solyndra...half a BILLIOLN dollars and the panels ended up smashed to pieces in dumpsters....that's a lot of GREEN lost on criminal enterprises. As to "fossil fuels" there's no such thing...no dinosaur bones or plant material have ever been discovered at the depths we're at to drill oil. Oil and NG are abiotic resources that are constantly replenished from the Earth's core. The left's ridiculous "peak oil" has been disproved so many times it's idiotic to even discuss....old wells suddenly fill again and they always will. The left is terrified of oil because they can't control drilling on private property, which is where all our fracking is done thanks to Obozo. Hilarious he claims credit for increased domestic production when he's done everything in his power to stop it. I proved yesterday the left doesn't care if it's solar farms FRY over a million birds a year or it's wind farms are killing thousands of hawks and eagles. The best example of hypocrisy on wind is Bobby Kennedy Jr. being furious that somebody wanted to put wind turbines near his home and view...that and microwave towers are for fly-over country and us peons to live around. Bottom line? The left elite aren't leftists in the least...just well-connected scam artists who use the laws they create instead of talent to become wealthy.
Solar freaking roadways proves it all really.
People who know nothing about technology are obsessed about these "innovations".
The biggest issue with nuclear energy is what to do with the waste and it's a huge deterrent to expanding it. I don't oppose nuclear - in certain situations/locations it's the best choice. I agree though - we've got to get ahead of the curve on clean up for these various energy sources. Thing about Yucca is - residents oppose it. I don't blame them. I live in a state where Coal has long had a free hand in "waste disposal" and remediation. It's not a good record.
I think you can sell the public on nuclear if you can come up with a safe disposal system...but then, we're also still dealing with the nuclear affects of the earthquake on Japan.
It takes just 0.7 ounces of nuclear fuel to power the average US home for a year. SURELY we can handle something the size of a AA battery. ESPECIALLY, if we can handle the tonnage of battery waste that has a "half-life" LONGER then nuclear fuel in landfills. It's there literally forever. And Govt mandates are pushing about a Gigaton of toxic battery a year in EVehicles and grid storage systems designed to buffer the whacky performance of wind and solar.
ONE centralized nuclear waste storage facility is not too much to ask for if you've seen pictures of the bulldozers buried on site at Hanford that are too radioactive to use anymore. Govt needs to pay attention to their OWN poillution issues. Including the fact that TVA owns some of the dirtiest coal plants in America. Can't really get RID of much fossil fuel and pollution WITHOUT nuclear.
Clinton and the Green Squad have nothing to replace coal with. If and when they do (like nuclear tomorrow) I'm all for it.
I kind of think there is a knee-jerk reaction to green energy, just as there is to nuclear. We need it ALL if we want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Diversity is the key to success. Typically, government support is needed to initiate the industries and provide infrastructure - and I support R&D like that, but there seems to be an automatic rejection of it by the right because it's seen as "left".
I was not familiar with Hanford - I'll look it up. You might have a good point with Yucca Mountain.
To bad we can't ship it out into deep space....
Wind and solar are all that is offered as alternatives. They are not "alternatives' to anything because they don't work all the time. Solar is good as a "daytime peaking" source in some areas, but the daytime Peak demand is only about 15% higher than when solar's NOT available. And wind is just a mess of uncertainty that you cannot build into true increases in overall grid capacity. Neither needs "R&D" at this point. The people CLAIMING these are "alternatives" need a reality check on how electricity is made and scheduled for delivery..Russia
Debt
ISIS
Obamacare
Civil unrest
Illegal aliens
Spending
For leftists it's:
Unisex bathrooms
SSM
Abortion rights
Civil rights
Open borders
Climate Change
Entitlements
Actually, I put unisex bathrooms high on the rightists list.
Other than that - open borders? nope.
Civil rights? always important, but not critical.
Abortion rights - yes, but it's also high on the rightists list.
Climate Change - yes, it's importabnt.
SSM - is what?
Entitlements - if you mean preserving our safetynet - yes, important. But it can always be adjusted/improved on etc.
Open borders? Only fringe support that.
Hillary supports open borders....haven't you been reading the WikiLeaks? That right there is enough for me never to vote for her
Got a quote?
It's on any site with the Wikileak dump, I'll look for it when I get a chance, my army of munchkins demand my attention
Got a quote?
You know...those things that define a candidates position and persuade us to vote for one or the other...
We seem to have forgotten about them in pages of nonsense, tripe, gutter-mongering and knee-jerk defenses of the indefensible. We seem incapable of moving on.
Are we voting for the least loathsome based on media-determined moral character? Who cares really? Donald Trump IS a mysoganist. Deal with it. Bill Clinton is NOT running for office. Get over it. Hillary has some serious ethics issues. We get it.
Who's best for office based on issues, experience and temperment?
It's tough to pin The Donald down on issues because he's so distractable.
So...here are the candidates on the issues that are important to ME.
Sources
Donald Trump on the Issues
Hillary Clinton on the Issues
Abortion: I support a woman's right to choose with some restrictions (in the third trimester, it should be restricted but never fully illegal). I strongly support access to contraception, quality sex education, and emergency "morning after" pills.
Trump:
Planned Parenthood does a lot of good work for women far beyond access to abortion. So, defunding it (particularly given the right wants to continue funding religiously-based pregnancy centers) is a no-go for me.
- Millions are helped by Planned Parenthood, but defund it. (Feb 2016)
- Planned Parenthood does great work on women's health. (Feb 2016)
- Defund Planned Parenthood. (Oct 2015)
- Planned Parenthood is important, but abortions must stop. (Aug 2015)
On this, he's all over the board...what IS his position? I suspect his personal position is in conflict with the party position. This will likely be more troubling to evangelical voters. Unfortunately all we have to go on with Trump is his words. Hillary offers a lengthy public service record.
- I have evolved on abortion issue, like Reagan evolved. (Aug 2015)
- Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015)
- Undecided on embryonic stem cell research. (Apr 2011)
- I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011)
- I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories. (Apr 2011)
- I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding. (Feb 2011)
- Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion. (Jul 2000)
- Favors abortion rights but respects opposition. (Dec 1999)
Clinton
Clinton's positions on abortion and contraception mirror my own and have been consistent.
- It's big government to intervene on woman's right to choose. (Oct 2015)
- Make abortion rare by supporting adoption & foster care. (Apr 2008)
- Potential for life begins at conception, but don’t intrude. (Apr 2008)
- Opposed China’s forced abortion & Romania’s forced pregnancy. (Apr 2008)
- Long-held moderate stance focuses on reducing abortions. (Mar 2008)
- Government should have no role in abortion decision. (Oct 2005)
- We can find common ground on abortion issue. (Sep 2005)
- Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk. (Oct 2000)
- Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. (Jan 1999)
- Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems. (Jan 1999)
Contraception
Voting Record
- Hobby Lobby decision is slippery slope against women. (Jun 2014)
- 1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion. (Jul 2007)
- Fought for years to get “Plan B” contraceptive on the market. (Dec 2006)
- Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception. (Oct 2006)
- Advocates birth control but OK with faith-based disagreement. (Nov 2003)
- Supports parental notice & family planning. (Feb 1997)
- Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus. (Oct 2005)
- Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
- Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
- Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
- Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
- Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
- Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims. (Sep 2006)
- Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
- Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
- Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)
On this issue, which is pretty important to me as a woman - Clinton's record speaks for itself.
Yes we know you are a far left drone and Hilary supporter/voter..
You obviously found a bias site to promote your bias, nothing new here!
Don't know if the site is biased or not - it just lists quotes and positions. If you think it is - why don't you supply some of your own for discussion?
The left's obsession with solar is about the crony capitalism that we saw with Solyndra...half a BILLIOLN dollars and the panels ended up smashed to pieces in dumpsters....that's a lot of GREEN lost on criminal enterprises. As to "fossil fuels" there's no such thing...no dinosaur bones or plant material have ever been discovered at the depths we're at to drill oil. Oil and NG are abiotic resources that are constantly replenished from the Earth's core. The left's ridiculous "peak oil" has been disproved so many times it's idiotic to even discuss....old wells suddenly fill again and they always will. The left is terrified of oil because they can't control drilling on private property, which is where all our fracking is done thanks to Obozo. Hilarious he claims credit for increased domestic production when he's done everything in his power to stop it. I proved yesterday the left doesn't care if it's solar farms FRY over a million birds a year or it's wind farms are killing thousands of hawks and eagles. The best example of hypocrisy on wind is Bobby Kennedy Jr. being furious that somebody wanted to put wind turbines near his home and view...that and microwave towers are for fly-over country and us peons to live around. Bottom line? The left elite aren't leftists in the least...just well-connected scam artists who use the laws they create instead of talent to become wealthy.
Solar freaking roadways proves it all really.
People who know nothing about technology are obsessed about these "innovations".
Innovations are what brought us gas powered automobiles. Everything has a price - why do you automatically reject if it happens to be green?
You know...those things that define a candidates position and persuade us to vote for one or the other...
We seem to have forgotten about them in pages of nonsense, tripe, gutter-mongering and knee-jerk defenses of the indefensible. We seem incapable of moving on.
Are we voting for the least loathsome based on media-determined moral character? Who cares really? Donald Trump IS a mysoganist. Deal with it. Bill Clinton is NOT running for office. Get over it. Hillary has some serious ethics issues. We get it.
Who's best for office based on issues, experience and temperment?
It's tough to pin The Donald down on issues because he's so distractable.
So...here are the candidates on the issues that are important to ME.
Sources
Donald Trump on the Issues
Hillary Clinton on the Issues
Abortion: I support a woman's right to choose with some restrictions (in the third trimester, it should be restricted but never fully illegal). I strongly support access to contraception, quality sex education, and emergency "morning after" pills.
Trump:
Planned Parenthood does a lot of good work for women far beyond access to abortion. So, defunding it (particularly given the right wants to continue funding religiously-based pregnancy centers) is a no-go for me.
- Millions are helped by Planned Parenthood, but defund it. (Feb 2016)
- Planned Parenthood does great work on women's health. (Feb 2016)
- Defund Planned Parenthood. (Oct 2015)
- Planned Parenthood is important, but abortions must stop. (Aug 2015)
On this, he's all over the board...what IS his position? I suspect his personal position is in conflict with the party position. This will likely be more troubling to evangelical voters. Unfortunately all we have to go on with Trump is his words. Hillary offers a lengthy public service record.
- I have evolved on abortion issue, like Reagan evolved. (Aug 2015)
- Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015)
- Undecided on embryonic stem cell research. (Apr 2011)
- I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011)
- I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories. (Apr 2011)
- I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding. (Feb 2011)
- Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion. (Jul 2000)
- Favors abortion rights but respects opposition. (Dec 1999)
Clinton
Clinton's positions on abortion and contraception mirror my own and have been consistent.
- It's big government to intervene on woman's right to choose. (Oct 2015)
- Make abortion rare by supporting adoption & foster care. (Apr 2008)
- Potential for life begins at conception, but don’t intrude. (Apr 2008)
- Opposed China’s forced abortion & Romania’s forced pregnancy. (Apr 2008)
- Long-held moderate stance focuses on reducing abortions. (Mar 2008)
- Government should have no role in abortion decision. (Oct 2005)
- We can find common ground on abortion issue. (Sep 2005)
- Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk. (Oct 2000)
- Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. (Jan 1999)
- Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems. (Jan 1999)
Contraception
Voting Record
- Hobby Lobby decision is slippery slope against women. (Jun 2014)
- 1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion. (Jul 2007)
- Fought for years to get “Plan B” contraceptive on the market. (Dec 2006)
- Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception. (Oct 2006)
- Advocates birth control but OK with faith-based disagreement. (Nov 2003)
- Supports parental notice & family planning. (Feb 1997)
- Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus. (Oct 2005)
- Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
- Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
- Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
- Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
- Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
- Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims. (Sep 2006)
- Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
- Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
- Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)
On this issue, which is pretty important to me as a woman - Clinton's record speaks for itself.
Yes we know you are a far left drone and Hilary supporter/voter..
You obviously found a bias site to promote your bias, nothing new here!
Don't know if the site is biased or not - it just lists quotes and positions. If you think it is - why don't you supply some of your own for discussion?
Then the Burdon of proof of that is on you to prove the site to fit your bias!
The left's obsession with solar is about the crony capitalism that we saw with Solyndra...half a BILLIOLN dollars and the panels ended up smashed to pieces in dumpsters....that's a lot of GREEN lost on criminal enterprises. As to "fossil fuels" there's no such thing...no dinosaur bones or plant material have ever been discovered at the depths we're at to drill oil. Oil and NG are abiotic resources that are constantly replenished from the Earth's core. The left's ridiculous "peak oil" has been disproved so many times it's idiotic to even discuss....old wells suddenly fill again and they always will. The left is terrified of oil because they can't control drilling on private property, which is where all our fracking is done thanks to Obozo. Hilarious he claims credit for increased domestic production when he's done everything in his power to stop it. I proved yesterday the left doesn't care if it's solar farms FRY over a million birds a year or it's wind farms are killing thousands of hawks and eagles. The best example of hypocrisy on wind is Bobby Kennedy Jr. being furious that somebody wanted to put wind turbines near his home and view...that and microwave towers are for fly-over country and us peons to live around. Bottom line? The left elite aren't leftists in the least...just well-connected scam artists who use the laws they create instead of talent to become wealthy.
Solar freaking roadways proves it all really.
People who know nothing about technology are obsessed about these "innovations".
Innovations are what brought us gas powered automobiles. Everything has a price - why do you automatically reject if it happens to be green?
No, I don't reject something because it's green. I reject it, because it's pseudoscience.
Solyndra is perfect example too... but hey it's green so it MUST work! Cause... regressive... liberal...
The left's obsession with solar is about the crony capitalism that we saw with Solyndra...half a BILLIOLN dollars and the panels ended up smashed to pieces in dumpsters....that's a lot of GREEN lost on criminal enterprises. As to "fossil fuels" there's no such thing...no dinosaur bones or plant material have ever been discovered at the depths we're at to drill oil. Oil and NG are abiotic resources that are constantly replenished from the Earth's core. The left's ridiculous "peak oil" has been disproved so many times it's idiotic to even discuss....old wells suddenly fill again and they always will. The left is terrified of oil because they can't control drilling on private property, which is where all our fracking is done thanks to Obozo. Hilarious he claims credit for increased domestic production when he's done everything in his power to stop it. I proved yesterday the left doesn't care if it's solar farms FRY over a million birds a year or it's wind farms are killing thousands of hawks and eagles. The best example of hypocrisy on wind is Bobby Kennedy Jr. being furious that somebody wanted to put wind turbines near his home and view...that and microwave towers are for fly-over country and us peons to live around. Bottom line? The left elite aren't leftists in the least...just well-connected scam artists who use the laws they create instead of talent to become wealthy.
Solar freaking roadways proves it all really.
People who know nothing about technology are obsessed about these "innovations".
Innovations are what brought us gas powered automobiles. Everything has a price - why do you automatically reject if it happens to be green?
No, I don't reject something because it's green. I reject it, because it's pseudoscience.
Solyndra is perfect example too... but hey it's green so it MUST work! Cause... regressive... liberal...
It seems like you reject green energy out of pocket - yes? No? Do you see a legitimate role for it in our energy wardrobe?
The left's obsession with solar is about the crony capitalism that we saw with Solyndra...half a BILLIOLN dollars and the panels ended up smashed to pieces in dumpsters....that's a lot of GREEN lost on criminal enterprises. As to "fossil fuels" there's no such thing...no dinosaur bones or plant material have ever been discovered at the depths we're at to drill oil. Oil and NG are abiotic resources that are constantly replenished from the Earth's core. The left's ridiculous "peak oil" has been disproved so many times it's idiotic to even discuss....old wells suddenly fill again and they always will. The left is terrified of oil because they can't control drilling on private property, which is where all our fracking is done thanks to Obozo. Hilarious he claims credit for increased domestic production when he's done everything in his power to stop it. I proved yesterday the left doesn't care if it's solar farms FRY over a million birds a year or it's wind farms are killing thousands of hawks and eagles. The best example of hypocrisy on wind is Bobby Kennedy Jr. being furious that somebody wanted to put wind turbines near his home and view...that and microwave towers are for fly-over country and us peons to live around. Bottom line? The left elite aren't leftists in the least...just well-connected scam artists who use the laws they create instead of talent to become wealthy.
Solar freaking roadways proves it all really.
People who know nothing about technology are obsessed about these "innovations".
Innovations are what brought us gas powered automobiles. Everything has a price - why do you automatically reject if it happens to be green?
No, I don't reject something because it's green. I reject it, because it's pseudoscience.
Solyndra is perfect example too... but hey it's green so it MUST work! Cause... regressive... liberal...
It seems like you reject green energy out of pocket - yes? No? Do you see a legitimate role for it in our energy wardrobe?
No I don't. I also don't think politicians should invest into something because it says green in it.
Hillary certainly is completely clueless and would fund solar roadways untill the dawn.
Innovations are what brought us gas powered automobiles. Everything has a price - why do you automatically reject if it happens to be green?
You know...those things that define a candidates position and persuade us to vote for one or the other...
We seem to have forgotten about them in pages of nonsense, tripe, gutter-mongering and knee-jerk defenses of the indefensible. We seem incapable of moving on.
Are we voting for the least loathsome based on media-determined moral character? Who cares really? Donald Trump IS a mysoganist. Deal with it. Bill Clinton is NOT running for office. Get over it. Hillary has some serious ethics issues. We get it.
Who's best for office based on issues, experience and temperment?
It's tough to pin The Donald down on issues because he's so distractable.
So...here are the candidates on the issues that are important to ME.
Sources
Donald Trump on the Issues
Hillary Clinton on the Issues
Abortion: I support a woman's right to choose with some restrictions (in the third trimester, it should be restricted but never fully illegal). I strongly support access to contraception, quality sex education, and emergency "morning after" pills.
Trump:
Planned Parenthood does a lot of good work for women far beyond access to abortion. So, defunding it (particularly given the right wants to continue funding religiously-based pregnancy centers) is a no-go for me.
- Millions are helped by Planned Parenthood, but defund it. (Feb 2016)
- Planned Parenthood does great work on women's health. (Feb 2016)
- Defund Planned Parenthood. (Oct 2015)
- Planned Parenthood is important, but abortions must stop. (Aug 2015)
On this, he's all over the board...what IS his position? I suspect his personal position is in conflict with the party position. This will likely be more troubling to evangelical voters. Unfortunately all we have to go on with Trump is his words. Hillary offers a lengthy public service record.
- I have evolved on abortion issue, like Reagan evolved. (Aug 2015)
- Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015)
- Undecided on embryonic stem cell research. (Apr 2011)
- I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011)
- I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories. (Apr 2011)
- I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding. (Feb 2011)
- Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion. (Jul 2000)
- Favors abortion rights but respects opposition. (Dec 1999)
Clinton
Clinton's positions on abortion and contraception mirror my own and have been consistent.
- It's big government to intervene on woman's right to choose. (Oct 2015)
- Make abortion rare by supporting adoption & foster care. (Apr 2008)
- Potential for life begins at conception, but don’t intrude. (Apr 2008)
- Opposed China’s forced abortion & Romania’s forced pregnancy. (Apr 2008)
- Long-held moderate stance focuses on reducing abortions. (Mar 2008)
- Government should have no role in abortion decision. (Oct 2005)
- We can find common ground on abortion issue. (Sep 2005)
- Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk. (Oct 2000)
- Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. (Jan 1999)
- Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems. (Jan 1999)
Contraception
Voting Record
- Hobby Lobby decision is slippery slope against women. (Jun 2014)
- 1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion. (Jul 2007)
- Fought for years to get “Plan B” contraceptive on the market. (Dec 2006)
- Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception. (Oct 2006)
- Advocates birth control but OK with faith-based disagreement. (Nov 2003)
- Supports parental notice & family planning. (Feb 1997)
- Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus. (Oct 2005)
- Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
- Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
- Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
- Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
- Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
- Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims. (Sep 2006)
- Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
- Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
- Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)
On this issue, which is pretty important to me as a woman - Clinton's record speaks for itself.
