Issues

[Kosh]

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:

• 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)

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.

• 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)

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.

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

• 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)

Voting Record

• 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!

Don't be so childish Kosh. There is no burden on me to prove anything about the site I sourced. Generally - the burden is on the person making the claim that something is blah blah blah. That would be you.

Either way - feel free to add your own sites on various positions on the issue - no need for just mine.

Sorry proving your propaganda wrong is does not make a discussion, if you think that then you should step down as a mod on this site.

Yes that is the far left drone mentality on this board, post known propaganda and expect others to prove you wrong!

You need to prove that these are the stances of these two candidates, especially Trump since doe snot have a voting record.

This is a failed far left thread started by a far left drone that should not be a mod..

Just admit you do not understand what a discussion/debate is and then we can move on..

 

[Coyote]

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. W

Do not call that dude to the board. Don't jinx us.

Then there is Trump on energy: Take the oil!

"I’ve always said -- shouldn’t be there, but if we’re going to get out, take the oil," Trump told moderator Matt Lauer at NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, 2016. "If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn’t have ISIS, because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil."


When Lauer pressed Trump on how he would have accomplished this, Trump said the United States would have to "leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil. … You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: Take the oil."​

Like Libya? Clinton Discussed Lack Of Institutions In Libya After Gaddafi’s Fall. “Now, you know, in Libya, the United Nations voted how to protect civilians. And the coalition that was put together was unprecedented. It was NATO plus the Arab League. That had never happened before. The over flights, the boat, air, sea and land efforts included Arab nations as well as Europeans, Canadians and Americans. Khadafy was told but then, you know, the lid was taken off. You have a country that had been under the thumb of Khadafy and his henchmen for 42 years. All institutions were destroyed. There was not even a military because he didn't trust anybody since he had been a Colonel who had done a coup, so he had mercenaries, there were African mercenaries and some European mercenaries that were in his direct pay. They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.” [Clinton Remarks At Boston Consulting Group, 6/20/13]

Not sure what your point is with this? What she says is right - applies to Iraq as well.

The point is that there is no difference between what he is saying and what the actions of the US, and specifically with HIllary, have been. It is take the oil.

I don't see where she said to take the oil.

Coyote......that's what it was about. She said, "They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.”

The problem was it actually was personally theirs.

I'm missing the implication Disir - Trump said we should have taken the Iraqi oil...I don't see that in what Clinton said. What I'm getting from her statement is she feels it belongs to the Libyan people, not the leaders but she's not saying we should have just taken it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Inheritance talks doesn't bother me. The vast majority of estates - like 99.9% pay no inheritance tax. For those that do - you're still looking at a sizeable inheritance even after the tax. It only applies to estates exceeding 5.3 million - we aren't talking small business' and family farms. It's not money your children EARNED, it's money they inherited.

Doesn't bother me at all.

Okay, it's not money children earned, but it's not money government earned either. In fact, they got a lions share of that wealth while it was being made. And since that money was made by a person, who paid government their share all along, shouldn't he or she be the one that decides what to do with their taxed money when they die?

 

[Kosh]

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:

• 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)

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.

• 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)

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.

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

• 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)

Voting Record

• 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.

Thank you for a thoughtful and thought provoking post.

See another far left drone agreeing with the far left drone OP..

Proves you posted propaganda that you want others to prove you wrong on!

 

[Coyote]

Why don't you? People were skeptical of gas powered cars at one time. I think it behooves us to invest in it and see if it plays out - if we don't, we'll never know. Solar works quite well in some areas as does wind. There is also geothermal - which powers Iceland. I see what you say that just because it's green doesn't mean we should invest in it - but likewise, just because it's green doesn't mean we should REJECT it.

Solar roadways are pretty out there, I'll agree. But, speaking as an old science fiction buff, there's a lot of stuff happening I never would have believed possible in real life

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. Why not? Nothing to lose here! It's not my money!

Or how about NO! How about investing only into something that actually is worthwhile. It's clear that you are clueless. This is why the matters are better left to businessmen, because they don't want to invest into bullshit, and if they do, they lose it all. Which politician lost anything after the Solyndra catastrophe?

I disagree. Business do not like to take big risks and support research and development. They wait until something is fairly proven, and that is where the government has a role. One good example is the space industry. R&D was almost exclusively funded by the government - not the private sector. From satellites to rockets to manned flights. A lot of spinoffs were subsequently picked up and developed by the private sector, but it's only been recently that the government substantially stepped back (ending the shuttles) and let the private sector take it on because at this point it becomes economically feasible for them to take that risk.

Bunch of nonsense again. Businessmen take plenty of risks, it's called venture capital.

Of course they take risks - but not substantial risks. Why should they? They have an obligation to their shareholders. Speaking of which perhaps you can provide me with a list of privately funded R&D into space travel? I suspect it's pretty scanty.

Speaking of that, was the risk with solyndra worth it? Perhaps by risk you mean financing bullshit.[/quoe]

Sure. Nothing is ever guaranteed 100%, but you guys keep popping up Solyndra as it it means it should never be supported.

So you want the government to take in bunch of tax payer money, and take "substantial risks" with it.

Sounds like a BRILLIANT plan! Turn the US government into a taxpayer funded casino!

No wonder the bubbles and crashes keep happening.

If they hadn't - then how much development would not have happened? Space travel? Is it worth it? I think so - I think the risks ultimately paid off, directly and indirectly through a lot of spin off technologies and military improvements as well.

 

[Norman]

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. Why not? Nothing to lose here! It's not my money!

Or how about NO! How about investing only into something that actually is worthwhile. It's clear that you are clueless. This is why the matters are better left to businessmen, because they don't want to invest into bullshit, and if they do, they lose it all. Which politician lost anything after the Solyndra catastrophe?

I disagree. Business do not like to take big risks and support research and development. They wait until something is fairly proven, and that is where the government has a role. One good example is the space industry. R&D was almost exclusively funded by the government - not the private sector. From satellites to rockets to manned flights. A lot of spinoffs were subsequently picked up and developed by the private sector, but it's only been recently that the government substantially stepped back (ending the shuttles) and let the private sector take it on because at this point it becomes economically feasible for them to take that risk.

Bunch of nonsense again. Businessmen take plenty of risks, it's called venture capital.

Of course they take risks - but not substantial risks. Why should they? They have an obligation to their shareholders. Speaking of which perhaps you can provide me with a list of privately funded R&D into space travel? I suspect it's pretty scanty.

Speaking of that, was the risk with solyndra worth it? Perhaps by risk you mean financing bullshit.[/quoe]

Sure. Nothing is ever guaranteed 100%, but you guys keep popping up Solyndra as it it means it should never be supported.

So you want the government to take in bunch of tax payer money, and take "substantial risks" with it.

Sounds like a BRILLIANT plan! Turn the US government into a taxpayer funded casino!

No wonder the bubbles and crashes keep happening.

If they hadn't - then how much development would not have happened? Space travel? Is it worth it? I think so - I think the risks ultimately paid off, directly and indirectly through a lot of spin off technologies and military improvements as well.

Well that's cool that you think so... however if you think this constitutes some kind of proof or anything more than a poorly crafted opinion - you are completely mistaken.

It was capitalist USA who won the space war, not the centrally planned soviet union.

 

[Coyote]

Inheritance talks doesn't bother me. The vast majority of estates - like 99.9% pay no inheritance tax. For those that do - you're still looking at a sizeable inheritance even after the tax. It only applies to estates exceeding 5.3 million - we aren't talking small business' and family farms. It's not money your children EARNED, it's money they inherited.

Doesn't bother me at all.

Okay, it's not money children earned, but it's not money government earned either. In fact, they got a lions share of that wealth while it was being made. And since that money was made by a person, who paid government their share all along, shouldn't he or she be the one that decides what to do with their taxed money when they die?

Most of those large estates consists of income realized from capital gains that were never taxed in the first place. No government share was paid to begin with.

It's not "fair" per se, but a lot of things aren't and we're told to suck it up. For example - I pay more taxes than a person like Trump, despite the fact I earn a fraction of what he does.

The estate tax doesn't leave anyone impoverished or even close to it, effects very few people and helps fund needed services.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree. Business do not like to take big risks and support research and development. They wait until something is fairly proven, and that is where the government has a role. One good example is the space industry. R&D was almost exclusively funded by the government - not the private sector. From satellites to rockets to manned flights. A lot of spinoffs were subsequently picked up and developed by the private sector, but it's only been recently that the government substantially stepped back (ending the shuttles) and let the private sector take it on because at this point it becomes economically feasible for them to take that risk.

Bunch of nonsense again. Businessmen take plenty of risks, it's called venture capital.

Of course they take risks - but not substantial risks. Why should they? They have an obligation to their shareholders. Speaking of which perhaps you can provide me with a list of privately funded R&D into space travel? I suspect it's pretty scanty.

Speaking of that, was the risk with solyndra worth it? Perhaps by risk you mean financing bullshit.[/quoe]

Sure. Nothing is ever guaranteed 100%, but you guys keep popping up Solyndra as it it means it should never be supported.

So you want the government to take in bunch of tax payer money, and take "substantial risks" with it.

Sounds like a BRILLIANT plan! Turn the US government into a taxpayer funded casino!

No wonder the bubbles and crashes keep happening.

If they hadn't - then how much development would not have happened? Space travel? Is it worth it? I think so - I think the risks ultimately paid off, directly and indirectly through a lot of spin off technologies and military improvements as well.

Well that's cool that you think so... however if you think this constitutes some kind of proof or anything more than a poorly crafted opinion - you are completely mistaken.

It was capitalist USA who won the space war, not the centrally planned soviet union.

Nice bumpersticker logic there.

So where is all this privately funded R&D into space travel?

 

[Norman]

Inheritance talks doesn't bother me. The vast majority of estates - like 99.9% pay no inheritance tax. For those that do - you're still looking at a sizeable inheritance even after the tax. It only applies to estates exceeding 5.3 million - we aren't talking small business' and family farms. It's not money your children EARNED, it's money they inherited.

Doesn't bother me at all.

Okay, it's not money children earned, but it's not money government earned either. In fact, they got a lions share of that wealth while it was being made. And since that money was made by a person, who paid government their share all along, shouldn't he or she be the one that decides what to do with their taxed money when they die?

Most of those large estates consists of income realized from capital gains that were never taxed in the first place. No government share was paid to begin with.

It's not "fair" per se, but a lot of things aren't and we're told to suck it up. For example - I pay more taxes than a person like Trump, despite the fact I earn a fraction of what he does.

The estate tax doesn't leave anyone impoverished or even close to it, effects very few people and helps fund needed services.

More poorly crafted non-factual opinions.

I think I am starting to understand the Anti-Trump Clinton voters now... Feelz before reals.

You don't pay more taxes than Trump FFS...

 

[Disir]

Do not call that dude to the board. Don't jinx us.
Like Libya? Clinton Discussed Lack Of Institutions In Libya After Gaddafi’s Fall. “Now, you know, in Libya, the United Nations voted how to protect civilians. And the coalition that was put together was unprecedented. It was NATO plus the Arab League. That had never happened before. The over flights, the boat, air, sea and land efforts included Arab nations as well as Europeans, Canadians and Americans. Khadafy was told but then, you know, the lid was taken off. You have a country that had been under the thumb of Khadafy and his henchmen for 42 years. All institutions were destroyed. There was not even a military because he didn't trust anybody since he had been a Colonel who had done a coup, so he had mercenaries, there were African mercenaries and some European mercenaries that were in his direct pay. They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.” [Clinton Remarks At Boston Consulting Group, 6/20/13]

Not sure what your point is with this? What she says is right - applies to Iraq as well.

The point is that there is no difference between what he is saying and what the actions of the US, and specifically with HIllary, have been. It is take the oil.

I don't see where she said to take the oil.

Coyote......that's what it was about. She said, "They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.”

The problem was it actually was personally theirs.

I'm missing the implication Disir - Trump said we should have taken the Iraqi oil...I don't see that in what Clinton said. What I'm getting from her statement is she feels it belongs to the Libyan people, not the leaders but she's not saying we should have just taken it.

And we did take the oil. Just like Libya---it had nothing to do with it belonging to the people. It did, in fact, belong to the "leaders."

 

[Norman]

I think I am starting to understand the Clinton voters now... Feelz before reals.

Bunch of nonsense again. Businessmen take plenty of risks, it's called venture capital.

Of course they take risks - but not substantial risks. Why should they? They have an obligation to their shareholders. Speaking of which perhaps you can provide me with a list of privately funded R&D into space travel? I suspect it's pretty scanty.

Speaking of that, was the risk with solyndra worth it? Perhaps by risk you mean financing bullshit.[/quoe]

Sure. Nothing is ever guaranteed 100%, but you guys keep popping up Solyndra as it it means it should never be supported.

So you want the government to take in bunch of tax payer money, and take "substantial risks" with it.

Sounds like a BRILLIANT plan! Turn the US government into a taxpayer funded casino!

No wonder the bubbles and crashes keep happening.

If they hadn't - then how much development would not have happened? Space travel? Is it worth it? I think so - I think the risks ultimately paid off, directly and indirectly through a lot of spin off technologies and military improvements as well.

Well that's cool that you think so... however if you think this constitutes some kind of proof or anything more than a poorly crafted opinion - you are completely mistaken.

It was capitalist USA who won the space war, not the centrally planned soviet union.

Nice bumpersticker logic there.

So where is all this privately funded R&D into space travel?

Plenty of private companies are into this.


And so what if they weren't. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps using huge amount of funds to explore space may not be worth it? Oh, of course not, got to do it because you want to!

If you want something, fund it yourself. Don't force other people to fund your "substantial risk taking".

 

[LoneLaugher]

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:

• 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)

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.

• 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)

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.

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

• 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)

Voting Record

• 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.

I look at it this way and that is if you vote for either Trump or Clinton then you are picking the two worst choices out there.

I would vote for Jill Stein before voting for Clinton if Johnson was not running. Also as you try to paint your candidate as the better choice the reality she was not a great First Lady, Senator nor Secretary of State and hell John Kerry has been better than her when it come to Senator and Secretary of State.

So the choice is simple and if you can not stomach either Trump or Clinton then vote for Stein or Johnson, and before you comment on Johnson brain farts, well at least he does not chase pussy nor does he pretend he is perfect like the top two candidates!

Funny. No talk of issues there.

 

[Coyote]

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:

• 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)

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.

• 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)

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.

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

• 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)

Voting Record

• 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!

Don't be so childish Kosh. There is no burden on me to prove anything about the site I sourced. Generally - the burden is on the person making the claim that something is blah blah blah. That would be you.

Either way - feel free to add your own sites on various positions on the issue - no need for just mine.

Sorry proving your propaganda wrong is does not make a discussion, if you think that then you should step down as a mod on this site.

You haven't proved anything. Please feel free to supply sources if you think mine are biased. No one is stopping you.

I think I've already said this 3 times...but what the hell...

Yes that is the far left drone mentality on this board, post known propaganda and expect others to prove you wrong!

Kind of how it usually works but...here goes. Again. You don't seem to be able to actually discuss the issues, instead, you keep complaining about the source while steadfastly refusing to provide any of your own. Ok...what about the source Kosh?

From Wiki: On the Issues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the Issues or OnTheIssues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site.[1] The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.[2]


The owner and CEO of On the Issues is Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg. The editor-in-chief and content manager is Jesse Gordon. The organization is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Missoula, Montana.[3]


The organization's stated mission is to help voters pick candidates "based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity." They obtain their information from newspapers, speeches, press releases, book excerpts, House and Senate voting records, Congressional bill sponsorships, political affiliations and ratings, and campaign websites from the Internet.[3]​

There were no particular controversies noted with the sight either on wiki or a general search.

You need to prove that these are the stances of these two candidates, especially Trump since doe snot have a voting record.

I don't really need to prove anything. If you actually looked at the links (which you clearly didn't) - you will see each candidate has a list of quotes, stated positions and votes (if there is a record) on an issue. In addition you can link to the complete quote in context. You can then draw your own conclusions.

OBVIOUSLY (duh) - we can only go on Trumps quotes to try to determine his position, which is what we are doing since he has no voting or public record.

IF you think those stances are incorrect - then it's up to YOU to dispute them. Can you? What's incorrect? What evidence do you base this on? Provide something besides roboresponses Kosh.

This is a failed far left thread started by a far left drone that should not be a mod..

Just admit you do not understand what a discussion/debate is and then we can move on..

If you have an issue with moderation Kosh, you know where to take it. In the meantime, let's see if you can expand on this discussion with your views on the issues - not on me? Are you up to the challenge kiddo?

 

[Coyote]

I think I am starting to understand the Clinton voters now... Feelz before reals.

Of course they take risks - but not substantial risks. Why should they? They have an obligation to their shareholders. Speaking of which perhaps you can provide me with a list of privately funded R&D into space travel? I suspect it's pretty scanty.

So you want the government to take in bunch of tax payer money, and take "substantial risks" with it.

Sounds like a BRILLIANT plan! Turn the US government into a taxpayer funded casino!

No wonder the bubbles and crashes keep happening.

If they hadn't - then how much development would not have happened? Space travel? Is it worth it? I think so - I think the risks ultimately paid off, directly and indirectly through a lot of spin off technologies and military improvements as well.

Well that's cool that you think so... however if you think this constitutes some kind of proof or anything more than a poorly crafted opinion - you are completely mistaken.

It was capitalist USA who won the space war, not the centrally planned soviet union.

Nice bumpersticker logic there.

So where is all this privately funded R&D into space travel?

Plenty of private companies are into this.


And so what if they weren't. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps using huge amount of funds to explore space may not be worth it? Oh, of course not, got to do it because you want to!

If you want something, fund it yourself. Don't force other people to fund your "substantial risk taking".

What "plenty of private companies" have funded research and development in space exploration?

That's not talking about companies that have jumped in once most of the R&D has been done and the risk becomes economically feasible.

 

[Coyote]

Inheritance talks doesn't bother me. The vast majority of estates - like 99.9% pay no inheritance tax. For those that do - you're still looking at a sizeable inheritance even after the tax. It only applies to estates exceeding 5.3 million - we aren't talking small business' and family farms. It's not money your children EARNED, it's money they inherited.

Doesn't bother me at all.

Okay, it's not money children earned, but it's not money government earned either. In fact, they got a lions share of that wealth while it was being made. And since that money was made by a person, who paid government their share all along, shouldn't he or she be the one that decides what to do with their taxed money when they die?

Most of those large estates consists of income realized from capital gains that were never taxed in the first place. No government share was paid to begin with.

It's not "fair" per se, but a lot of things aren't and we're told to suck it up. For example - I pay more taxes than a person like Trump, despite the fact I earn a fraction of what he does.

The estate tax doesn't leave anyone impoverished or even close to it, effects very few people and helps fund needed services.

More poorly crafted non-factual opinions.

I think I am starting to understand the Anti-Trump Clinton voters now... Feelz before reals.

You don't pay more taxes than Trump FFS...

Non factual? Really? Can you prove it?

 

[Norman]

I think I am starting to understand the Clinton voters now... Feelz before reals.

So you want the government to take in bunch of tax payer money, and take "substantial risks" with it.

Sounds like a BRILLIANT plan! Turn the US government into a taxpayer funded casino!

No wonder the bubbles and crashes keep happening.

If they hadn't - then how much development would not have happened? Space travel? Is it worth it? I think so - I think the risks ultimately paid off, directly and indirectly through a lot of spin off technologies and military improvements as well.

Well that's cool that you think so... however if you think this constitutes some kind of proof or anything more than a poorly crafted opinion - you are completely mistaken.

It was capitalist USA who won the space war, not the centrally planned soviet union.

Nice bumpersticker logic there.

So where is all this privately funded R&D into space travel?

Plenty of private companies are into this.


And so what if they weren't. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps using huge amount of funds to explore space may not be worth it? Oh, of course not, got to do it because you want to!

If you want something, fund it yourself. Don't force other people to fund your "substantial risk taking".

What "plenty of private companies" have funded research and development in space exploration?

That's not talking about companies that have jumped in once most of the R&D has been done and the risk becomes economically feasible.

Okay, if you admit outright that the risk is not economically feasible, then it should not be taken. It's painful how you can't see this.

But sure, the fed gov should act like a god damn casino! And people better pay for their crazy ideas, or prison.

Here is the list of private companies:

List of private spaceflight companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You reek to me of someone who has no clue about anything. But hey the idea of space flight is nice, of course the govt should fund it!

 

[Coyote]

I think I am starting to understand the Clinton voters now... Feelz before reals.

If they hadn't - then how much development would not have happened? Space travel? Is it worth it? I think so - I think the risks ultimately paid off, directly and indirectly through a lot of spin off technologies and military improvements as well.

Well that's cool that you think so... however if you think this constitutes some kind of proof or anything more than a poorly crafted opinion - you are completely mistaken.

It was capitalist USA who won the space war, not the centrally planned soviet union.

Nice bumpersticker logic there.

So where is all this privately funded R&D into space travel?

Plenty of private companies are into this.


And so what if they weren't. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps using huge amount of funds to explore space may not be worth it? Oh, of course not, got to do it because you want to!

If you want something, fund it yourself. Don't force other people to fund your "substantial risk taking".

What "plenty of private companies" have funded research and development in space exploration?

That's not talking about companies that have jumped in once most of the R&D has been done and the risk becomes economically feasible.

Okay, if you admit outright that the risk is not economically feasible, then it should not be taken. It's painful how you can't see this.

What are you actually trying to say? Throughout this discussion you've said plenty of private business' take these economically unfeasible risks (I think you called it "venture capital") then you turn around and say those risks should not be taken if it's not economically feasible.

Private entities won't take those risks. Governments can - typically because it's tied in with national security or some other governmental role as space travel was.

If you never take the risks associated with R&D, then you won't achieve much. We would not have had space travel, and the associated spinoffs. So we shouldn't have taken the risk?

And where are all these private companies that invested in space r&d? You keep avoiding that.

But sure, the fed gov should act like a god damn casino! And people better pay for their crazy ideas, or prison.

So, if the federal government never did so...what would we have lost in technological advances then?

 

[Coyote]

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:

• 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)

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.

• 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)

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.

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

• 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)

Voting Record

• 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.

I look at it this way and that is if you vote for either Trump or Clinton then you are picking the two worst choices out there.

I would vote for Jill Stein before voting for Clinton if Johnson was not running. Also as you try to paint your candidate as the better choice the reality she was not a great First Lady, Senator nor Secretary of State and hell John Kerry has been better than her when it come to Senator and Secretary of State.

So the choice is simple and if you can not stomach either Trump or Clinton then vote for Stein or Johnson, and before you comment on Johnson brain farts, well at least he does not chase pussy nor does he pretend he is perfect like the top two candidates!

I'm going to add Stein and Johnson on the issues. On a personal level I like Johnson. I also really liked Bernie - a lot of inegrity there that both major candidates lack. Not sure about Stein because I haven't looked closely yet.

 

[Norman]

I think I am starting to understand the Clinton voters now... Feelz before reals.

Well that's cool that you think so... however if you think this constitutes some kind of proof or anything more than a poorly crafted opinion - you are completely mistaken.

It was capitalist USA who won the space war, not the centrally planned soviet union.

Nice bumpersticker logic there.

So where is all this privately funded R&D into space travel?

Plenty of private companies are into this.


And so what if they weren't. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps using huge amount of funds to explore space may not be worth it? Oh, of course not, got to do it because you want to!

If you want something, fund it yourself. Don't force other people to fund your "substantial risk taking".

What "plenty of private companies" have funded research and development in space exploration?

That's not talking about companies that have jumped in once most of the R&D has been done and the risk becomes economically feasible.

Okay, if you admit outright that the risk is not economically feasible, then it should not be taken. It's painful how you can't see this.

What are you actually trying to say? Throughout this discussion you've said plenty of private business' take these economically unfeasible risks (I think you called it "venture capital") then you turn around and say those risks should not be taken if it's not economically feasible.

Private entities won't take those risks. Governments can - typically because it's tied in with national security or some other governmental role as space travel was.

If you never take the risks associated with R&D, then you won't achieve much. We would not have had space travel, and the associated spinoffs. So we shouldn't have taken the risk?

And where are all these private companies that invested in space r&d? You keep avoiding that.

But sure, the fed gov should act like a god damn casino! And people better pay for their crazy ideas, or prison.

So, if the federal government never did so...what would we have lost in technological advances then?

I don't think economically unfeasible risks should be taken, that follows right from the definition... that's not the same as high risks. Federal government's business is not to be some risk taker and sacrifice tax payer money down the hole.

There is no proof at all that there wouldn't be space travel and blablablabla....

Let's be honest for a second, you want other people to fund the things you find fascinating. That's all that is going on. I am here to tell, use your own money, thanks!

 

[Old Rocks]

Another important issue for me is Environment.

Trump

• 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

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.

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.

I see. And what of the billions of old lead acid batteries sitting around? You mean that there are not billions of lead acid batteries sitting around? That they have been recycled into new batteries? And what is keeping us from doing that with lithium batteries? Non-issue.

Yes, the spent rod pools in our nuke sites that contain up to five times that amount of rods they were designed for are a real problem. We should use the French method of vitrifying the radioactive waste. That would make the storage at the Yucca site a much safer proposition. But it would also substancialy add to the cost of the electricity from the nuke plants. Then you have Hanford. Lordy, lordy.