ABQCOWBOY Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I agree with you. Except I think you have to take Christie and Cruz seriously, and probably Paul too. Paul won't win the nomination, but he can serve the role of the GoP's populist moral compass. I think Carson has kind of been in that spot so far, but I expect him to get run out of the race pretty soon after he gets any sort of national exposure of what a nonsensical candidate he actually is. Cruz you have to take seriously because of his fundraising. He has TONS of money. That makes him a legitimate contender for the nomination, even if he is utterly unelectable as far as the general goes. Christie is an interesting case. He's definitely lost a lot of his shine because of Bridgegate. That was ugly and exposed him as a bully. He has serious image issues. But he would be a substantive choice for the nomination. He'd have a real chance in the general election, which is more than you can say about most of the other nominees. I don't know about Christie. If you look at his own party numbers, they suggest that he has no chance. The percentage, in his own party, that say they would not vote for him is overwhelming. A full 55%of Repuclicans, according to the latest NBC/WS poll, say they would not vote for Christie. At this point, unless something dramatic happens, I don't see him coming close to getting a nomination from the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I think Bush is in good shape here. 75% of Republicans say that they could see themselves voting for Bush. Once the GOP sorts itself out and it gets down to the actual nominations, if he is the nomination, his numbers will improve IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Who planned to defund Planned Parenthood? Joni Erst, Ted Cruz, John Thune, Rand Paul and their allies in the Senate. It failed to get the 60 votes needed. Now they (and their allies in the House) are talking about possibly attaching that issue to the actual budget. Both Paul and Cruz submitted amendments to the recently passed Transportation bill (before it was passed) that tried to defund Planned Parenthood. The Senate majority leader wisely shot them down. The entire issue is DOA with the majority of voters, I would suspect. Shutting down (or potentially shutting down) the federal government over these issues historically doesn't seem to work for the GOP. And yet, they keep on doing it (or threatening to do it) and hurting themselves at the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I would bet that every person who phones, gets their caller ID logged, and signed up for telemarketing, for donations. This is what happens here in NM. If you send an e-mail to Senator Udall, what you get back is tons of Spam puffing the Democratic Party and his campaign. Would not be surprised at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 More from the link. Interesting how the writer buries this tidbit in a mountain of text: "Bernie Samders (+5)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Joni Erst, Ted Cruz, John Thune, Rand Paul and their allies in the Senate. It failed to get the 60 votes needed. Now they (and their allies in the House) are talking about possibly attaching that issue to the actual budget. Both Paul and Cruz submitted amendments to the recently passed Transportation bill (before it was passed) that tried to defund Planned Parenthood. The Senate majority leader wisely shot them down. The entire issue is DOA with the majority of voters, I would suspect. Shutting down (or potentially shutting down) the federal government over these issues doesn't seem to work for the GOP. And yet, they keep on doing it (or threatening to do it). That is not what Joni Ernst's Bill advocated. Did you read the Bill? You are aware that the Senate Highway Funding Bill had the Export/Import Banking legislation tacked on to it right? The 2012 Transportation Bill, the shovel ready Bill, had a ryder on it creating Tax Shelter built in for Roll Your Own smoke shops. Really? Incidentally, I would not pass that bill either. I would not pass it until this Administration showed where the 100 Billion went for Shovel Ready Projects. Follow that money trail and you will see that it went in pockets all over and didn't do much for "Shovel Ready Projects". Both sides will say that this is how you make the sausage. I don't neccessarily go along with that but what I am trying to say is both sides do this stuff. It's crazy to get up in arms over one side if you aren't going to hold the line for both sides of the isle. Incidentaly, what is the difference between DOA and the President threatening to Veto and Budget that doesn't support Amnesty? Read what Ernst is actually calling for in her Bill. She is not trying to close down Planned Parenthood. She is trying to stop funding of Planned Parenthood Abortion Practices, which is probably the best thing that could happen for Planned Parenthood, to be honest. If the numbers on Planned Parenthood are accurate, the majority of their business is outside of this practice. There are plenty of facilities that can support Abortion Practices so why not just walk away from that issue? If Planned Parenhood did this, there would be no credible argument for the GOP to take up against Planned Parenthood and funding would continue. Honestly, if all is as reported from Planned Parenthood, why wouldn't you just walk away from that? That would be the best solution for them IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I will say this. Transportation funding is convoluted. That said, if you want to see where that ARRA money has gone - just go here. http://www.recovery.gov/arra/Pages/default.aspx There is plenty of info to digest when it comes to funding Transportation. God knows I have the past 16 years (of being a Transportation Planner). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 There are plenty of facilities that can support Abortion Practices so why not just walk away from that issue? If Planned Parenhood did this, there would be no credible argument for the GOP to take up against Planned Parenthood and funding would continue. Honestly, if all is as reported from Planned Parenthood, why wouldn't you just walk away from that? That would be the best solution for them IMO. People who support women having access to safe abortions are not going to stand by and let the GOP slowly but surely make it impossible to get an abortion anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 People who support women having access to safe abortions are not going to stand by and let the GOP slowly but surely make it impossible to get an abortion anywhere. I'd like to believe that, but there are 4 states (Mississippi, ND, SD, and Wyoming) that only have 1 abortion clinic in them. And other states are quickly adopting more and more restrictions to further shutter access. The idea that without PP people can still find easy access to abortion clinics is comical (to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I'd like to believe that, but there are 4 states (Mississippi, ND, SD, and Wyoming) that only have 1 abortion clinic in them. And other states are quickly adopting more and more restrictions to further shutter access. The idea that without PP people can still find easy access to abortion clinics is comical (to me). If people thought that PP cancelling providing abortions wouldn't restrict access to abortions, they wouldn't be trying to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Read what Ernst is actually calling for in her Bill. She is not trying to close down Planned Parenthood. She is trying to stop funding of Planned Parenthood Abortion Practices, which is probably the best thing that could happen for Planned Parenthood, to be honest. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures? A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law. FULL ANSWER We received several questions on this topic during the recent budget debate in Congress, after Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl claimed this month on the Senate floor that "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does" is provide abortion services. That figure was wildly incorrect. Planned Parenthood says only 3 percent of its total services in 2009 were abortions. The other 97 percent of services were for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services. Here’s a chart from a March 2011 fact sheet, which reported that the group performed about 11.4 million total services. So, I guess my question is. What exactly are they wanting to cut funding for if PP legally can't/shouldn't be using it for abortions already? Why do we need new rules/laws for something that is already on the books (sound familiar?). I guess if you can provide they are using that funding for abortions, then yeah. Shut them down. Prepare to lose the WH for another 8+, but shut them down. I agree with Kilmer on this. Its such a loser of an issue on a national level for the GOP. They go heavy on it next summer and fall. Goodbye, Virginia, Goodbye, Pennsylvania, Goodbye Ohio, Goodbye Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Granted, I'm making assumptions, here. I'm assuming that what everybody is saying is true, and trying to come up with an explanation that makes what everybody is saying, true. I assume that what the proposal would have done, would be to say that if a particular PP location offers abortions, that that location cannot receive federal funding for, say, cancer screening. At least, I think that's what he's saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Poking the hornets nest on women's issues, right before a national presidential election where the likely Democratic nominee is a woman, seems so absurdly stupid I guess we should have figured the GOP would do it. Waiting for Donald Trump to secure the nomination by calling for a nationwide public breastfeeding/pumping ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Granted, I'm making assumptions, here. I'm assuming that what everybody is saying is true, and trying to come up with an explanation that makes what everybody is saying, true. I assume that what the proposal would have done, would be to say that if a particular PP location offers abortions, that that location cannot receive federal funding for, say, cancer screening. At least, I think that's what he's saying. If that's the case, I don't know. Will be interesting to hear it pitched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/donald-trump-government-shutdown-planned-parenthood/index.html Trump: I would shut down government over Planned Parenthood Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Monday he believes Republicans should shut down the government rather than fund Planned Parenthood, the health services group that is facing scrutiny after undercover videos of its officials emerged. Trump said Monday on conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt's show that the videos, which feature Planned Parenthood officials apparently discussing the sale of fetal tissue and organs for medical research, are "disgraceful." At the time of the interview, Trump said he was unclear where the Senate stood on an upcoming vote Monday to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding. "I'm in my office in New York and I guess as we speak they are going for a vote of some kind," Trump said. "Is the word that they won't get that vote?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 The 1% don't care what the tax policy is, they always avoid it themselves. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/08/04/while-hillary-clinton-wants-death-tax-on-middle-class-she-evades-it-herself-n2034382 Newly released tax returns from Hillary Clinton, disclosed in a Friday evening news dump last week, suggest she has been using a Death Tax avoidance strategy. Through the creation of a trust account, the Clintons appear to be engaging in legal but hypocritical measures to avoid paying the Death Tax Hillary Clinton has spent a career defending.Clinton has consistently voted for the Death Tax throughout her time in public office and forcefully condemned attempts to lower it. But when it comes to her own finances, it is a different story. The newly released tax returns buttress earlier reports outlining the ways Clinton uses financial planning strategies that shield her Death Tax liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Oh, no. Hillary is complying with federal tax law, while trying to pay as little taxes as legally possible. I think Congress should demand an accounting of every dime of her money, for the last 10 years. For their investigation, and for her possible impeachment. ---------- Coming tomorrow: Hillary went through a drive through window, and left her motor running while she was waiting in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 ---------- Coming tomorrow: Hillary went through a drive through window, and left her motor running while she was waiting in line. I guess she'll never be qualified to talk about improving fuel economy standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 If Planned Parenthood doesn't agree, then they don't agree but the fight over funding will continue on and if we get a right leaning Government, you can bet that PPH funding will be effected regardless. Probably more so then what is being proposed. If you want to defuse that situation and keep funding for PPH, then get out of the problem and stop abortions. It's 3% of what they do, according to their own numbers and if no Federal Dollars are being spent on Abortion, then it stands to reason that it's privately funded. Take those funds and open up privately funded facilities. That keeps the availability and keeps the funding to PPH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 If Planned Parenthood doesn't agree, then they don't agree but the fight over funding will continue on and if we get a right leaning Government, you can bet that PPH funding will be effected regardless. Probably more so then what is being proposed. If you want to defuse that situation and keep funding for PPH, then get out of the problem and stop abortions. It's 3% of what they do, according to their own numbers and if no Federal Dollars are being spent on Abortion, then it stands to reason that it's privately funded. Take those funds and open up privately funded facilities. That keeps the availability and keeps the funding to PPH. So all you want is for PP to have separate facilities? What purpose does that serve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 If Planned Parenthood doesn't agree, then they don't agree but the fight over funding will continue on and if we get a right leaning Government, you can bet that PPH funding will be effected regardless. Probably more so then what is being proposed. If you want to defuse that situation and keep funding for PPH, then get out of the problem and stop abortions. It's 3% of what they do, according to their own numbers and if no Federal Dollars are being spent on Abortion, then it stands to reason that it's privately funded. Take those funds and open up privately funded facilities. That keeps the availability and keeps the funding to PPH. If the money for abortions is private why should they have to buy and set up separate facilities for it? Because some people don't like it? Don't like it? Don't donate to it. The government money isn't being spent on it so if you're not donating to PP for it you have no right to tell them what they can or can't do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 So all you want is for PP to have separate facilities? What purpose does that serve? No, it can't be Planned PPH obviously but those funds are coming from somewhere. Those funds would likely have to go to set up an independent facility and it would just run without Federal Funding. I mean, according to PPH, that's what is basically going on now right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Coming tomorrow: Hillary went through a drive through window, and left her motor running while she was waiting in line. No even better. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-race/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 If the money for abortions is private why should they have to buy and set up separate facilities for it? Because some people don't like it? Don't like it? Don't donate to it. The government money isn't being spent on it so if you're not donating to PP for it you have no right to tell them what they can or can't do with it. They don't have to do anything but if you want to insure that PPH continues to get funding from Federal Dollars, then this is probably the best way to do it. Or, you can continue to fight it and take your chances with a Right Leaning Government if the GOP wins the Pres. and controls both houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 http://www.people.com/article/jimmy-fallon-donald-trump-debate-prep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.