2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Sandernista rebels are so rebellious and so radical they're going to stay home and pout [View all]That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)I live in a red state, so for all practical purposes I already had my Presidential election.
The idea that I need to be frightened into voting for candidate and group (Clinton and the Corporate Dems - I.E. "socially liberal and fiscally conservative) is repellent to me. This election (if Clinton is the nominee) is like voting for the nicest hired thug: the guy holding your arms behind your back telling you to give up (No, we can't!) or the guy who really enjoys giving you a beating. Neither is really on my side.
It might go better for the Democratic Party if they made a concentrated effort to "suck" less, or not at all. They don't fight for voting rights. They don't fight for liberal ideas (oh but they want liberals to vote for them though). They mostly don't fight for the rights of African Americans. They're a bit better on women's rights, but they haven't returned to the ERA yet. When they do fight, it's kind of half-hearted and they give up quickly. Doesn't matter if they're in the majority or minority they let the republicans drive the agenda, frame the question, and define the language used.
Just look at "Obamacare". It's basically Bob Dole's fig leaf plan from the 90's that covered the fact that republicans didn't have a healthcare plan for Americans.
Is Clinton really going to defend abortion rights?
Bernie Sanders opposes all abortion restictions. Hillary Clinton's stance is murkier.[
...During a Fox News town hall on Monday night, Clinton and Sanders were asked about their position on late-term abortions. Sanders' stance was easy to discern: He opposes abortion restrictions, full stop. Clinton's answer was murkier. She began her response to moderator Bret Baier with a broad defense of a woman's right to an abortion, mentioning the current Supreme Court case involving Texas' anti-abortion regulations and the continued Republican attacks on Planned Parenthood. But Baier persisted on the matter of late-term abortions, asking, "Just to be clear, there's nowithout any exceptions?"
Ads by ZINC
Clinton replied, "NoI have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."
In the exchange, Clinton seems to support limited bans on late-term abortions after a fetus is viable (about 24 weeks into a pregnancy). Her campaign has said nothing to contradict this. Asked to clarify Clinton's position, a campaign spokesperson responded in an email:
Politicians should not interfere with a woman's personal medical decisions, which should be left to a woman in consultation with her doctor.
She also recognizes that Roe v. Wade provides that restrictions are constitutional later in pregnancy so long as there are clear exceptions for the life and health of the woman.
Clinton has consistently made clear her support for exceptions to any late-term abortion regulations, such as when the life or mental or physical health of the mother is at risk. She would also consider restrictions only after about the 24-week mark, when a fetus is considered viable, in keeping with the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions