Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's a shame, since I don't personally see abortion as a major issue. And really, it doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice. What have all these so-called pro-life politicians gotten accomplished over the years since Roe? Absolutely nothing. They simply use the issue to rally the base.
I'm pro-life myself. That's why its not an issue for me at the voting box. At this point I don't trust a politician to push the issue or change things one way or another.
I am as well, but it's not a deal breaker for me if somebody is pro-choice. Especially when that person wouldn't approve any federal funding for abortions and believes the issue belongs with the states. Not to mention that if Republicans were really interested in ending abortion then 2000 - 2006 would have been a good time to do that.
I'm pro-life myself. That's why its not an issue for me at the voting box. At this point I don't trust a politician to push the issue or change things one way or another.
I am as well, but it's not a deal breaker for me if somebody is pro-choice. Especially when that person wouldn't approve any federal funding for abortions and believes the issue belongs with the states. Not to mention that if Republicans were really interested in ending abortion then 2000 - 2006 would have been a good time to do that.
The GOP showed me how "pro life" they were when Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act and it didn't even make it to a vote when they had control of Congress and Bush was in the WH, if Ron Paul is anything, he's good at showcasing their BS.
I am as well, but it's not a deal breaker for me if somebody is pro-choice. Especially when that person wouldn't approve any federal funding for abortions and believes the issue belongs with the states. Not to mention that if Republicans were really interested in ending abortion then 2000 - 2006 would have been a good time to do that.
The GOP showed me how "pro life" they were when Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act and it didn't even make it to a vote when they had control of Congress and Bush was in the WH, if Ron Paul is anything, he's good at showcasing their BS.
Amen brother! There are all the red meat issues that get up each election cycle to garner votes. Folks get elected and.........nothing. Yet, next election cycle they trot out the same red meat issues and get reelected. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Bush was in office for 8 years and Republicans controlled Congress for 6 years. If they were honestly serious about all those issues they claimed during elections.....how come they did squat about them while elected?
We need a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson who will make needed changes for a smaller government and lower tazes instead of the same old shit the both parties keep trotting out.
abortion is a states rights issueA pro-abortion candidate will never get my vote.
That's a shame, since I don't personally see abortion as a major issue. And really, it doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice. What have all these so-called pro-life politicians gotten accomplished over the years since Roe? Absolutely nothing. They simply use the issue to rally the base.
abortion is a states rights issueA pro-abortion candidate will never get my vote.
That's a shame, since I don't personally see abortion as a major issue. And really, it doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice. What have all these so-called pro-life politicians gotten accomplished over the years since Roe? Absolutely nothing. They simply use the issue to rally the base.
i support putting it back to the states to decide
Not to mention that if Republicans were really interested in ending abortion then 2000 - 2006 would have been a good time to do that.
Not to mention that if Republicans were really interested in ending abortion then 2000 - 2006 would have been a good time to do that.
Yeah, if they weren't going to do it then, then they were never going to at all.
I'm not sure they've ever had an easier shot at it than that.
i agreeNot to mention that if Republicans were really interested in ending abortion then 2000 - 2006 would have been a good time to do that.
Yeah, if they weren't going to do it then, then they were never going to at all.
I'm not sure they've ever had an easier shot at it than that.
Which just goes to show that they're not willing to touch the issue. They need it to be an issue so they can run against it.
Which just goes to show that they're not willing to touch the issue. They need it to be an issue so they can run against it.
So then stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils, and choose a 3rd party candidate.i agreeYeah, if they weren't going to do it then, then they were never going to at all.
I'm not sure they've ever had an easier shot at it than that.
Which just goes to show that they're not willing to touch the issue. They need it to be an issue so they can run against it.
which is partly why i have been pissed off at the GOP for years
but, that doesnt mean i want someone totally against what i stand for either (AKA Democrats)
then i end up with the worst of the bunchSo then stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils, and choose a 3rd party candidate.i agreeWhich just goes to show that they're not willing to touch the issue. They need it to be an issue so they can run against it.
which is partly why i have been pissed off at the GOP for years
but, that doesnt mean i want someone totally against what i stand for either (AKA Democrats)
Can you explain to me how the republican rule was any better than now?then i end up with the worst of the bunchSo then stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils, and choose a 3rd party candidate.i agree
which is partly why i have been pissed off at the GOP for years
but, that doesnt mean i want someone totally against what i stand for either (AKA Democrats)
give the option of getting someone like Snowe and Collins vs someone like Pingree, i'l take Snowe and Collins
so you would vote in a way that means the person you want to win LEAST is the one that wins?Can you explain to me how the republican rule was any better than now?then i end up with the worst of the bunchSo then stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils, and choose a 3rd party candidate.
give the option of getting someone like Snowe and Collins vs someone like Pingree, i'l take Snowe and Collins
They cut taxes and didn't cut spending. Now we've borrowed so much fucking money they we will have to have taxes raised on us to pay for the shortfalls.
Bush spent 700 billion to bail out the banks, Obama spent 700 billion to bail out unions.
It's all the fucking same, my man.
so you would vote in a way that means the person you want to win LEAST is the one that wins?Can you explain to me how the republican rule was any better than now?then i end up with the worst of the bunch
give the option of getting someone like Snowe and Collins vs someone like Pingree, i'l take Snowe and Collins
They cut taxes and didn't cut spending. Now we've borrowed so much fucking money they we will have to have taxes raised on us to pay for the shortfalls.
Bush spent 700 billion to bail out the banks, Obama spent 700 billion to bail out unions.
It's all the fucking same, my man.
sorry, i cant do that
its the reality that a plurality of voters will vote for either a dem or the GOPso you would vote in a way that means the person you want to win LEAST is the one that wins?Can you explain to me how the republican rule was any better than now?
They cut taxes and didn't cut spending. Now we've borrowed so much fucking money they we will have to have taxes raised on us to pay for the shortfalls.
Bush spent 700 billion to bail out the banks, Obama spent 700 billion to bail out unions.
It's all the fucking same, my man.
sorry, i cant do that
That's why we fail as an electorate.
so you would vote in a way that means the person you want to win LEAST is the one that wins?Can you explain to me how the republican rule was any better than now?then i end up with the worst of the bunch
give the option of getting someone like Snowe and Collins vs someone like Pingree, i'l take Snowe and Collins
They cut taxes and didn't cut spending. Now we've borrowed so much fucking money they we will have to have taxes raised on us to pay for the shortfalls.
Bush spent 700 billion to bail out the banks, Obama spent 700 billion to bail out unions.
It's all the fucking same, my man.
sorry, i cant do that
abortion is a states rights issueThat's a shame, since I don't personally see abortion as a major issue. And really, it doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice. What have all these so-called pro-life politicians gotten accomplished over the years since Roe? Absolutely nothing. They simply use the issue to rally the base.
i support putting it back to the states to decide
I agree, and so does Gary Johnson. That being said, no Republican politician is willing to touch the issue other than on the campaign trail.
its the reality that a plurality of voters will vote for either a dem or the GOPso you would vote in a way that means the person you want to win LEAST is the one that wins?
sorry, i cant do that
That's why we fail as an electorate.
when you have at least 34% that will vote for either of the two major parties, you do NOT have a viable 3rd option
you show me a 3rd party that can get over 34% of the vote and you MIGHT have a point
till then, i will vote for the lesser of 2 evils
and i will try harder to get better candidates in the primaries
Gary Johnson and John McCain are miles apart in their positions on Abortion. John McCain moved far to the right when he won the nomination on the Abortion issue. He definitely changed from 2000.
Do you care about the facts at all?
