I want a candidate who is 100% pro-choice BUT pretty anti-immigration & socially conservative

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican and consider Bill Clinton nearly ideal as a political candidate. Super pro-America, pro-police, tough on crime, strong border control, cut the deficit, oversaw massive economic expansion-- I could go on. He would be republican by today's standards. Obama Term 1 was also a fantastic, modern-conservative president.

Sorry but Clinton and Obama were pro choice.

Yes, I have no issue with that. I stand by it-- Bill Clinton is ideal.

Whatever you want to label yourself is fine. You vote for a democrat on election day so good. Call yourself a republican or whatever you want as long as you vote pro choice.

DP. Are you deliberately misunderstanding or are you simply obtuse? Just because we may be personally pro-choice doesn't mean we're one-issue voters. The PP is a Republican. Sadly, Bill Clinton probably doesn't even recognize today's Democratic party. I believe the PP is saying since there's no Bill Clinton to vote for, s/he votes Republican - for issues other than abortion. So do I.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican and consider Bill Clinton nearly ideal as a political candidate. Super pro-America, pro-police, tough on crime, strong border control, cut the deficit, oversaw massive economic expansion-- I could go on. He would be republican by today's standards. Obama Term 1 was also a fantastic, modern-conservative president.

Agreed. I'm an Independent and in some ways, one would think I'm conservative because of all these things; pro-police, strong border control, thinks trans women have no place in women's sports.. However, I am pro-choice and very much pro-gun control. I feel like I don't have a home in either party.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want church in government? Theocracies are up there with fascism and communism as far as worst types of government with worst human rights situations. Try Iran or Saudi Arabia they might be right up your alley.

Why do you keep bringing up "church in government"? Who even suggested that? It's like this bizarre strawman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a moderate Republican, I agree with you OP.

How do you define being a 'moderate republican"?

Larry Hogan is the classic moderate republican; and amazingly, he is loved by just about everyone in Maryland, which is a solid democratic state. The only people who didn't like him were the uber-leftist local politicians of MoCo.

And me! Not a politician. Didn’t like his conservative politics. Hated his policy on starting school after Labor Day.

Obviously he was not as horrid as MAGA politicians. But that’s a low bar.

Why do liberals love using the word, "horrid"? Such a prissy adjective. Maybe that's why you're drawn to it?
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you against immigration? This country was founded on immigration. This country thrives on immigration. Immigrants not only get the job done, they revitalize the economy. That is a fact.

Show me a thriving, healthy, ethnically diverse community.

Montgomery County, Maryland

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican and consider Bill Clinton nearly ideal as a political candidate. Super pro-America, pro-police, tough on crime, strong border control, cut the deficit, oversaw massive economic expansion-- I could go on. He would be republican by today's standards. Obama Term 1 was also a fantastic, modern-conservative president.

Sorry but Clinton and Obama were pro choice.

DP. That's why I would consider Bill Clinton an ideal candidate. I'm also a Republican and I'm pro-choice, as well as all the other things PP listed.

I’m a lifelong Dem and I voted for Clinton twice. What I want to know is this: Where were all of you in the 90s when Newt et al went after Clinton and helped usher the sh*tshow that we are still dealing with? We’d all be better off if Gore had been president instead of W.

You're welcome to your opinion, but don't ASSume everyone else shares it. I voted for Clinton twice and then George W. Bush. It must be so disappointing that people don't take their marching orders from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican and consider Bill Clinton nearly ideal as a political candidate. Super pro-America, pro-police, tough on crime, strong border control, cut the deficit, oversaw massive economic expansion-- I could go on. He would be republican by today's standards. Obama Term 1 was also a fantastic, modern-conservative president.

Agreed. I'm an Independent and in some ways, one would think I'm conservative because of all these things; pro-police, strong border control, thinks trans women have no place in women's sports.. However, I am pro-choice and very much pro-gun control. I feel like I don't have a home in either party.

I don’t think trans women belong in women’s sports either but I’m smart enough to notice that republicans don’t otherwise care about or support women’s athletics; they’re using it as a wedge issue to begin attacking trans rights altogether and then on to attacking gay rights. LGBTQIA+ deserve human rights. See the long game.

DP. I find it utterly astounding that the issue of WOMEN'S rights seems to have utterly disappeared when discussing "trans rights." Why should biological men be able to compete against biological women? That's all it comes down to. Where are the women's rights in that scenario? Where is the equity in that scenario?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Socially conservative = bigot. Your time is over.

You're a huge reason why Dems get a bad rep.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican and consider Bill Clinton nearly ideal as a political candidate. Super pro-America, pro-police, tough on crime, strong border control, cut the deficit, oversaw massive economic expansion-- I could go on. He would be republican by today's standards. Obama Term 1 was also a fantastic, modern-conservative president.

Sorry but Clinton and Obama were pro choice.

DP. That's why I would consider Bill Clinton an ideal candidate. I'm also a Republican and I'm pro-choice, as well as all the other things PP listed.

I’m a lifelong Dem and I voted for Clinton twice. What I want to know is this: Where were all of you in the 90s when Newt et al went after Clinton and helped usher the sh*tshow that we are still dealing with? We’d all be better off if Gore had been president instead of W.

You're welcome to your opinion, but don't ASSume everyone else shares it. I voted for Clinton twice and then George W. Bush. It must be so disappointing that people don't take their marching orders from you.

That is such a strange decision that I don’t blame anyone for not understanding it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Socially conservative = bigot. Your time is over.

You're a huge reason why Dems get a bad rep.

+100

I know plenty of “social conservatives”. They want Blacks and Hispanics and Gays and non-fundamentalists to shut up and stay in their place. You can pretend you mean something else but it never does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican and consider Bill Clinton nearly ideal as a political candidate. Super pro-America, pro-police, tough on crime, strong border control, cut the deficit, oversaw massive economic expansion-- I could go on. He would be republican by today's standards. Obama Term 1 was also a fantastic, modern-conservative president.

Agreed. I'm an Independent and in some ways, one would think I'm conservative because of all these things; pro-police, strong border control, thinks trans women have no place in women's sports.. However, I am pro-choice and very much pro-gun control. I feel like I don't have a home in either party.

I don’t think trans women belong in women’s sports either but I’m smart enough to notice that republicans don’t otherwise care about or support women’s athletics; they’re using it as a wedge issue to begin attacking trans rights altogether and then on to attacking gay rights. LGBTQIA+ deserve human rights. See the long game.

We need where to go that is not GOP, but also not the Democratic Party.

Keep looking for that unicorn which can’t exist in our current system. Or you can just get on the bus that’s going forward instead of the bus that’s going backward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican and consider Bill Clinton nearly ideal as a political candidate. Super pro-America, pro-police, tough on crime, strong border control, cut the deficit, oversaw massive economic expansion-- I could go on. He would be republican by today's standards. Obama Term 1 was also a fantastic, modern-conservative president.

Agreed. I'm an Independent and in some ways, one would think I'm conservative because of all these things; pro-police, strong border control, thinks trans women have no place in women's sports.. However, I am pro-choice and very much pro-gun control. I feel like I don't have a home in either party.

I don’t think trans women belong in women’s sports either but I’m smart enough to notice that republicans don’t otherwise care about or support women’s athletics; they’re using it as a wedge issue to begin attacking trans rights altogether and then on to attacking gay rights. LGBTQIA+ deserve human rights. See the long game.

DP. I find it utterly astounding that the issue of WOMEN'S rights seems to have utterly disappeared when discussing "trans rights." Why should biological men be able to compete against biological women? That's all it comes down to. Where are the women's rights in that scenario? Where is the equity in that scenario?

You aren’t paying attention. The issue is being handled by sports bodies from the Olympics, NCAA, individual sport bodies, etc. and they all are making rules that would require a lengthy transition and low levels of testosterone for eligibility. In other words, no more Lia Thomases. This is not an issue for pandering demagogue governors and candidates. The swimming, tennis, track, etc. governing bodies are handling it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican and consider Bill Clinton nearly ideal as a political candidate. Super pro-America, pro-police, tough on crime, strong border control, cut the deficit, oversaw massive economic expansion-- I could go on. He would be republican by today's standards. Obama Term 1 was also a fantastic, modern-conservative president.

Agreed. I'm an Independent and in some ways, one would think I'm conservative because of all these things; pro-police, strong border control, thinks trans women have no place in women's sports.. However, I am pro-choice and very much pro-gun control. I feel like I don't have a home in either party.

I don’t think trans women belong in women’s sports either but I’m smart enough to notice that republicans don’t otherwise care about or support women’s athletics; they’re using it as a wedge issue to begin attacking trans rights altogether and then on to attacking gay rights. LGBTQIA+ deserve human rights. See the long game.

DP. I find it utterly astounding that the issue of WOMEN'S rights seems to have utterly disappeared when discussing "trans rights." Why should biological men be able to compete against biological women? That's all it comes down to. Where are the women's rights in that scenario? Where is the equity in that scenario?

You aren’t paying attention. The issue is being handled by sports bodies from the Olympics, NCAA, individual sport bodies, etc. and they all are making rules that would require a lengthy transition and low levels of testosterone for eligibility. In other words, no more Lia Thomases. This is not an issue for pandering demagogue governors and candidates. The swimming, tennis, track, etc. governing bodies are handling it.

The Biden Administration is mandating it. You speak of these individual sport bodies dealing with high level eligibility, while girls will be forced to accept boys in the locker room at so many other levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican and consider Bill Clinton nearly ideal as a political candidate. Super pro-America, pro-police, tough on crime, strong border control, cut the deficit, oversaw massive economic expansion-- I could go on. He would be republican by today's standards. Obama Term 1 was also a fantastic, modern-conservative president.

Agreed. I'm an Independent and in some ways, one would think I'm conservative because of all these things; pro-police, strong border control, thinks trans women have no place in women's sports.. However, I am pro-choice and very much pro-gun control. I feel like I don't have a home in either party.

I don’t think trans women belong in women’s sports either but I’m smart enough to notice that republicans don’t otherwise care about or support women’s athletics; they’re using it as a wedge issue to begin attacking trans rights altogether and then on to attacking gay rights. LGBTQIA+ deserve human rights. See the long game.

DP. I find it utterly astounding that the issue of WOMEN'S rights seems to have utterly disappeared when discussing "trans rights." Why should biological men be able to compete against biological women? That's all it comes down to. Where are the women's rights in that scenario? Where is the equity in that scenario?

How f**king dare you elevate this issue to the level of whether or not we have democracy or whether or not the US economy gets destroyed (via the debt ceiling)??

You. are. Not. Serious. People.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Republican and consider Bill Clinton nearly ideal as a political candidate. Super pro-America, pro-police, tough on crime, strong border control, cut the deficit, oversaw massive economic expansion-- I could go on. He would be republican by today's standards. Obama Term 1 was also a fantastic, modern-conservative president.

Sorry but Clinton and Obama were pro choice.

Yes, I have no issue with that. I stand by it-- Bill Clinton is ideal.

Whatever you want to label yourself is fine. You vote for a democrat on election day so good. Call yourself a republican or whatever you want as long as you vote pro choice.

DP. Are you deliberately misunderstanding or are you simply obtuse? Just because we may be personally pro-choice doesn't mean we're one-issue voters. The PP is a Republican. Sadly, Bill Clinton probably doesn't even recognize today's Democratic party. I believe the PP is saying since there's no Bill Clinton to vote for, s/he votes Republican - for issues other than abortion. So do I.

Ok. Pro choice is not an important enough issue to drive your vote so you will vote for anti-abortion, anti-women's reproductive rights republicans. Republicans are losing elections over this issue but they simply refuse to nominate pro choice candidates. Oh well.