I mean, you're not going to convince me they aren't religious extremists. Just because it's a religion more people in America are comfortable with doesn't change anything about the problem.
I do think they are religious extremists. I don't think that automatically makes one a terrorist.
I am starting to get on board with you here, except that I do see the result of this thinking in the bombings and ACTUAL terrorism on abortion providers. It was not exactly what she was saying, I don't think...but that is where MY mind goes.
I'm not a big fan of hyperbole, and to be honest, I'm really hard pressed to think of another example where I think using the word "terrorism" to describe another party's platform would be appropriate. [ETA - heyjude makes good points. I do think the term can be used too loosely, and not appropriate to describe every form of opposition to civil rights but we are getting at the point where we are crossing that line.]
But for women in an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy, it is completely legitimate for them to say that they would feel terrorized if they were forced to carry it to term, their lives and physical and mental health be damned.
But I would feel terrorized by someone breaking into my house, holding me hostage, raping me and then stealing my things. That makes them a burglar, thief, kidnapper and rapist, not a terrorist. Not all actions that are terrifying are perpetuated by a terrorist or classified as terrorism.
I actually agree with "war on women" more than calling them a terrorist group.
That is true. But the difference is that the kidnapper and rapist are not kidnapping and raping as part of a political agenda. It's just violence disconnected from any ideology whatsoever. That's different than an organized group that lobbies to withhold medical treatment from women without any regard for their life and safety, and does so as part of a larger political and ideological platform centered around limiting women's reproductive freedom and choices.
I'm with you that perhaps terrorism is too strong of a word to use to refer to run of the mill, anti-choice politicking, like waiting periods, and that for those kinds of things, war on women is a better euphemism. But we are talking about actually wanting criminalize saving the lives of women, about trying to minimize rape and its consequences, actively and knowingly spreading false propaganda designed to garner public support for making sure that women cannot get needed health care, and influencing other legislation designed to limit women's reproductive freedom, which is part and parcel with women's ability to participate fully and equally in the economy and society. And they are doing this in the name of a "Christianity." This isn't just some rapist. This is a political movement.
The word "terrorists" has lost some of its meaning and become shorthand for "religious extremists" with some serious racial overtones. This is unfortunate. Words have meaning, and just because your name is Scott Walker and you oppose abortion even to save the life of the mother doesn't mean you are bombing buildings or killing people to get your way.
I wish that she that had used the word, "theocracy" instead of "terrorists". Because that is what the major Republican candidates are arguing for. They want to be less like America and more like Iran. They want to impose their sincerely held religious beliefs on the people they rule. Not to go all sappy and patriotic but we have a long and proud tradition of secular rule in this country which the founding fathers embraced early on as a way to safeguard religious freedom for all Americans.
She didn't actually say "they are terrorists" - she said that their extreme views are the kind we expect from terrorist groups but should not expect from people wanting to be President of the United States.
And I'm just going to go ahead and get on the cross so others don't have to... but this is one of those liberal circle jerk situations and if it bothers me, who would like to be Sweden and is further left than a lot of you on some issues, no wonder our more conservative posters get chased off the board.
But I would feel terrorized by someone breaking into my house, holding me hostage, raping me and then stealing my things. That makes them a burglar, thief, kidnapper and rapist, not a terrorist. Not all actions that are terrifying are perpetuated by a terrorist or classified as terrorism.
I actually agree with "war on women" more than calling them a terrorist group.
That is true. But the difference is that the kidnapper and rapist are not kidnapping and raping as part of a political agenda. It's just violence disconnected from any ideology whatsoever. That's different than an organized group that lobbies to withhold medical treatment from women without any regard for their life and safety, and does so as part of a larger political and ideological platform centered around limiting women's reproductive freedom and choices.
I'm with you that perhaps terrorism is too strong of a word to use to refer to run of the mill, anti-choice politicking, like waiting periods, and that for those kinds of things, war on women is a better euphemism. But we are talking about actually wanting criminalize saving the lives of women, about trying to minimize rape and its consequences, actively and knowingly spreading false propaganda designed to garner public support for making sure that women cannot get needed health care, and influencing other legislation designed to limit women's reproductive freedom, which is part and parcel with women's ability to participate fully and equally in the economy and society. And they are doing this in the name of a "Christianity." This isn't just some rapist. This is a political movement.
And there have been many acts of terrorism by this movement! True, these actual presidential candidates have not committed a literal act of terror. She didn't say that, though. She compared their thoughts (which they have publicly stated) match "terrorist groups". It is not a stretch to say that they are the leaders of the political movement that does carry out these acts.
These are acts of terror. And there are so many more.
The group that made the PP videos that all the Rs are tripping over-themselves to praise is affiliated with a group that murders abortion doctors. Now that IS straight up terrorism by NO stretch of imagination or logic.
Wait. So, the first time I read the quote I thought she was talking about anti-abortion terrorist groups. Then people starting talking about Muslims, etc, and I realize that I may be more sensitive than some others because I am often at the local abortion clinic...so I reconsidered. But after rereading again, I think I am going back to my original assumption.
Are people upset because they think they're being compared to Middle-Eastern terrorist groups? There are plenty of terrorist groups here in the US that really do carry out acts of terror against abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood...and their statements match with some of these candidates' statements.
The word "terrorists" has lost some of its meaning and become shorthand for "religious extremists" with some serious racial overtones. This is unfortunate. Words have meaning, and just because your name is Scott Walker and you oppose abortion even to save the life of the mother doesn't mean you are bombing buildings or killing people to get your way.
I wish that she that had used the word, "theocracy" instead of "terrorists". Because that is what the major Republican candidates are arguing for. They want to be less like America and more like Iran. They want to impose their sincerely held religious beliefs on the people they rule. Not to go all sappy and patriotic but we have a long and proud tradition of secular rule in this country which the founding fathers embraced early on as a way to safeguard religious freedom for all Americans.
She didn't actually say "they are terrorists" - she said that their extreme views are the kind we expect from terrorist groups but should not expect from people wanting to be President of the United States.
True. But that is not what most people will hear or take away from that statement and I believe that is intentional on Clinton's part.
Politically it was a smart and calculating thing for her to say. It enrages people who were never going to vote for her, and they in turn keep stoking "the war on women", and it sends clear signals to female Ds that's she's on their side when her main D rival is an old white guy who struggles with these issues. It's a win win.
Wait. So, the first time I read the quote I thought she was talking about anti-abortion terrorist groups. Then people starting talking about Muslims, etc, and I realize that I may be more sensitive than some others because I am often at the local abortion clinic...so I reconsidered. But after rereading again, I think I am going back to my original assumption.
Are people upset because they think they're being compared to Middle-Eastern terrorist groups? There are plenty of terrorist groups here in the US that really do carry out acts of terror against abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood...and their statements match with some of these candidates' statements.
"Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don't want to live in the modern world, but it's a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States," Clinton said. "Yet they espouse out of date, out of touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st century America. We are going forward, we are not going back."
*** Maybe it's what I'm reading into this, but this language seems intended to evoke imagery of certain types of terrorist groups (e.g., Taliban, etc.). That's what many here jumped to immediately as well.
"extreme views about women" - take away abortion. How much is there about Ted Cruz not wanting women to work or drive? (His wife worked at Goldman Sachs and I think made more money than him for a while)? I'm sorry, but as much as I am pro choice, I am not just a uterus. When someone says "extreme views about women" I'm thinking they are talking about a lot more than reproductive rights. Economic rights, voting rights, being able to sit on the same fucking bus, etc. I didn't realize that Huckabee wanted all women to be in burqas and/or refused to fly on planes sitting next to them.
"don't want to live in the modern world" - that REEKS of ISIS talk to me. They want a return to 7th century Islam. Or maybe other extremists who don't believe in using technology. Or again, think women don't belong outside the house. A modern world isn't entirely about my ability to have an abortion or even have access to healthcare for specific female/reproductive issues (because you know what, the modern world would want UHC and no one should NEED to rely on PP for that - that is a failing that is decades old and it's on both parties).
Finally, I just don't see why that terrorist group part of the quote was necessary. It seems like what the right is doing, but just on the other side (ie, saying inflammatory things to get the base excited). It's not good for moderate voters, it makes HER look divisive, and it's completely unnecessary for her to get the Democrat votes. Why is this strategy OK for her, but it's the DUMBEST.THING.EVER for Republicans?
Also, I don't believe that most Republicans have the stated goal of getting rid of choice and healthcare for women. I'm not talking about most candidates, or most people polled, or whatever. Most Republicans. Meaning everyone, nationwide, who identifies as a Republican does not look to these guys and say "yes, this is our rallying cry - lead us! Make change on this one issue!" I think they have a lot of other concerns, and may go along with the abortion stuff in order to get some movement on another issue they care about more.
That's not the same to me as everyone following ISIS because they want a Caliphate and 7th century Islam, or everybody in the Taliban, who wants strict adherence to Sharia law.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I just don't think the comparison is that easy, and I see no reason for her to have stooped to that level. And I don't think "she's just calling it like it is" is reason to do something. Isn't that exactly what Trump's supporters say of him? You just happen to agree with her. But do we really want to be the exact analogy of that on the other side?
:::::standing ovation:::::
This rhetoric has me running just as far from the D vote as I've run from the R vote.
Abortion has always been polarizing. But is used to be that the hate-filled diatribes were reserved for the extremists on each side. Now, if you're pro-life, you hate women. You see them as baby making factories. You live in the dark ages. And now, you're a terrorist. I do not understand when it became SO IMPOSSIBLE to understand, that for MOST people who are prolife, abortion is murder. I don't agree, but I can certainly comprehend why those people are desperate to try and end what they see as murder. That doesn't make them hateful. That doesn't mean they are out of touch.
And no, I'm not stupid enough to think any of you will even read what I've said. I have no doubt that you got to "prolife" and shut down. Just know that you're running off moderate, prochoice people. It's too bad, because you will need us at some point.
I'm tired of everything being called terrorism. I'm tired of people using the worst term they can think of (and remember when that was just "a liberal!") for attention.
I also think that she meant Al Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS... but those are not the only terrorist groups out there. This is reinforcing the idea that terrorist = Muslims. Many consider the IRA a terrorist group, but I have no idea what their position is with regards to women's rights.
She could have made her point without that part of the quote and I can't help but think that it's part of the outrage sweepstakes everyone seems to be playing.
I feel she is falling in line with people that call/compare things to the Nazis. Well said here. Well said.
- They all want to defund the one organization dedicated to giving women especially poor women, control over their health and their reproductive destiny which is really just simply human destiny.
- Some want to shut down government entirely until this happens.
- All want to chip away at Roe.
- Some want women to die if that means saving the fetus. Fetus > actual living woman.
- "health of a woman"
- Others think carrying a rape baby or your dad's baby is no reason to have an abortion. Even if you are 10 years old.
- So you have the kid. How many up there would vigorously fund social services like health care, child care, housing subsidies, food stamps, etc? Nope. Bootstraps. Or go ask your church. Better yet, don't slut around and then you won't be in this mess.
- "make america great again" like that time where women were at home and didn't make a fuss, blacks knew their place, gays didn't exist, and Mexicans were in Mexico.
- Speaking of Mexicans, the leading GOPer called them all rapists, wants to deport even citizens to Mexico, and called a hate crime against a hispanic man the desire to "make america great again."
- Many of the others would like to do away with "anchor babies" (gotta love those fetuses until they are born!), build walls, and otherwise make life inhospitable for one of the most impoverished ethnic groups on the planet. Christian love right there!
- speaking of Christian love, most would like their version of religion to dictate public policy and the law. I can't think of another group in favor of this type of theocracy? Oh wait. Yes I can.
Everyday I feel like republican policies put me and my daughter at risk as females, my husband and my daughter as risk because they are mexican, my uncle at risk because he's gay. If that's not terroristic I don't know what is.
I was so hoping you would reply. I don't think it's so difficult to make this comparison. It's not really stooping IMO.
Wait. So, the first time I read the quote I thought she was talking about anti-abortion terrorist groups. Then people starting talking about Muslims, etc, and I realize that I may be more sensitive than some others because I am often at the local abortion clinic...so I reconsidered. But after rereading again, I think I am going back to my original assumption.
Are people upset because they think they're being compared to Middle-Eastern terrorist groups? There are plenty of terrorist groups here in the US that really do carry out acts of terror against abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood...and their statements match with some of these candidates' statements.
"Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don't want to live in the modern world, but it's a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States," Clinton said. "Yet they espouse out of date, out of touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st century America. We are going forward, we are not going back."
*** Maybe it's what I'm reading into this, but this language seems intended to evoke imagery of certain types of terrorist groups (e.g., Taliban, etc.). Â That's what many here jumped to immediately as well.
"extreme views about women" - take away abortion. Â How much is there about Ted Cruz not wanting women to work or drive? Â (His wife worked at Goldman Sachs and I think made more money than him for a while)? Â I'm sorry, but as much as I am pro choice, I am not just a uterus. Â When someone says "extreme views about women" I'm thinking they are talking about a lot more than reproductive rights. Â Economic rights, voting rights, being able to sit on the same fucking bus, etc. Â I didn't realize that Huckabee wanted all women to be in burqas and/or refused to fly on planes sitting next to them. Â
"don't want to live in the modern world" - that REEKS of ISIS talk to me. Â They want a return to 7th century Islam. Â Or maybe other extremists who don't believe in using technology. Â Or again, think women don't belong outside the house. Â A modern world isn't entirely about my ability to have an abortion or even have access to healthcare for specific female/reproductive issues (because you know what, the modern world would want UHC and no one should NEED to rely on PP for that - that is a failing that is decades old and it's on both parties).
Finally, I just don't see why that terrorist group part of the quote was necessary. Â It seems like what the right is doing, but just on the other side (ie, saying inflammatory things to get the base excited). Â It's not good for moderate voters, it makes HER look divisive, and it's completely unnecessary for her to get the Democrat votes. Â Why is this strategy OK for her, but it's the DUMBEST.THING.EVER for Republicans?
Also, I don't believe that most Republicans have the stated goal of getting rid of choice and healthcare for women. Â I'm not talking about most candidates, or most people polled, or whatever. Â Most Republicans. Â Meaning everyone, nationwide, who identifies as a Republican does not look to these guys and say "yes, this is our rallying cry - lead us! Â Make change on this one issue!" Â I think they have a lot of other concerns, and may go along with the abortion stuff in order to get some movement on another issue they care about more.
That's not the same to me as everyone following ISIS because they want a Caliphate and 7th century Islam, or everybody in the Taliban, who wants strict adherence to Sharia law. Â
Maybe I'm wrong.  But I just don't think the comparison is that easy, and I see no reason for her to  have stooped to that level.  And I don't think "she's just calling it like it is" is reason to do something.  Isn't that exactly what Trump's supporters say of him?  You just happen to agree with her.  But do we really want to be the exact analogy of that on the other side?
I don't know who is right about what kind of terrorists she meant. I know what I thought, and I understand you got a different impression.
But the fact is there are actual terrorist groups that attack abortion providers and threaten their families. And those people aren't saying anything vastly different than Huckabee. I don't think that me pointing that out is talking in hyperbole.
"Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don't want to live in the modern world, but it's a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States," Clinton said. "Yet they espouse out of date, out of touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st century America. We are going forward, we are not going back."
*** Maybe it's what I'm reading into this, but this language seems intended to evoke imagery of certain types of terrorist groups (e.g., Taliban, etc.). Â That's what many here jumped to immediately as well.
"extreme views about women" - take away abortion. Â How much is there about Ted Cruz not wanting women to work or drive? Â (His wife worked at Goldman Sachs and I think made more money than him for a while)? Â I'm sorry, but as much as I am pro choice, I am not just a uterus. Â When someone says "extreme views about women" I'm thinking they are talking about a lot more than reproductive rights. Â Economic rights, voting rights, being able to sit on the same fucking bus, etc. Â I didn't realize that Huckabee wanted all women to be in burqas and/or refused to fly on planes sitting next to them. Â
"don't want to live in the modern world" - that REEKS of ISIS talk to me. Â They want a return to 7th century Islam. Â Or maybe other extremists who don't believe in using technology. Â Or again, think women don't belong outside the house. Â A modern world isn't entirely about my ability to have an abortion or even have access to healthcare for specific female/reproductive issues (because you know what, the modern world would want UHC and no one should NEED to rely on PP for that - that is a failing that is decades old and it's on both parties).
Finally, I just don't see why that terrorist group part of the quote was necessary. Â It seems like what the right is doing, but just on the other side (ie, saying inflammatory things to get the base excited). Â It's not good for moderate voters, it makes HER look divisive, and it's completely unnecessary for her to get the Democrat votes. Â Why is this strategy OK for her, but it's the DUMBEST.THING.EVER for Republicans?
Also, I don't believe that most Republicans have the stated goal of getting rid of choice and healthcare for women. Â I'm not talking about most candidates, or most people polled, or whatever. Â Most Republicans. Â Meaning everyone, nationwide, who identifies as a Republican does not look to these guys and say "yes, this is our rallying cry - lead us! Â Make change on this one issue!" Â I think they have a lot of other concerns, and may go along with the abortion stuff in order to get some movement on another issue they care about more.
That's not the same to me as everyone following ISIS because they want a Caliphate and 7th century Islam, or everybody in the Taliban, who wants strict adherence to Sharia law. Â
Maybe I'm wrong.  But I just don't think the comparison is that easy, and I see no reason for her to  have stooped to that level.  And I don't think "she's just calling it like it is" is reason to do something.  Isn't that exactly what Trump's supporters say of him?  You just happen to agree with her.  But do we really want to be the exact analogy of that on the other side?
:::::standing ovation:::::
This rhetoric has me running just as far from the D vote as I've run from the R vote.
Abortion has always been polarizing. But is used to be that the hate-filled diatribes were reserved for the extremists on each side. Now, if you're pro-life, you hate women. You see them as baby making factories. You live in the dark ages. And now, you're a terrorist. I do not understand when it became SO IMPOSSIBLE to understand, that for MOST people who are prolife, abortion is murder. I don't agree, but I can certainly comprehend why those people are desperate to try and end what they see as murder. That doesn't make them hateful. That doesn't mean they are out of touch.
And no, I'm not stupid enough to think any of you will even read what I've said. I have no doubt that you got to "prolife" and shut down. Just know that you're running off moderate, prochoice people. It's too bad, because you will need us at some point.
Yes abortion has been polarizing but taking away health of the mother exception takes us to before roe v wade. Even before the case women could acess health care as needed. In fact Roes challenge to the law was that she did wanted to have an abortion for noN medical reasons. INow these ass clowns want woman to die.
My grandma had an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy in the 50s. It was legal then- considered a necessary medical procedure. If we elect Huckabee and he get his way- oh well woman dies.
And the fucking hypocrisy. You know that Rick Santorums wife in essence had an abortion? She took an antibiotic that she knew would cause her fetus to die to save her life. So I can die but his wife gets to live?
It's late and I'm just about to go to bed so hopefully I'm coherent.
But if this is the worst thing Clinton says, then OK. At least it isn't rhetoric espousing views that women should die before having an abortion, or that asking questions/addressing one's ass-hattery means a woman is bleeding out of her whatever.
These guys are out their deliberately speaking views which (if given the chance) kill women, that cater to cutting the costs of social programs that can prevent children from hunger and homelessness because bootstraps and a myriad of other things that can literally harm people. They are using their position of power to not only broadcast these views but shame women and the rest of population for their "failures." So even if their views aren't passed into law, they work to shun women for having an abortion/taking contraception/etc. That's pretty terrifying.
ETA: And considering we have over 10 people saying very similar statements, even if they are from the other party, I think the ability to NOT be them is pretty fucking huge right now. IMO, the email scandal is much more damning then pointing out that the GOP candidates are getting/are religious extremists. Even if Clinton had said religious extremists instead of terrorist groups, there would still be uproar, since our society has decided to make the two practically synonyms of each other. I mean, if you relate terrorist group with Muslims and ISIS, most likely you will do the same with religious extremist as well. (Or at least the majority, imo, but I could be wrong.)
Abortion has always been polarizing. But is used to be that the hate-filled diatribes were reserved for the extremists on each side. Now, if you're pro-life, you hate women. You see them as baby making factories. You live in the dark ages. And now, you're a terrorist. I do not understand when it became SO IMPOSSIBLE to understand, that for MOST people who are prolife, abortion is murder. I don't agree, but I can certainly comprehend why those people are desperate to try and end what they see as murder. That doesn't make them hateful. That doesn't mean they are out of touch.
.
I certainly do understand where some people on the pro-life side are coming from.
But I also don't see why it is so impossible to understand the fear and stress of an unwanted and/or dangerous pregnancy. And with it, the absolute terror that one would feel if they were powerless over their bodies. If they were in a position were society valued that speck of cells the size of a lentil more then them.
I'm sure there are plenty of pro-life people who have lots of lovely characteristics. That truly desire no harm and deeply believe in the good of their god. But that is of little solace to someone on the verge of a nervous breakdown because they have to be imprisoned for life by a lentil.
I can put myself in the shoes of the pro-life camp. I get it. I am not taking the position I am taking because I'm trying to be disrespectful to sincere religious beliefs or because I hate Christians or because I am some kind of unhinged ideologue incapable of rational thought.
I'm taking the position I am taking because I don't care how sweet some of these people may pretend to be, the position they hold is legitimately terrorizing, cruel, and dangerous. This is a fact. Praying does not make those things go away. So their desired outcome, banning abortion, would mean women dying. Or experiencing lifelong health complications. It would mean women needed months or years of mental health services. They don't get let off the hook for holding these positions because they've cloaked it in the Bible.
I would love to be all "agree to disagree" on this issue. But my inability to get there isn't because I don't get where they are coming from. It's because I do get it, and I think it is, at its best, cruel, and at its absolute worst, terrorism.
Between this and Obama referring to some Rs as the "crazies", I'm planting firmly in the "I'm not voting for any of these assclowns," territory. Because yes, further demonization and polarization is just what this country needs. How do you ever expect to get the other side to even listen with this kind of rhetoric? One of the few things I've liked about HRC is that I believed she knew how to bring some order and compromise to our government. Well, this is not how you fucking do it. Some I'm throwing up the deuce. I'm writing in IIOY and calling it a vote.
Did Romney making public Obama birther cracks send you running angrily for third party hills in 2012?
Also, I don't know what Obama's "crazies" business was, but he's not a candidate, so I don't see how that influences a decision to not support Clinton.
For the record, I'm not trying to get you to vote HRC. I just don't see how invoking the word terrorism is the absolute dealbreaker.
So because these candidates deign to allow women to drive and work, though not for equal pay, that's enough? They're backwards troglodytes who think women are better off DEAD. Who think that RAPE isn't real if you end up pregnant.
I don't even want to know what they think of spousal rape.
They really do want to move us backwards, to a time when "america was great," to pre Roe, pre black president. That they're not setting bombs and forcing us to wear an abaya really is beside the point.
They really do want to move us backwards, to a time when "america was great," to pre Roe, pre black president.
And this is the crux of it. This is what I think she is really saying: that the GOP abortion position is backwards and indeed unAmerican, antithetical to the freedoms we are supposed to stand for.
I'm really tired of having to speak softly and kindly to bigots and be required to sit there and take it. Why is it that these men can say whatever and mean it, yet any rebuttal, especially from a women, and as hyperbolic as it may be, is seen as going too far and crossing the line?
...
Because men are supposed to lead and speak their minds and compete, and women are supposed to smooth things over, put the common good ahead of their individual good, and play nice.
I really wish I were kidding, but study after study shows that so many of us believe this at a subconscious level, even in very feminist circles.
I'm really tired of having to speak softly and kindly to bigots and be required to sit there and take it. Why is it that these men can say whatever and mean it, yet any rebuttal, especially from a women, and as hyperbolic as it may be, is seen as going too far and crossing the line?
Calling a racist a racist is too mean, cause they have a black friend, or someone they met once who was black and that counts. Calling a homophobe a homophobe is too harsh because "fagot" is a just a funny word and being gay is both gross and a sin anyway. Calling a misogynist a misogynist is just unladylike, because women shouldn't be so loud and uppity and we're still are allowed to vote, so what's our problem anyway? Screw that. Terrorism hits the spot for me because terrorists are not just "murderous savages" from foreign countries. They are us, sometimes, and these terrorists are trying and succeeding in terrorizing, oppressing, and harming specific groups of citizens of this country for religious agenda.
People are afraid when leaving their homes because they might get beaten or killed for the color of their skin or their sexual identity. Women are afraid when leaving their homes because they might get harassed and raped. When we live in a country that cultivates and rewards these attitudes and behaviors against groups of its own people, that's terrorism, in my opinion.
Post by tacosforlife on Aug 29, 2015 18:02:28 GMT -5
Honestly, if you aren't going to vote for HRC over this language, you were likely not going to vote for her. So I'm team heyjude on this.
The policy differences between the GOP candidates (regardless of who gets the nomination) and the Democratic candidates (again, regardless of who gets the nomination) are clear. The two parties are night and day on most issues.
At worst, anything HRC says makes some people stay home.
If you are willing to vote for a Republican over HRC because of this, you either do not understand or do not care about policy differences.
See previous post, re: there are no real moderates.
Honestly, if you aren't going to vote for HRC over this language, you were likely not going to vote for her. So I'm team heyjude on this.
The policy differences between the GOP candidates (regardless of who gets the nomination) and the Democratic candidates (again, regardless of who gets the nomination) are clear. The two parties are night and day on most issues.
At worst, anything HRC says makes some people stay home.
If you are willing to vote for a Republican over HRC because of this, you either do not understand or do not care about policy differences.
See previous post, re: there are no real moderates.
Actually, she was more likely to get my vote than any of the R candidates at this point. Jeb Bush is really the only one who could lock down the vote that has a chance of winning me over. And it's still not likely.
The FBI investigation probably would be the nail for me even without this, but one of the main things I liked about her is that she seemed to be one who could actually get shit done. But whatever. You certainly would know more about my voting than I would.
Wait. So, the first time I read the quote I thought she was talking about
"extreme views about women" - take away abortion. How much is there about Ted Cruz not wanting women to work or drive? (His wife worked at Goldman Sachs and I think made more money than him for a while)? I'm sorry, but as much as I am pro choice, I am not just a uterus. When someone says "extreme views about women" I'm thinking they are talking about a lot more than reproductive rights. Economic rights, voting rights, being able to sit on the same fucking bus, etc. I didn't realize that Huckabee wanted all women to be in burqas and/or refused to fly on planes sitting next to them.
This reminds me uncomfortably and a lot of when Tom Cotton said a few months ago that gay people needed to get perspective on asshole religious freedom laws because in Iran they execute gays and at least we don't do that here.
Post by NewOrleans on Aug 29, 2015 20:50:44 GMT -5
Mike Huckabee on feminists: The debunking suffragettes have won. And thus, we have all lost immeasurably more than we can imagine.
also, we are not just talking about abortion. We are talking about rape prosecution, custody, equal wages, maternity leave, maternal head of household, contraception, health care. If our politicians are allowed to divorce women from their rights in one regard, then all other rights are endangered.
This rhetoric has me running just as far from the D vote as I've run from the R vote.
Abortion has always been polarizing. But is used to be that the hate-filled diatribes were reserved for the extremists on each side. Now, if you're pro-life, you hate women. You see them as baby making factories. You live in the dark ages. And now, you're a terrorist. I do not understand when it became SO IMPOSSIBLE to understand, that for MOST people who are prolife, abortion is murder. I don't agree, but I can certainly comprehend why those people are desperate to try and end what they see as murder. That doesn't make them hateful. That doesn't mean they are out of touch.
And no, I'm not stupid enough to think any of you will even read what I've said. I have no doubt that you got to "prolife" and shut down. Just know that you're running off moderate, prochoice people. It's too bad, because you will need us at some point.
OMG. It isn't liberal demonization that has intertwined pro-life sentiment with hatred of women and baby making machines, etc. It is anti-choice Republicans who have done so themselves.
you bitched tacos out already for presuming to know your voting habits, but here you are presuming everyone's positions and awareness? This post is bullshit.
This rhetoric has me running just as far from the D vote as I've run from the R vote.
Abortion has always been polarizing. But is used to be that the hate-filled diatribes were reserved for the extremists on each side. Now, if you're pro-life, you hate women. You see them as baby making factories. You live in the dark ages. And now, you're a terrorist. I do not understand when it became SO IMPOSSIBLE to understand, that for MOST people who are prolife, abortion is murder. I don't agree, but I can certainly comprehend why those people are desperate to try and end what they see as murder. That doesn't make them hateful. That doesn't mean they are out of touch.
And no, I'm not stupid enough to think any of you will even read what I've said. I have no doubt that you got to "prolife" and shut down. Just know that you're running off moderate, prochoice people. It's too bad, because you will need us at some point.
OMG. It isn't liberal demonization that has intertwined pro-life sentiment with hatred of women and baby making machines, etc. It is anti-choice Republicans who have done so themselves.
you bitched tacos out already for presuming to know your voting habits, but here you are presuming everyone's positions and awareness? This post is bullshit.
This board constantly equates prolife with antiwomen. Constantly.
OMG. It isn't liberal demonization that has intertwined pro-life sentiment with hatred of women and baby making machines, etc. It is anti-choice Republicans who have done so themselves.
you bitched tacos out already for presuming to know your voting habits, but here you are presuming everyone's positions and awareness? This post is bullshit.
This board constantly equates prolife with antiwomen. Constantly.
That's because the position is, inherently, unfavorable to women economically, psychologically, and physiologically.