I watched the movie, Unplanned, based on the poignant story by Abby Johnson (formerly of Planned Parenthood). Wow, what an eye-0pener. Not certain what mansplain means, but this isn't a man vs. women issue. It just isn't. At any rate, this is my last statement in this thread about Trump, abortion, or the like. I really should know better, when I invoke Trump's name in a thread that, otherwise, has nothing to do with him, I'm asking for trouble...if not the rebuke of those accusing me of derailing a thread. For that, I apologize. /out
I hear you, but . . . Presidential elections are decided in the middle, not the edges. I don't see the middle breaking for a socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union. If they could turn a genuine war hero like John Kerry into a draft dodger, if we could turn a nice guy like Mitt Romney into a money-grubbing elitist, imagine what they will do to Bernie.
I couldn't understand why you created a thread asking Dems what they wanted or what their opinion was in the first place.
Because, as stated, I feel this place is kind of a microcosm of American Democratic voters. Just gauging to see whom Trump might be up against...and is likely to beat.
For you to say that suggests that you don't truly understand why so many women do, in fact, consider it a man vs women issue.
There are plenty.....and I mean PLENTY of women who are passionate right-to-life fighters. We're friends with Victoria...
Where does it say that if you're in the minority...you're wrong? At any rate, it certainly doesn't mean you give up the fight for the things you believe in.
That's like saying debate on laws against racial prejudice aren't a white vs. minority issue, because there are black people who don't want such laws. An issue is "about" a demographic if it largely or entirely impacts them, regardless of whether you can find individuals within that demographic who have a dissenting view on the issue.
^^^FIFY ...ever heard of the term "the majority rules"? ...I'm pretty sure it's part of the basis of our very own government.
Sure, tell that to William Wallace. Point is, I'll still fight for the things I believe in. If they become overruled, out-voted, and the like, then so be it. In the meantime, it doesn't mean I'll roll over and immediately acquiesce.
Whether or not you're passionate about your position--or even whether or not you're right--doesn't change the value of properly understanding the perspective of those who stand in opposition. In fact, I would submit that it's nearly impossible to have productive reasonable discussion with those with whom you disagree without being able to understand and even effectively articulate their side of the debate.
Can anyone help me understand why the other front-runner is being consistently left out of this conversation? Shouldn't a less angry, less extreme, more "political" version of Bernie be a much more electable candidate than "Angry Bernie" and "Sleepy/Creepy Joe"?
