Comments on: 2016: The women’s election http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/07/03/2016-the-womens-election/ Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:47:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: JohnDille http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/07/03/2016-the-womens-election/#comment-1209 Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:29:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=564#comment-1209 blah127guy proves the point that Republicans just do not get it!!!! Any given woman seeking an abortion may have one or several different reasons for doing so, but the most critical issue involved IS FREEDOM OF CHOICE CONCERNING HER OWN BODY AND HER OWN POTENTIAL CHILDREN!!! Republican opposition to abortion amounts to FORCING women to do something THAT WILL IMPACT HER, AND HER CHILDREN, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES!!! Excluding the military draft, where men, usually, are FORCED to put their lives on the line for a conflict they may or may not agree with, THE ONLY OTHER MAJOR ISSUE THAT IS COMPARABLE TO FORCING A WOMAN TO HAVE CHILDREN SHE DOES NOT WANT, WAS SLAVERY!!! Most slaves were FORCED to live their entire lives in accordance with the will of their masters, and they had NO control over their own lives… beyond choosing to commit suicide instead of continuing to live under the steel grip of some right wing slave owning dictator! IN A NUMBER OF CRITICAL WAYS, BANNING ABORTION CAN HAVE THE SAME IMPACT ON A WOMAN AS ENSLAVING HER WOULD HAVE HAD! Most women, even fairly young ones, and most Liberals… not too bright in Conservative eyes… understand this. APPARENTLY, Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans, just are not as smart as young women or Liberals, or a number of other peoples and groups that Republicans look down their noses at! IF SOME WOMEN CHOOSE TO OPPOSE ABORTION, THAT IS THEIR BUSINESS… BUT NO ONE, MALE OR FEMALE, SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO PREVENT A WOMAN WHO WANTS AN ABORTION FROM HAVING ONE, UNLESS HER DOCTOR STRONGLY ADVISES AGAINST IT FOR MEDICAL REASONS!!! Strong Republican opposition to abortion is going to make this issue a major one in near future elections, and Republicans are going to discover that only dictators and fools would stand in the way of women who DEMAND the ultimate freedom of deciding whether or not they wish to bring a new life onto this often grim and unpleasant planet!!!

]]>
By: QuietThinker http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/07/03/2016-the-womens-election/#comment-1100 Sun, 07 Jul 2013 13:00:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=564#comment-1100 It is not just about eliminating abortion. Gov. Perry is attempting to eliminate poor women’s access to any form of birth control as well. The plan is not just to shut down abortion providers, but to shut down any women’s clinic providing birth control to poor and disadvantaged women. Of course, eliminating birth control for large numbers of women will actually increase abortions.

]]>
By: blah127guy http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/07/03/2016-the-womens-election/#comment-1099 Sun, 07 Jul 2013 00:29:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=564#comment-1099 “Some Republican men still do not understand the offense caused by their ignorance about how a woman’s body works and the reasons women reluctantly choose an abortion.”

Liar. Most abortions are out of convenience. Less than 1.5% are performed due to incest or rape.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/ 3711005.pdf

Around 12% cited physical problems with their health and 13% said health of the fetus.

And respondents were allowed multiple answers (ie. this is NOT a 1+12+13=26% scenario)

Additionally, you and other libs continue this false theme that women are all on one side of this issue. Keep up the lies.

]]>
By: gutenburg http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/07/03/2016-the-womens-election/#comment-1095 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 20:51:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=564#comment-1095 This will not happen. Perhaps it will draw a few more women to the polls to vote for their favorite pro-abortion candidate. But this time there will be a large number of women and men, mostly conservative who will vote that didn’t vote last time.

I know just as many women who are anti-abortion as I know men who are anti-abortion and the women are far more vocal. I do live in upstate NY in a fairly rural area but even in the suburbs most people somewhat lean that way. It isn’t only old white males who are against abortion. 64% are against abortion second trimester and 80% are against it second trimester. I would guess that probably 50% of the people who vote are against abortion totally.

This time the main focus willed be the failed Obama policies and the wrecked economy. I think there will be another recession/depression before 2016 and the Republicans will have an easy time winning in 2016, even if they nominate a very outspoken anti-abortion candidate. I would be very surprised if a Democrat could win in 2016. Any Democrat, even Clinton. There are only a few women who believe that the right is waging a war against them (most of them do not vote).

It wasn’t the Republicans positions on gay marriage and abortion that made them lose in 2012. It was the fact that many people, especially African Americans, still had a good opinion of him. If he would have been white I think Obama would have lost in 2012. If you take away the extra support from blacks and add in extra support from Christians and Republican types that did not vote in 2012 (because they didn’t like Romney) I think the Republicans would have won. But I think 2016 will be a pretty big win for the republicans – maybe 350 electoral votes or more. I know most people will not think it’s possible but that is how it works. Two terms for Reagan, two for Clinton, two for Bush, two for Obama. Almost every time it switches to the opposite party after two terms. This time will be no different but more pronounced – Reagan-like.

You heard it here first. I doubt I’ll be wrong.

BTW, I am not a Democrat or a Republican. Both have their problems.

]]>
By: flashrooster http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/07/03/2016-the-womens-election/#comment-1093 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 15:12:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=564#comment-1093 I spent my 4th of July watching the HBO miniseries “John Adams,” highlighted by some sweet, juicy watermelon and buttery popcorn. A great relaxing way to spend Independence Day. Watching the birth of our nation is always fascinating, but I couldn’t escape the fact that our nation’s origin allowed for slavery and drastically reduced rights for women, like no access to the ballot and no representation in our government. (Taxation without representation was one of the major factors for our revolution against Great Britian.) Fortunately for our nation, the wisdom of women still bore a major influence on how our country took shape through the influence they wielded over their husbands. It’s hard to imagine John Adams accomplishing much of anything without Abigail. But hardly an acceptable arrangement in the land of freedom and liberty.

237 years later the Republicans still seem incapable of letting go of that mindset, working on the basic assumption that they know what’s best for women and that decisions affecting the lives of women should be left up to men. For those of us who don’t buy into this assumption it strikes us as bazaar and grossly presumptuous. The Republicans have a penchant for alienating most voting demographics except for older white males (though I’m an older white male and I find nothing attractive about the GOP agenda.) One would have thought that after the 2012 election they’d have recognized this political Achilles heel, but instead they seem to be doubling down on the very approaches that are making it increasingly harder for them to win national elections. I can only assume that they intend to rely entirely on spin and BS, manipulating us dumb, naive voters into supporting their candidates with the same blind arrogance that our Founding Fathers had toward women, that only older white men have what it takes to govern and make the decisions that affect our daily lives. Good luck with that.

]]>
By: butlermarty http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/07/03/2016-the-womens-election/#comment-1087 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 00:27:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=564#comment-1087 “In America you’re cursed no matter who you vote for.” Jay Leno

]]>
By: JL4 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/07/03/2016-the-womens-election/#comment-1086 Wed, 03 Jul 2013 22:34:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=564#comment-1086 It’s looking like women will decide the next President of the U.S. Republicans will miss that point. I guess they think we still vote the way our husbands do. Big mistake.

But Rick Perry? AGAIN? Who in their right mind would put money into his campaign after his last and thorough humiliation?

]]>
By: yooper http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/07/03/2016-the-womens-election/#comment-1085 Wed, 03 Jul 2013 21:25:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=564#comment-1085 Was Obama v. McCain a battle of the races? I don’t think a reference to a play that was written when women in England were chattel like slaves is appropriate.

All of the states passing political restrictions on abortion are controlled by Republicans. They have been getting away with passing restrictions under the radar for years. I still recall the photo of the smirking men standing around Pres. Bush as he signed the ‘partial abortion act’ in 2006. It is about time this got the attention it needs. President Obama helped my making it a central issue of his first campaign for President.

]]>
By: ARJTurgot2 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/07/03/2016-the-womens-election/#comment-1084 Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:09:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=564#comment-1084 Wow, 2016. Sort of like the Second Coming, or in your case, the Proletariat World Revolution; the golden future. But I can understand not wanting to dwell on the prospects for libs in 2014.

]]>
By: EconCassandra http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/07/03/2016-the-womens-election/#comment-1083 Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:02:34 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/?p=564#comment-1083 The “women’s election” was their chance when Hilary Clinton ran for president.

Instead, they voted for a young, charismatic black man with absolutely no experience to hold the office of president.

Clinton has essentially been doing all the “heavy lifting” for Obama, proving she would have made a better president, while he basks in glory he has not earned.

What a waste in every way possible.

Timing is everything since second chances do not come often in life.

Good luck on that one for 2016.

Meanwhile, I see the whining has already begun.

]]>