Atheists skew younger and the younger skew Sanders. Atheists have higher IQs given the information we have out there. Argument over.
I told you to move on. We're not doing this.
Atheists skew younger and the younger skew Sanders. Atheists have higher IQs given the information we have out there. Argument over.
I told you to move on. We're not doing this.
For the love of all that is good, STOP.
Also, regarding the discussion about Clinton's history of support of gay rights...remember how Obama wasn't fully on board with same-sex marriage when he ran in 2008?
And yet, what got legalized - nationwide, no less - on his watch last year...?
Dan Savage, columnist for the Seattle alt-weekly magazine The Stranger, appeared on the Tuesday broadcast of MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes to react to David Axelrod's revelation that President Obama always supported gay marriage all along and he was the one that advised then-Senator Obama to publicly oppose gay marriage in order to get alerted.
Savage said Obama "was going to pretend to oppose gay marriage" while fellow activists in the gay community "would pretend to believe him." Savage also said we can't be so "naive" to believe that politicians should be honest 100% of the time.
"We news this all along," Savage, a well-known columnist on gay issues, said. "We joked -- I wrote at the time when the president was opposed to marriage equality during the campaign, and in his first term, that he was going to pretend to oppose marriage equality and we would pretend to believe him, those of us who are activists, and we would hold his feet to the fire."
Savage said "nobody" in the gay community believed Obama when he went from being in favor of gay marriage early in his political career to opposing it during the 2008 election and then being pro gay marriage again prior to the 2012 election.
"Nobody I think in the LGBT civil rights movement believed him when he went from being pro marriage equality in 1996 to oppose to for it again," Savage said.
"That's not the way that people evolve on this issue," Savage explained. "People evolve in one direction. People move from opposition to support. I never heard of a case, except for the president, where we are supposed to buy somebody evolving on it then devolving on it then revolving on it as the president did."
Savage called this "useful political theater" and praised Axelrod's "political calculation" that "benefited LGBT people in this country tremendously."
"It was useful political theater," Savage said. "I agree with David Axelrod and the president that the country wasn't ready in 2008 for a ticket of a national candidate who supported marriage equality. And by pragmatically making this choice to jettison his support for marriage equality the president managed to bring the country along by making his discomfort with the political calculation he clearly made part of the drama and part of the performance of his office and it benefited LGBT people in this country tremendously."
Savage later excused the Obama political strategy because it's "naive to believe that politicians are 100% straight with us all the time, nor do we want them to be 100% straight with us all the time."
"I think we can't be so naive as to think that politicians are 100% straight with us all of the time, nor do we don't want them to be 100% straight with us all of the time," he said.
"it's not a violation i think of the pact between politician and public," Savage added. "It is a part of what politics and moving public opinion is all about."
"I guarantee," Savage said, "I believe in my heart that Axelrod ran that by the president before he published it."
But people's views on these things change, which is a big reason why the "flip-flopper" or "expediency" accusations never made sense to me, whether applied to Hillary or anyone else.
Dont know if the link Im providing this is true but
<>
When you people all keep quoting him it forces those of us who had the good sense to put him on the Ignore list years ago to read his drivel again.
Dont know if the link Im providing this is true but there seems to be an avalanche of evidence it is.
Sorry guys but it does look like the DNC is using "fillers" for the final night, 40 percent are now out protesting leaving the arena half empty MSM refuses to cover favoring HRC-not fair, or objective reporting.
And I do know general elections are extremely emotional times. My sweetheart wife is a staunch Liberal but we do well together, so i get how many are so vested in this emotionally.
Sorry for the truth:
https://www.conservativeoutfitters....g-seat-fillers-to-replace-bernie-voters-video
<>
[obvious troll being obvious]
Facts? Where I'm going we don't need any facts.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Do you know what they call this? Shit throwing; you're throwing shit on the wall and see if anything sticks.
Do you know what that means if you have to resort to this type of argument? You're a monkey or you have no argument or both.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
On the night that Hillary Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination for president, her party featured two Republican speakers who talked about their intent to vote for Clinton this fall against Republican nominee Donald Trump.
A former White House aide to Ronald Reagan, Doug Elmets, and a health policy worker at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Jennifer Pierotti Lim, both told the convention hall of Democrats and a primetime national TV audience why they’re voting for Clinton.
Elmets said it was “a shock” to be speaking at the Democratic convention, but argued that Trump falls so far short of what’s required to be president that he felt duty bound to oppose him and support Clinton. He contrasted Trump with Reagan.
“Reagan saw nuance. Trump sees the world as us vs. them, where somebody with brown skin or a foreign-sounding name is likely to blame for our troubles,” Elmets said. “Reagan knew that a leader needs diplomacy to steer a safe, prosperous course forward. Trump is a petulant, dangerously unbalanced reality star who will coddle tyrants and alienate allies.”
“While Hillary holds many policy positions that differ from my own, her qualifications are indisputable,” he said.
Trump, meanwhile, has been trying to pick off Democratic voters of his own, appealing to Sanders supporters repeatedly in speeches.
This election, in fact, has a high potential for crossover voting both by traditionally Republican and by traditionally Democratic voters.
One study conducted by Deep Root Analytics found that about 9 percent of the voting population in the United States were Republicans leaning toward Clinton, a total of 16.2 million people. And they also found that 14 million people, about 8 percent of American voters, were Democrats who lean toward Trump.
The average “Reluctant Republican,” as Deep Root labeled them, is often a woman, or is of upper income or highly educated, and social conservatives also make up part of this group. The average “Disaffected Democrat” is a white male, on the lower end of the income and education scale.
Deep Root found 266,220 Republicans who might lean toward Clinton, and 205,032 Democrats who might cross over to vote for Trump, just in the Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte areas.
So far, however, Clinton has an edge among high-profile party defectors. Several well-known Republican names have endorsed her , some driven by national security concerns, others by economic issues, and all to some degree by concerns about Trump’s temperament. Trump has not received any real equivalent type of support from well-known Democrats.
Democratic pollster Geoff Garin said part of the goal for Clinton is to have her “run more strongly among Democrats than Trump does among Republicans.”
“Even in the CNN poll on Monday that had Trump ahead, 25 percent of Republicans said they would not be proud to have Trump as president, compared to 16 percent of Democrats for Clinton,” Garin told Yahoo News. “And several polls have documented that a larger share of Republicans say that Trump lacks the qualifications and temperament. If events increase the focus on these considerations, or [if] people focus more on them when it dawns on them that Trump actually could be president, there will be the potential for people to peel off of Trump — either directly to Clinton or perhaps for [Gary] Johnson,” referring to the Libertarian governor of New Mexico, who is also running for president.
Tim Kaine claps like a seal