HuskerNation1

Looks like the horserace continues as Trump is up by 4 in latest Rasmussen poll. http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

89% of the Tea Party is White. More than 60% of them are Republicans. 75% of them are over 45 years old. I get that it's uncomfortable to acknowledge that race issues still affect Americans' psyche. But let's call it what it is. Obama being black has nothing to do with the tea party. The seeds of the tea party began before Santelli and Palin is viewed as one of the founders of the movement. If you want to inject race into political parties, what percent of blacks vote Democratic? Should we say that moving forward, those who vote Democratic are racists against white males?

First off, the Dems controlled both houses of Congress his first two years in office, so suggesting all of his failures is the fault of Congress is like reading DNC talking points. As for Bush running the country into the ground, another DNC talking point that was reused over and over. Bush inherited a far worse mess from Clinton...all presidents inherit tough situations. Does that mean Clinton ran the country into the ground? LOLWell the economy was in a recession in his first quarter in office, the job market was the worst in years for 2001 college grads, we had the Enron scandal and them 9/11 when the markets tanked and economy was in greater trouble. But yeah...lol Bril..... You are really stretching here. The era from Reagan through Clinton was a very good economic time as a whole for the country. That was still in tact when Bush took over. What caused the job market issues you talk about is 9/11. 9/11 changed everything. I am on phone but have posted links before. Economy was in recession in March, 2001, well before 9/11. I graduated in 2000 which was a great job market and had several friends with great resumes who graduated in May 2001 and they could not find anything. It was bad prior to 9/11 and then became catastrophic after 9/11. I agree that most of Clintons term the economy did well.

First off, the Dems controlled both houses of Congress his first two years in office, so suggesting all of his failures is the fault of Congress is like reading DNC talking points. As for Bush running the country into the ground, another DNC talking point that was reused over and over. Bush inherited a far worse mess from Clinton...all presidents inherit tough situations. Does that mean Clinton ran the country into the ground? LOL Well the economy was in a recession in his first quarter in office, the job market was the worst in years for 2001 college grads, we had the Enron scandal and them 9/11 when the markets tanked and economy was in greater trouble. But yeah...lol

What do you mean by this? Of course, he didn't "personally" attack them. The people who "attacked" on 9/11 all died as a result of the attacks. If that is your position, then I will assume you believe suicide-bombings should not be investigated and justice pursued because the attacker is already dead? Or am I not following? I think his response was sarcastic following the random response from knapplc about the tea party forming because of a "black" president...but maybe I am wrong.

First off, the Dems controlled both houses of Congress his first two years in office, so suggesting all of his failures is the fault of Congress is like reading DNC talking points. As for Bush running the country into the ground, another DNC talking point that was reused over and over. Bush inherited a far worse mess from Clinton...all presidents inherit tough situations. Does that mean Clinton ran the country into the ground?

It's only a basic question in that you've cherry-picked it with specific parameters and worded it a specific way because you don't really want any answer but rather you want to elicit the response you desire. The question doesn't encompass the full nature of the possible situations and circumstances. I'm not afraid to answer any question, but my response to yours is not a simple yes or no as you insist it should be. If I provide the response you don't want, you will just rephrase and reparameterize your question again until you can respond to it the way you initially expected and desire -- as that was clearly evident in your response to AR. Or instead of rephrasing your question you may just mischaracterize my response to cut to the chase. You only think the analogies are silly because you don't understand them. The essence of your argument against abortion is that children are being killed and they must be saved, is it not? Do you not feel that women should put aside their selfish interests and be required to save those children? Other than the length of time allotted for making the decision, it's not that dissimilar (although abortions don't involve "children" as you claim, but rather they typically involve zygotes or embryos, which are human lifeforms but not necessarily human beings). You seem to want to require women to put aside any natural feelings of self-control or self-preservation and force them to do something against their will and risk their health and lives in the process. There is always risk of imminent danger, its just that some dangers you know about further in advance of others. Some you may not be aware of until its too late. You say you understand pregnancy, but I don't think you really understand the possibilities of risk, consequences and human nature. Speaking of which, why did you bring up your kids and miscarriage? I don't understand how that is relevant to the discussion, or were you just trying subtly evoke sympathy or guilt for some reason? Which experience of MY "process" is relevant that you think I should mention: our miscarriages? stillbirth? Down Syndrome? None. They're not relevant. I only mentioned my friends' circumstances of their pregnancies because they were examples of unforeseen and unexpected permanent or fatal injuries the mother is at risk for, and ones that you seem to think they are required to be subjected to against their will and jailed if they don't comply. Wow, you are like a broken record, and reaching for stretch examples to justify a point that makes no sense at all. The question I am posing to you is at the heart of the late-term abortion ban debate, something that both sides of the aisle should be able to reach consensus on. So in posing this straightforward question, you are coming up with all sorts of scenarios to distract. Taking your scenarios into the gun control debate, it would be like arguing that we should allow individuals to purchase semi-automatic machine guns or bazookas in case a gang or group of terrorists invade their home and try to take out their family. If your plan is to continue to dodge this question by reclaiming that its not straightforward then there is no need to respond. If I wanted a broken record I could go buy one and crack it over my leg. LOL. You really think you have something on me with your question, don't you? It's so cute! You are adorable! You seem to get really agitated when people don't respond to your questions. It seems to have flustered you to the point where it is interfering with your ability to comprehend the content of others' posts; mine, AR, Zoogs, etc, because you were so focused on wanting to get an answer to your question. Well, I don't want to see you suffer anymore so I will give you your simple answer to your simple question, however incomplete it might be. Are you ready? You'd better sit down for it...here it comes... No, I am not okay with late-term abortions at 26, 31 or even 36 weeks (are those the right numbers you used? I can't remember, LOL) Whew! What a relief. You know, that was scary! Are you okay now? Can you breathe easier, or do you still have the vapors? Now that that has been settled, perhaps you can now re-read the responses of AR, Zoogs, me, etc. without distraction and perhaps comprehend them better. You think it should be so simple to reach a consensus, but clearly it's not, which you'd understand if you'd read the posts of many others from both sides instead of worrying about whether or not you're going to get an answer to your "question". See, you were so distracted with your foot-stomping wanting an answer to your "question", you fail to grasp the concept of the unknown being the rule, not the exception. If the unknowns were known, then you would know about them and be able to grant them an exception, because you know about it. But if the unknown is unknown, then you cannot grant an exception for it because you don't even know about it, ya know? Since you seem to be obsessed with questions, I should have pointed out that that was a rhetorical question. I wasn't going to badger you for an actual answer like how you badgered others. Whatever anecdotal experiences you may have had does not mean you are capable of awareness outside of your scope. This part where you are being deliberately obtuse is especially precious, where you feign pondering that you are not sure I "have been through the process as parent", considering that the post you replied to above actually contains my text where I quite literally mentioned some of my experience and "process" as a parent, then pointed out that it, like yours, was irrelevant. Did you not see that, or perhaps your mind was clouded by your desire to get an answer to your "question"? Wow you are defensive and obviously flustered...hopefully its not from too much reading of your thesaurus.

Immediately referring to anyone that calls out blatantly and demonstrably biased sources as "the libs" isn't helpful. Obama has done very well in office, and will continue to do well afterwards imo. I couldn't care less about conservative vs. liberal or republican vs. democrat because depending on my environment I'm always accused of being one or the other. But Obama has presided over some big, important steps forward from our country while facing the most governmental opposition probably ever. It's been far from a resounding success and it hasn't been all sunshine and roses, but I don't see a lot of causality to go along with the correlation of most of the claims in here. Obama the most divisive? Is he as a person that divisive, or does he happen to be the President in a divisive time? Terrorism is a greater threat today, absolutely. Does that have to do with Obama? Maybe. Or maybe it would have become much greater of a threat than it even has under a different president. Can you explain what he has these important steps are and what his role was in making that possible? As for causality, that can be attributed to just about any key events in any POTUS. Was Bush responsible for going into Iraq, or was it the fault of those who gathered the wrong intelligence about WMDs? Does he deserve any blame for the 2008 financial meltdown, or was this going to happen no matter what and his policies prevented it from being worse than it was?

Your first statement can be said about most President. Reagan had plenty of Democratic detractors back in the day and is now viewed very favorably. Bush 43 was the worst POTUS ever if you listened to Obama and many of his supporters, and history is now judging him better too. I get that every POTUS will be judged more favorably, and what I noted was not all negative either. One item I did not reference as it's not always able to be measured through data, but he has been one of the most polarizing Presidents according to many polls, and racial tensions have increased under his watch. Bush still might be the worst President we've ever had... Well if you believe many of the liberal on here, that would be a true statement. Every POTUS has their pros and cons, and I think Bush will end up somewhere in the middle, ahead of Obama but behind Reagan and Bill Clinton. Obama really has not had many significant accomplishments. His supporters will cite Obamacare, but it's not delivering what it promised, and it's costing a heck of a lot more than Obama stated it would, including major hikes in premiums. They will also cite that he inherited a bad economic situation which is true, but Bush 43 inherited a far worse situation in his first year in office, with a recession taking hold in his first quarter in office, the Enron scandal, and 9/11. The reality of the economic situation since the financial downturn is that it's the worst economic recovery in modern times. They will point to the killing of Bin Laden, but that would not have been possible without EIT and the terror policies implemented by Bush which offered up the intelligence to catch Bin Laden. Moreover, terrorism is a greater threat today than when Obama took office in January, 2009.

I think Trump's firing of Lewandoswki is starting to pay off for him. Sure, he will continue to make bone-headed statements, but he appears to be more focused and disciplined and on message, so much so that the Huffington Post could not help but refrain from blasting his trade speech today. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/trump-delivers-major-trad_b_10721588.html?yptr=yahoo I have to say if he can focus on how bad this economic recovery has been (especially for blue-collar workers) as well as how much worse off we are regarding terrorism, he is going to beat Hillary in November. I just don't know if he's got the discipline to hammer these 2 central messages over and over.

Or focus on how bad someone is (as Obama pointed out his entire first term about Bush), I'm not buying that either. There is no need for any politician to put others down to make themselves appear better.

Your first statement can be said about most President. Reagan had plenty of Democratic detractors back in the day and is now viewed very favorably. Bush 43 was the worst POTUS ever if you listened to Obama and many of his supporters, and history is now judging him better too. I get that every POTUS will be judged more favorably, and what I noted was not all negative either. One item I did not reference as it's not always able to be measured through data, but he has been one of the most polarizing Presidents according to many polls, and racial tensions have increased under his watch.

Yes, and what is ironic is that some of the more liberal members on here were claiming that Conservatives complain about liberal media and sources that are used. BUt when it comes to GDP growth, that's a hard statistic to contradict.

Not so fast my friend... Clinton +6 in Fox News poll tonight. Basically the average of the past couple weeks of polls. ​http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/29/fox-news-poll-clinton-up-by-6-points-89-percent-say-hot-headed-describes-trump.html If you quoted the rest of what I stated, its going to go back and forth, and I believe Clinton has a lead of 4-6 currently, but it's early and many voters do not concentrate until after Labor Day. I fully suspect Hillary to keep a small lead for some time.

With all the focus on the 2016 race, Obama is essentially a Lame Duck, and his tenure will soon be left up to historians. Here is how I see his legacy 20 years from now, but I know many Obama supporters will beg to differ. 1. He's the first black President we've had. Really the first non-white for that matter. 2. He presided over the country when gay marriage was declared legal by the Supreme Court. 3. He enacted an unpopular Obamacare program under much controversy. 4. Despite killing Osama Bin Laden, the threat of terrorism grew immensely under his watch, with the extremist group ISIS growing 4400%. 5. He inherited a difficult economic and financial climate due to the "Great Recession," but his policies resulted in the worst economic recovery on record. http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/43/2712-obama-qrecoveryq-objectively-worst-on-record http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-economy-fourth-worst-in-u-s-history/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemoore/2016/01/05/obamas-economic-record-dismal/#3a91179b3f50 6. Obama was an extremely gifted orator and used those skills to be the first POTUS to receive more than 50% of the popular vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976

If you look at individual polls, you are probably correct. However, I prefer to look at websites that combine polls together. It's similar to me liking 247 composite ratings of recruits better than any individual rating site. Oh I agree I typically look at the RCP aggregate, but I also look at polling trends. If we see another poll come out in the next few days that shows the race at 2-5 points instead of 9-11 (like some were showing last week), I see that as a trend change. One thing that RCP does not do, however, is remove outliers where the numbers are so far off base they skew the entire average heavily. Outliers are quite normal, to be honest. It's not necessarily good polling to remove them, nor good statistics. In any stats work I did back in school, they taught us to try to explain how outliers happened rather than exclude them. n short, though, some variability is good. Nate Silver and Harry Enten com 538 have been hammering this point on Twitter. Well I think it depends on your stats class. I was a stats tutor for a while and helped some of the juniors with their Econ research projects, and we often focused on data quality to ensure certain data samples were not skewing the overall output. Everyone does it different though, and it depends on what you are trying to measure. While Nate thinks pretty highly of himself and was on point in 2012, he has had some misses including the 2016 GOP nomination which resulted in him explaining why he was so wrong. I think if we had a traditional GOP nominee like Jeb Bush, Nate and most other pundits and pollsters would be more on point, but the Trump movement is so atypical that I don't think any poll will accurately project his turnout in November. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/

This is a pretty succinct description of the Bill Clinton presidency. He wasn't much of a leader, but he had a knack for making people feel good. Wow, I have to actually defend Bill Clinton on this topic, which I don't do often. I personally find the guy an immoral piece of crap, but he is 1000 times a better leader than Obama ever could be. In 1994 after the Republican Revolution, Clinton has the self awareness to look internally and declare the era of big govt was over. He also reached out to seek compromise and find middle ground, something Obama again refuses to do. He also helped mobilize a Democratic coalition after 12 years of GOP rule. Like Obama, I think his biggest failures as a POTUS were gutting our intelligence community and not taking the terror threat seriously enough. In any other era, Obama would be considered a moderate Republican. Ronald Reagan pushed through more big government social engineering than Obama has. Some people conveniently forget that. And it is utterly ludicrous to blame Obama for not seeking middle ground and compromise given the blanket Republican obstructionism the Tea Party has foisted on the party. With both Trump and Sanders benefitting from the "throw the bums out" sentiment, some forget just how responsible Tea Party obstructionists are for making the system even more dysfunctional and dislikable. They are also responsible for a lot of the anti-Obama memes that get repeated until people think they're true. Most of them aren't. As for your last statement: it was the Bush administration that ignored the memo "bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." that included a specific warning about al Queda hijacking a commercial airliner, because Cheney and others did not want to accept any intelligence from the outgoing Clinton appointees. The Obama administration has been far more accurate and successful in targeting and killing high level terrorists than their predecessors. I know Fox News likes to freak people out because Obama avoids painting Islamic Terrorists with a broad brush, but as any student of terrorism knows, that's what ISIS wants him to do. The very purpose and only tool of terrorists is to get their much larger adversary to over-react. Wow, I think the part in bold has to be the most laughable statement I've ever seen in this forum. Are you drinking the liberal media kool-aid or something? I get that Fox leans to the right and don't subscribe to everything they claim, but Obama has been the most left POTUS in the past 50 years. I guess if you think that makes him a moderate Republican, so be it. That would be like me arguing that Bush 43 is a mainstream Democrat because he (like LBJ in the 60s) started an unpopular war and expanded Medicare Part D. As for terrorism, we are less safe as a country from terrorists, and the number of terror attacks at home and abroad have grown immensely under Obama's watch. As I've pointed out repeatedly, Obama's own CIA director recently stated that ISIS was decimated when Bush left office and has grown by 4400% under Obama's watch. His legacy will be failing to take the threat of terrorism seriously and leaving this country vulnerable during and well after his time in office.

If you look at individual polls, you are probably correct. However, I prefer to look at websites that combine polls together. It's similar to me liking 247 composite ratings of recruits better than any individual rating site. Oh I agree I typically look at the RCP aggregate, but I also look at polling trends. If we see another poll come out in the next few days that shows the race at 2-5 points instead of 9-11 (like some were showing last week), I see that as a trend change. One thing that RCP does not do, however, is remove outliers where the numbers are so far off base they skew the entire average heavily.

It looks like Trump and Clinton are back to being deadlocked. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-are-deadlocked-poll-shows.html?_r=0 http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2363 As I stated before, I think this thing is going to go back and forth. Most voters don't really focus on the candidates and their positions on issues until labor day or after, so I think at that point in time some of these national and state numbers will be more meaningful. What is most intriguing about this poll is that Trump is performing quite a bit better among Hispanics than Romney or McCain did.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy? A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart. For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer. It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is. Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question.And what is your answer... You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child" You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child. In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning. Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it. You do realize that carrying a pregnancy to term has inherent risks, right? Not everything can be foreseen or is known a priori.Can you guarantee there will be no complications or unfortunate long term, permanent, or fatal consequences? There are no guarantees with anything in life. That's a silly argument. And I would classify what you are referencing as being part of one of the "exception" cases where the mother's life is in danger. The problem I see with this debate and many others is that both sides argue to the extreme and fail to offer up common sense policies that appeal to more of the electorate. Many polls, including this one by left-leaning Huffington post, show that Americans do support a ban on late-term abortions. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_abortion_0627282013.pdf It's not a silly argument. What is silly is you continuously moving the goalposts and conveniently re-categorize unforeseen consequences as an "exception" so you can disregard it. How convenient for you. How can it be an exception when those risks exist for Every.Single.Pregnancy? What utopia do you live in that seems to make you think pregnancy and labor is such a routine and trivial event that no woman should have any objections to putting themselves through it? You do know that pregnancy and labor can severely physically and mentally distress many women in some way, don't you? And there are a multitude of long-lasting and permanent physical and mental health risks. Did you know that breast cancer can spread more quickly and aggressively to other organs in pregnant/post-partum women? And Don't try to cop out by re-categorizing that as one of your "exceptions", because not every women knows what their cancer risk is prior to pregnancy, it could be something they don't find out until it's too late. Oh, their unknown cancer rapidly spread because you forced them to keep the pregnancy? Too bad, because that is their problem, not yours, amirite? I have two friends who experienced unforeseen consequences during their pregnancies. Neither one knew of any these risks prior to their pregnancies. One experienced dangerous levels of high blood pressure during labor. The other had a stroke during labor and nearly died; she is now permanently paralyzed on one side of her body. Wow. How tyrannical and patriarchal it is to tell women what they are supposed to subject themselves to. If someone encounters a child drowning in the ocean, or in a home consumed by fire, it is brave an admirable for that person to risk their lives to try to save that child. But if someone's natural self-preservation instinct kicks in and they don't want to risk their life to enter the middle of the ocean, or enter a burning home, should they be criminally liable for not doing so? No goal-post moving, you seem to want to continue to dodge a basic question I have asked multiple times, and then bring up silly analogies along the way. You are really trying to justify committing a late term abortion by bringing up jumping into the ocean to save someone? Again, what someone does in an "in the moment" situation like a burning house is not the same as a woman electing to have an abortion at any point, especially after 20 weeks, unless the woman's life is in imminent danger, and that is not what I've repeatedly said I am talking about. It's a great debate dodge strategy you are employing when you are afraid to answer a question. As for understanding pregnancy, we have brought two children into this world, and had a miscarriage early in the process, so I am well aware of how pregnancy works. It's only a basic question in that you've cherry-picked it with specific parameters and worded it a specific way because you don't really want any answer but rather you want to elicit the response you desire. The question doesn't encompass the full nature of the possible situations and circumstances. I'm not afraid to answer any question, but my response to yours is not a simple yes or no as you insist it should be. If I provide the response you don't want, you will just rephrase and reparameterize your question again until you can respond to it the way you initially expected and desire -- as that was clearly evident in your response to AR. Or instead of rephrasing your question you may just mischaracterize my response to cut to the chase. You only think the analogies are silly because you don't understand them. The essence of your argument against abortion is that children are being killed and they must be saved, is it not? Do you not feel that women should put aside their selfish interests and be required to save those children? Other than the length of time allotted for making the decision, it's not that dissimilar (although abortions don't involve "children" as you claim, but rather they typically involve zygotes or embryos, which are human lifeforms but not necessarily human beings). You seem to want to require women to put aside any natural feelings of self-control or self-preservation and force them to do something against their will and risk their health and lives in the process. There is always risk of imminent danger, its just that some dangers you know about further in advance of others. Some you may not be aware of until its too late. You say you understand pregnancy, but I don't think you really understand the possibilities of risk, consequences and human nature. Speaking of which, why did you bring up your kids and miscarriage? I don't understand how that is relevant to the discussion, or were you just trying subtly evoke sympathy or guilt for some reason? Which experience of MY "process" is relevant that you think I should mention: our miscarriages? stillbirth? Down Syndrome? None. They're not relevant. I only mentioned my friends' circumstances of their pregnancies because they were examples of unforeseen and unexpected permanent or fatal injuries the mother is at risk for, and ones that you seem to think they are required to be subjected to against their will and jailed if they don't comply. Wow, you are like a broken record, and reaching for stretch examples to justify a point that makes no sense at all. The question I am posing to you is at the heart of the late-term abortion ban debate, something that both sides of the aisle should be able to reach consensus on. So in posing this straightforward question, you are coming up with all sorts of scenarios to distract. Taking your scenarios into the gun control debate, it would be like arguing that we should allow individuals to purchase semi-automatic machine guns or bazookas in case a gang or group of terrorists invade their home and try to take out their family. As for the part I bolded, I have repeatedly stated that when the mother's life is in danger, that would qualify for an "exception" so that is not even relevant to the question I have posed. As for bringing up our miscarriage, that was a direct response to your inference that I am not aware of pregnancy and the associated risks. I'm not sure if you have been through the process as a parent, but most parents who live through the entire life cycle understand the process, the risks, etc... If your plan is to continue to dodge this question by reclaiming that its not straightforward then there is no need to respond. If I wanted a broken record I could go buy one and crack it over my leg.

This is a pretty succinct description of the Bill Clinton presidency. He wasn't much of a leader, but he had a knack for making people feel good. Wow, I have to actually defend Bill Clinton on this topic, which I don't do often. I personally find the guy an immoral piece of crap, but he is 1000 times a better leader than Obama ever could be. In 1994 after the Republican Revolution, Clinton has the self awareness to look internally and declare the era of big govt was over. He also reached out to seek compromise and find middle ground, something Obama again refuses to do. He also helped mobilize a Democratic coalition after 12 years of GOP rule. Like Obama, I think his biggest failures as a POTUS were gutting our intelligence community and not taking the terror threat seriously enough.

Here's an interesting read on Trump's plan for the convention. It continues his unorthodox approach and will also cause Hillary and the Dems to continue to dismiss him. Not sure how it will play out having Mike Ditka, Mike Tyson, and others speak. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-28/trump-campaign-lining-up-tyson-and-ditka-for-convention With Tyson having abused his wife, it will be interesting to see if Hillary and her campaign want to step in that after Bill's abuse of a few women. I am certain that Juanita Broderick and other women he abused are not going to sit down quietly.

It's going to be an interesting general election. Most national polls have Hillary up by 5-7 points, but many battleground states are much closer. Trump was ahead in Maine in one poll recently, and near tied in Pennsylvania. Hillary has a 4 or 5 point lead in Florida, Ohio is close, NC is close, Virginia is close, and so on. Also, outside of Wisconsin, the GOP seems to be performing surprisingly well in many hotly contested Senate races. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/senate/

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy? A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart. For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer. It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is. Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question.And what is your answer... You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child" You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child. In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning. Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it. You do realize that carrying a pregnancy to term has inherent risks, right? Not everything can be foreseen or is known a priori.Can you guarantee there will be no complications or unfortunate long term, permanent, or fatal consequences? There are no guarantees with anything in life. That's a silly argument. And I would classify what you are referencing as being part of one of the "exception" cases where the mother's life is in danger. The problem I see with this debate and many others is that both sides argue to the extreme and fail to offer up common sense policies that appeal to more of the electorate. Many polls, including this one by left-leaning Huffington post, show that Americans do support a ban on late-term abortions. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_abortion_0627282013.pdf It's not a silly argument. What is silly is you continuously moving the goalposts and conveniently re-categorize unforeseen consequences as an "exception" so you can disregard it. How convenient for you. How can it be an exception when those risks exist for Every.Single.Pregnancy? What utopia do you live in that seems to make you think pregnancy and labor is such a routine and trivial event that no woman should have any objections to putting themselves through it? You do know that pregnancy and labor can severely physically and mentally distress many women in some way, don't you? And there are a multitude of long-lasting and permanent physical and mental health risks. Did you know that breast cancer can spread more quickly and aggressively to other organs in pregnant/post-partum women? And Don't try to cop out by re-categorizing that as one of your "exceptions", because not every women knows what their cancer risk is prior to pregnancy, it could be something they don't find out until it's too late. Oh, their unknown cancer rapidly spread because you forced them to keep the pregnancy? Too bad, because that is their problem, not yours, amirite? I have two friends who experienced unforeseen consequences during their pregnancies. Neither one knew of any these risks prior to their pregnancies. One experienced dangerous levels of high blood pressure during labor. The other had a stroke during labor and nearly died; she is now permanently paralyzed on one side of her body. Wow. How tyrannical and patriarchal it is to tell women what they are supposed to subject themselves to. If someone encounters a child drowning in the ocean, or in a home consumed by fire, it is brave an admirable for that person to risk their lives to try to save that child. But if someone's natural self-preservation instinct kicks in and they don't want to risk their life to enter the middle of the ocean, or enter a burning home, should they be criminally liable for not doing so? No goal-post moving, you seem to want to continue to dodge a basic question I have asked multiple times, and then bring up silly analogies along the way. You are really trying to justify committing a late term abortion by bringing up jumping into the ocean to save someone? Again, what someone does in an "in the moment" situation like a burning house is not the same as a woman electing to have an abortion at any point, especially after 20 weeks, unless the woman's life is in imminent danger, and that is not what I've repeatedly said I am talking about. It's a great debate dodge strategy you are employing when you are afraid to answer a question. As for understanding pregnancy, we have brought two children into this world, and had a miscarriage early in the process, so I am well aware of how pregnancy works.

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy? A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart. For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer. It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is. Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question.And what is your answer... You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child" You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child. In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning. Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it. You do realize that carrying a pregnancy to term has inherent risks, right? Not everything can be foreseen or is known a priori.Can you guarantee there will be no complications or unfortunate long term, permanent, or fatal consequences? There are no guarantees with anything in life. That's a silly argument. And I would classify what you are referencing as being part of one of the "exception" cases where the mother's life is in danger. The problem I see with this debate and many others is that both sides argue to the extreme and fail to offer up common sense policies that appeal to more of the electorate. Many polls, including this one by left-leaning Huffington post, show that Americans do support a ban on late-term abortions. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_abortion_0627282013.pdf