Who will you vote for?

[sheramom4]

I got 89% Andrew Yang. Which is funny because I hadn't really considered him lol. Bloomberg was up there as well along with Warren, Gabbard, Castro, etc. Sanders and Biden were lower down than I thought they would be.
Trump was 36%, which was higher than I had imagined.

[Momto2boys973]

Oh, yes. At this point, it can be disputed. He barely scratched a win the last time and it was just a result of the electoral college, not because the majority of Americans wanted him.
I mean, he was running against Hillary... probably the most controversial and disliked candidate the democrats have come up with ever. And he still didn’t manage to convince the majority of Americans that he was a better option He just convinced enough in the right places to get it. But after 2 disastrous years (and 2 more to come, unfortunately) and with his legal future still in question, there’s a very high probability he’ll lose. Especially if Democrats wise up and don’t divide their vote again as they did in 2016. Part of the reason Trump won was the Bernie fans that were butthurt and voted third party or wrote him in. Maybe they won’t make that mistake again.

Trump. And he will win again. Can anyone dispute that?

[AllofFive19]

95% Julien Castro

[AllofFive19]

I got 89% Andrew Yang. Which is funny because I hadn't really considered him lol. Bloomberg was up there as well along with Warren, Gabbard, Castro, etc. Sanders and Biden were lower down than I thought they would be.
Trump was 36%, which was higher than I had imagined.

Trump was 7% for me. And mostly because I chose patriotism and business experience for my important things. I went from 74% to 7% lol. I also have not seen an ounce of patriotism from him, so it's likely lower.

[Deleted User 1461]

For those who post links w/o summary as if that supports their position, READ BETWEEN THE DAMN LINES:

New York's Abortion Law:

After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.” Previously, abortions after 24 weeks were justified only in cases where the mother’s life was at risk:

New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

New York’s RHA also repealed a section of the public health law that required the following: that abortions after 12 weeks be performed in a hospital; that an additional physician be present for abortions after 20 weeks to care for “any live birth that is the result of the abortion”; and that such babies be provided “immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York.”


YES, this law permits abortion until birth as long as a doctor decides the mother's "health" is at risk. health can basically be anything.

YES, this law makes it legal to not grant babies born ALIVE from botched abortions "immediate legal protection".


https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addre ... rtion-law/

I don’t care what “ the law “ says , it doesn’t mean that ALL democrats agree with those details.
I know I don’t and I’m sure there are millions more who are pro choice but only for real actually justified reasons, not for “ birth control “ and not up to the time of birth.
All the other items in your list are limited to a few people’s agreement, not everyone.
You’re putting all democrats into one big group and you’re exaggerating.

That one is always " reading between the lines" while wearing a tin foil hat. I hope she owns stock in Reynolds

Yep

[Deleted User 1074]

For those who post links w/o summary as if that supports their position, READ BETWEEN THE DAMN LINES:

New York's Abortion Law:

After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.” Previously, abortions after 24 weeks were justified only in cases where the mother’s life was at risk:

New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

New York’s RHA also repealed a section of the public health law that required the following: that abortions after 12 weeks be performed in a hospital; that an additional physician be present for abortions after 20 weeks to care for “any live birth that is the result of the abortion”; and that such babies be provided “immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York.”


YES, this law permits abortion until birth as long as a doctor decides the mother's "health" is at risk. health can basically be anything.

YES, this law makes it legal to not grant babies born ALIVE from botched abortions "immediate legal protection".


https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addre ... rtion-law/

I don’t care what “ the law “ says , it doesn’t mean that ALL democrats agree with those details.
I know I don’t and I’m sure there are millions more who are pro choice but only for real actually justified reasons, not for “ birth control “ and not up to the time of birth.
All the other items in your list are limited to a few people’s agreement, not everyone.
You’re putting all democrats into one big group and you’re exaggerating.

That one is always " reading between the lines" while wearing a tin foil hat. I hope she owns stock in Reynolds

REPORTED.

[Deleted User 1074]

I don’t care what “ the law “ says , it doesn’t mean that ALL democrats agree with those details.
I know I don’t and I’m sure there are millions more who are pro choice but only for real actually justified reasons, not for “ birth control “ and not up to the time of birth.
All the other items in your list are limited to a few people’s agreement, not everyone.
You’re putting all democrats into one big group and you’re exaggerating.

That one is always " reading between the lines" while wearing a tin foil hat. I hope she owns stock in Reynolds

Yep

do you dispute that HER source says abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy for the "health" of the mother and that "health" is not defined?

do you dispute that HER source says says a section of the previous law granting rights to babies born as a result of failed abortions has been repealed?

I'll wait.

[Deleted User 1461]

I don’t care what “ the law “ says , it doesn’t mean that ALL democrats agree with those details.
I know I don’t and I’m sure there are millions more who are pro choice but only for real actually justified reasons, not for “ birth control “ and not up to the time of birth.
All the other items in your list are limited to a few people’s agreement, not everyone.
You’re putting all democrats into one big group and you’re exaggerating.

That one is always " reading between the lines" while wearing a tin foil hat. I hope she owns stock in Reynolds

REPORTED.

Why?

[Della]

That one is always " reading between the lines" while wearing a tin foil hat. I hope she owns stock in Reynolds

REPORTED.

Why?

Triggered?