A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Reasons to choose

Posted: Oct 8, 2016

Looking over the posts on the political board, I am stunned by the vitriolic posts.

For the top office in the land, we are hiring someone for 4 years. We are the interviewer and the employer.

We don't have to like the person, don't have to eat holiday dinner with the person, don't even have to watch the person on TV.

We have 2 contenders, one will hold the office. That person has to know how to do the job and how to get congress (which is way more crucial than the president) to work together to get things done. That person has to be able to get foreign heads of state to interact with him/her.

That person has to be respected (not liked) by heads of foreign states. Without that respect, those heads of foreign states will not interact and will just wait it out 4 years until we get the next employee in the job.

If you are waiting for a saint to run for office, don't hold your breath.

The executive branch does not create laws (despite what many think). Congress creates laws. The executive branch must follow those laws regardless of personal opinion about the laws. Hence, the Supreme Court has ruled against the executive branch regarding executive orders (which are alllowed) from this president as well as past presidents.

The president does not "kill babies" nor does the president prevent them from being killed. Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme court decided that state laws prohibiting any type of abortion are unconstitutional. However, restrictions can be enacted by law. If you want restrictions, petition congress at your state level or at the federal level. If you want Roe v. Wade overturned, then somehow we must convince the Supreme Court that a zygote/embryo is protected by the constitution. If we convince the Supreme Court that a zygote/embroyo is protected by the constitution, then abortion would be unconstitutional.

Despite the mud flinging from the candidates, we must think and reason with cool heads in the voting booth. We are hiring our next president for 4 years.

;

You are right about that one issue - It is the only thing some vote on

[ In Reply To ..]
Please no "baby-killer" garbage, but All Smiles is right. You CANNOT vote abortion to be illegal - don't you think if it could be done Bush would have done that in 8 years?

It is just something to hold over voters so that will be the one issue they vote on.

I ask those who are voting on just this issue - you sure Trumpie will keep his promise? After all, he has reneged on all others and he is known to have been Pro Choice for many years until just recently.

My very own sister absolutely hates Trump but will probably hold her nose and vote for him since that is the issue that matters to her as a Catholic.

I don't find that a compelling reason to vote for this jerk and you have outlined completely why this is not an effective strategy for voters.

People miss the point completely - read Roe V Wade - all smiles

[ In Reply To ..]
Our president and our congresspersons have NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION, PRO-LIFE OR PRO-CHOICE. This is an artificial argument meant to inflame the voters.

The argument was made based on the 14th amendment (right to privacy) put before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is responsible for abortion being legal, not your president, nor your congressperson.

Your congressperson, your president, CANNOT CHANGE THIS.

Only the Supreme Court at the federal level can change this.

So why do you get in a snit about a candidate being pro-choice or pro-life? The candidate has no dog in that fight and there is absolutely nothing the candidate can do about it.

The only way to change Roe V Wade is to convince the Supreme Court that states have a compelling interest in protecting the rights of the unborn (the right to life) from the moment of conception.

Right now the right of the unborn to life does not exist until viability (natural or otherwise) which is currently at 22 weeks gestation.

So, stop this nit picking. Find a way to convince the Supreme Court that a zygote/embryo has the right to life. Then challenge a state law permitting abortion until it reaches the Supreme Court. That is the only way to change/repeal Roe v Wade.

Hillary and Donald cannot do anything about it, so stop the single-issue voting over something they cannot do anything about.

The democratic and republican platforms are for the most part smoke screens because they propose and support ideas that they cannot do anything at all about.

This pro-choice, pro-life is one way to keep the voters polarized and basically voting for/against a candidate when the one issue they choose has nothing to do with the office of president or congressperson.

But the question is... - Serious question here. sm

[ In Reply To ..]
...(admitting ignorance) aren't the justices appointed by the president? Of course, they have to go through the confirmation process, etc, but the president can choose people close to their own beliefs. This subject was brought up during the primaries (not regarding abortion but in general). Some posters were worried about this as there are potentially multiple positions to fill during the next president's term.

Look at who are on now and who might leave - all smiles

[ In Reply To ..]
At this time right now, the justices are evenly split between republican/democrat.

That does not mean they are evenly split between liberal/conservative.

If you look at who will stay and who will leave (for whatever reason) to be replaced, we are going to end up with the same mix we have now. DESPITE WHAT THE PUNDITS SAY.

The situation is that the longer a person lives (including the Supreme Court Justices), the more conservative they become.

So, that said, yes, if we replace a 75 or 85 year old justice with a 40 or 50 year old justice, it does not matter who is nominated, that person will be more liberal than the person being replaced.

I would not worry about who nominates the justices. We have one president, and 60 senators. So my guess is that if we have a conservative senate, the one justice who will get accepted/approved will be conservative. I've seen this in action. The president just keeps nominating until the senate approves one of the nominees.

If we have a more liberal senate, then perhaps a more liberal justice will get approved but not necessarily so.

Of late, the senate seems to like to keep everything in the middle, equally balanced. So, whichever style (liberal or conservative) will even the balance, that is who will get approved. That probably explains the rash of 5/4 decisions over the past many years.

The pundits, the RNC and the DNC like to keep the voters stirred up like this will be the be all and end all of supreme courts. IT won't. The senate will see to that. As long as the senate is not too skewed (liberal versus conservative), the senate will approve whomever keeps things in the middle, where they are now.

BTW, Trump may appear conservative, but he is clearly liberal, despite his rhetoric. If you look at his busines dealings, his style, how he gets things done, he is as liberal and as "crooked" as Hillary.

Maybe it just comes with the territory. Not sure if the person makes the job or the job makes the person.

But, I would not worry about the Supreme Court. It will be the same middle of the road mix as we have had for a very long time.

Disagree - I have not gotten more conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
BTW have you heard of the Notorious RBG? Hardly conservative, though very old.

There is a big difference between potential Supreme Court nominees and I would really doubt if Trump gets in his ones would ever balance out, we would end up with a bunch of Scalia types.

This is what motivates me as a liberal to vote and no doubt many conservatives, but the age thing I do not agree with.

How about the guy who is supposed to get approved now, he is about as conservative as you can get from a Democratic president, many of the R's had said they would have voted for him - before President Obama nominated him, that is.

The gridlock is really the problem, but I still have to believe it matters who gets in and the Supreme Court appointees do matter.

They matter, but in the long run, it doesn't - all smiles

[ In Reply To ..]
People become more conservative with age, but that does not mean they become conservative.

We all had our young "wild side" that clearly was fun, but not something we're doing in our 50s and 60s. I would not now condone what I did in my 20s but I would not admonish myself for doing it back then.

You can look up the supreme court and take it all the way back to when the court got started. You can see who nominated whom (only those that got approved), and for the most part it goes like 2 democratic presidents nominate 2 appointees, then 2 republican presidents, etc. So all in all its pretty much even - republican nominated versus democratic nominated.

The Obama nominee is a whole different ball game. Apparently there is some unwritten rule from the dark ages that if there is a vacancy in the last year of a presidency, it is left vacant until the next president is in office and that president gets to nominate.

I cannot recall which cycle of a vacancy, but I clearly remember there were several (3-4) nominees who the senate didn't like for one reason or another, and the poor president just kept putting in new names. Finally (#4 or #5) the president nominated somebody who the senate couldn't find enough wrong with and so voted for approval.

The senate approves regardless of who nominates, so even if Trump or even if Clinton is in office, the senate really chooses. They can just keep rejecting.

Which really begs the question, why doesn't the senate just choose a bunch of nominees, and ask the president to pick 3, then the senate can decide which of the three they would most like on the court. You'd end up with the same result, but it sure would go a lot faster with a lot less congressional senate hearings to air everybody's dirty laundry on TV.

I do recall one who was rejected because she didn't realize she was supposed to pay payroll taxes on the money she paid her nanny. I think that took an entire day of senate hearings.

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has become a bit more liberal, but if you look at decisions from the earliest supreme courts, one wonders if the Supreme Court doesn't swing from liberalism to conservatism, as well as from intelligence to stupidity. Recent court decisions have been on the side of completely incomprehensible to stupid. (One court decision - a person had to give the police his address if he moved - he left the country so he didn't think he had to tell the police that he no longer lived in the United States. He was extradited back to the US because he didn't tell the police he left the country. He was found guilty of 2 crimes - one, when he turned in his apartment keys he moved, second, they he boarded the plane and left the country he moved again. Not kidding at all whatsoever. The Supreme Court decided that he moved when he turned in his apartment keys.)

I'm not as much worried about liberalism or conservatism as I am about sheer stupidity - remember that corporations are people according to the Supreme Court. Stupidity is equal amongst conservatives and liberals.

Supreme court now and in the near future - all smiles

[ In Reply To ..]
Here's my points, by point.

Senate has 54 republications, 44 democrats and 2 independents. Hence, any nominee very liberal will get shot down. (need 2/3 to approve). Any nominee very very conservative will get shot down.

Here's the court now: Evenly split between conservative/liberal except for Justice Kennedy who is often a swing vote.

Here's who might/could leave: Scalia left, conservative. Thomas, conservative. Breyer liberal, Ginsburg liberal. Even court again.

Here's who remains: 2 conservatives and 2 liberals.

Given the makeup of the senate, I expect whoever gets approved will lean toward the middle and be more of a swing vote than an ultra conservative or ultra liberal.

That is why I am not concerned about the Supreme court.

Trump cannot get ultra conservatives approved, he does not have the democratic vote.

Hillary cannot get ultra liberals approved, she does not have the republican vote.

So, we get 3-4 justices show are leaning toward the middle, swing voters. Won't that be fun?

Similar Messages:

Jul 13, 2013
nm ...

Jan 26, 2017
I just heard the tail end of his speech to Republicans in Philadelphia. I have been and am still inspired by his words. I believe he has America's best interests at heart. Go ahead and flame me if you feel the need. This is a man who doesn't need the money. I am electing to have faith in his words. I look at the men and women standing alongside him and I know my decision is right. There will be bumps and bruises, there always are, but I know that America will be great again. ...

Sep 15, 2012
I mean, the man is half white, half black - so to regard him as being black is nothing BUT a choice, right? Pick one from column A or one from column B - it's your CHOICE. It is NOT factual to call Obama black, or to call him white for that matter. But it does seem passing strange that no one in the press regards Obama as white. Just by the laws of probability, you would expect that some would call him white and some would call him black. I mean, if I showed 1 ...

Mar 31, 2016
Every one of the leading candidates is seriously flawed, but not in the same ways, or to the same degree. There being no good, much less "ideal", candidate, here's my thinking and I won't be insulted if you disagree or reach a different conclusion. 1. I don't automatically eliminate someone who has been part of the "Washington establishment" as long as they haven't FAILED in that role. This would eliminate Clinton, Sanders and Cruz. Every one of ...

Dec 10, 2016
many of you voted for Trump is because you said he wouldn't owe any favors to anyone. Well folks, six of his new appointees contributed 12 million dollars to his campaign. So much for his self-funding. If Jack the Ripper were alive and had been able to contribute a million he probably would have appointed him to head Health and Human Services. ...

Nov 11, 2012
Rush Limbaugh is confused. He just can't understand why the Republican Party has so much trouble with blacks, Hispanics and women. Here's how he put it on his nationally syndicated radio show, channeling the way that a lot of conservatives are feeling after looking at the demographic breakdown of Election 2012: We have achieved, brilliant, highly accomplished African-Americans, blacks, Hispanics, you name it, throughout the Republican Party. They serve in office. Many of them ar ...

Oct 27, 2010
The verdict is out on flu shots. Many medical experts now agree it is more important to protect yourself and your family from the flu vaccine than the flu itself. Let’s take a look at the reasons behind this verdict: 1.) There is a total lack of real evidence that young children even benefit from flu shots. A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo. Also the shots are on ...

Jul 01, 2010
5 Reasons Illegal Immigrants Shouldn't Be Given American Citizenship John Hawkins Over the last few months most conservatives have quite naturally been distracted by Barack Obama's frightening incompetence, his elephantine spending, and his zealous attempts to swallow as much of the private sector as the government beast can stuff down its gaping maw. But while the cat's away, the mice will play. The little feet you may have been hearing pitter-patter back into the public square ...

Apr 09, 2013
communists should be no where near being a host on a TV station that some people actually think is news. Or any TV station for that matter. She would, however, be very popular in North Korea, China, etc. Trying to pass off the notion that kids belong to the community and not to the parents. Um, sorry...that would be a huge WRONG! Other people's kids are not my responsiblity or my communities responsibility. One of the proofs that communism does not work. If s ...

Mar 18, 2011
Ghadaffi called for the cease fire. "Beware of getting what you wish for. The ceasefire Colonel Gaddafi has just announced is not a vindication of the decision of the UN security council to get tough, nor a result of the wide backing the vote got from the Arab League and, unusually, three members of the African Union. It is the calculation of a man who, contrary to popular opinion is not mad, but behaving quite rationally. It is the move of a man who is trying to counter the threat o ...

Apr 10, 2012
> 12 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT> > When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted Democrat, give them > this list. Then they can then pick a reason from this "TOP 12"...> > 1. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon > of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at > 15% isn’t.> > 2. I voted Democrat because I believe the governme ...

Mar 16, 2010
http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/container/1276/781/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=5YNV2W3P0TJWLNN2&widget_type_cid=svp ...

Aug 28, 2012
Note that within the list are clickable links for further documentation. ...

Aug 28, 2012
The first handwritten list is concise and to the point. There is a longer detailed list printed below that one. ...

Sep 01, 2012
vote for him this election. I'm not posting this to start a war here. When he was campaigning the first time, I listened very closely to what he had to say. I was almost ready to vote for him but then I realized he could NEVER accomplish those goals without putting our country further in debt. I'm posting this as a reminder that he did everything just the opposite of every statement and campaign "promise" he made concerning our country while a senator: "The fact that we are ...

Nov 21, 2012
Came across a very interesting article. Gives some insight. Couldn't quite put my finger on it, but this sums it up. http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/08/23/7_reasons_why_liberals_are_incapable_of_understanding_the_world/page/full/ ...

Apr 15, 2015
...

Mar 08, 2011
The first links is the House Appropriations document showing spending cuts and most show the reasons for the cuts. http://www.majorityleader.gov/uploadedfiles/FY2011_SUMMARY.pdf The second link shows the comparison from 2010 and the President's cuts. Note the differences on that. http://www.majorityleader.gov/uploadedfiles/FY2011CR_SUBCOM.pdf The third link shows the cuts inacted in 2010 and those requested for 2011. http://www.majorityleader.gov/uploadedfiles/FY2011_CUTS ...

Sep 23, 2016
These transcend party: 1. Hillary Clinton is utterly devoid of moral character. 2. Hillary Clinton betrayed her office and peddled influence on a scale that even Boss Tweed would have found staggering. 3. Hillary Clinton is entrenched in exactly the old-time back-room inside-dealing power structure of which this nation has had more than enough - on both sides of the aisle. However reluctant some might be to admit it, we all know that these three things are true. Any one of them is suffic ...

Apr 12, 2011
I was just thinking about the long-term ramifications of dismantling or changing Medicare so that it does not cover healthcare needs of the elderly. One important one that originally came to mind was that many people who are now in nursing homes or assisted living won't be able to afford it. They will need to move in with their children unless the children can afford to pay the difference, of course. That will come out of the college fund for families in some case when there just isn' ...

Oct 26, 2010
I implore everyone to vote. AND check your ballot after you vote and make sure who you voted for is who is checked. This is what makes me nervous that they could cheat themselves back into office. In Las Vegas – “I went to vote and Harry Reid’s name was already checked” http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25511115/detail.html Voting machine techs are SEIU members – Voting machines automatically checking Harry Reid’s name http://www.washingtonexaminer ...

Aug 26, 2012
Since I don't know whether we are or are not supposed to post links in the proper place, I will post it, and if moderators don't want me to, I guess they will tell me. Sorry if I'm violating any rules, but I really don't know. Link ...

Aug 27, 2012
and heavily sedated because the Liberal world seems to spin out of control when they assume a post was cut and pasted (unless they are doing the cutting and pasting, of course). In the spirit of trying to soothe that savage soul, all below was hand typed, typos and all. Got plenty more, but not sure how much Maalox y'all had on hand. REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA (AND THERE ARE OOOOH SO MANY); HERE'S 50. &nbs ...

Sep 22, 2012
Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney: 1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura. Looks like every central casting’s #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief. 2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS. 3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?) 4. Can’t speak in a fake, southern, & ...

Apr 01, 2014
"More than 6 million Americans signed up for Obamacare before the March 31 deadline to get private health insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges. This is great news for the Obama administration. But there are millions more reasons to celebrate Obamacare. Actually, at the writing of this essay, there are more than 317 million reasons — because that's the population of the United States of America and every single one of us can benefit from health care reform. How? H ...

Jan 20, 2015
Pack of lie upon lie ...

Feb 11, 2015
1. You support revisionist history. When I was in a high school history class, I’ll never forget one thing our teacher taught us: what you read in history books isn’t always accurate. The example she used was history books in the Soviet Union, now known as Russia. She informed us, to my shock and horror, that the Soviets pretty much included what they liked in the history books and left out everything else. As a result, she said, there were generations of Russian students who were m ...

Nov 29, 2011
The verdict is out on flu shots. Many medical experts now agree it is more important to protect yourself and your family from the flu vaccine than the flu itself. Let’s take a look at the reasons behind this verdict: 1.) There is a total lack of real evidence that young children even benefit from flu shots. A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo. Also the shots a ...

Apr 14, 2015
No doubt, millions will discard objectivity and project their hopes for the future on the public persona of Hillary Clinton, as it will be carefully constructed by professional political strategists and public relations experts, all funded by the billion dollars plus that the Clinton brand will attract through its fundraising apparatus. Those who are more sober and reflective in their political judgments should consider the following three points I raise as reasons to be wary of a second Clinton ...

Nov 07, 2015
There are many more but this is a good start! 1. Bernie is an honest, decent, compassionate, practical, intelligent man, a very rare commodity among politicians! 2. He is consistant and does not change his position with the changes in the political wind. 3. He is not beholden to powerful corporations, special interest groups or individuals, never has been! 4. He cannot be bought and does not have or accept money from Super PACs or large corporations. 5. He has been fighting for the rights o ...