Jump to content

Does Ives have a chance against Rauner, or against the Dems?


vito

Recommended Posts

If Democrats run a ham sandwich against Rauner in the general, we will have a ham sandwich for governor.

 

I will vote for Ives in the primary. If Rauner gets the nomination, I will vote for a third party candidate in the general. You'll be wasting your breath trying to convince me otherwise. Rauner is not a mini Trump. I will not vote for someone who signs a bill to use tax money to murder babies. End of story.

 

 

 

And this is why Pritzker will walk away with the election, and we will lose even more of our rights... :(

 

I can never understand why people will cut off their own nose to spite their face...

Because killing babies is a big deal. And at that point no other issue matters. That's my reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If Democrats run a ham sandwich against Rauner in the general, we will have a ham sandwich for governor.

 

I will vote for Ives in the primary. If Rauner gets the nomination, I will vote for a third party candidate in the general. You'll be wasting your breath trying to convince me otherwise. Rauner is not a mini Trump. I will not vote for someone who signs a bill to use tax money to murder babies. End of story.

 

And this is why Pritzker will walk away with the election, and we will lose even more of our rights... :(

 

I can never understand why people will cut off their own nose to spite their face...

 

Because I think murdering babies is actually a big deal to me and I refuse to willfully participate in it or support anyone who does.

 

If you're asking me whether I'm willing to sacrifice babies on the altar of gun rights, the answer is "NO!"

 

What exactly has Rauner done for us? Not a damn thing. He didn't veto any anti-gun legislation...and Pritzker won't sign any. They couldn't even get a bump stock ban through the legislature.

 

Why did a Republican governor sign a bill making Illinois a sanctuary state? Why did a Republican sign a bill forcing taxpayers to foot the bill to butcher babies? Why did a Republican governor fail to stop a veto override on an income tax increase? Members of HIS party had to vote for it. He's impotent and ineffectual. He couldn't stop Republicans from overiding his veto?

 

What was he thinking? Who does he think his constituency is? Illegal immigrants? Planned Parenthood? Did he honestly think he was going to bring Latinos into the Republican fold by his acts? Maybe white liberals who sympathize with illegals? Did he think pro-abortion Democrats were going to see what he did and think 'Damn, Rauner is my man in 2018!'? LMFAO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If Democrats run a ham sandwich against Rauner in the general, we will have a ham sandwich for governor.

 

I will vote for Ives in the primary. If Rauner gets the nomination, I will vote for a third party candidate in the general. You'll be wasting your breath trying to convince me otherwise. Rauner is not a mini Trump. I will not vote for someone who signs a bill to use tax money to murder babies. End of story.

 

 

 

And this is why Pritzker will walk away with the election, and we will lose even more of our rights... :(

 

I can never understand why people will cut off their own nose to spite their face...

Because killing babies is a big deal. And at that point no other issue matters. That's my reason.

 

 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If Democrats run a ham sandwich against Rauner in the general, we will have a ham sandwich for governor.

 

I will vote for Ives in the primary. If Rauner gets the nomination, I will vote for a third party candidate in the general. You'll be wasting your breath trying to convince me otherwise. Rauner is not a mini Trump. I will not vote for someone who signs a bill to use tax money to murder babies. End of story.

 

And this is why Pritzker will walk away with the election, and we will lose even more of our rights... :(

 

I can never understand why people will cut off their own nose to spite their face...

Because I think murdering babies is actually a big deal to me and I refuse to willfully participate in it or support anyone who does.

If you're asking me whether I'm willing to sacrifice babies on the altar of gun rights, the answer is "NO!"

Worse then dead babies are fatherless children. Especially when it's your fatherless children VS someone else's dead baby.

 

Look at the ludicrousy of Mass bump stock ban. It allows for sentencing up to life for something that was perfectly legal a few weeks ago.

 

That's why gun rights are the most important thing. If you're anti abortion your unborn kids will be fine. But with draconian gun rights you might not be around to raise them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like it or not, legal abortion is the law of the land and I do not foresee a change in this anytime soon. The Dems are totally in for abortion without limits, while at least some of the Republicans favor restrictions such as making late term (i.e., third trimester) abortions illegal. But even much of the Republican base does not see abortion as THE overriding issue, and is unlikely to support efforts to totally ban it. So realistically I do not expect a politician who hopes for success to campaign on the goal of seeing Roe v. Wade reversed. Other than the Supreme Court reversing itself, not a likely scenario, the only way legislatively to ban all abortions would be by Constitutional amendment and I am absolutely sure that right now the chances of that are zero. And just as supporting a third party candidate for any Federal office is effectively throwing your vote away other than whatever "virtue signaling" value it gives you, demanding that you will only support a candidate that pushes for a total ban on all abortions is automatically limiting you to candidates who CANNOT win, and thus do NOTHING to reduce abortions let alone get rid of them entirely.

 

I personally think abortion is wrong, and immoral, but I recognize that much, possibly an overwhelming majority of American voters think that at least first trimester abortions need to kept legal and available. As a practical matter I do not use a candidate's position on abortion as the ultimate litmus test. I do however use 2nd Amendment support as that litmus test because I see such support as support for the People, that the candidate has confidence in the People and that opponents of the 2nd Amendment do not trust or have confidence in we the People. If my only choice is between two anti-2nd Amendment candidates, I could sulk and not vote, or I could try to at least get the candidate least likely to try to further erode my 2nd Amendment rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like it or not, legal abortion is the law of the land and I do not foresee a change in this anytime soon. The Dems are totally in for abortion without limits, while at least some of the Republicans favor restrictions such as making late term (i.e., third trimester) abortions illegal. But even much of the Republican base does not see abortion as THE overriding issue, and is unlikely to support efforts to totally ban it. So realistically I do not expect a politician who hopes for success to campaign on the goal of seeing Roe v. Wade reversed. Other than the Supreme Court reversing itself, not a likely scenario, the only way legislatively to ban all abortions would be by Constitutional amendment and I am absolutely sure that right now the chances of that are zero. And just as supporting a third party candidate for any Federal office is effectively throwing your vote away other than whatever "virtue signaling" value it gives you, demanding that you will only support a candidate that pushes for a total ban on all abortions is automatically limiting you to candidates who CANNOT win, and thus do NOTHING to reduce abortions let alone get rid of them entirely.

 

I personally think abortion is wrong, and immoral, but I recognize that much, possibly an overwhelming majority of American voters think that at least first trimester abortions need to kept legal and available. As a practical matter I do not use a candidate's position on abortion as the ultimate litmus test. I do however use 2nd Amendment support as that litmus test because I see such support as support for the People, that the candidate has confidence in the People and that opponents of the 2nd Amendment do not trust or have confidence in we the People. If my only choice is between two anti-2nd Amendment candidates, I could sulk and not vote, or I could try to at least get the candidate least likely to try to further erode my 2nd Amendment rights.

He made me pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like it or not, legal abortion is the law of the land and I do not foresee a change in this anytime soon. The Dems are totally in for abortion without limits, while at least some of the Republicans favor restrictions such as making late term (i.e., third trimester) abortions illegal. But even much of the Republican base does not see abortion as THE overriding issue, and is unlikely to support efforts to totally ban it. So realistically I do not expect a politician who hopes for success to campaign on the goal of seeing Roe v. Wade reversed. Other than the Supreme Court reversing itself, not a likely scenario, the only way legislatively to ban all abortions would be by Constitutional amendment and I am absolutely sure that right now the chances of that are zero. And just as supporting a third party candidate for any Federal office is effectively throwing your vote away other than whatever "virtue signaling" value it gives you, demanding that you will only support a candidate that pushes for a total ban on all abortions is automatically limiting you to candidates who CANNOT win, and thus do NOTHING to reduce abortions let alone get rid of them entirely.

 

I personally think abortion is wrong, and immoral, but I recognize that much, possibly an overwhelming majority of American voters think that at least first trimester abortions need to kept legal and available. As a practical matter I do not use a candidate's position on abortion as the ultimate litmus test. I do however use 2nd Amendment support as that litmus test because I see such support as support for the People, that the candidate has confidence in the People and that opponents of the 2nd Amendment do not trust or have confidence in we the People. If my only choice is between two anti-2nd Amendment candidates, I could sulk and not vote, or I could try to at least get the candidate least likely to try to further erode my 2nd Amendment rights.

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think abortion should be mandatory for any pregnant woman found in the US. On the second deportation men and women should be sterilized. In a generation the problem will be much smaller

 

 

It's just a proposal, a modest proposal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like it or not, legal abortion is the law of the land and I do not foresee a change in this anytime soon. The Dems are totally in for abortion without limits, while at least some of the Republicans favor restrictions such as making late term (i.e., third trimester) abortions illegal. But even much of the Republican base does not see abortion as THE overriding issue, and is unlikely to support efforts to totally ban it. So realistically I do not expect a politician who hopes for success to campaign on the goal of seeing Roe v. Wade reversed. Other than the Supreme Court reversing itself, not a likely scenario, the only way legislatively to ban all abortions would be by Constitutional amendment and I am absolutely sure that right now the chances of that are zero. And just as supporting a third party candidate for any Federal office is effectively throwing your vote away other than whatever "virtue signaling" value it gives you, demanding that you will only support a candidate that pushes for a total ban on all abortions is automatically limiting you to candidates who CANNOT win, and thus do NOTHING to reduce abortions let alone get rid of them entirely.

 

I personally think abortion is wrong, and immoral, but I recognize that much, possibly an overwhelming majority of American voters think that at least first trimester abortions need to kept legal and available. As a practical matter I do not use a candidate's position on abortion as the ultimate litmus test. I do however use 2nd Amendment support as that litmus test because I see such support as support for the People, that the candidate has confidence in the People and that opponents of the 2nd Amendment do not trust or have confidence in we the People. If my only choice is between two anti-2nd Amendment candidates, I could sulk and not vote, or I could try to at least get the candidate least likely to try to further erode my 2nd Amendment rights.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the utter whack positions the national Democrats pose on tv and radio every day in this country is beyond my comprehension. Even in the national minority, they have no fear for reelection, for how their words are interpreted or how the media will spin it. Right now there are house and senate Democrats who continue to vote for and against measures, knowing full well those votes will be used against them during reelection; they don't care.

 

So why should a conservative bend and stretch the poles on the tent? I see no liberal offering mutual solutions or authentic compromise, because they have principals and values they believe in.

 

The far left runs loose, rabid and crazed and the DNC treats them like furniture.

On many issues, a liberal may be pressed on their heals once in a while but there is room to fall back. When it comes to constitutional/moral/spiritual issues, the back of a conservative's shoes are already hanging over the edge.

 

I'm not a single issue voter, but I'm not sure what it is about Rauner that justifies the "R" next to his party affiliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like it or not, legal abortion is the law of the land and I do not foresee a change in this anytime soon.

 

I'm unsure what your lengthy diatribe was about. It had NOTHING to do with what I said.

 

You'll notice I didn't ask for Rauner (or anyone else) to make abortion illegal. Did I? Nope. What I said was I don't want to be FORCED to pay for it. A Republican governor who requires me to pay for it WILL NOT ever get my vote. That's Rauner. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Worse then dead babies are fatherless children. Especially when it's your fatherless children VS someone else's dead baby.

 

Look at the ludicrousy of Mass bump stock ban. It allows for sentencing up to life for something that was perfectly legal a few weeks ago.

 

That's why gun rights are the most important thing. If you're anti abortion your unborn kids will be fine. But with draconian gun rights you might not be around to raise them.

 

 

Sounds like you're trying hard to make a reason why it's okay to support Rauner. Congrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several comments have been made that, due to Gov. Rauner signing SB31, Illinois is now a sanctuary state. This is not correct. A sanctuary state is one that is a protected asylum for illegal immigrants, a state that prohibits law enforcement from communicating, coordinating, cooperating with federal immigration officials.

 

The 40-plus page original bill would have done this. It made state-funded locations 'safe zones' for illegal immigrants and prohibited law enforcement from cooperation with ICE, etc. Some groups and media still quote the old language which was removed.

 

The final 2 page bill, with the help of Gov. Rauner, does not do this. The final language addresses a federal court ruling in Illinois that found ICE detainment orders to be unconstitutional. Both the Illinois State Police and the Illinois Sheriff's Association, along with other law enforcement agencies, supported the final language. Illinois State Police Director Leo P. Schmitz said the law “does not prohibit” state and local law enforcement from working with federal law enforcement, “does nothing to change law enforcement’s ability to arrest and detain individuals who commit criminal acts.”

 

1) SB 31 does NOT create “safe” zones
2) SB 31 does NOT create “sanctuary” state or municipalities
3) SB 31 does NOT prohibit law enforcement communications or cooperation with federal agents

 

What is does do is prohibit detaining someone for ICE for an extended period of time without a warrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several comments have been made that, due to Gov. Rauner signing SB31, Illinois is now a sanctuary state. This is not correct. A sanctuary state is one that is a protected asylum for illegal immigrants, a state that prohibits law enforcement from communicating, coordinating, cooperating with federal immigration officials.

 

The 40-plus page original bill would have done this. It made state-funded locations 'safe zones' for illegal immigrants and prohibited law enforcement from cooperation with ICE, etc. Some groups and media still quote the old language which was removed.

 

The final 2 page bill, with the help of Gov. Rauner, does not do this. The final language addresses a federal court ruling in Illinois that found ICE detainment orders to be unconstitutional. Both the Illinois State Police and the Illinois Sheriff's Association, along with other law enforcement agencies, supported the final language. Illinois State Police Director Leo P. Schmitz said the law “does not prohibit” state and local law enforcement from working with federal law enforcement, “does nothing to change law enforcement’s ability to arrest and detain individuals who commit criminal acts.”

 

1) SB 31 does NOT create “safe” zones

2) SB 31 does NOT create “sanctuary” state or municipalities

3) SB 31 does NOT prohibit law enforcement communications or cooperation with federal agents

 

What is does do is prohibit detaining someone for ICE for an extended period of time without a warrant.

I tried (to no avail) to explain this here before.

 

But it doesn't matter to me now whether or not the record is clear. He made his bed with the abortion funding, and has no hope of prevailing in a general election because of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I tried (to no avail) to explain this here before.

 

But it doesn't matter to me now whether or not the record is clear. He made his bed with the abortion funding, and has no hope of prevailing in a general election because of that.

 

 

The post about SB31 was not in any way meant to sway your opinion. It was just a statement of fact intended to correct earlier statements to the contrary. It is important that we try to present accurate information. I couldn't even tell you who made the statements without going back through the posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw a news article about JB. He's on an FBI recording with Blago calling Jesse White the least polarizing black candidate to give Obama's senate seat to which frees them up to appoint a white guy to SOS spot. Racist.

 

Actually, "Moby Dick" called White the "least offensive", not polarizing. At least, that's what they played in the ads down here (from the St. Louis stations).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Worse then dead babies are fatherless children. Especially when it's your fatherless children VS someone else's dead baby.

Look at the ludicrousy of Mass bump stock ban. It allows for sentencing up to life for something that was perfectly legal a few weeks ago.

That's why gun rights are the most important thing. If you're anti abortion your unborn kids will be fine. But with draconian gun rights you might not be around to raise them.

 

Sounds like you're trying hard to make a reason why it's okay to support Rauner. Congrats.

I have no problem voting for Rauner.

 

I also call BS on the conservatives who actually care about babies. So much that to prevent murder would a conservative:

Support gay adoption?

Allow dying babies in ****hole countries to emigrate to the US under our care and grant citizenship?

Ban in vitro fertilization that also "aborts" viable fetuses because it's medically reckless to give birth to 10 babies?

Volenteer deductions from their paycheck to raise a child they prevented the mother from aborting?

Adopt a baby born addicted to drugs?

 

If its important to you and you volunteer time to adoption charities, have adopted kids, work for adoption/child welfare reform, etc. good on you. You should be a staunch anti abortion supporter and you're better then a lot of conservatives.

 

For the rest it's a lot lower on their list of priorities then they'd like you to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worse then dead babies are fatherless children. Especially when it's your fatherless children VS someone else's dead baby.

Look at the ludicrousy of Mass bump stock ban. It allows for sentencing up to life for something that was perfectly legal a few weeks ago.

That's why gun rights are the most important thing. If you're anti abortion your unborn kids will be fine. But with draconian gun rights you might not be around to raise them.

Sounds like you're trying hard to make a reason why it's okay to support Rauner. Congrats.I have no problem voting for Rauner.

I also call BS on the conservatives who actually care about babies. So much that to prevent murder would a conservative:

Support gay adoption?

Allow dying babies in ****hole countries to emigrate to the US under our care and grant citizenship?

Ban in vitro fertilization that also "aborts" viable fetuses because it's medically reckless to give birth to 10 babies?

Volenteer deductions from their paycheck to raise a child they prevented the mother from aborting?

Adopt a baby born addicted to drugs?

If its important to you and you volunteer time to adoption charities, have adopted kids, work for adoption/child welfare reform, etc. good on you. You should be a staunch anti abortion supporter and you're better then a lot of conservatives.

For the rest it's a lot lower on their list of priorities then they'd like you to believe.

Oh yes, if you hold any Christian conservative values you must be absolutely pure in ideology and practice, or you're a hypocrite.

 

Your Sanger and Alinsky is showing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Worse then dead babies are fatherless children. Especially when it's your fatherless children VS someone else's dead baby.

Look at the ludicrousy of Mass bump stock ban. It allows for sentencing up to life for something that was perfectly legal a few weeks ago.

That's why gun rights are the most important thing. If you're anti abortion your unborn kids will be fine. But with draconian gun rights you might not be around to raise them.

Sounds like you're trying hard to make a reason why it's okay to support Rauner. Congrats.I have no problem voting for Rauner.

I also call BS on the conservatives who actually care about babies. So much that to prevent murder would a conservative:

Support gay adoption?

Allow dying babies in ****hole countries to emigrate to the US under our care and grant citizenship?

Ban in vitro fertilization that also "aborts" viable fetuses because it's medically reckless to give birth to 10 babies?

Volenteer deductions from their paycheck to raise a child they prevented the mother from aborting?

Adopt a baby born addicted to drugs?

If its important to you and you volunteer time to adoption charities, have adopted kids, work for adoption/child welfare reform, etc. good on you. You should be a staunch anti abortion supporter and you're better then a lot of conservatives.

For the rest it's a lot lower on their list of priorities then they'd like you to believe.

Oh yes, if you hold any Christian conservative values you must be absolutely pure in ideology and practice, or you're a hypocrite.

Your Sanger and Alinsky is showing.

I'm just pointing out that if you actually care about the children there's other things you can do then voting for a no chance candidate or not voting and making us suffer through JB Pritzker.

 

I'm at least honest enough to admit even if I don't like abortion I've done nothing to save the babies. So why should I make the political stance with no effect just so I can tell all my friends what baby killers they are for voting for Rauner.

 

I'm not a Christian, but I at least know it's about living the lifestyle rather then judging others.

 

And if you want to throw Alinsky look at how a non issue that you (assuming) have probably done nothing about divides us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worse then dead babies are fatherless children. Especially when it's your fatherless children VS someone else's dead baby.

Look at the ludicrousy of Mass bump stock ban. It allows for sentencing up to life for something that was perfectly legal a few weeks ago.

That's why gun rights are the most important thing. If you're anti abortion your unborn kids will be fine. But with draconian gun rights you might not be around to raise them.

Sounds like you're trying hard to make a reason why it's okay to support Rauner. Congrats.I have no problem voting for Rauner.

I also call BS on the conservatives who actually care about babies. So much that to prevent murder would a conservative:

Support gay adoption?

Allow dying babies in ****hole countries to emigrate to the US under our care and grant citizenship?

Ban in vitro fertilization that also "aborts" viable fetuses because it's medically reckless to give birth to 10 babies?

Volenteer deductions from their paycheck to raise a child they prevented the mother from aborting?

Adopt a baby born addicted to drugs?

If its important to you and you volunteer time to adoption charities, have adopted kids, work for adoption/child welfare reform, etc. good on you. You should be a staunch anti abortion supporter and you're better then a lot of conservatives.

For the rest it's a lot lower on their list of priorities then they'd like you to believe.Oh yes, if you hold any Christian conservative values you must be absolutely pure in ideology and practice, or you're a hypocrite.

Your Sanger and Alinsky is showing.I'm just pointing out that if you actually care about the children there's other things you can do then voting for a no chance candidate or not voting and making us suffer through JB Pritzker.

I'm at least honest enough to admit even if I don't like abortion I've done nothing to save the babies. So why should I make the political stance with no effect just so I can tell all my friends what baby killers they are for voting for Rauner.

Then you can surely understand the position of those who understand that while abortion is the "law(lessness) of the land," the line is at public funding of PP.

 

Just like gun control denies basic human rights, so does abortion. I honestly see no difference between the two. Both strip the ability of the weak to live a dignified life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that there are those whose anti-abortion views are absolute, and they have every right to this belief. But I have seen specific pro-life, anti-abortion individuals suddenly have a change of heart when their 13 or 14 year old daughter or granddaughter announces that she is pregnant. I am not saying it is morally right, but the reality of a very young teenager bringing a baby into the world when she is totally incapable of providing for that baby, completing her education, and proceeding on what we know is a "normal" life path becomes virtually impossible and the option of an early stage abortion suddenly does not appear to be as terrible as it theoretically seemed prior to the reality of the pregnancy. Our society would be far better off if a birth to an unmarried young woman was still a source of shame, so that the child would go off to spend a few months away from home, deliver her baby, the baby would be put up for adoption, and the young girl would resume her life. But we no longer live in that world.

 

I do agree, however, that there is a distinction between the right to an abortion, and the taxpayer being forced to pay for that abortion. It is easier, for me at least, to be unequivocally against the government paying for an abortion than to be an absolutist on the abortion issue itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...