<p>Who is voting for Hillary Clinton? I’ve never met a single person who can tolerate her nevermind one who would vote for her, so where is all her support coming from. Can someone also explain the logic in voting for her, because I can not find any.</p>
<p>
Single-handedly? Wow, he really must be a good leader to convince a state senate - which is something like 35 -5 Democratic (and a comparable veto-proof majority in the House) - to go along with his plan to ruin the education system. What were the Dems doing while he was single-handedly doing this? Just taking their monthly kick-backs?</p>
<p>FF, while you are very glib, you don’t know of what you speak. Expanded powers are not confined to our President, but have also befallen the Commonwealth of MA. </p>
<p>Upon entering office, the Governor asked the state legislature for emergency powers to make “9C” cuts (which reference the section of the laws giving the governor the power to make UNILATERAL cuts), to the fiscal year 2003 budget. He continued with these expanded powers, which allowed him to make “emergency cuts” in the areas of local aid and higher education. Romney could reduce funding for any state program, except for the 14 percent of the state budget which supports constitutional officers, the Legislature, inspector general, comptroller and the judicial branch and debt service.</p>
<p>The expanded fiscal authority gave the governor the power to reduce the $5.5 billion set aside for local aid and the $950 million for public higher education, which included the University, state college and community college systems.</p>
<p>Timely, I think you missed the part of my post about the “pro-life” activists who have abortions on the qt. Like I said, it’s become a quandry for doctors whether these people can give informed consent for the abortions they seek out. And as a group, they’re not very good patients–they demand all sorts of special treatment and don’t follow aftercare recommendations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i really question whether most of the “pro-life” movement really believes that abortion is murder. If there were a fire and you had a choice between saving one 4 year old or a hundred frozen embryos, which would you pick?</p>
<p>Beyond that, if conservatives really thought abortion were murder, why would they allow exceptions for rape and incest? When do those things make it ok for one to murder a third party? </p>
<p>This link provides a handy table that shows why conservatives’ policies are NOT consistent with believing abortion is murder but ARE consistent with believing that women should be punished for sex.</p>
<p>Then there’s the politician recently who made such a todo about how we wouldn’t have to have immigrants if only abortion were illegal, because then we’d have a ready pool of homegrown cheap labor.</p>
<p>Conyat:</p>
<p>Can ya’ll start an abortion thread? I love arguing politics, but if there is one political issue I lost complete interest in years ago, it’s abortion. It’s just one of those issues where nobody is ever going to convince anybody of anything or change the minds (unless they are running for the Republican nomination).</p>
<p>I’d rather just say that I respect Timely’s personal religious beliefs and leave it at that.</p>
<p>ID, I didn’t bring it up, but since you asked I’ll leave it alone in this thread when others bring it up. I think the table I just linked to says all a person could need to say anyhow.</p>
<p>I thought linking to blogs was a TOS violation, btw.</p>
<p>In effect, Romney dumped all the unfunded mandates of special ed, NCLB, etc. on the towns of Massachusetts which, by law, have no realistic way of increasing revenues. The only thing he cared about was building a record of preserving a tax cut and a fraudulent balanced budget for his run for the White House. The man is a total fraud.</p>
<p>The schools, faced with massive budget cuts, could not cut back on special ed, NCLB. So, their only choice was to whack language courses, art courses, music courses, athletics, and AP offerings. Several of the best young teachers my daughter had in high school were let go. The language courses she took are gone.</p>
<p>By law, the town can’t raise property taxes, which are capped at an annual increase of 2.5% a year starting at 1980s levels and can’t even be adjusted to reflect increasing property values above that. So, the only option is a special school tax override vote, which they try every year, but is virtually impossible to pass because it has to separately pass in each of three adjoining towns for the regional high school.</p>
<p>The state lottery was sold to the voters specifically to address this problem and fund education with grants to the towns. When Romney axed the grants, he was killing a very solid public education system in the state. All of the state. There was a huge fight last year with Williams College trying to help save the French classes at Greylock Regional High School in Williamstown.</p>
<p>Oh, really HH? I thought it was just linking to commercial websites that’s against TOS, but I’m no authority on that.</p>
<p>Pity me, Idad. My youngest child is just beginning middle school, and I have to deal with the repercussions of these budget cuts for seven more years. Our school system will eventually be a shadow of its former self (it’s in the making…it isn’t quite ruined yet, but well on its way). These younger kids will never know the education that kids five or ten years ago had.</p>
<p>No, I checked before I posted. 
It is to personal blogs (and “all such sites will be removed”). ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can tell you why I lean towards voting for Senator Clinton:</p>
<p>a) The Republicans have created such a mess that I will vote to throw as many of the bums out as possible for the foreseeable future. They’ve earned it the old-fashioned way, through incompetence, corruption, and cronyism. And I say that as someone who occasionally votes for a Republican. Not this time. Send every last one of them packing.</p>
<p>b) Of the available Democratic options, Clinton reflects my mainstream centrist Democratic leaning Independent views as well as any of the candidates. I agree with most of her priorities and her positions on the social issues. I like her pragmatic, incrementalist approach and proven ability to work across the aisle. It counts with me that she has immersed herself in national security issues. She is the most battled-tested under the most intense glare of the national stage and has proven that she can take a punch and keep on truckin’. She has the most thorough understanding of how the Oval Office works and the things to do and – more importantly – not do, so I believe that she will be the least likely to make the rookie mistakes that plague every President. She will be able to hit the ground running, especially because of her ties to the Pentagon, which is essential given the complete mess in Iraq and the Middle East. A President who doesn’t already have the respect and relationship in the Pentagon is not going to be effective in achieving a timely and effective extraction from the quagmire in Iraq. And, finally, I believe that Hillary Clinton, along with her ability to use Bill Clinton, is the best positioned candidate to quickly reverse a disturbingly declining perception of the United States around the globe.</p>
<p>c) Her campaign is the most impressive operation, at this stage of the race, that I have ever seen. As an avid consumer of Presidential campaign books over the years, the discipline, focused outreach efforts, responsiveness, and lack of mistakes by the candidate and campaign is stunning…and it really dates back seven years ago when she began carefully laying the foundation for a run.</p>
<p>d) And, finally, after 230 uninterrupted years of old white dudes, I think a woman President is an important step that will help bring the United States into the 21st century.</p>
<hr>
<p>BTW, a fourth conservative Republican pundit has weighed in this week with a column about Clinton the candidate. This time, Rich Lowry of the National Review:</p>
<p><a href=“http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjhhYmVmNDI3NWYyYmVkZmZlY2RjMTYzOGRkOTViOTg=[/url]”>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjhhYmVmNDI3NWYyYmVkZmZlY2RjMTYzOGRkOTViOTg=</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Incredible lengths you’re going to, to try to supress the information on the blog. I guess if you don’t have a solid argument against it, trying to keep anyone from seeing it is the next refuge?</p>
<p>Did you actually read the purpose of the TOU policy? It’s to prevent people from bringing their college discussion away from CC and onto other sites or to rely on those sites for information, when the info hasn’t been verified. The blog I linked to is in no danger of doing either of those things, so your calling for it to be surpressed is not all in keeping with the spirit of the rule.</p>
<p>It’s just more of the neocon love of big government, power-mongering, and intolerance of criticism in action.</p>
<p>To me, it’s way out there. I personally would not “rely on that site for information” and I certainly don’t see any sources for the information, let alone that it’s been “verified.” It’s garbage, if you ask me. But that’s up to the mods to decide, of course. ;)</p>
<p>This from the person who thinks that offering pre-K to poor kids so they can start kindergarten on the right track if their parents choose is the moral equivalent of forcing evangelicals to shut down their pre-Ks and “turn over their 4 year olds to the state.” :)</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that evangelicals as a group really interpret it that way. Some of them may be that dishonest or that chock full of paranoid delusion, but they can’t ALL be; I’d be surprised if even the majority of them are. </p>
<hr>
<p>Why would I vote for Hillary? Simple. Four more years of the AEI determining our foreign policy and military strategy would leave America in tatters. Except for Ron Paul, all of the Republican candidates is gung ho on pursuing the AEI’s failed strategies and policies, and none shows any significant interest in any accountability for outcomes.</p>
<p>Well if i-dad can quote Rich Lowry and link to National Review, I can link to The Heritage Foundation, I suppose:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/ednotes74.cfm[/url]”>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/ednotes74.cfm</a></p>
<p>Wild and wacky stuff.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, let me get this straight. The overwhelmingly Democratic assembly abdicates its power to the governor. Then they sit on their hands while the education system is disrupted. Now, with a Democratic governor and the same overwhelmingly Democratic assembly you are girding for 7 years of a bad education system due to budget cuts that were enacted a few years ago? </p>
<p>Do I have that right? Now, tell me again why the Democrats have had no role in this. And, tell me again why you continue to vote for those bozos. And, here I was thinking of potentially retiring to Massachusetts. I think not. It sounds like your politicians are worse than those here in NJ. I didn’t think that was possible.</p>
<p>HH, you really think that article supports your contention? Did you even READ the article? </p>
<p>It is critical of the proposal, but not for the reasons you say. Its position is that 1. pre-K won’t provide the benefits Hillary says it will 2. voters have rejected similiar initiatives at the state level and 3. that subsidies to middle and upper class families for pre-school may lure away customers from private and parochial day cares.</p>
<p>Nowhere does it put forth any of the dishonest claims and paranoid delusions you’re attributing to evangelicals.</p>
<p>“dishonest claims” and “paranoid delusions”
ah conyat…</p>
<p>Anyone else would call them “opinions.” :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I read it twice, thanks.</p>
<p>And, of course, the arguments put forth by Republicans about Pre-K programs fail to address the real issue faced by real people:</p>
<p>What do two income or single parent working families do with their children? This may not have been an issue for Ozzie and Harriet, but it is a REAL issue for real American families.</p>