All apologies for my lengthy verbosity, as you called it, NDY. I write as if I'm getting paid by the word like Dickens. If you knew me in real life you'd know it can be hard to shut me up once I get talking... I'm the same way when I write. Besides, it can be hard to realize how much you've typed in these reply boxes until you hit "submit reply", you know what I mean?

I'm curious if anyone watched the Trump-less Republican debate by any chance. Without Trump there to regularly pull focus it felt more like the way all the other debates should have gone with all the candidates there talking more about actual topics that matter rather than just solely insulting each other for a couple of hours. Makes me wonder what the polls would look like by now if Trump was never in it in the first place.

The Iowa Caucus is Monday... how many candidates do you expect will drop out come Tuesday? And who do you think will win in Iowa? And does it even matter (considering that in the last couple of presidential elections, the Republican winner in Iowa did not win their party's nomination)?

Oh, NO, Ms.TESS! Please do not take my remark in an uncomplimentary manner! I LOVE your verbosity, always have enjoyed reading your comments. If you will recall, from years ago, I asked you to DO Issues because of your unique ability of worthy self expression! 'Nuff said?
NDY

Is there actually a pairing of Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren?
Without television, I have sort of lost touch with this whole affair!
NDY

No worries, NDY, I didn't take offense - merely didn't want you to think you had to write as much as I do (I often assume people hate how much I write rather than like it though, since most people here prefer to be brief... that and I have been told off before in a different group for the lengths I write).

As for your question - any assumptions of pairings of any sort is presumptive rumors at this point. Some people who support Bernie think Elizabeth Warren would make a great VP but that doesn't mean she wants that or would agree to that if he were to become the party nominee, just that people who like Bernie think they'd make a great ticket. She already said she wasn't interested in being President so I doubt she would have interest in being VP but you never know... but Bernie would have to get to that point first.

Thought I should mention now with Iowa out of the way, a virtual tie on the Democratic side and three guys on the GOP side seeming to rise above the others - Cruz, Trump, and Rubio being the three that got double digits in the caucus voting and thus picked up the most delegates. Democrat Martin O'Malley and Republicans Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee have all since dropped out of the race due to poor showings in Iowa and not believing they have a path forward. New Hampshire's upcoming primary will likely further weed out the GOP candidates. There's a Democratic town hall style debate tonight (Thursday, February 4th) and another Republican debate is coming up I think next week, in case anyone is still unsure who they are interested in or needs to re-evaluate the choices based on those who have dropped out and such.

(I have made time for this reply as I never seem to "have time" for anything these days!)

Let me begin by prefacing this remark with a personal statement:
I believe in the value of human life and dignity according to the original statememts in the Bible. "God gives life and He takes it away." I also believe in and have personally witnessed miracles of all sorts including healing. It is also my certain knowledge that even though it may not be evident to the naked eye, life begins at conception and the act of deliberate manual abortion, aside from spontaneous abortion which occurs from God, constitues murder. I feel when I speak out on the Right To Life issue, I am speaking out on behalf of innocent children who are being slaughtered by the thousands, disposed of as casually as an insect or some other pest!

I once was ProChoice believing that the act of abortion was "none of my busibess but between that potential mother and God" but as a good friend pointed out to me, "Who is left to speak out for the independent life of the unborn child?" For, when a woman is impregnated with the seed of a man, we are no longer speaking of the infant unborn child as if it is another body part simply belonging to the body of the woman in which it is growing. When I hwar of a woman destroying that life on purpose, I am outragef as a member of this society standing by while another's life is being snuffed out by an intentional deliberate concsientious act! And, it doesn't matter at what stage this is happening, it is still the destruction of a life to be lived according to God's plan. And, I am my belief, I don't "have" a belief!! I AM a soul with a body and that is inseparable, and that is a fact.

Life BEGINS at conception and that IS a Fact!

Now, politically, I will NOT support ANY politician who suppprts the idea of "consented murder" be it abortion, suicide, or euthanasia. Bottom Line.

That is my first consideration on WHO gets my precious vote. The other issues line up after that. That is the Litmus Test as far as I am concerned.

That's all I have time for because I must get to church today to receive my ashes on my forehead to proclaim to the world that,I am proud to stand in belief for the precious Love of Christ!

NDY

NDY, at what point is conception to you? Is it when the egg is fertilized? When the zygote adheres to the uterus? When the fetus is developed enough to have a brain and a heartbeat? When the fetus is far enough in development that it could feasibly survive if it were no longer in the womb? Or is conception just the notion you might be pregnant before there's even any proof you are?

And for that matter what equates to "life"? You say it begins at the vague term of conception but assuming you mean that to be when the egg is fertilized - you're talking about a tiny collection of cells that haven't even attached anywhere to grow yet to even become anything. There's not even anything resembling a human or otherwise at that point and there's nothing that says that zygote is going to attach in the right place or at all. Technically, it's hard to suggest something is a "life" if there is no brain or heart and it is unable to exist outside the womb. Those structures are formed around week 6 of a pregnancy but still continue to grow and develop through the fetal period. A fetal heartbeat won't be able to be detected via ultrasound before week 10. The brain and lungs are still developing 31 weeks into a pregnancy. A baby delivered at 36 weeks (a month before being considered full term) has a high chance of survival but would still likely require medical intervention to insure it. The odds of survival at 24 weeks into a pregnancy is only 50%.

I assume your stance wouldn't even give allowance to cases of rape or incest or even any of the women currently infected with the Zika virus who are pregnant whose children have an increased risk of being born with severe brain damage and other disabilities. I also assume you have no mercy for a woman with an ectopic pregnancy or any other situation in which her life is in jeopardy should she continue to carry a pregnancy. In cases like that isn't it more of a "consented murder" to let that woman die just so a pregnancy that may not even be viable not be terminated? Not to mention even those that may be viable - you're basically accepting that those children be born motherless if you insist the woman give up her life just because you refuse to allow her to terminate a pregnancy her body cannot carry without her losing her life to do it. And what do you make of miscarriages and stillbirths? Surely those were lives to be lived according to God's plan and yet God destroyed that life before it could be lived, no?

Frankly, I am more concerned with the lives already here than ones yet to be. I mean, at what point is my body my own to decide upon what is done to it? I am a woman of child bearing age. I think I should have every right to decide what I do with my body because no one else is going to help me raise a child if I were to become pregnant (save for the father of said child, hopefully). I could not in good conscience force anyone into raising a child they are ill prepared to care for or one that is born out of a heinous act done to them. I could not in good conscience force any woman to continue to carry a pregnancy knowing her life is in danger by doing so. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the human life already born and living on this planet? So many children are so horribly mistreated as it is - no one is worried about speaking out for them, the abused, the malnourished, the neglected. Surely Christ would want someone to step up and speak out for those kids already here that are being snuffed out by atrocities done to them. Surely that is destruction of life to be lived according to God's plan as well.

As for euthanasia, anyone who is terminal and in agony ought to have the right to speed up the process if they want. We don't hesitate to put down our pets when their health is at a point it is clear they are in pain because we say it's the humane thing to do - so why is it inhumane to allow a person who can legitimately consent to it to say they want to have that right to die with some dignity?

These are hardly the most pressing issues currently going on in the world, I hate to say it. We've got terrorists who want to do harm to us; their is woeful inequality both economically speaking and otherwise; our infrastructure is in disarray; there's immigration issues; whether or not people should have the right to healthcare; paying down the debt; balancing the budget; numerous social programs teetering on the brink depending on who gets into office; and the possibility of up to 3 Supreme Court Justices vacating their seats during the next Presidential term. Who has the best ability to steer us in a direction that will help us prosper as a whole (rather than just a select few) and who can best keep us from being embroiled in another war or attacked by another terrorist cell that matters far more. Because at the end of the day, if you don't have someone taking care of these issues, what are you forcing those unborn to be born into?

Sorry for that diatribe but I just felt that NDY's comments required a rebuttal of some sort.

I actually came to this thread to post that following the New Hampshire primaries (for those who have been under a rock - Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump came out on top for their respective parties in that contest, and by wide margins too, likely benefitted from New Hampshire's allowance for those registered as Independents to chose one of the two party contests to participate in and the overwhelming number of first-time voters in the state) the GOP side has shed a few more options as both Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie have decided to end their candidacies. That leaves Trump, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson on the Republican side going into the next caucus which is in Nevada in a little over a week (Sanders and Hillary Clinton are the remaining two candidates on the Democratic side). After the Nevada Caucus will be the South Carolina primary at the end of the month. Chances are good that if the GOP race isn't down to 2-3 candidates already by then, they will be come "Super Tuesday" in early March when several states take to the polls on the same day. Which two to three those will be still seems a bit up in the air right now though...

TESS, you can use ALL the impersonal medical terms you want to refer to the conception of the pregnancy and it still remains an unborn child. And if conception did NOT begin at the moment the sperm and the egg connect then there wouldn't be any need for "the morning after pill" then would there?

You said originally in the beginning of this thread that our opinions would be honored and not attacked. However, to me the principle of the candidate's opinion of Right To Life shapes their whole political platform and, FOR ME, establishes their whole outlook on morality and any other positions on ethical outlook and funding.

It is the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE to me whether it is to you or not! If the candidate and I don't agree on the moral issues, we are not going to be compatible on the other major issues as well.

According to your original statement, I don't have to be IN AGREEMENT with you! I can voice MY OWN opinion and not be "killed by friendly fire!"

NDY

The morning after pill merely keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining. It's essentially doing the same thing an IUD would do only it isn't implanted. A woman taking the morning after pill isn't necessarily pregnant, she's taking it to insure she isn't. It's basically serving the same function as any other form of birth control only it is put into use after having sex as opposed to before.

For the record I am not attacking you. I was merely asking for further understanding of your opinion and trying to explain what is actual fact (you stated something was a fact that there is actually no scientific basis to claim as such) regarding the issue you specifically brought up. It happens to be a hot button topic that many people pick a side on without understanding scientific facts behind it. Not saying you specifically, just that I've known many people who just say they feel one way about it due to their religion but they don't know anything about it beyond what they've heard in church and when they do know more they sometimes relax their views or at least acknowledge what is right for their lives isn't right to be imposed on everyone.

You use the term "right to life", I was just trying to point out some other sides to the subject. "Right to life" should apply to more than just a fetus; it should really apply to people actually living and breathing on Earth right now. And that is why I was pointing out other issues that are very important to their election aside from the abortion debate because those other issues greatly affect the collective right to life of everyone in the country and in some cases the world at large.

I didn't call you names, I didn't say your opinion was outright wrong. I don't agree with you but I never said anything that was in any way an attack on you or your opinion. Stating facts is not an attack, it's giving credible information.

Ahem... moving on then...

So anyone who wasn't aware, South Carolina had their Republican primary and Nevada ran their Democratic caucus (Nevada will do the GOP caucus on Tuesday while SC holds their Democratic primary on the 27th). Polling held true in both counts, with Donald Trump coming out on top in SC and Hillary Clinton winning in Nevada. After most of the results were in in SC, Jeb Bush announced he is suspending his campaign. Clearly, a virtual tie for a distant fourth place in SC was not what Jeb wanted nor needed to keep himself in the race. (Personally, I kind of think it's a shame, because Jeb represented the moderate Republicans far better than Marco Rubio does, and yet it will likely be Rubio that winds up the last "moderate" standing on the Republican side - unless you actually believe Kasich has another New Hampshire style showing in him either in Nevada or at least a handful of states voting on Super Tuesday).

Hillary Clinton fended off a big challenge by Bernie Sanders in Nevada, and though he out-spent her there 2-1, she managed a 6 point victory over him, proving she's still the primary choice of minorities. Clinton is currently leading in the polls in SC, which is the next focus for the Democratic side.

Donald Trump won prettily handily in South Carolina but Marco Rubio narrowly edged out Ted Cruz for second place and firmly planted himself into the "moderate establishment candidate" lane, whether that truly fits him or not. With Bush dropping out of the race, it's a good bet his supporters will get behind Rubio (though they could side with Kasich, but it seems more likely to be Rubio since he seems to be the one the establishment feel has the best chance to beat Trump or Cruz to the nomination. Ben Carson was dead last in South Carolina but despite his star continuing to fall, he's still hanging on in the race.

So with the pool narrowing a little further... has it in any way changed your mind on who you are supporting? Did your favorite drop out or are they still in the race? Are you still feeling unsure who you want to support? If you're still unsure, what is it you are looking for that you have yet to see from any of the candidates? And has anyone voted in a primary or caucus here yet? If so, feel free to give us some insight to the proceedings you witnessed.

Sorry. Don't have time to chat, just wanted to drop this off. Thot it was interesting. FOR ME: Right To Life IS the most prevalent issue. A good friend sent me this, I hope I copied it correctly:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/24/former-abortionist-uses-medical-animations-to-show-what-happens-to-baby-and-mother-during-abortion/
This is from a former abortionist M.D.

NDY

Surely there are other issues that directly affect you though, NDY - Social Security, healthcare, taxes, gun control, climate change, foreign affairs, social equality, financial equality, infrastructure - that's just a few of the issues currently circulating in politics that could have a direct impact on your own quality of life. I'm not trying to change your views on abortion by any stretch, I'm merely confused why you wouldn't be more concerned with issues that directly affect your own life. You're concerned about the unborn and want to speak for them, but who is speaking for you? Do you really want someone to represent you in government just because they've taken an anti-abortion stance if they're also interested in keeping you from getting healthcare or want to take away Social Security or do something to affect your housing or something? Surely there is some sort of benefit or assistance you have received at some point if you don't currently and there are certain folks running for President (and other offices as well) that want to take those things away. Is it worth it to choose someone who could do something to negatively impact your own life just because they want to force women to go back to the days of back alley abortions?

You say right to life is the most prevalent issue for you - what about your right to life? Because some people running they don't care about what you need to live. Surely it's in everyone's best interests to vote for those who will best protect their own right to continue to live and to be their own free person with their own free will.

For what it's worth, there isn't any presidential candidate that can do a darn thing to change abortion laws. The Supreme Court ruling is the definitive lay of the land. Candidates can talk a good game and claim to be whatever they want, but they can't reverse Roe V. Wade just because they become President. Congress can't change it either. It is what it is. Anything a candidate says about it is just lip service.

i want bernie. he reminds me of fdr. everything he stands for is what i want to see in a president.

do you think trump is a conman? they are bringing up his school for profit (all private schools are for profit) and saying that is all that is?

roe vs. wade was reversed. the first bush changed it. he made it up to each state. there is an alternative to all that and they brought it up in 1989. embryo transfer, freezing the embryos as well, it protects the personhood of the embryo which i am for, but at the same time the mother is out of her situation as well. i was shocked that they didn't just switch from abortion to embryo transfer and leave the abortion laws as they were back then. they said that the people in government at the time did not understand science and had no clue at all what embryo transfer is. grrrrr.

Roe V Wade wasn't reversed - it's can't be reversed by a President, that's unconstitutional. There have been cases tried in the Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade that have altered the trimester framework for when abortion is considered legally acceptable and a Congressional law in 2003 banning "partial birth abortions" that the Supreme Court narrowly upheld due to their conservative leanings which only restricts one method of abortion. Several states have laws on the books that would ban abortions if ever the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade via a future case while there are other states that have laws on the books that would keep abortion legal if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned.

Bernie reminds me of one of my uncles. Not an exact match, mind you, my uncle is less shouty. But there are similarities. Then again, Hillary reminds me of one of my aunts - it's the cheekbones I think. Somewhat similar demeanor too.

I like Bernie to an extent. I just worry about some of his policy suggestions - they're unrealistic. His numbers don't add up when it comes to how he plans to pay for some of the things he wants to do. It's more wishful thinking than legitimate workable ideas. Conversely, Hillary is underselling what she'll do because as she says, better to under-promise and over-perform than to over-promise and under-perform. Hillary's my first choice but Bernie would be my second. Everyone left on the Republican side scares the bejeezus out of me and I fear what will happen to us as a nation with any of them in charge.

To me, best case scenario with Trump is that were he to win he'd do a 180 and it's be like the greatest episode of "Punk'd" Ashton Kutcher never did. But some of the things he says... while I hope he's just saying things to see how far he can go before people turn on him, it seems more like he's Hitler 2.0 in the making with the way he's talking. And I really don't want to take the chance in the hope he's punking us all because the fear he'll march us right into WWIII is far greater for me.

Cruz is the same guy who led the shut down of our government just a few years ago. No one in Congress likes the guy and they work with him. There's something to be said about that. Rubio is the guy the "establishment" of the party are backing but they don't even sound sold on him. And the guy is notorious for not bothering to show up to do his job, like he's bored with it. Nothing about either of them or Trump says "Presidential". Kasich and Carson don't even have a chance so there's no point in mentioning them at this point. Sad truth is for the GOP, either Trump wins the nom or they go to a brokered convention - and the establishment would actually prefer a brokered convention because they don't want Trump - House Speaker Mitch McConnell is reportedly telling Congressional GOPs that if Trump is the nom, they should run ads against him so they're not brought down by him. The GOP just looks like an utter mess right now - who really wants them to be in charge of anything right now? They've held Congress for most of Obama's Presidency and done nothing but attempt to stop him from accomplishing anything - this isn't what they're elected to do!

Sorry for my minor sidebar on Congress there...

After all that I forgot to mention, the South Carolina Democratic Primary was yesterday. Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly won., 73.5% to Sanders' 26%. It's her biggest victory to date this primary/caucus season and now appears to reaffirm her as the Democratic frontrunner after some early worries.

Of course, Super Tuesday still looms... this coming Tuesday, several states will vote and if the current polling holds true, we'll be that much closer to an inevitable Clinton-Trump November showdown. Both are polarizing figures both within their own parties and outside of them. I personally find it interesting being from New York that both parties may wind up with New York candidates (granted, Hillary was born in Illinois and spent time in Arkansas as the state's first lady, but she's lived in New York since Bill's second term ended and she represented us in the Senate, so she's ours now). Have we ever had both parties nominees for President be from the same state before?

If it is a Clinton-Trump faceoff, which would you support? And if you're not sure yet, what will make the decision for you? Will their VP choices matter and if so, is there someone you'd like to see either of them chose?