danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Sidebar concerning adoption:
As an adoptive parent, I understand some of the difficulties of the process. Both the father and mother have to release custody. Each state is different, of course. Perhaps they are trying to find the father? I think that broadcasting sexual histories is a bit much, but if the father is not named; something must be done to protect the adoptive parents from a claim being made post adoption. (Which I have seen, but not experienced).

I'm not sure that warrants the law as described in the link.

freeman3 wrote:Actually, that was consciously done in reaction to Sass's and your comments about Hillary.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Lindsey Graham, gone before Iowa

No way. He'll stay in because he's from South Carolina. He hopes to derail Rand Paul. It's personal with him and he has, if nothing else, considerable willpower.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Mike Huckabee, gone before Iowa

Sorry, but this is wrong too. As a former winner here, he believes he can win Iowa and vault himself into the top level.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Rick Santorum, gone before Iowa

Again, Santorum is a former winner. And, he has Foster Fries to pay the bills. My guess is he sticks around to see if he can win Iowa and vault himself into the top tier.

Doctor Fate wrote: Iowa is all about organization and enthusiasm.

clip

I wish you were right. However, I suspect there will be more going into the caucus. I think you've underestimated how easy it is to stay in until Iowa. All you need is a patron with billions or a frenzied following.

Doctor Fate wrote:
As for Rubio, if the Scarlet Letter law vote was so heinous, how did he subsequently win state-wide election to the Senate?

Hmm, makes you wonder . . .

Now, I guess you could argue that his popularity in Florida indicates no political impact from his vote, but that doesn't mean it won't be an issue going forward

I don't think he has the billionaire backer needed if he can't raise the funds.

I sincerely doubt that the Clinton Foundation holds secrets tha ca harm her anymore than if any candidates super Pac and Pacs come under close scrutiny.

Foreign policy is a trap for anyone. There are no easy answers, and Americans are only looking for the easy answer. There is no willingness to engage in another war, and yet there is a clamor for "something to be done" right now about ISIS. These are not expectations anyone can realistically meet. Paul at least had credibility when he says that the US can't solve every ones problems and should stop trying to achieve solutions for everyone.

That's why issues like the Scarlett letter and health care and student loans may end up being crucial issues...

freeman3 wrote:Just a crazy thought--maybe we can assess how bad that law was without reference to Rubio's popularity among Floridians. The fact that Rubio was popular in spite of his vote on that public shaming law does not cure the problems with it. Now, I guess you could argue that his popularity in Florida indicates no political impact from his vote, but that doesn't mean it won't be an issue going forward. I don't even know that it has come up before.

JimHackerMP wrote:Well, Danivon, since you oppose the electoral college system, you may want to take note that Obama was BARELY re-elected, (and barely elected in the first place), via the popular vote (e.g., how many Americans wanted him re-elected. 2008--52.9%; 2012--51.1%. That is not a very large margin for a race with two prominent candidates.

So, you're right, I guess not many Americans did support what he did between 2009 and 2012.

You were lecturing me about winning the right states; sounds like Obama wasn't really that popular after all; just won the right states--at least by your logic. You seem to forget that his party lost more seats in the House than before, and lost their majority in the Senate entirely, two years thereafter.

The data shows that it doesn't sound like we much cared for what he did during those years. It probably had more to do with the fact that at least 1.1% of Americans thought his opponent was worse--possibly more. And if they did, it would seem that even some of those people may have changed their minds two years later about which choice was the lesser of two evils.

What makes you so "sincerely" doubt that?

But as so often has proved true when such individuals start screaming "scandal" and "Clinton" in the same breath, the sane response is to take a deep breath, suspend judgment and examine relevant facts.
Appearing on a recent National Public Radio broadcast, for instance, Frum asserted that the foundation spends far too much on air travel and other expenses. The same philanthropic impact could have been achieved, said Frum, if Bill Clinton had merely "joined the International Red Cross" after leaving the White House.
Naturally, Frum doesn't know what he's talking about, although that won't stop him for a second. Among the significant achievements of the Clinton Foundation was to build a system that has drastically reduced the cost of providing treatment for AIDS and other diseases across Africa, the Caribbean and in other less developed countries, saving and improving millions of lives. Bringing together major donors, including wealthy nations like Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the leaders of poor nations to create these programs, he helped turn back a disease that once threatened to infect 100 million people globally. That effort required many hours of air travel by him and his aides — and many visits to extremely uncomfortable, and sometimes dangerous, places where Frum will never set an expensively shod foot.
Like Limbaugh, Frum has claimed that the Clinton Foundation wastes enormous resources while concealing its donors and expenditures from a gullible public. The truth, attested by expert authorities on nonprofit and charitable organizations, is that the foundation spends its funds with considerable efficiency — and it has posted far more detailed information, including the names of 300,000-plus donors, than federal tax law requires.
Did the foundation's staff commit errors during the past 15 years or so? Undoubtedly. Could its operations be more efficient, more effective, more transparent? Of course — but its record is outstanding and its activities have done more good for more people than Frum, Limbaugh, Schweizer, the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch would achieve in 10,000 lifetimes.
Why don't these furious critics care about basic facts? It may be unfair to assume that in pursuit of their political agenda, they are indifferent to millions of Africans dying of HIV or malaria. Yet they do seem perfectly willing to hinder an important and useful effort against human suffering.
When you hear loud braying about the Clinton Foundation, pause to remember that two decades ago, these same pundits (and newspapers) insisted that Whitewater was a huge and terrible scandal

I do not recall you saying what she did as SoS. I will go back through the forums