Your argument is a bit misguided. Women voted for Obama by 12 points in '12. Men for Romney by 8 points. Percentage of electorate that is female: 54. The equally challenging issue for the GOP is that Hispanic, black, Asian, Jewish voters are all solidly voting Democratic in national elections.

 

Hobby Lobby decision just reinforces the idea that the GOP is simply a party that caters to white males.

 

I've seen different figures which is why I gave the range.

 

You continue to make the mistake that the next election will have the same results/population/voting energy as 2012. I've seen that mistake made many times in the past from both sides. Very dangerous assumption. Obama has turned off a lot of his backers and Hillary simply doesn't excite them they way he did in the first place.

 

BTW, your last line is a nice talking point but repeating it often enough will simply not have the effect you think it will. Keep trying though.

What the five old men did was make it OK for religious zealot employers to come between a woman and her doctor in the name of religion. In other words, if a doctor thinks it best for a woman to have a certain type of IUD, the woman's employer could have veto power in the name of religion.

 

And Republicans wonder why there was a 20-point gender gap in the last presidential election. Talk about handing a campaign issue to Hillary on a silver platter. Sheesh.

Bless your Heart, you just don't really understand this decision at all do you? You just keep throwing in talking points that are either nonfactual or flat out lies from your friends on the left.

 

Doctors can prescribe any thing they want for their patients and the patients can get whatever care the doctor deems as needed. All this ruling did was say that the insurer can't be forced to pay for it.

 

I have medical conditions that could be GREATLY improved with surgery, but my health coverage POINT BLANK doesn't cover it. Doesn't mean I can't have the Surgery just that if I want it, I have to come up with a way to pay for it myself. It would be nice if it was covered as I can't afford it, but it isn't. It would be a lot easier to come up with $20 for morning after pills than $20K for surgery, so I don't have much concern that they can't afford the 4 things out of 20 that Hobby Lobby doesn't cover.

I've seen different figures which is why I gave the range.

 

You continue to make the mistake that the next election will have the same results/population/voting energy as 2012. I've seen that mistake made many times in the past from both sides. Very dangerous assumption. Obama has turned off a lot of his backers and Hillary simply doesn't excite them they way he did in the first place.

 

BTW, your last line is a nice talking point but repeating it often enough will simply not have the effect you think it will. Keep trying though.

Women have voted for the Democratic candidate in the past six presidential elections. You think Hillary wouldn't continue that trend? Get serious. Even half these Republican gals who live in Fort Thomas or Lakeside Park would vote for Hillary.

Women have voted for the Democratic candidate in the past six presidential elections. You think Hillary wouldn't continue that trend? Get serious. Even half these Republican gals who live in Fort Thomas or Lakeside Park would vote for Hillary.

 

Keep on thinking that. Like I've said, I've seen your type counting their chickens too many times to count over the years. Hillary will not get the women from the other side and she will get fewer men than Obama, by a lot.

No need to embellish. I think I summarized the ruling fairly accurately in the first paragraph of post 46. We're not talking about options, we're talking about religious zealot employers having the "right" to interfere with what a woman and her doctor decide.

 

Very bad on several levels.

 

You and I will never agree on this. I'm Independent, liberal on some things, conservative on others. What I see here does nothing to interfere w/ a woman's decision that she made w/ a doctor. What it did do was grant business' the right to choose what to offer, and it really limited that, until it is challenged again, to just religious based companies. This is going to set off an epidemic. How many religious based companies are there??? Even w/ this ruling, how many are going to change their coverage of contraceptives? If they covered them before the ruling, I'd imagine that they'd cover them now. All it does is stop the government from forcing them to cover specific types of contraceptives.

Women have voted for the Democratic candidate in the past six presidential elections. You think Hillary wouldn't continue that trend? Get serious. Even half these Republican gals who live in Fort Thomas or Lakeside Park would vote for Hillary.

 

God help us. She doesn't exactly have my confidence, but then again, the Republican party will bomb its selection again.

Bless your Heart, you just don't really understand this decision at all do you? You just keep throwing in talking points that are either nonfactual or flat out lies from your friends on the left.

 

Doctors can prescribe any thing they want for their patients and the patients can get whatever care the doctor deems as needed. All this ruling did was say that the insurer can't be forced to pay for it.

 

I have medical conditions that could be GREATLY improved with surgery, but my health coverage POINT BLANK doesn't cover it. Doesn't mean I can't have the Surgery just that if I want it, I have to come up with a way to pay for it myself. It would be nice if it was covered as I can't afford it, but it isn't. It would be a lot easier to come up with $20 for morning after pills than $20K for surgery, so I don't have much concern that they can't afford the 4 things out of 20 that Hobby Lobby doesn't cover.

 

Since you made a logical argument to his talking points he'll never reply.

Please stick to the issues, not each other.

God help us. She doesn't exactly have my confidence, but then again, the Republican party will bomb its selection again.

The problem facing the Republicans is that they have to run an actual person against Hillary. They can't nominate NO ONE. If the presidential election of '16 is strictly a referendum on Hillary, then yes, she might slip and slide. But put her up vs. Rick Perry or Sarah Palin or even Mitt Romney, and she emerges as clearly the better choice.

 

The Hobby Lobby decision is a gift to her candidacy.

The problem facing the Republicans is that they have to run an actual person against Hillary. They can't nominate NO ONE. If the presidential election of '16 is strictly a referendum on Hillary, then yes, she might slip and slide. But put her up vs. Rick Perry or Sarah Palin or even Mitt Romney, and she emerges as clearly the better choice.

 

The Hobby Lobby decision is a gift to her candidacy.

 

Yep. As bad as it is to say, the GOP needs to think outside the big white box for their candidate.

With Hillary's numbers going off the cliff I'm more convinced than ever she will not be the Dem candidate. Sorry to say.

With Hillary's numbers going off the cliff I'm more convinced than ever she will not be the Dem candidate. Sorry to say.

Wouldn't bother me a bit to see someone else as the Democratic standard-bearer. I hope Hill gets a serious challenger or three in the primaries. Having said that, I think that damage estimates to her candidacy have been exaggerated, and I don't think anything to come out of the latest (9th?) Benghazi inquisition (yawn) is going to alter her standing much.

Ha ha ha. Just had to bring religion to this conversation, didn't you? But now that you mention it ...

Pretty sure you (of course) already did that...

Wouldn't bother me a bit to see someone else as the Democratic standard-bearer. I hope Hill gets a serious challenger or three in the primaries. Having said that, I think that damage estimates to her candidacy have been exaggerated, and I don't think anything to come out of the latest (9th?) Benghazi inquisition (yawn) is going to alter her standing much.

 

Nope, she's doing it all by herself.