Vote for President

Started by BLADEMDA
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor

Vote for President

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 150 52.1%

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 138 47.9%
  • Total voters
    288
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's funny that people talk about Sanders' age of 75 later this year, but don't realize that Trump will be 70 and Clinton 69. As if we would give them a different age-related anesthetic risk.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FFP said:
It's funny that people talk about Sanders' age of 75 later this year, but don't realize that Trump will be 70 and Clinton 69. As if we would give them a different age-related anesthetic risk.
Click to expand...

You know very well Sanders looks old.
Trump and Hillary don't look their age. That's the bias.
 
Thoughts on a blow-hard supporting another blow-hard?
Huck's daughter is supporting him too.
Honestly, does Christie really even matter to the general GOP electorate? I don't think so. However, it was a nice distraction from Trump's debate disaster. Christie however has Robot's number and can break him in terms of public opinion. Trump I think has the ability to break Cruz, but he is much stronger debater than Jeb! Ever was.

Robot trying to associate Trump with "con-man" is funny, because he's the biggest con-man in the GOP Senate.
 
Random Anesthesiologist said:
I voted for neither, but that's not the issue. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy has always been the name of the game.. In real life.

There's a lot at play. Obama was young, slick, suave. McCain was just terrible, boring, and old.
Currently, all the old folks have the charisma and the young ones are boring and lame.
Plus, Obama may have killed it (for the time being) for anyone young and slick - they'd be considered inexperienced and weak.

It's about perception and Trump, Sanders have killed it in terms of public opinion. Hillary isn't too far behind because of her name and she isn't exactly a weak debater either. She's annoying for sure, but she has energy.
 
Random Anesthesiologist said:
I always thought being a raging bitch meant you'd live forever.
Click to expand...
In addition, her cackling laughter, deeply pitted soulless eyes, pale complexion, inability to cast a lively reflection in a mirror, and fits of bloodthirst and rage suggest her immortality may be due to a more dark and sinister source. A source from the old country of Transylvania.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
bashwell said:
In addition, her cackling laughter, deeply pitted soulless eyes, pale complexion, inability to cast a lively reflection in a mirror, and fits of bloodthirst and rage suggest her immortality may be due to a more dark and sinister source. A source from the old country of Transylvania.
Click to expand...

Maybe she joined Scalia and was recruited as part of the Iluminati.
 
Here is a something I've thought about due to Trump:

Is it entirely possible to support, and have, a Planned Parenthood without abortion being involved?

Democrats believe PP should exist and abortion is fine.
Conservative Republicans want to completely dismantle it.
Trump wants to have his cake and eat it too, but in this case, is it necessarily a bad thing?
 
Doctor4Life1769 said:
Here is a something I've thought about due to Trump:

Is it entirely possible to support, and have, a Planned Parenthood without abortion being involved?

Democrats believe PP should exist and abortion is fine.
Conservative Republicans want to completely dismantle it.
Trump wants to have his cake and eat it too, but in this case, is it necessarily a bad thing?
Click to expand...

You mean some sort of middle-ground, where each side gets what they want?

I've never heard of such a thing.
 
Doctor4Life1769 said:
Here is a something I've thought about due to Trump:

Is it entirely possible to support, and have, a Planned Parenthood without abortion being involved?

Democrats believe PP should exist and abortion is fine.
Conservative Republicans want to completely dismantle it.
Trump wants to have his cake and eat it too, but in this case, is it necessarily a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Like an urgent care or primary care clinic with MD/DOs and NP/PAs that prescribe birth control and (actually) order mammograms?
 
I was just curious, especially with regards to its efficacy and overall purpose. I see folks all the time for all sorts of Women's health related issues. I get asked about abortions as well. We do not perform abortions, but I do refer to those who do and it's mainly PP where I am.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Trump will keep funding planned parenthood as it currently exists. Don't believe everything he says as he is running to the right during the primary season.
Click to expand...

You may be right.
But, what if he doesn't and he actually does defund it unless abortion is no longer being performed.
The other question would be who would then offer abortions to those who wish to have them and are under-funded? Plenty of people don't have Obamacare or Medicaid or Health Dept insurance.
Remember, abortions are technically still legal in this country and is mostly decided to what extent by the states.
 
Doctor4Life1769 said:
Right, but for those who either can't afford going to a PCP/UC (uninsured) or can't go to the Health Dept/UC (no money) and/or those who want total confidentiality as well (I.e. Those who go mainly for STI testing).
Click to expand...

Many primary care clinics, esp in rural areas where there is supposed "limited access" work on sliding scale income. They get away with it because of subsidies and Medicaid. Many states also have county health departments.

Confidentiality, well, when you live in a small town, people know who you are. Even urban areas people still work near their residence. Besides, PP was advertising services they never even offered.
 
Doctor4Life1769 said:
You may be right.
But, what if he doesn't and he actually does defund it unless abortion is no longer being performed.
The other question would be who would then offer abortions to those who wish to have them and are under-funded? Plenty of people don't have Obamacare or Medicaid or Health Dept insurance.
Remember, abortions are technically still legal in this country and is mostly decided to what extent by the states.
Click to expand...

People can seek out abortionists. They do advertise. Maybe they have to travel. But they would for other elective procedures as well.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
bashwell said:
On a serious note, I have the utmost respect for Scalia. A super smart dude. I didn't always agree with him, but he was a very influential justice, and will be missed.
Click to expand...
Maybe he was brilliant. I don't know. But he was horribly overrated as a SCOTUS member. He was a very good example of the current court's strong tendency to put political preference ahead of faithfulness to constitutional principles and precedent.
 
Pooh & Annie said:
Maybe he was brilliant. I don't know. But he was horribly overrated as a SCOTUS member. He was a very good example of the current court's strong tendency to put political preference ahead of faithfulness to constitutional principles and precedent.
Click to expand...
I think the same or similar things could be said about all of the justices, really. The Supreme Court has become extremely politicized, at least as far as I can remember, ever since I was a kid and had any notion of politics etc (granted I'm not very old, but that's still about maybe ~20-25 years). However, I appreciated that Scalia's best friend on the Court was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who held almost all the exact opposite views Scalia held. Ginsburg herself said they were "best buddies". Here's her statement on Scalia after his death:
Statement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: “We are different, we are one,” different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the “applesauce” and “argle bargle”—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his “energetic fervor,” “astringent intellect,” “peppery prose,” “acumen,” and “affability,” all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.

Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pr_02-14-16.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Pooh & Annie said:
Maybe he was brilliant. I don't know. But he was horribly overrated as a SCOTUS member. He was a very good example of the current court's strong tendency to put political preference ahead of faithfulness to constitutional principles and precedent.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of everything the conservative 1/2 of the court has done, far from it, but I'm not sure that's really a fair criticism that can be leveled at Scalia.

If you want a modern example of the accusation you level actually being true, you need look no further than Kagan, appointed by President Obama in 2010.

History: In 2008 the Court voted 5-4 to affirm that the 2nd amendment actually applies to residents in the District of Columbia (Heller). This decision, in short, recognized the right of citizens to own handguns for the purpose of self defense. How four Justices could actually vote against this fundamental right is incredible to me.[1] But four of them did. Scalia wasn't one of them.

In any case, during her Senate confirmation hearing in 2010, Kagan said
Kagan said:
Now the Heller decision has marked a very fundamental moment in the court's jurisprudence with respect to the Second Amendment. And as I suggested to Senator Feinstein there is no question going forward that ‘Heller’ is the law, that it is entitled to all the precedent that any decision is entitled to and that is true to the ‘McDonald’ case as well.
Click to expand...

McDonald was essentially the same case as Heller, except it sought to affirm the same right for the 50 states, that had just been applied to the District of Columbia. Mere months after testifying before Congress that she agreed Heller was settled law, particularly and specifically with regard to he pending McDonald case, she voted with the minority against McDonald.[2] So much for settled law; she voted to deny Americans the most basic of rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

So let's not get carried away pointing fingers at Scalia for "political preference ahead of faithfulness to constitutional principles and precedent."


[1] Exhibit A in the pile of evidence that won't let me ever vote for a Democratic president again, lest the Court tilt even further away from the Bill of Rights.
[2] Exhibit B.
 
bashwell said:
I think the same or similar things could be said about all of the justices, really. The Supreme Court has become extremely politicized, at least as far as I can remember, ever since I was a kid and had any notion of politics etc (granted I'm not very old, but that's still about maybe ~20-25 years). However, I appreciated that Scalia's best friend on the Court was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who held almost all the exact opposite views Scalia held. Ginsburg herself said they were "best buddies". Here's her statement on Scalia after his death:
Click to expand...
I don't single him out at all. The court is not the highly respected "above politics" institution that it was historically. They rule in areas where they may have no business and they usually rule along strict party lines. I'm sure most of them are embarrassed at what they've done to the institution.

Except Clarence Thomas. I'm joking here a little, but I really don't think he knows what the he11 is going on. Not an impressive man.
 
Pooh & Annie said:
I don't single him out at all. The court is not the highly respected "above politics" institution that it was historically. They rule in areas where they may have no business and they usually rule along strict party lines. I'm sure most of them are embarrassed at what they've done to the institution.

Except Clarence Thomas. I'm joking here a little, but I really don't think he knows what the he11 is going on. Not an impressive man.
Click to expand...
I respect Thomas though. He grew up very poor in Georgia when it was still segregated. His dad deserted their family when he was a little kid. Also as a kid his home burned down which obviously left them homeless. He grew up speaking an African-American creole language. He faced tremendous racism (not just microaggressions, etc.). Yet he made it all the way to the Supreme Court. That's got to count for something in terms of being "an impressive man".

Here's a story about Clarence Thomas:
An illustrative story involved one of my co-clerks, Rick Garnett, who had worked the previous year as a clerk in Little Rock, Arkansas. There he and his wife had befriended and tutored a young African-American boy named Carlos. The boy had never left Arkansas before, but Rick and his wife paid to fly him up to D.C. Rick emailed all nine chambers at the court, saying that this young boy would be in town, and asking if any of the justices would be willing to meet with him. Two offices responded—those of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas. Ginsburg is an incredibly talented lawyer and jurist, and it was very kind of her to meet with Carlos, but her prim demeanor is that of a legal librarian, and so it was difficult for her and the young boy from Arkansas to connect. Clarence Thomas understood the world that Carlos had come from.

At the end of their two-hour conversation, Carlos observed that Thomas was a Dallas Cowboys fan. (Thomas had a framed picture of himself with quarterback Troy Aikman in his office.) The kid was very impressed—that was way cooler than the Supreme Court—and Thomas noticed. So Thomas rose from his chair, walked to his desk, and showed the boy a Super Bowl ticket, encased in Lucite, and signed by Cowboys running back Emmitt Smith. He handed the ticket to the young man.

“I’m going to give you this,” Thomas said. “But I want you to promise me that you will get A’s in school next year.”

The young man, astonished and wide-eyed, nodded in agreement.
Click to expand...
 
This country is on the precipice of a crisis with out of control spending, high taxation and regulations, a stifled economy, a low labor participation rate, unprecedented unfunded liabilities, and 19 trillion in debt and all anyone talks about is abortion, racism, planned parenthood, and other social issues that are so low on our level of immediate priorities that it's astounding.
 
bashwell said:
I respect Thomas though. He grew up very poor in Georgia when it was still segregated. His dad deserted their family when he was a little kid. Also as a kid his home burned down which obviously left them homeless. He grew up speaking an African-American creole language. He faced tremendous racism (not just microaggressions, etc.). Yet he made it all the way to the Supreme Court. That's got to count for something in terms of being "an impressive man".

Here's a story about Clarence Thomas:
Click to expand...
I definitely believe that every member of SCOTUS has/had degrees of ambition and effort well beyond the rest of us. I respect where he came from. I guess I should clarify that he doesn't impress me as a Supreme Court judge. Although even beyond that, in honesty I can't say that I've read or heard anything about his contribution to the court that makes me think he belongs there.
Oral arguments during Supreme Court cases are the time not just for asking questions, but debating and convincing among the justices. He has had nothing to offer during these periods for years. He says nothing, than invariably takes the conservative vote.

I'm sure he's not a dumb man. But I don't think he is of the caliber of intellectual curiosity and ability as the others.
Maybe he's just quiet and introspective, and has amazing insight that he doesn't care to share. I doubt it.

It's nice of him to give the young man the ticket.
 
pgg said:
If there's anyone on the Court who holds to the "historic" ways of listening, not talking, during oral arguments, it's him. 🙂
Click to expand...
Historically they first learned about the case details during oral arguments. Now they get briefs, and have more questions presumably because they've done some research, want some clarification, and have an opinion.

I don't care for the "it's rude" defense he offers. These are the issues and rulings that effect the direction of the country. If they've got anything of value to say they need to say it. If they don't, they shouldn't be there.
 
FollowTheMoney said:
This country is on the precipice of a crisis with out of control spending, high taxation and regulations, a stifled economy, a low labor participation rate, unprecedented unfunded liabilities, and 19 trillion in debt and all anyone talks about is abortion, racism, planned parenthood, and other social issues that are so low on our level of immediate priorities that it's astounding.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, these days when you vote "Democrat" you don't get JFK but Obama. This means the fiscal conservatives of that party are a small minority as the Dems have moved very left of center.

The GOP is certainly guilty of "tax and spend" like drunken sailors but the party is moving once again to conservative FISCAL values. The proof in this fact lies in SC. In SC the evangelicals went for TRUMP over CRUZ despite the fact that CRUZ is the de-facto GOP conservative value candidate. The GOP voter wants these problem solved and is willing to vote for a guy like Trump (adulterer, twice divorced, abortion supporter, pro Planned parenthood, etc) because he espouses to "make America great again."

Think of Donald Trump as the Old Type of Democrat who used to win the nomination from that party. Rubio embodies the mainstream, moderate Republican while CRUZ is the hard-core "no deals" type of politician.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/u...ieties-wins-hearts-of-evangelical-voters.html
 
Pooh & Annie said:
Historically they first learned about the case details during oral arguments. Now they get briefs, and have more questions presumably because they've done some research, want some clarification, and have an opinion.

I don't care for the "it's rude" defense he offers. These are the issues and rulings that effect the direction of the country. If they've got anything of value to say they need to say it. If they don't, they shouldn't be there.
Click to expand...
:shrug: I think there's room on the Court for one guy to be quiet. I don't care how many questions Elena Kagan has. I care how she votes.

You sure your objections to his mannerisms and information assimilation techniques aren't founded in diagreement with the way he votes? 😉
 
Pooh & Annie said:
I'm sure he's not a dumb man. But I don't think he is of the caliber of intellectual curiosity and ability as the others.
Maybe he's just quiet and introspective, and has amazing insight that he doesn't care to share. I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Well, he's written hundreds of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions over the last 25 years. Have you read any, and found his insight lacking?
 
pgg said:
:shrug: I think there's room on the Court for one guy to be quiet. I don't care how many questions Elena Kagan has. I care how she votes.

You sure your objections to his mannerisms and information assimilation techniques aren't founded in diagreement with the way he votes? 😉
Click to expand...
For sure! I'm not above that. But if a judge had nothing to offer the debate and voted strict liberal/democratic line every time I'd have a hard time arguing differently. There are hacks on both sides, but some are smarter than others.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
pgg said:
Well, he's written hundreds of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions over the last 25 years. Have you read any, and found his insight lacking?
Click to expand...
I've read probably about the same amount as everyone else has.
From what I've read there's not a lot of insight in his majority opinions or his dissents. He apparently tends to take opinions directly from the conservative-sided briefs and includes those to a great degree in his opinions.
 
pgg said:
My point, if my tongue-in-cheek tone wasn't clear, is just that the measure of a Justice ought to be in his votes and his written opinions, not how talkative he is.
Click to expand...
Many of his votes are ideological in my opinion. And it surprises me that he has nothing to add to the court debates. That indicates something to me. A lot of people agree, a lot disagree.
 
pgg said:
My point, if my tongue-in-cheek tone wasn't clear, is just that the measure of a Justice ought to be in his votes and his written opinions, not how talkative he is.
Click to expand...

Clarence Thomas is a total stooge. He hasn't said anything in 10 years! All he ever did was follow Scalia's lead anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Cedars Union Vote
Replies
42
Views
7K
kidthor
kidthor
D
Ultrasound for everything
2 3 4
Replies
161
Views
9K
CopaceticOne
CopaceticOne
A
Florida crna independent bill passes state house vote by large margin 77-30 today April 3 2025
Replies
16
Views
4K
cockblockandrun
cockblockandrun
pgg
Surgeon gets blamed for anesthesia complication
Replies
38
Views
4K
cittykat
cittykat
orcawhale
  • Question Question
Anesthesia Letter of Recc for Residency Question
Replies
1
Views
568
Gern Blansten
Gern Blansten