Donald vs Hillary

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Clearly you don't watch FOX.......aside from Hannity and a handful of commentators, FOX treated both sides objectively 

Since you are as far from being objective in your American political beliefs as I can imagine here, other than BC, I'll take that with a few grains of salt.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Argus

[segnosaur]

8 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Furthermore, abortions are a different issue and can't be tied to gay rights.

Actually they are certainly tied together, in the fact that there is a strong correlation between a desire to restrict abortion and a desire to limit gay rights. They are both issues that appeal to the hardcore right wing, and usually belief in one means you will have a similar belief in the other.

To be honest, I'm really baffled by your suggestion that somehow gay rights are somehow untouchable in the United States. There have been many instances where politicians (both at the federal and state level) have gone against LGBT rights.

The morning after pill is making the abortion unneeded...

It will always be needed, because there will always be situations where the morning after pill does not do what is needed. (For example, a late term abortion because it is found the fetus is not viable and the mother's health is at risk.)

You're also assuming that the morning after pill will always be available... certain restrictions (e.g. closing planned parenthood clinics, as many republican congresscritters want to do and has Trump has promised. Or certain companies demanding it not be included as part of their health care plans, as happened with birth control a few years ago) men that such a simple solution is not always practical.

...and Hillary's support of partial birth abortion was poorly thought out.

Hillary basically stated the facts... that late-term abortions are rare and are done only in extreme cases (e.g. significant health risk). On the other hand, Trump pandered to anti-abortion activists by using an emotional appeal (e.g. description of the process). If there was any fault of Hillary, it was in trusting that Americans would be intelligent enough to let reason overrule irrational emotion. Guess she was wrong about that.

On the alpha male issue, do some reading up on body language.

Ok, how's this for reading up on body language:

From: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-06-26/

But there is no formula for understanding behavior, and every act has numerous potential meanings and causes. Our “body language” is subject to context, intent and interpretation. It is influenced by culture and socialization and differs at the individual level. Reading body language is simply the subjective interpretation of the observer, and is open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

So no, you can't look at Trump and tell he's an "alpha male" by judging his body language.

I can see that the liberals around here are going to behave the same way they did when *scary* Harper came to power.

Keep in mind that many of the people who are anti-Trump actually voted for the conservatives. I certainly did last election.

The fact that Harper was falsely demonized doesn't necessarily mean that all such allegations are likewise false. The conservatives never made opposition to abortion part of their platform, and their earlier stance on gay marriage was relatively mild. On the other hand, Trump has actively campaigned to restrict abortion. And his running made has actively campaigned to restrict gay rights, even pushing for "pray away the gay" (supported of course by government funds.) Frankly, comparing the campaign and policies of Trump & the Republicans vs. the Canadian conservative party should be considered an insult to Canadian conservatives. They are not at all equivalent.

 

[sharkman]

 I'm not into debating and arguing as if it actually accomplishes anything, so believe whatever makes you happy.  Time will tell.

[BC_chick]

2 hours ago, sharkman said:

He is not a republican, not a conservative and not a christian.  He's an alpha male that will not be dictated to.  Yes I know that social conservatives have their christmas lists ready to give to Trump, but the guy has been a democrat more than anything else.  

 

So essentially... he's a big fat liar?

Edited November 10, 2016 by BC_chick
autocorrect grrr

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, sharkman said:

.... Predicting the overturn of Roe v Wade is really tin foil hat territory.  

 

Agreed...Roe v. Wade will not be overturned by any future Supreme Court.   There may be viability limits imposed and continued federal defunding, but an outright ban will not happen.    This is just one of the hysterical liberal talking points that gets resurrected each election cycle or when justices are nominated.

[bush_cheney2004]

16 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

 

So essentially... he's a big fat liar?

 

Yes...he is now a politician.

[Smallc]

The morning after pill only works some of the time, and not at certain stages of the monthly cycle.

[segnosaur]

11 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Again, I think you're swallowing too much of the fear mongering put forward by Clinton and the DNC, and media

......I just don't see a anti-gay social conservative crusade coming out of a Trump White House.

Trump: " "I just don't feel good about it. I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage. :"

http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/#sharethefacts

So, tell me, why exactly why you "don't see an anti-gay social conservative crusade"?

This is a populace President........if Americans want such rights, they'll have them, if not, these very small minority groups will be shit out of luck.

One of the features of being a constitutional republic is that minority rights get protected. Its not always just "the will of the people". A right involves protection for freedoms even if they aren't popular.

It could happen.......I think more likely the defunding of Planned Parenthood, none the less, if such issues revert back to States, I think that is a good thing...

Many would disagree.

Time and time again we have seen cases where individual states have engaged in oppressive policies... voter supression laws in multiple states, texas creating laws that while they don't ban abortion regulate things to the point where it is a defacto ban, North Carolina's bathroom transgender law. Its easy for individual states to pass such laws because politicians there have fewer residents (and turnout is often lower for state votes).

Ideally there are certain fundamental freedoms that should be universal across the country, where the way you are treated doesn't differ based on your zip code. Gay rights should be one of them.

[segnosaur]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

IOn one hand the elctoral system favours the Republicans which win in smaller rural states which are naturally more Republican-leaning and are overrepresented in the elctoral college in relation to their true size-

I'm not necessarily convinced that the electoral college is a "bad thing". Some people do see it as a way to ensure less populated states or regions don't get ignored. (Otherwise, you could have politicians pandering to only New York and California, and ignring everything in between.)

It is a shame that it seems to have negatively affected democrats twice in the past few decades.

Quote

On the other hand demographic changes favour the Democrats and in the future it will become more difficult for the Republicans to win elections.

I really thought that the demographic shift would have already had enough of an impact, but sadly no.

If there is a siver lining, its the chance that if/when Trump manages to screw up badly enough, the problematic voters (people who stayed home because they "didn't like any of the candidates", or voted for a 3rd party) will recognize the impact that their actions/non-actions had. Perhaps it will mean an even stronger rebound for the Democrats in the future, as one more term of republican control and their reliance on angry ignorant bible thumping white guys will backfire on them more later on. At least that's my hope.

Edited November 10, 2016 by segnosaur
fix wording

[sharkman]

20 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...Roe v. Wade will not be overturned by any future Supreme Court.   There may be viability limits imposed and continued federal defunding, but an outright ban will not happen.    This is just one of the hysterical liberal talking points that gets resurrected each election cycle or when justices are nominated.

This is getting silly, isn't it?  I mean, George W Bush, a real republican christian conservative, went right after abortion laws and gay rights like the crusader he is.  I mean, after all, he had a majority in Congress and the Senate, with Cheney's vote.  And he went right after transgendered rights too, didn't he?  I'm sure he did, after all, he's a christian conservative republican.

And so Trump, who is not a christian nor a conservative nor a republican will do it too.  I know that many republicans tried to block him and stop him, but he'll forget all about that and immediately do their bidding like the good little boy he is right?  

Sometimes you can only laugh.

[segnosaur]

29 minutes ago, sharkman said:

This is getting silly, isn't it?  I mean, George W Bush, a real republican christian conservative, went right after abortion laws and gay rights like the crusader he is.  I mean, after all, he had a majority in Congress and the Senate, with Cheney's vote.

First of all, Bush didn't have a majority in Congress and Senate during all of his tenure...there was at least one term where the Democrats had control of the house.

Secondly, having control of congress is only part of the issue... it is also necessary for whatever laws that are passed to be acceptable by the supreme court. (For example, an anti-abortion law in Nebraska was voted down 5-4 during Bush's term, so obviously any attempts by Bush to restrict abortion would likewise fail at the supreme court level..) Currently, the court seems to be split along idological lines, but Trump wants to appoint judges specifically to have Abortion overturned.

Lastly, things are not the same now as they were back in 2001. The right wing has become more entrenched, less likely to compromise. On the other hand, Bush said that while he was opposed to abortion, he wouldn't use it as a 'litmus test' for selecting judges, and would even consider a pro-abortion running mate. Compared to the current crop of republicans, Bush seems almost enlightened.

http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

Edited November 10, 2016 by segnosaur
Added link

[bush_cheney2004]

Ooops...looks like the American political party that is really in "crisis" is the Democratic Party.   Post election panic has ensued, with recriminations all around. 

How could it all go so terribly wrong ? 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

I think it is a safe bet that Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States:

 

Quote

Clinton tried running for the presidency in 2008. She didn’t win. She tried again in 2016. Again, she didn’t win. This is probably a hint that America really, really does not want her to be president. In fact, they disliked the idea of a President (Hillary) Clinton so much they voted for a man the media spent more than a year painting as an actual monster.

Maybe it’s time to retire.

http://observer.com/2016/11/this-is-how-badly-america-didnt-want-hillary-clinton-to-be-president/

 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...Roe v. Wade will not be overturned by any future Supreme Court.   There may be viability limits imposed and continued federal defunding, but an outright ban will not happen.    This is just one of the hysterical liberal talking points that gets resurrected each election cycle or when justices are nominated.

Don't you mean hysterical Republican talking points? They're the ones who keep promising to get it banned, including Donald Trump.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Don't you mean hysterical Republican talking points? They're the ones who keep promising to get it banned, including Donald Trump.

 

Guess who won the election ?

[segnosaur]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Agreed...Roe v. Wade will not be overturned by any future Supreme Court.  

Trump said he would appoint supreme court justices with anti-abortion stances. One nomination on the court is currently open. At least 2 other members who are left-leaning are in their late 70s/early 80s. Given the type of judges Trump is planning on appointing, there is certainly reason to expect Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

There may be viability limits imposed and continued federal defunding, but an outright ban will not happen.    This is just one of the hysterical liberal talking points that gets resurrected each election cycle or when justices are nominated.

Incredibly moronic statement.

Even if there is no outright ban... the fact that you seem to accept such restrictions shows that you have no clue about what the issue is about.

If you put such onerous restrictions on abortion, such that virtually no cases will qualify, then you end up with a de facto ban. And that is wrong.

"Abortion.... only available to wealthy white women. Hey, its not a ban! After all, some abortions can still happen."

 

[Wilber]

Quote

He's already got a chip on his shoulder from all of the republicans that wouldn't support him, and suddenly he's going to embrace a right wing agenda?  Dream on.

 

 

He will if he wants to get anything done. A Tea Party controlled Congress won't settle for anything else.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

Trump said he would appoint supreme court justices with anti-abortion stances. One nomination on the court is currently open. At least 2 other members who are left-leaning are in their late 70s/early 80s. Given the type of judges Trump is planning on appointing, there is certainly reason to expect Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

 

Trump says a lot of things....some Canadians are ignorant about how a nominated justice is vetted and confirmed.   Abortions will not be banned, and will remain far more accessible compared to some of the backward/underfunded provinces in Canada.

 

Quote

Incredibly moronic statement.

Even if there is no outright ban... the fact that you seem to accept such restrictions shows that you have no clue about what the issue is about.

If you put such onerous restrictions on abortion, such that virtually no cases will qualify, then you end up with a de facto ban. And that is wrong.

"Abortion.... only available to wealthy white women. Hey, its not a ban! After all, some abortions can still happen."

 

Even "morons" understand that gun rights are enumerated (but restrictions exist) while abortion rights are not.   Easier to get an abortion in the U.S. than in PEI, Canada.  

Edited November 11, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[sharkman]

54 minutes ago, Wilber said:

He will if he wants to get anything done. A Tea Party controlled Congress won't settle for anything else.

actually, whatever.  People are going to come up with all kinds of things to be scared of I guess.  I remember you specifically saying repeatedly that Trump supporters were scared of something or other.  I told you that they were actually angry, but you couldn't imagine that.  

George Bush, a true conservative, christian and republican had far more to offer in the way of fear than Trump, who isn't any of those things, and supported many democrats in his life time.  

Edited November 11, 2016 by sharkman

[Derek 2.0]

10 hours ago, kimmy said:

But Pence certainly does, and we know his feelings on the subject. And the Congress, and many of the Senators.  Trump's not going to fight his own party over issues that he doesn't actually care about.

 

I have no doubt some sort of "Religious Freedom" bill will be passed, I just don't see any major legislation curtailing gay rights or abortion.......at the very least, not unless Trump is able to install four socially conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

 

10 hours ago, kimmy said:

Easy to make fun of examples like that, but if bakers get to discriminate, then why not restaurants, hotels, taxis? There will be states that make that argument.

 

And the counter argument to that is why are the major religions allowed to continue with their beliefs that could be described as discrimination against gays, adulterers and those that worship false idols?

 

10 hours ago, kimmy said:

Imagine your employer transferred you to a new state where your spouse is no longer legally your spouse, or your adopted child is no longer legally your child? 

 

I'd quit my job..... (And I did in the 90s over a proposed posting to Quebec)

 

10 hours ago, kimmy said:

Let's face it, overturning Roe v Wade is likely as well. And large numbers of Republicans will settle for nothing less, and won't be mollified by any half-measure from Trump. Trump's not going to fight his own people over this.

 

Its not likely until such a time as there are a majority of social conservative judges on the Supreme court......a two term Trump might get to select four judges, I doubt 5 or 6.

 

10 hours ago, kimmy said:

People who advocate for defunding Planned Parenthood never have any suggestion over how the non-abortion services Planned Parenthood provides. When Texas defunded Planned Parenthood, the first thing they noticed was a spike in births to low-income women. When Indiana defunded Planned Parenthood, the first thing they noticed was a spike in the rate of HIV.

 -k

 

The Federal government shouldn't, and I doubt will, be a vessel to fund such groups going forward......if Texas has a spike in bastard children or Indiana an increase in HIV, those should be States issues to fund, if not at the county level.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Guess who won the election ?

So you actually didn't have a point at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

So you actually didn't have a point at all.

 

Votes are more important than points.

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

I have no doubt some sort of "Religious Freedom" bill will be passed, I just don't see any major legislation curtailing gay rights or abortion.......at the very least, not unless Trump is able to install four socially conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

 

There are already four socially conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

[Derek 2.0]

7 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Trump: " "I just don't feel good about it. I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage. :"

versus:

 

Quote

 

There's a lot to celebrate this holiday season. Elton John married his long-time partner David Furnish on December 21. That's the first day that civil partnerships between gay couples became legal in England under the new Civil Partnership Act.

Elton credits David with helping him kick drug and alcohol addictions that nearly killed him. The pair has been together for 12 years. I know both of them and they get along wonderfully. It's a marriage that's going to work.

Elton made the ceremony a small private affair involving only his and David's parents as witnesses. The couple just didn't want to make a big deal out of the wedding. They really wanted to keep things low key.

By all accounts, Elton and David had every tabloid and every entertainment magazine knocking at their door begging for exclusive rights to the affair. By some news reports, the couple turned down an offer of $11 million to record their wedding for British television. But Elton said, "Our relationship isn't up for grabs. It doesn't come with a price tag."

In any event, I'm very happy for them. If two people dig each other, they dig each other. Good luck, Elton. Good luck, David. Have a great life.

(But because I wasn't invited, do I still have to send them a toaster?)

 

 

7 hours ago, segnosaur said:

One of the features of being a constitutional republic is that minority rights get protected. Its not always just "the will of the people". A right involves protection for freedoms even if they aren't popular.

 

Not every "minority" group......polygamous marriages (to young teen women) or those that screw animals for instance......both not very popular, and not protected.

 

7 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Time and time again we have seen cases where individual states have engaged in oppressive policies... voter supression laws in multiple states, texas creating laws that while they don't ban abortion regulate things to the point where it is a defacto ban, North Carolina's bathroom transgender law. Its easy for individual states to pass such laws because politicians there have fewer residents (and turnout is often lower for state votes).

Ideally there are certain fundamental freedoms that should be universal across the country, where the way you are treated doesn't differ based on your zip code. Gay rights should be one of them.

 

There are zero restrictions on moving out of State if its laws and bylaws are so egregious..........the United States isn't a  Confederation..... trampling of States rights can result in bad things.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

There are already four socially conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

 

No there isn't........