2016 Presidential Horse Race

[irish1958]

Wow, the number and magnitude of logical fallacies in this small paragraph alone are astonishing. Ralph Nader caused ISIS? For real?

It is called unintended consequences.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I hear ya, but I don't believe Trump when he says that he is pro life. He went decades as a staunch pro choice guy. Like a lot of his platform, I don't think he will honor his word. His nominee wouldn't be picked on their abortion stance, they'll be picked on how Trump can manipulate him and it would most definitely be one of his cronies. Which by the way, after decades of being a NY liberal, also happen to be NY liberals.

Pick your poison I suppose.

I understand the hesitation, because I share it. However, the devil I know (Hillary) has plans that I cannot in good conscience support. Even if Trump were to reverse (or revert) his views, they would still not be as harmful as Hillary's. For the issue of abortion, of course. And if he WERE to plant another pro life justice on the Supreme Court, then that would be a victory.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[wizards8507]

It is called unintended consequences.

Yeah, fine, point out the unintended consequences of past events but projecting them onto future events is asinine.

 

[tussin]

I don't understand how so many Americans fall into the pro-choice camp. The decision is so simple -- protect life -- yet a majority (I think?) don't see it that way.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I don't understand how so many Americans fall into the pro-choice camp. The decision is so simple -- protect life -- yet a majority (I think?) don't see it that way.

When presented with an easy and hard choice, many will choose the easy option. No matter the stakes.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[tussin]

When presented with an easy and hard choice, many will choose the easy option. No matter the stakes.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

It's an easy and clear choice to me.

 

[zelezo vlk]

It's an easy and clear choice to me.

Same here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Wow, the number and magnitude of logical fallacies in this small paragraph alone are astonishing. Ralph Nader caused ISIS? For real?

I don't see any.

It is called unintended consequences.

Damned straight!

I understand the hesitation, because I share it. However, the devil I know (Hillary) has plans that I cannot in good conscience support. Even if Trump were to reverse (or revert) his views, they would still not be as harmful as Hillary's. For the issue of abortion, of course. And if he WERE to plant another pro life justice on the Supreme Court, then that would be a victory.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

You know, that everything you stated in your post is your own opinion, and not at all fact, right?

I have almost as much of a problem with opinion presented as fact as I do with one issue voting.

 

[tussin]

You know, that everything you stated in your post is your own opinion, and not at all fact, right?

I have almost as much of a problem with opinion presented as fact as I do with one issue voting.

What is your opinion on one issue voting?

 

[zelezo vlk]

I don't see any.



Damned straight!



You know, that everything you stated in your post is your own opinion, and not at all fact, right?

I have almost as much of a problem with opinion presented as fact as I do with one issue voting.

Bogs, I'm at work now and won't be able to properly respond, but I intend to do so later. You are one of the more spirited posters on this board and I look forward to our discussion, but I can't give it the attention that it would deserve at the moment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[wizards8507]

When presented with an easy and hard choice, many will choose the easy option. No matter the stakes.

It's an easy and clear choice to me.

It's not always an easy and clear choice. Even the Catholic Church has done a remarkably poor job at 1) addressing nuanced medical situations and 2) educating the people on what is and is not morally licit.

I'll share a very personal story. A few months ago, my wife had an incomplete miscarriage due to an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized embryo implants outside of the uterus, in most cases in the wall of a Fallopian tube. In our case, the embryo had already died but there were harmful trophoblast cells that, if left untreated, would have multiplied and been potentially fatal to my wife. She was treated with methotrexate, a drug that prevents the trophoblastic cells from multiplying and clearing the tissue from the Fallopian tube.

Because our child had already died, there was no moral ambiguity as to whether our use of methotrexate was licit, but we agonized over the decision nonetheless. Many ectopic pregnancies occur without the embryo miscarrying on its own and methotrexate is used to terminate the pregnancy. In those cases, Catholic moral theologians are sharply divided on whether this constitutes a "direct abortion" in violation of Directive 48. There is no chance of fetal viability in an ectopic pregnancy, and the only other alternative is surgical removal, which still causes the termination of the pregnancy and also jeopardizes the fertility of the mother. The magisterium is silent on the issue and, as I said, Catholic moral theologians and philosophers are divided.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Yeah, fine, point out the unintended consequences of past events but projecting them onto future events is asinine.

Why?

"Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it." George Santayana

I don't understand how so many Americans fall into the pro-choice camp. The decision is so simple -- protect life -- yet a majority (I think?) don't see it that way.

You have some brilliant political strategist to thank for that. Early on in the debate, two issues were conflated, Women's Choice and Right to Life. They really aren't the same issue. Even though the easy option was to perpetrate this misconception, because the anti-abortion group was able to eliminate what they saw as the enemy camps main argument, the whole debate became a huge stumbling block for the advancement of human rights for these last 40 odd years. (And some of them have been really odd.)

I am 100 percent in the camp that women have the right to make all choices related to their bodies, including reproductive rights.

However, I am inherently anti-abortion. Fairly strongly so, in fact. Even though throughout Christianity (beginnings, early, through middle, until modern) believed their wasn't a viable human life until quickening. [I guess someone had enough scruples and empathy that they let mothers and fathers off of the hook for miscarriages.

One of the unintended consequences of the narrow moral interpretations of modern anti-abortionist is the additional guilt and suffering of parents and families of pregnancies that do not result in live births. Check it out. My ex and I had a miscarriage of twins between our oldest two, (more than seven kids! I know, right!) and what we were told and how we were directed was appalling, without getting into the detail.]

At any rate I have always believed that being pro-women's rights and anti-abortion was a tough decision, but the right one. The cost is swimming upstream against popular sentiment; but the payoff has always been the secret understanding that it all comes down to the fact that the individual woman is 'responsible' for all of her own choices. And if I as a loving, but detached, empathetic pedestrian allow her to be responsible, and treat her with dignity, kindness, assistance if she needs it, and love, I get the added bonus of superior mental health, and a step on the road to spiritual enlightenment.

So maybe your inability to connect to the majority of Americans (as you stated it,) is because they don't necessarily make the simple or easy decision, right off of the bat.

 

[NorthDakota]

I don't understand how so many Americans fall into the pro-choice camp. The decision is so simple -- protect life -- yet a majority (I think?) don't see it that way.

The American thing doesn't surprise me. What breaks my heart is the amount of Catholics who support it.

 

[yankeehater]

Hillary's stance: I'm for women......as long as they've made it out of the womb.

 

[tussin]

It's not always an easy and clear choice. Even the Catholic Church has done a remarkably poor job at 1) addressing nuanced medical situations and 2) educating the people on what is and is not morally licit.

I'll share a very personal story. A few months ago, my wife had an incomplete miscarriage due to an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized embryo implants outside of the uterus, in most cases in the wall of a Fallopian tube. In our case, the embryo had already died but there were harmful trophoblast cells that, if left untreated, would have multiplied and been potentially fatal to my wife. She was treated with methotrexate, a drug that prevents the trophoblastic cells from multiplying and clearing the tissue from the Fallopian tube.

Because our child had already died, there was no moral ambiguity as to whether our use of methotrexate was licit, but we agonized over the decision nonetheless. Many ectopic pregnancies occur without the embryo miscarrying on its own and methotrexate is used to terminate the pregnancy. In those cases, Catholic moral theologians are sharply divided on whether this constitutes a "direct abortion" in violation of Directive 48. There is no chance of fetal viability in an ectopic pregnancy, and the only other alternative is surgical removal, which still causes the termination of the pregnancy and also jeopardizes the fertility of the mother. The magisterium is silent on the issue and, as I said, Catholic moral theologians and philosophers are divided.

Thanks for bringing light to some of the nuances of the issue -- definitely something I need to read up on. Also, I'm very sorry that your family had to go through that tough time.

At any rate I have always believed that being pro-women's rights and anti-abortion was a tough decision, but the right one. The cost is swimming upstream against popular sentiment; but the payoff has always been the secret understanding that it all comes down to the fact that the individual woman is 'responsible' for all of her own choices. And if I as a loving, but detached, empathetic pedestrian allow her to be responsible, and treat her with dignity, kindness, assistance if she needs it, and love, I get the added bonus of superior mental health, and a step on the road to spiritual enlightenment.

So maybe your inability to connect to the majority of Americans (as you stated it,) is because they don't necessarily make the simple or easy decision, right off of the bat.

Are you anti-abortion in your personal life or from a public policy standpoint?

I don't understand how someone who believes that abortion is the intentional killing of a human life can support the practice in the public realm. Do "women's rights" outweigh the right to human life? I don't really view abortion as an issue of individual liberties either, no one has the right to kill someone else.

 

[yankeehater]

For those that think people on the DNC are all angels, here is some nice undercover video of someone faking to be a Trump supporter at the their convention. Treated very nice.


http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/watch-filmmaker-held-up-i-heart-14973777/

 

[NDinL.A.]

Pretty disgusting folks out there for sure.

Media still doesn't get it though...none of this is changing anyone's mind...and the more shit they throw at Trump, the more entrenched his people get.

He shouldn't win unless Hillary finally fatigues her support...but SURPRISE! There is a segment of the population who will vote for Trump because thats the person they will remember when they draw the curtain...any coverage is good coverage type deal.

Smartest thing media could do is swear off covering his antics...right now he gets that vote for free.

What should concern people who hate Trump is that Hillary has a scandal a week...if Hillary being herself kills motivation for her people to vote, things might get dicey.

See, that worked in the primary, all that free media. His base is rabid and you are right, that's never going to change. But has he expanded his base? The numbers clearly say he hasn't. In fact, he is actually losing Republican voters left and right, and his campaign is imploding. So that "any coverage is good coverage" is being debunked.

These past 2 weeks have been disastrous. This past week has been probably his worst of the entire campaign and an utter clusterf***. And this free media is actually murdering him. Fox's poll (of all polls for him to look awful, this might be the most embarrassing), in which he is down 10 points, didn't even take this past week into account. Pretty much every poll is a disaster right now. Look at these swing states:

Michigan: Clinton 41%, Trump 32% (Detroit News)

New Hampshire: Clinton 47%, Trump 32% (WBUR/MassInc)

Pennsylvania: Clinton 49%, Trump 38% (Franklin & Marshall)

So I have to disagree that this free media is good for him. It's clearly not, if you go by the polls (which Donald has been addicted to when they are favorable to him).

 

[connor_in]

Hillary's stance: I'm for women......as long as they've made it out of the womb.

...and agree with me politically (none of those Republican women) and as long as they haven't messed around with Bill and gone to the press with it...


FIFY

 

[wizards8507]

...and agree with me politically (none of those Republican women) and as long as they haven't messed around with Bill and gone to the press with it...

FIFY

They're related. Democrat voters like to say things like "I don't like abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose." That's not the case of the Democrat political machine, which absolutely loves abortion. Once a woman has had an abortion, she's a Democrat voter for life. Even if that woman develops into a national defense free trade capitalist, she's not going to vote for a political party that believes what she did was infanticide.

 

[connor_in]

See, that worked in the primary, all that free media. His base is rabid and you are right, that's never going to change. But has he expanded his base? The numbers clearly say he hasn't. In fact, he is actually losing Republican voters left and right, and his campaign is imploding. So that "any coverage is good coverage" is being debunked.

These past 2 weeks have been disastrous. This past week has been probably his worst of the entire campaign and an utter clusterf***. And this free media is actually murdering him. Fox's poll (of all polls for him to look awful, this might be the most embarrassing), in which he is down 10 points, didn't even take this past week into account. Pretty much every poll is a disaster right now. Look at these swing states:

Michigan: Clinton 41%, Trump 32% (Detroit News)

New Hampshire: Clinton 47%, Trump 32% (WBUR/MassInc)

Pennsylvania: Clinton 49%, Trump 38% (Franklin & Marshall)

So I have to disagree that this free media is good for him. It's clearly not, if you go by the polls (which Donald has been addicted to when they are favorable to him).

Also...beware of future current events. You never know what is going to happen in the world before election day. If there is a steady drumbeat of terror events involving Muslims, people could swing to DJT. See recent French priest attack and today's London attack being added to the list of items including the other french attacks, the gay nightclub attack, etc. Of course DJT could continue his gaffe fest and keep rolling downhill or HRC could continue her statements on taxes - WATCH: Crowd Cheers Clinton's Call To 'Raise Taxes On The Middle Class' | Daily Wire

 

[ACamp1900]

See, that worked in the primary, all that free media. His base is rabid and you are right, that's never going to change. But has he expanded his base? The numbers clearly say he hasn't. In fact, he is actually losing Republican voters left and right, and his campaign is imploding. So that "any coverage is good coverage" is being debunked.

These past 2 weeks have been disastrous. This past week has been probably his worst of the entire campaign and an utter clusterf***. And this free media is actually murdering him. Fox's poll (of all polls for him to look awful, this might be the most embarrassing), in which he is down 10 points, didn't even take this past week into account. Pretty much every poll is a disaster right now. Look at these swing states:

Michigan: Clinton 41%, Trump 32% (Detroit News)

New Hampshire: Clinton 47%, Trump 32% (WBUR/MassInc)

Pennsylvania: Clinton 49%, Trump 38% (Franklin & Marshall)

So I have to disagree that this free media is good for him. It's clearly not, if you go by the polls (which Donald has been addicted to when they are favorable to him).

I still can't quite wrap my head around how he got the nomination... Rubio's big floppy mutant ears never looked so wonderful as they do now.

 

[wizards8507]

I still can't quite wrap my head around how he got the nomination... Rubio's big floppy mutant ears never looked so wonderful as they do now.

You can thank Chris Christie's kamikaze bullshit in New Hampshire for that. After Jeb's demise, Rubio was the chosen one. Then Christie baits him into a verbal loop at the New Hampshire debate and here we are.

 

[NorthDakota]

They're related. Democrat voters like to say things like "I don't like abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose." That's not the case of the Democrat political machine, which absolutely loves abortion. Once a woman has had an abortion, she's a Democrat voter for life. Even if that woman develops into a national defense free trade capitalist, she's not going to vote for a political party that believes what she did was infanticide.

I'm guessing most women who've had abortions don't know what infanticide means.... Or how to spell it.

 

[yankeehater]

Simple question....who are the respondents to these polls? I have always wondered that. If my wife and I don't recognize the number, we don't answer the phone. I know my Mom and my In-laws are afraid of scams so they don't either.

The only time I ever participated was back when we had Gov. Arnold out here in Cali I picked up the phone for a pollster. When I found out it was questions about his performance, I hung on the line for 10 minutes to make sure they knew what a fraud and crappy Governor I thought he had been.

 

[wizards8507]

GOP's long-simmering civil war breaks into the open - CNNPolitics.com

The way this is playing out across the country should terrify anyone who believes in anything even closely resembling "conservatism."

Conservative insurgents in key Senate races are throwing their full-fledged support behind Donald Trump, hoping to foment anger at incumbent Republicans worried that embracing the controversial nominee too tightly could alienate swing voters.

That's scary. "Conservatives" shouldn't be doing anything, anywhere in the name of Donald Trump. Whether these are actual conservatives trying to ride Trump's anti-establishment wave or if agro-national-populists have usurped the mantle of "conservatism" remains to be seen.

 

[ACamp1900]

Simple question....who are the respondents to these polls? I have always wondered that. If my wife and I don't recognize the number, we don't answer the phone. I know my Mom and my In-laws are afraid of scams so they don't either.

The only time I ever participated was back when we had Gov. Arnold out here in Cali I picked up the phone for a pollster. When I found out it was questions about his performance, I hung on the line for 10 minutes to make sure they knew what a fraud and crappy Governor I thought he had been.

It's like the TV ratings, no one in my circles has ever taken part in any of that... I have done a couple of phone polls but they have always been related to local stuff.

 

[NorthDakota]

GOP's long-simmering civil war breaks into the open - CNNPolitics.com

The way this is playing out across the country should terrify anyone who believes in anything even closely resembling "conservatism."



That's scary. "Conservatives" shouldn't be doing anything, anywhere in the name of Donald Trump. Whether these are actual conservatives trying to ride Trump's anti-establishment wave or if agro-national-populists have usurped the mantle of "conservatism" remains to be seen.

North Dakota's "Chosen One" for governor got the rug drug out from under him in the primaries by a very wealthy, successful entrepreneur who has been very anti -establishment.

Not happy at all, guys a tool.

 

[yankeehater]

One thing no one seems to be discussing is the turnout at Hillary and Trump events. Trump had another 15 thousand people at his Florida event yesterday and Clinton is speaking at high schools that have been less than half full. Some as low as 1/3 capacity. The reason I bring that up is come election day the voters will need a reason to take the time to go vote. As many of you anti-Trumpster's have stated, Trump supporters are "rabid" (lame term by the way). He may not have to work hard to get them out on election day whereas the Clinton Machine will have to rent a lot of buses to pick up their supporters to get them to the ballot box. I know they will have a lot of ground support, but will it be enough.

 

[ACamp1900]

Playing along that Trump has a real chance and is actually trying to win:

Ohio, Florida, Penn etc... it's really that simple imo...

who wins the chess-board? I don't see that happening fro Trump.

 

[wizards8507]

It's like the TV ratings, no one in my circles has ever taken part in any of that.

Tangent: Nielsen spends a ton of money curating their sample to be an accurate reflection of the population and the networks compensate them accordingly. That's how advertising is priced and sold, so the entire industry has a vested interest in accurate numbers. The way it's actually measured is a physical box that's placed in a home. Participants receive a small stipend.

Fun fact: "Overnight" ratings are based on certain major metropolitan markets but final ratings are always adjusted to reflect the country as a whole. Sometimes there can be significant swings for content that's more heavily consumed by urban versus rural viewers (think NBA versus NASCAR).