2016 Presidential Horse Race

[ACamp1900]

Life begins at conception. How old is a child before they can really be called viable? Several years old.

This is where things get so comical/hairy in that argument...

 

[NorthDakota]

This is where things get so comical/hairy in that argument...

Exactly the point.

 

[ACamp1900]

Exactly the point.

Yes I know, I like to type my thoughts out loud for some reason...


I think I'll have In N Out today for lunch...

 

[BleedBlueGold]

There's no such thing as the view from nowhere. Anything having to do with ultimate values is essentially theology. So the liberal position on when "personhood" begins is no less theological than the Christian one.

But let's set that aside for a moment. Science is not helpful for determining personhood because, as you've noted, that's the domain of philosophy/ theology. But the science is absolutely settled that human life begins at conception. One could quite defensibly identify as pro-life because: (1) it makes sense that legal personhood and human life begin together; and (2) those who sought to exclude vulnerable minorities from the sphere of legal personhood were obviously "on the wrong side of history".

The evil wrought by antebellum slave holders and Nazi racial supremacists is self-evident. That liberals feel comfortable condemning those sorts of eugenics, but give out standing ovations for abortion is staggering cognitive dissonance.

I understand everything you're saying, and hell, maybe I'm more pro-life than I realized. To continue on common ground, 1) I absolutely do not support what happened at the DNC and that standing ovation. No one should be proud of what is ultimately a horrific situation. 2) I at least hope you know that I do not take this issue lightly, which is why I'm not quick on the typical liberal responses. 3) I think you and I agree (based on previous conversation) that if ever there is a shift in legislation in favor of pro-life, there needs to be better support to the children born into poverty or into un-accepting families.

 

[ACamp1900]

The Dems do to the abortion debate what they do to everything else, they dumb it down to it's simplest and most emotional terms... racist, sexist, blah, blah... hard to win over people with logic when they're pissed off because you 'hate women'....

 

[NorthDakota]

I understand everything you're saying, and hell, maybe I'm more pro-life than I realized. To continue on common ground, 1) I absolutely do not support what happened at the DNC and that standing ovation. No one should be proud of what is ultimately a horrific situation. 2) I at least hope you know that I do not take this issue lightly, which is why I'm not quick on the typical liberal responses. 3) I think you and I agree (based on previous conversation) that if ever there is a shift in legislation in favor of pro-life, there needs to be better support to the children born into poverty or into un-accepting families.

One of the few"liberal" things I'd be okay with.

 

[wizards8507]

Life begins at conception. How old is a child before they can really be called viable? Several years old.

This is where things get so comical/hairy in that argument...

Peter Singer: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I understand everything you're saying, and hell, maybe I'm more pro-life than I realized. To continue on common ground, 1) I absolutely do not support what happened at the DNC and that standing ovation. No one should be proud of what is ultimately a horrific situation. 2) I at least hope you know that I do not take this issue lightly, which is why I'm not quick on the typical liberal responses. 3) I think you and I agree (based on previous conversation) that if ever there is a shift in legislation in favor of pro-life, there needs to be better support to the children born into poverty or into un-accepting families.

You definitely deserve credit for appreciating the gravity of this subject. Don't let the politics of the current pro-life movement put you off it. It was started by old school, orthodox Catholic Democrats, and may yet end up in a similar place.

Dunno if you're on Twitter, but the Catholic Left is definitely worth a follow: @ebruenig, @go_oat, and @kev_jg.

Peter Singer: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."

Same ideology behind the recent push for euthanasia. God help anyone who finds themselves dependent on others in the near future, since they may soon have the right to end your life if the state deems you "sub-human" due to a lack of autonomy.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Peter Singer: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."

This is an interesting issue to me because the script is kind of flipped. Both sides are making value judgments, but the left ultimately makes it a conscience issue where the right ultimately goes with science.

The left basically takes the position that the legal concept of "personhood" is not synonymous with being a "human being." You don't have rights because you are a "human," but because you are the type of human that society defines as a "person." Because the issue of personhood is inevitably non-scientific, involving subjective judgments about "rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness" and the value of life, and because the rights of another person (the mother) are inevitably affected, it is improper for the state to settle this "moral" issue. While individuals may believe in God and judgment, ultimately we each have to make up our own minds regarding such issues. The rights of the individual person to chose its own destiny must prevail over the rights of only a potential-person to live. An arbitrary, non-developmental line is ultimately drawn: once the baby is out of the womb, it is a legal "person" with its own rights. In the womb, it is the mother's body.

(Mr. Singer would not draw this arbitrary line and says that infanticide should be legal for the same reason he thinks late-term abortion is legal--not full-fledged humans yet--but this view is has been currently deemed abhorrent. Arguments have also arisen over the personhood of groups like slaves and invalids, and these have shaken out differently. Right now treating people of other races as non-persons is considered abhorrent, but we are re-exploring the question as it concerns invalids. It is also considered abhorrent to compare arguments about slavery with arguments about abortion.)

The general take on the right is that innocent human life (i.e., a human being that is not threatening another) cannot be intentionally destroyed, so the only question is when does human life emerge. It is true that there are marked differences between human beings at various points in their development. There is massive development that occurs between zygote and infant, but there is also significant development that occurs between infant and toddler, and toddler and adult (as Mr. Singer argues). Some may argue that it is unreasonable to label but all of these beings as "human" in their various stages of development, but ultimately one has to err on the side of caution when dealing with grave moral decisions. Because science tells us that a human life begins once a sperm fertilizes an egg and that a human person with all capabilities will inevitably emerge if nature is left to take its course (barring disease), there is really no absolute basis to draw the line elsewhere. Some might see this as over-restrictive, but it is more important to ensure that no possible humans beings are killed than to ensure that everyone agrees.

In the background on this side is a belief that right and wrong are real things and (traditionally) that people will be judged based on their decisions. Because murder is absolutely prohibited, the right of the baby to life is more fundamental than, and must prevail over, the right of the mother to choose.

 

[tussin]

There's no such thing as the view from nowhere. Anything having to do with ultimate values is essentially theology. So the liberal position on when "personhood" begins is no less theological than the Christian one.

But let's set that aside for a moment. Science is not helpful for determining personhood because, as you've noted, that's the domain of philosophy/ theology. But the science is absolutely settled that human life begins at conception. One could quite defensibly identify as pro-life because: (1) it makes sense that legal personhood and human life begin together; and (2) those who sought to exclude vulnerable minorities from the sphere of legal personhood were obviously "on the wrong side of history".

The evil wrought by antebellum slave holders and Nazi racial supremacists is self-evident. That liberals feel comfortable condemning those sorts of eugenics, but give out standing ovations for abortion is staggering cognitive dissonance.

Bingo, bango.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

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).

Free media is as good for Donald Trump as free alcohol is for anyone in a 12 step program. Really.

It's the same thing.

 

[phgreek]

I said:

Thats funny...yea I got it.

If Mrs Clinton was not Negligent, what was she then? Oh thats right she was "extremely careless" you got me Bogs...

Here is the law I apparently didn't read:

793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18).
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

I know what Comey did...or better I know the escape hatch he used...but don't tell me I am extrapolating, or I didn't read this...If anything YOU didn't.

You Highlighted the two passages above....and said

Yeah I did.

No idea what you are trying to say...all I can pull from your response is you intentionally fail to make a distinction between "or' and "and". OK...just don't count on that approach working for you if you ever find yourself needing to make a real argument that might have an impact on your life.

 

[connor_in]

Hillary Clinton Black Soul | eBay

 

[phgreek]

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 believe the media will continue to try to put a rope around him...but it is too soon to tell if what he is doing will work because it depends largely on fatigue with Mrs Clinton's endless scandals...no one will flip to Trump, but they may stay home...all he needs is to keep his supporters, pick up a few mouth breathers who just remember Trump, and Bernie voters to fatigue and stay home.

It seems a reach right now...but we'll see in 30-45 days.

 

[kmoose]

Sorry, nope. 1 out of 5,000, at best, sample tells us what everyone else watches??... I'd like to know who the 20,000 (the number I've always seen) are... I suspect they aren't evenly distributed to match the actual demos of the population... Also, they don't even really pay any attention to who watches such and such programming, my understanding is the focus is who watches a program's commercials/ads...

but what do you or I know... I'll defer to the real experts...

I used to work for the Nielsen TV Ratings, installing the monitoring equipment in people's homes. The demographics match the demographics of the population of the MSA in which the sample is located, +/- about 2%. If a single white woman with 2 children drops out of the survey, for whatever reason: The Membership Rep has to sign up another single white woman with kids to replace her. Nielsen is MANIACAL about the makeup of their samples. And I do mean MANIACAL. Once someone is in the Sample, they will do just about anything short of sending cocaine and hookers to the house, to keep them in. Because they would have to match the EXACT same demographics if the person left.

Nielsen has what is called a People Meter. Every resident in the house has a button on the meter. They are supposed to log into the meter whenever they are watching TV, and log out when they are done. Nielsen can not only tell you what is on in a house, but who is watching it.

 

[ACamp1900]

I used to work for the Nielsen TV Ratings, installing the monitoring equipment in people's homes. The demographics match the demographics of the population of the MSA in which the sample is located, +/- about 2%. If a single white woman with 2 children drops out of the survey, for whatever reason: The Membership Rep has to sign up another single white woman with kids to replace her. Nielsen is MANIACAL about the makeup of their samples. And I do mean MANIACAL. Once someone is in the Sample, they will do just about anything short of sending cocaine and hookers to the house, to keep them in. Because they would have to match the EXACT same demographics if the person left.

Nielsen has what is called a People Meter. Every resident in the house has a button on the meter. They are supposed to log into the meter whenever they are watching TV, and log out when they are done. Nielsen can not only tell you what is on in a house, but who is watching it.

cool story bro...

jk... that's good to know. I would say if person X leaves an area or drops out of the program, whatever... they aren't always replaced w X in that sample set or community... I'm guessing they spend resources on verifying that?? I'd also note that just because one white female watches something doesn't mean thousands of others should be assumed to do the same. I have plenty of mid 30 something friends that match some demographic of mine... what they watch almost never matches my viewing habits or vice versa... but we are all thrown in the same sample set as whoever dafaq it is they test... I don't like it I tell ya, I don't like it one bit.

 

[zelezo vlk]

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.

Sorry for the delay, Bogs.

If by "your own opinion", you mean that it is my opinion that abortion is greatest evil plaguing this country, then I suppose that you'd be correct. However, I place a very high priority on the right to life, as all men should. I know that you're not evil, but I truly think that abortion is, and that decreeing that any human is less of a person is an extremely slippery slope that will always lead to evil. It is no coincidence that the Left (and much of the media) flip whenever the unborn are referred to as babies or humans. Whiskey posted the reaction of pro-choice groups to a harmless Doritos Super Bowl ad that had the gall of insinuating that an unborn child was anything like a human.

Dehumanizing a group is the most effective start to denying their rights; we've seen that in propaganda in our own country during war, and even before with antebellum slavery.

Trump is "talking the talk" right now on this issue for me, but because I am not actually a one issue voter, and because I do not truly trust him, I want to wait before I could actually cast a vote for that man. However, I cannot vote for Hillary, because a vote for Hillary is a vote for expanding abortion and other destructive policies that the Left champions. Abortion is not the "single issue" upon which my vote is settled, but I would think that anybody would place a premium on an issue where roughly one millions lives are lost every single year.

 

[phgreek]

Hillary Clinton Black Soul | eBay

Ha....they took it down. Funny though....

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

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

He's beyond help.

 

[pkt77242]

Clinton jumps to big lead over Trump in new national polls

 

[kmoose]

I'm curious to hear from the Progressives on here....

Other than the comment about the mom maybe not being able to speak out because of her religion(a not far fetched idea, mind you), what did Trump say that attacked/was insulting to the Khan family?

 

[ACamp1900]

I hear ya, but I don't believe Trump when...

Just stop there while you're ahead.

 

[pumpdog20]

I'm curious to hear from the Progressives on here....

Other than the comment about the mom maybe not being able to speak out because of her religion(a not far fetched idea, mind you), what did Trump say that attacked/was insulting to the Khan family?

How about trying to compare "sacrifices"?

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm curious to hear from the Progressives on here....

Other than the comment about the mom maybe not being able to speak out because of her religion(a not far fetched idea, mind you), what did Trump say that attacked/was insulting to the Khan family?

"It's about radical Islamic terrorism" when referring to the reason he was even talking about the family. It assumes that all Muslims are radical terrorists. It's bigotry. Worse it's bigotry to a family that has sacrificed more than Trump for this country. This is to say nothing of the proposed ban of Muslims. There aren't many who think Trump's handling of the Khans was not offensive.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm curious to hear from the Progressives on here....

Other than the comment about the mom maybe not being able to speak out because of her religion(a not far fetched idea, mind you), what did Trump say that attacked/was insulting to the Khan family?

I think accusing a gold star father of treating his wife poorly is enough. Furthermore, his campaign has came out and accused him of believing in Sharia Law and blamed Obama for their son's death (even though it happened before he was president).

His campaign has handled it extremely poorly, whining about Khan's press time along the way. It's disgraceful.

 

[wizards8507]

I think accusing a gold star father of treating his wife poorly is enough. Furthermore, his campaign has came out and accused him of believing in Sharia Law and blamed Obama for their son's death (even though it happened before he was president).

His campaign has handled it extremely poorly, whining about Khan's press time along the way. It's disgraceful.

You been listening to Ben Shapiro?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7967/7-steps-defending-donald-trump-guide-ben-shapiro

 

[woolybug25]

You been listening to Ben Shapiro?

7 Steps To Defending Donald Trump: A Guide | Daily Wire

Ha. You and Shapiro.

 

[connor_in]

He does WHAT?! This Trump bombshell could really shake up the POTUS race – twitchy.com

 

[phgreek]

You been listening to Ben Shapiro?

7 Steps To Defending Donald Trump: A Guide | Daily Wire

This is pretty much on the mark...

Especially the team sport reference.

 

[kmoose]

I think accusing a gold star father of treating his wife poorly is enough.

When did he do that? When did he say anything about how the father treats his wife?

Furthermore, his campaign has came out and accused him of believing in Sharia Law.......

Well?

What The Media Is Not Telling You About The Muslim Who Attacked Donald Trump: He Is A Muslim Brotherhood Agent Who Wants To Advance Sharia Law And Bring Muslims Into The United States | Walid Shoebat

But more than this, Khan is a promoter of Islamic Sharia Law in the U.S. He was a co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (Islamic Sharia). Khan’s fascination with Islamic Sharia stems from his life in Saudi Arabia. During the eighties Khan wrote a paper titled Juristic Classification of Islamic [Sharia] Law. In it he elucidated on the system of Sharia law expressing his reverence for “The Sunnah [the works of Muhammad] — authentic tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).”

and blamed Obama for their son's death (even though it happened before he was president).

And how does that equate to attacking/insulting the Khan family?

His campaign has handled it extremely poorly, whining about Khan's press time along the way. It's disgraceful.

Perhaps they have, but that still doesn't rise to the level of "attacking" or "insulting" the Khan family, in my opinion.