What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Donald Trump for President thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Coeur de Lion said:
Even so, the President doesn't get to decide whether abortion is legal or not. And we had a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for decades and Roe still stands. The leap from electing Trump (or anyone else) President to ending abortion is so far fetched and quite frankly, insane, that it is incomprehensible.
Click to expand...
Most of them aren't thinking much past how abortion makes them feel inside.   Trump's whole candidacy is based on rejecting facts in favor of what feels right. 

 
Leeroy Jenkins said:
How are people still going to these rallies?  He is an embarrassment.

I feel bad for his kids. They worship him and he is ####ting on their brand and inheritance. 
Click to expand...
Accordong to a few...its just cause Hillary is so bad.  Though, logic would say that people thinking that wouldnt actually go to a rally.

 
igbomb said:
I've pointed out in this thread before that I am a practicing Catholic and this election is a big crisis of conscience for our church members and priests. For many members of the church, abortion is issue #1 by a mile. And whether Trump believes abortion should be ended or not, at least with him in office there is the prospect for getting more conservative justices on the Supreme Court. And while most agree that he personally represents very little of our beliefs, he is seen as more of a Hillary preventative than anything else.

My posts in this thread should make it clear that I'm not aligned with that point of view and think Trump is a reprehensible choice, but for right or wrong it is a belief held by a lot of members of my church.
Click to expand...
Its interesting what we have gotten from the Bishop and Priest has been more...vote your conscience.  Less about the issues they would normally hit on that would be a slight push to the right.  

 
Church needs to give the abortion thing up.  It's a decided issue, and one that's a losing issue.  You have decent center right candidates that have to take this stance and alienate a large chunk of pro-choice voters that otherwise would have gone GOP.  There are more of them than there are of you,  deal with it.  The SC is right leaning and hasn't taken even a look at making restrictions harder, and have been going in the other way.  

It's time to pick another single issue.  

 
Jeremy said:
They believe abortion is no different than taking a baby out of a bassinet and stabbing it through the heart.  If that's your mindset, I guess I can understand it being the only issue that matters. 
Click to expand...
HC believes in full term abortions. What is the difference in stabbing a newborn in the bassinet or stabbing it days before its born?

 
Coeur de Lion said:
I pretty much don't understand the single issue mindset at all, so that's probably my disconnect. I understand and respect the pro-life position, even though I disagree with it; voting solely on that issue is something that I'll just never understand.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the Democratic Party doesn't have much of a record of inclusiveness on the abortion issue.  For a lot of people who see the major parties as both controlled by special interests and big money, abortion is probably the one issue that sets Democrats aside from Republicans.

I know Tim Kaine has been the butt of a lot of jokes here, but to me it's a big deal that the Party put a guy like Kaine who is openly pro-life on the Presidential ticket.  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
HC believes in full term abortions. What is the difference in stabbing a newborn in the bassinet or stabbing it days before its born?
Click to expand...
Almost all late term abortions are due to severe fetal abnormalities with little prospect for any longevity or even being born alive at all. But I guess you're smart enough to make these deeply personal decisions for everyone?  

 
Jackstraw said:
Almost all late term abortions are due to severe fetal abnormalities with little prospect for any longevity or even being born alive at all. But I guess you're smart enough to make these deeply personal decisions for everyone?  
Click to expand...
Where did I say that?  I asked a simple question for those that support abortion. You make it personal. Tim lies. Someone else makes a joke where the top two liberal clowns here like it. Pretty much par for the course. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Where did I say that?  I asked a simple question for those that support abortion. You make it personal. Tim lies. Someone else makes a joke where the top two liberal clowns here like it. Pretty much par for the course. 
Click to expand...
Let's say there's no differnece whatever.  Is the pro-life crowd only trying to stop late term abortions?

If not, then what's the point?

 
Coeur de Lion said:
:goodposting:

Of course, they don't believe in using birth control either, so...
Click to expand...
We could cut the abortion rate close to half with increased education and access (see Colorado). If it were just about being pro life then that crowd would be all about it. But that's not acceptable because they must place their religous ideology on everyone. 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/colorado-gop-blocks-successful-birth-control-program

Colorado launched a health initiative a few years ago with a specific target: reducing teen-birth rates. To that end, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) implemented a program that provided tens of thousands of contraceptive devices at low or no cost.

The results were amazing: teen-birth rates dropped 40% in just five years. This week, the state even won an award from the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, celebrating Colorado’s success story.

Ironically, the award came the same week Colorado Republicans chose to scrap the effective policy.

Republicans on a Colorado Senate committee Wednesday killed an effort to set aside money for a birth-control program that provides intrauterine devices, or IUDs, to low-income, young women. […]

The legislation would have provided $5 million to expand the Colorado Family Planning Initiative program that health officials say lowered the teen birth rate in Colorado by an impressive 40 percent.

As one local report noted, “Opponents of the bill worried that increasing access to birth control would not have a net public health gain because it would increase promiscuity.” One GOP lawmaker accusedthe policy of “subsidizing sex.” Another said of the program, “Does that allow a lot of young women to go out there and look for love in all the wrong places?”

The amazing thing to remember here is that Colorado wasn’t talking about experimenting with a new policy measure; state lawmakers were considering whether to keep an existing policy in place. That’s important because, in this case, Colorado already knows the program was working.

In other words, Republican critics of the idea raised concerns that the policy might fail – which might be a credible point were it not for the fact that the policy has been in place for five years, offering real-world proof that those concerns are unfounded.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Where did I say that?  I asked a simple question for those that support abortion. You make it personal. Tim lies. Someone else makes a joke where the top two liberal clowns here like it. Pretty much par for the course. 
Click to expand...
You strongly implied you were against them. And your "simple question" was deeply loaded. Essentially equating late term abortion with strangling healthy babies in their cribs.  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Where did I say that?  I asked a simple question for those that support abortion. You make it personal. Tim lies. Someone else makes a joke where the top two liberal clowns here like it. Pretty much par for the course. 
Click to expand...
They made a joke because your statement was, in their eyes, ridiculous. 

I'd be shocked if Hillary believed in late-term abortions *without restrictions.*

Now, she may or may not believe that *some* late term abortions should be permissible.  For example, where the mother's life is in danger, or where the fetus has such defects that the baby would likely not survive more than a day or two oustide of the mother.  (no or little brain activity; severe birth defects; etc.).  I doubt she would advocate for late term abortions without strict restrictions. 

I'm sure there are statements out on the intertubes that back this up.  If you find otherwise, I'd be happy to eat my words. 

Now, maybe you would disallow ALL late term abortions regardless of the health of the mother or the health of the fetus.  That's your prerogative.  But I would hazard to guess you'd be in the minority in this country. 

 
I've had two parents be told their baby was going to have a short, if not no life at all.  Both opted to go through with it. One baby lived about 8 hours, one about 10 days.  Both cases the baby existed nearly the entire time on opiates so theoretically no pain.  I can see the people that want to force this decision on them twisting this issue to be about some teen mom and that really makes me sick.  You can't deny people the option when all medical staff has said it's a lost cause beyond all reasonable doubt.  

I do feel like this country understands the difference, and all the pandering to the base does nothing but send people to the other side that would otherwise have been undecided.  It's counter productive to argue it at this point at least if you care about elections, and honestly I think it hurts the overall pro-life cause to push so fervently against families that are faced with these types of decisions no matter which way they go.

 
culdeus said:
Church needs to give the abortion thing up.  It's a decided issue, and one that's a losing issue.  You have decent center right candidates that have to take this stance and alienate a large chunk of pro-choice voters that otherwise would have gone GOP.  
Click to expand...
This is kind of an odd stance to take.  Polling on abortion hasn't moved much in decades, and there a bunch of states that would outlaw abortion by lopsided votes tomorrow if they could.  Many of those states have been extremely active in seeking out loopholes to close down clinics wherever possible.  Pro-life is definitely a solidly viable (get it?) position to take for Republicans.

(I'm pro-life, but not a single-issue voter.  My candidate at the presidential level is pro-choice).

Edit: This is from a few days ago. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck said:
Where did I say that?  I asked a simple question for those that support abortion. You make it personal. Tim lies. Someone else makes a joke where the top two liberal clowns here like it. Pretty much par for the course. 
Click to expand...
You first misrepresented Hillary's position and then you asked a stupid question.  And yeah, I made a stupid joke because your question didn't really merit a serious response. 

The major difference between a baby in bassinet and one in the womb is that the first has been born alive.  Which has been the threshold for when the law (and even religious law predating the common law) has protected a human life from the prohibition against murder for centuries.  Whether you recognize it or not, being born is a BIG difference.  Biologically (the child is no longer completely dependent on the mother), socially, and legally. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This is kind of an odd stance to take.  Polling on abortion hasn't moved much in decades, and there a bunch of states that would outlaw abortion by lopsided votes tomorrow if they could.  Many of those states have been extremely active in seeking out loopholes to close down clinics wherever possible.  Pro-life is definitely a solidly viable (get it?) position to take for Republicans.

(I'm pro-life, but not a single-issue voter.  My candidate at the presidential level is pro-choice). 
Click to expand...
It all depends on how they want to position themselves for national elections, nationwide it's a losing battle and one they could stand to soften up a bit on.  Granted Trump is about as soft on abortion as you can get, given his prior stances on it.  

 
Sweet J said:
They made a joke because your statement was, in their eyes, ridiculous. 

I'd be shocked if Hillary believed in late-term abortions *without restrictions.*

Now, she may or may not believe that *some* late term abortions should be permissible.  For example, where the mother's life is in danger, or where the fetus has such defects that the baby would likely not survive more than a day or two oustide of the mother.  (no or little brain activity; severe birth defects; etc.).  I doubt she would advocate for late term abortions without strict restrictions. 

I'm sure there are statements out on the intertubes that back this up.  If you find otherwise, I'd be happy to eat my words. 

Now, maybe you would disallow ALL late term abortions regardless of the health of the mother or the health of the fetus.  That's your prerogative.  But I would hazard to guess you'd be in the minority in this country. 
Click to expand...
You can safely remain shock-free:

Clinton, by contrast, noted that she has gone on the record as in favor of some "late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

However, Clinton stressed that she objects to the recent efforts in Congress to pass a federal law banning abortions after 20 weeks with no exceptions. "Under Roe v. Wade, it is appropriate to say in these circumstances" that abortion rights may be restricted, she said -- "so long as there's an exception for the life and health of the mother."
Click to expand...
From the March 2016 primary debate, where Clinton and Sanders were asked about their support for abortions beyond the 5 month point. link

 
Hillary on Abortion

tl; dr:

I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.
Click to expand...

 
cstu said:
If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral purity, but you’re not going to get what you want.
Click to expand...
What I want is to opt out of a system that produces the two major candidates that you're asking me to choose between.  Not voting, or voting for a third party, is one admittedly small and easy way of getting that.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
It really bothers you that people won't get on board with the less terrible of the two terrible major-party candidates, doesn't it?  
Click to expand...
If you don't vote for Hillary, that's fine, but to say these human beings are equally suited POTUS then you are, by any objective analysis, wrong.

 
cstu said:
If you don't vote for Hillary, that's fine, but to say these human beings are equally suited POTUS then you are, by any objective analysis, wrong.
Click to expand...
Hillary will be really good at being President of a government I don't want. 

Donald would be a terrible president.

There's no choice here.

 
Andy Dufresne said:
Hillary will be really good at being President of a government I don't want. 

Donald would be a terrible president.

There's no choice here.
Click to expand...
There's the choice of a President who will maintain the status quo for 4 years, which has not been bad for a vast majority of Americans, vs. someone who will do long-term damage to the United States, in both it's economy and international reputation.

Frankly, if you live in a state that Trump wins and you didn't do anything within your power to prevent it then you should be absolutely embarrassed.

 
I think both Andy and IK know, in their heart of hearts, that if the election were close and they lived in a swing state, they would be voting for Clinton.

 
I think we can give people who are philosophically opposed to the Hillary Clinton's agenda a pass for not voting for Hillary Clinton.  Seems to me that someone in Ivan's position is making the most rational decision.  He doesn't support Trump, so he isn't voting for Trump.   If Hillary Clinton received 70% of the popular vote, it would be construed as more than just a repudiation of Trump.  It would be construed as widespread approval for Hillary Clinton's agenda.  We know Ivan doesn't approve of Hillary Clinton's agenda. 

If a significant number of people who don't approve of Hillary Clinton's message choose not to vote for Hillary Clinton's major challenger, then they have done more than enough to repudiate Trump.  Because all Hillary then needs to do to win is to win the votes of people like me, who do largely approve of her agenda. 

 
Coeur de Lion said:
I pretty much don't understand the single issue mindset at all, so that's probably my disconnect. I understand and respect the pro-life position, even though I disagree with it; voting solely on that issue is something that I'll just never understand.
Click to expand...
You do if it is #nevertrump...

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I think we can give people who are philosophically opposed to the Hillary Clinton's agenda a pass for not voting for Hillary Clinton.  Seems to me that someone in Ivan's position is making the most rational decision.  He doesn't support Trump, so he isn't voting for Trump.   If Hillary Clinton received 70% of the popular vote, it would be construed as more than just a repudiation of Trump.  It would be construed as widespread approval for Hillary Clinton's agenda.  We know Ivan doesn't approve of Hillary Clinton's agenda. 

If a significant number of people who don't approve of Hillary Clinton's message choose not to vote for Hillary Clinton's major challenger, then they have done more than enough to repudiate Trump.  Because all Hillary then needs to do to win is to win the votes of people like me, who do largely approve of her agenda. 
Click to expand...
hmmmm. . . weren't there a few million Brits who thought the same way and then woke up horrified the next day? 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Yo Mama
**** OFFICIAL FFA 2025-2026 Fake NBA Draft **** - Draft Has Started
16 17 18
Replies
865
Views
8K
scoobus
scoobus
DA RAIDERS
Pick a fantasy team for the Tour de France. There will be prizes!
Replies
35
Views
3K
DA RAIDERS
DA RAIDERS
kutta
***Official 2025 Footballguy T-Shirt Exchange - OCT 12 SHIPPING DEADLINE (extended 2 weeks)***
2 3 4
Replies
192
Views
5K
kutta
kutta

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top