What would be the last straw for you, as a Trump supporter?

[mindless1]

Yes clearly if integrity is what you’re looking for you vote for the serial adulterer lifelong liar and con man who has used the office to commit a number of felonies, haha.

As far as bigger government goes, spending has exploded under Trump. How’s that for a small government agenda?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Never once did anyone state they were voting for someone with the most integrity. Quite the opposite, referring to my cardboard box statement. It seems like you are conceding that Hilary has no integrity without my even raising that topic, just blabbering out whatever is on YOUR mind and trying to suggest it's what someone else is thining. Don't feel alone in doing so, there are many with this mental defect.

As far as government spending goes, why would you think it is black and white that if someone wants a less liberal america that they automagically endorse anything the Trump admin does?

This is a common theme, short sighted people who think that if you oppose liberalism that you must be aligned with (or against) everything Trump does. If anyone is that aligned with EITHER political party, they're an idiot.

 

[ivwshane]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Never once did anyone state they were voting for someone with the most integrity. Quite the opposite, referring to my cardboard box statement. It seems like you are conceding that Hilary has no integrity without my even raising that topic, just blabbering out whatever is on YOUR mind and trying to suggest it's what someone else is thining. Don't feel alone in doing so, there are many with this mental defect.

As far as government spending goes, why would you think it is black and white that if someone wants a less liberal america that they automagically endorse anything the Trump admin does?

This is a common theme, short sighted people who think that if you oppose liberalism that you must be aligned with (or against) everything Trump does. If anyone is that aligned with EITHER political party, they're an idiot.

What exactly is liberalism in your mind? Please be as specific as possible.

 

[Vic]

Could you be any less effective? Not only do you not have a rational counter argument about why it should be okay for others to do without what they want while you shouldn't have to do without what you want, you also pretend that arguing about it ad nauseam somehow makes a difference.

IF by some strange chance you managed to win a real argument rather than just be a majority in a popularity contest, what exactly have you accomplished? Absolutely nothing because you only win the argument in your own mind, do not end up doing anything to change the world towards the way you want it to be.

How many years will you persist before realizing this is madness and exactly why liberals must be stopped, because they want to insist that everyone has to agree with and do what they want, instead of freedom for everyone to live their own lives and have their own personal accountability.

This must be parody.

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Never once did anyone state they were voting for someone with the most integrity. Quite the opposite, referring to my cardboard box statement. It seems like you are conceding that Hilary has no integrity without my even raising that topic, just blabbering out whatever is on YOUR mind and trying to suggest it's what someone else is thining. Don't feel alone in doing so, there are many with this mental defect.

As far as government spending goes, why would you think it is black and white that if someone wants a less liberal america that they automagically endorse anything the Trump admin does?

This is a common theme, short sighted people who think that if you oppose liberalism that you must be aligned with (or against) everything Trump does. If anyone is that aligned with EITHER political party, they're an idiot.

Well, yeh, of course. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, right? Principles of Democracy? If they're not a win for your side, why follow them?

 

[mindless1]

let us turn this around on you because it is very appropriate-- How many years will you persist ...

Let's stop this right here. I'm not the one with the delusion that many years and thousands of posts in a forum is going to make any difference. You easily have me beat 30X over on that front.

Please show the evidence that arguing or rather, wasting away a lot of time in a forum, has changed the world. I don't mean to me, I have more productive things to do now.

Nobody that posts thousands of times in this forum has a rational position. If they were that passionate AND rational, they'd be out in the world making those changes. It's pretty deceitful and disingenuous to pretend it matters to you and yet, only can mange to argue in a forum. If any of this really matters, get up and do something productive about it.

Now I have better things to do. As do you.

 

[Vic]

What exactly is liberalism in your mind? Please be as specific as possible.

liberals must be stopped, because they want to insist that everyone has to agree with and do what they want, instead of freedom for everyone to live their own lives.

Not part of everyone apparently.

 

[Vic]

Let's stop this right here. I'm not the one with the delusion that many years and thousands of posts in a forum is going to make any difference. You easily have me beat 30X over on that front.

Please show the evidence that arguing or rather, wasting away a lot of time in a forum, has changed the world. I don't mean to me, I have more productive things to do now.

Why do the people you don't agree with have to be able to change the world in order for you to allow them to speak?

 

[Vic]

Well, yeh, of course. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, right? Principles of Democracy? If they're not a win for your side, why follow them?

This guy is unconsciously rabidly authoritarian. He seems to be completely unaware that everyone loves their own freedoms.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Let's stop this right here. I'm not the one with the delusion that many years and thousands of posts in a forum is going to make any difference. You easily have me beat 30X over on that front.

Please show the evidence that arguing or rather, wasting away a lot of time in a forum, has changed the world. I don't mean to me, I have more productive things to do now.

Nobody that posts thousands of times in this forum has a rational position. If they were that passionate AND rational, they'd be out in the world making those changes. It's pretty deceitful and disingenuous to pretend it matters to you and yet, only can mange to argue in a forum. If any of this really matters, get up and do something productive about it.

Now I have better things to do. As do you.

Why are you posting on these forums if it is a wste of time and accomplishes nothing???
You have no clue the things I do in everyday life to make this world a better place. I am only one person yet I can make a tiny difference. lets see -- I drive an electric car! I recycle on a daily basis! I volunteer to take meals to the poor or medically unable to care for themselves....and the list goes on!
Need i ask what do you do to make the world a better place.......or are you the typical Republican if it doesn`t directly affect you then you won`t give a crap until it does directly affect you!

 

[Vic]

Let's stop this right here. I'm not the one with the delusion that many years and thousands of posts in a forum is going to make any difference. You easily have me beat 30X over on that front.

Please show the evidence that arguing or rather, wasting away a lot of time in a forum, has changed the world. I don't mean to me, I have more productive things to do now.

Nobody that posts thousands of times in this forum has a rational position. If they were that passionate AND rational, they'd be out in the world making those changes. It's pretty deceitful and disingenuous to pretend it matters to you and yet, only can mange to argue in a forum. If any of this really matters, get up and do something productive about it.

Now I have better things to do. As do you.

"Why can't you treat me like an adult?" yells the teenage girl as she slams her bedroom door on her parents.

 

[brycejones]

Now I have better things to do. As do you.

Asked for specifics, bails out. LOL

 

[fskimospy]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Never once did anyone state they were voting for someone with the most integrity. Quite the opposite, referring to my cardboard box statement. It seems like you are conceding that Hilary has no integrity without my even raising that topic, just blabbering out whatever is on YOUR mind and trying to suggest it's what someone else is thining. Don't feel alone in doing so, there are many with this mental defect.

As far as government spending goes, why would you think it is black and white that if someone wants a less liberal america that they automagically endorse anything the Trump admin does?

This is a common theme, short sighted people who think that if you oppose liberalism that you must be aligned with (or against) everything Trump does. If anyone is that aligned with EITHER political party, they're an idiot.

This thread was about why people would support Trump, therefore criticisms of his opponents would be logically taken as reasons to support Trump.

I mean did you think this through?

 

[sportage]

If people liked Trump you'd think those same people would love Tom Steyer.
As with Donald Trump. Tom Steyer is a blow-hard, really rich, arrogant, likes boasting about his achievements, a loud mouth, self centered, everything that Trump is Tom Steyer is except for the womanizing and the sleazy nature.
However.... if you talk to a Trump supporter they bash Tom Steyerr over the very same qualities that Donald Trump has.
And I don't get it.
They reject Tom Steyer yet embrace Donald Trump.
It doesn't make since until you figure in the hate factor.
THAT'S IT !!!!!
Donald Trump hates, divides, cusses, lies, name calling, insults opponents, well.... we all know Donald Trump's history.
So only one conclusion can be made of all of this.
Donald Trump supporters are truly racist, bigots, and truly the basket of deplorables.
THAT is the difference. THAT is why they love Donald Trump yet despise Tom Steyer.
And now, you know......

 

[ecogen]

Could you be any less effective? Not only do you not have a rational counter argument about why it should be okay for others to do without what they want while you shouldn't have to do without what you want, you also pretend that arguing about it ad nauseam somehow makes a difference.

IF by some strange chance you managed to win a real argument rather than just be a majority in a popularity contest, what exactly have you accomplished? Absolutely nothing because you only win the argument in your own mind, do not end up doing anything to change the world towards the way you want it to be.

How many years will you persist before realizing this is madness and exactly why liberals must be stopped, because they want to insist that everyone has to agree with and do what they want, instead of freedom for everyone to live their own lives and have their own personal accountability.

You're seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to win an argument or convince you of something. I'm not. I really don't care what you think, or believe. Anyone on this forum with a brain can identify your posts and your reasoning as what they truly are, ignorant garbage.

You've made a straw-man for yourself to fight against in the form of "der libruls are comin fer our freedumz" and "ermagerd big gubmint", you keep arguing against policies that have been successfully implemented in countries that are much better to live in than yours. You keep arguing against reality.

Like I said, ignorant and/or stupid.

 

[zinfamous]

I think for a Trump supporter, if Trump murdered one of their children, then the Trump supporter would find a way to argue that their child deserved it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I think for a Trump supporter, if Trump murdered one of their children, then the Trump supporter would find a way to argue that their child deserved it.

I agree! Only they would misquote the Bible -- Spare the nunchucks, spoil the child!!

 

[Atreus21]

What’s wrong with the New York abortion law? Lots of right wing misinformation about that law.

The fact that, according to factcheck, abortions are permitted up to the point of birth as long as one can cite a health risk to the mother, and that it attempts no definition of "health". This is a departure from the previous law which permitted such abortions only when the mother's life was endangered.

As for their positions it’s simple, I can’t recall a single one of them ever calling for the removal of already present late term restrictions on abortion. If elected president it is all but a certainty they would never try to have them removed either.

You might have a look at this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/democratic-candidates-abortion-survey.html

Question put to 2020 Democrat candidates: Should there be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability (roughly 24 weeks)? If so, what restrictions?

Michael Bennett: "No."
Corey Booker: "Abortion is health care and decisions regarding someone’s health care should be made between that person and their doctor."
Pete Buttigieg: "The fact is that less than 1 percent of abortions take place after 24 weeks of pregnancy. They often involve heartbreaking circumstances in which a person’s health or life is at risk, or when the fetus has a congenital condition that is incompatible with life. As I have said before, people and families in these circumstances are receiving the most devastating news of their lifetime, and the decisions that are made about medical care in these moments are not made better, medically or morally, by government dictating how these decisions are made. I trust people and their families to make these decisions with the guidance of their medical providers, who understand the complications and factors that are unique to every pregnancy.
Amy Klobuchar: Senator Klobuchar believes any restrictions must be consistent with Roe v. Wade.
Bernie Sanders: Bernie believes that women should control their own bodies, period.
Joe Sestak: This is a very difficult question. While I am loath to ever get between a woman and her doctor — for I believe that is not a proper place for government — I do believe that after the point of viability abortion should only be performed when there is a threat to the life or health of the mother, or in cases when it is determined that the developing fetus will not be able to survive outside the womb.
Tom Steyer: Every woman should have the right to control her own body.
Elizabeth Warren: Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place at 21 weeks or later, and the reasons are heartbreaking. 20-week abortion bans are dangerous and cruel. They would force women to carry an unviable fetus to term or force women with severe health complications to stay pregnant with their lives on the line. The decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is one of the most personal decisions anyone can make. We must not allow politicians to make this decision for parents and families just so they can score cheap political points.
Marianne Williamson: Late abortions are done infrequently and for medical reasons. This decision should be up to the woman and her doctor, not the government.
Andrew Yang: In the U.S. in 2015, 1.3 percent of abortions take place after the 21st week, and less than 1 percent take place after the 24th week. If abortions happen at this late of a stage in a pregnancy, it is almost always because of extreme circumstances, medical or otherwise. In these cases, Andrew believes the decision should lie between a woman and her doctor, not the government.

At no point does anyone offer even a hint of wanting to restrict late term abortion, instead suggesting it should be allowed if the woman decides it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. No reasonable observer would read their stated positions and conclude they are moderate by how you and I have defined it regarding abortion.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The fact that, according to factcheck, abortions are permitted up to the point of birth as long as one can cite a health risk to the mother, and that it attempts no definition of "health". This is a departure from the previous law which permitted such abortions only when the mother's life was endangered.



You might have a look at this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/democratic-candidates-abortion-survey.html

Question put to 2020 Democrat candidates: Should there be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability (roughly 24 weeks)? If so, what restrictions?

Michael Bennett: "No."
Corey Booker: "Abortion is health care and decisions regarding someone’s health care should be made between that person and their doctor."
Pete Buttigieg: "The fact is that less than 1 percent of abortions take place after 24 weeks of pregnancy. They often involve heartbreaking circumstances in which a person’s health or life is at risk, or when the fetus has a congenital condition that is incompatible with life. As I have said before, people and families in these circumstances are receiving the most devastating news of their lifetime, and the decisions that are made about medical care in these moments are not made better, medically or morally, by government dictating how these decisions are made. I trust people and their families to make these decisions with the guidance of their medical providers, who understand the complications and factors that are unique to every pregnancy.
Amy Klobuchar: Senator Klobuchar believes any restrictions must be consistent with Roe v. Wade.
Bernie Sanders: Bernie believes that women should control their own bodies, period.
Joe Sestak: This is a very difficult question. While I am loath to ever get between a woman and her doctor — for I believe that is not a proper place for government — I do believe that after the point of viability abortion should only be performed when there is a threat to the life or health of the mother, or in cases when it is determined that the developing fetus will not be able to survive outside the womb.
Tom Steyer: Every woman should have the right to control her own body.
Elizabeth Warren: Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place at 21 weeks or later, and the reasons are heartbreaking. 20-week abortion bans are dangerous and cruel. They would force women to carry an unviable fetus to term or force women with severe health complications to stay pregnant with their lives on the line. The decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is one of the most personal decisions anyone can make. We must not allow politicians to make this decision for parents and families just so they can score cheap political points.
Marianne Williamson: Late abortions are done infrequently and for medical reasons. This decision should be up to the woman and her doctor, not the government.
Andrew Yang: In the U.S. in 2015, 1.3 percent of abortions take place after the 21st week, and less than 1 percent take place after the 24th week. If abortions happen at this late of a stage in a pregnancy, it is almost always because of extreme circumstances, medical or otherwise. In these cases, Andrew believes the decision should lie between a woman and her doctor, not the government.

At no point does anyone offer even a hint of wanting to restrict late term abortion, instead suggesting it should be allowed if the woman decides it.

I'm sorry, but no reasonable observer would read their stated positions and conclude they are moderate by how you and I have defined it regarding abortion.

Why shouldn`t the mother`s health be paramount, until the baby is born? I think that it is not very smart to force a woman to carry her pregnancy if it is going to adversely affect her well being!
That is what is wrong with men trying to say what is best for a woman!
Why does it have to be only if the mother`s life is in danger??
As I stated earlier --
I feel sorry for you! There are no candidates when it comes to the abortion issue that you will ever agree with or for that matter vote to support!
You are making this issue and mind you I am not discounting the importance of the issue of abortion!
But looking at the whole picture, at this moment in history it is not going to define this upcoming election!

 

[Jhhnn]

The fact that, according to factcheck, abortions are permitted up to the point of birth as long as one can cite a health risk to the mother, and that it attempts no definition of "health". This is a departure from the previous law which permitted such abortions only when the mother's life was endangered.



You might have a look at this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/democratic-candidates-abortion-survey.html

Question put to 2020 Democrat candidates: Should there be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability (roughly 24 weeks)? If so, what restrictions?

Michael Bennett: "No."
Corey Booker: "Abortion is health care and decisions regarding someone’s health care should be made between that person and their doctor."
Pete Buttigieg: "The fact is that less than 1 percent of abortions take place after 24 weeks of pregnancy. They often involve heartbreaking circumstances in which a person’s health or life is at risk, or when the fetus has a congenital condition that is incompatible with life. As I have said before, people and families in these circumstances are receiving the most devastating news of their lifetime, and the decisions that are made about medical care in these moments are not made better, medically or morally, by government dictating how these decisions are made. I trust people and their families to make these decisions with the guidance of their medical providers, who understand the complications and factors that are unique to every pregnancy.
Amy Klobuchar: Senator Klobuchar believes any restrictions must be consistent with Roe v. Wade.
Bernie Sanders: Bernie believes that women should control their own bodies, period.
Joe Sestak: This is a very difficult question. While I am loath to ever get between a woman and her doctor — for I believe that is not a proper place for government — I do believe that after the point of viability abortion should only be performed when there is a threat to the life or health of the mother, or in cases when it is determined that the developing fetus will not be able to survive outside the womb.
Tom Steyer: Every woman should have the right to control her own body.
Elizabeth Warren: Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place at 21 weeks or later, and the reasons are heartbreaking. 20-week abortion bans are dangerous and cruel. They would force women to carry an unviable fetus to term or force women with severe health complications to stay pregnant with their lives on the line. The decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is one of the most personal decisions anyone can make. We must not allow politicians to make this decision for parents and families just so they can score cheap political points.
Marianne Williamson: Late abortions are done infrequently and for medical reasons. This decision should be up to the woman and her doctor, not the government.
Andrew Yang: In the U.S. in 2015, 1.3 percent of abortions take place after the 21st week, and less than 1 percent take place after the 24th week. If abortions happen at this late of a stage in a pregnancy, it is almost always because of extreme circumstances, medical or otherwise. In these cases, Andrew believes the decision should lie between a woman and her doctor, not the government.

At no point does anyone offer even a hint of wanting to restrict late term abortion, instead suggesting it should be allowed if the woman decides it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. No reasonable observer would read their stated positions and conclude they are moderate by how you and I have defined it regarding abortion.

What's your argument? You'd simply ban abortion if you could. Many on your side of the issue would ban birth control, as well.

 

[Atreus21]

I feel sorry for you! There are no candidates when it comes to the abortion issue that you will ever agree with or for that matter vote to support!

Of course there are. Had i not moved to TX right before the election, I'd have voted for Jon Bel Edwards. Both my parents, life long Republicans, did.

 

[Vic]

What's your argument? You'd simply ban abortion if you could. Many on your side of the issue would ban birth control, as well.

And there is no reason to believe that such bans would be effective either.

 

[fskimospy]

The fact that, according to factcheck, abortions are permitted up to the point of birth as long as one can cite a health risk to the mother, and that it attempts no definition of "health". This is a departure from the previous law which permitted such abortions only when the mother's life was endangered.



You might have a look at this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/democratic-candidates-abortion-survey.html

Question put to 2020 Democrat candidates: Should there be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability (roughly 24 weeks)? If so, what restrictions?

Michael Bennett: "No."
Corey Booker: "Abortion is health care and decisions regarding someone’s health care should be made between that person and their doctor."
Pete Buttigieg: "The fact is that less than 1 percent of abortions take place after 24 weeks of pregnancy. They often involve heartbreaking circumstances in which a person’s health or life is at risk, or when the fetus has a congenital condition that is incompatible with life. As I have said before, people and families in these circumstances are receiving the most devastating news of their lifetime, and the decisions that are made about medical care in these moments are not made better, medically or morally, by government dictating how these decisions are made. I trust people and their families to make these decisions with the guidance of their medical providers, who understand the complications and factors that are unique to every pregnancy.
Amy Klobuchar: Senator Klobuchar believes any restrictions must be consistent with Roe v. Wade.
Bernie Sanders: Bernie believes that women should control their own bodies, period.
Joe Sestak: This is a very difficult question. While I am loath to ever get between a woman and her doctor — for I believe that is not a proper place for government — I do believe that after the point of viability abortion should only be performed when there is a threat to the life or health of the mother, or in cases when it is determined that the developing fetus will not be able to survive outside the womb.
Tom Steyer: Every woman should have the right to control her own body.
Elizabeth Warren: Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place at 21 weeks or later, and the reasons are heartbreaking. 20-week abortion bans are dangerous and cruel. They would force women to carry an unviable fetus to term or force women with severe health complications to stay pregnant with their lives on the line. The decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is one of the most personal decisions anyone can make. We must not allow politicians to make this decision for parents and families just so they can score cheap political points.
Marianne Williamson: Late abortions are done infrequently and for medical reasons. This decision should be up to the woman and her doctor, not the government.
Andrew Yang: In the U.S. in 2015, 1.3 percent of abortions take place after the 21st week, and less than 1 percent take place after the 24th week. If abortions happen at this late of a stage in a pregnancy, it is almost always because of extreme circumstances, medical or otherwise. In these cases, Andrew believes the decision should lie between a woman and her doctor, not the government.

At no point does anyone offer even a hint of wanting to restrict late term abortion, instead suggesting it should be allowed if the woman decides it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. No reasonable observer would read their stated positions and conclude they are moderate by how you and I have defined it regarding abortion.

You are trying so, so hard to pretend something to justify what we both know you are going to do anyway.

People running in a Democratic primary are not going to talk about how much they want to restrict abortion. None of them though, not a single one, are trying to get rid of limits on late term abortions except for health reasons.

Now I’m sure if you try hard enough you will be able to convince yourself that you need to vote for Republicans based on abortion but if you actually think that you’re doing so because the democratic nominee is so ‘radical’ as to be trying to remove all limits on abortion you’re lying to yourself.

 

[Atreus21]

You are trying so, so hard to pretend something to justify what we both know you are going to do anyway.

People running in a Democratic primary are not going to talk about how much they want to restrict abortion. None of them though, not a single one, are trying to get rid of limits on late term abortions except for health reasons.

Now I’m sure if you try hard enough you will be able to convince yourself that you need to vote for Republicans based on abortion but if you actually think that you’re doing so because the democratic nominee is so ‘radical’ as to be trying to remove all limits on abortion you’re lying to yourself.

I've said they are opposed to restrictions on late term abortion, and provided evidence, their own words, to support my claim.

You said they are in favor of restrictions on abortion, and offered as evidence the fact that they haven't advocated for removing restrictions on abortion.

But there are no restrictions on late term abortion. It's the status quo, as long as Roe v. Wade stands. It prohibits any restriction on abortion, at any time, that doesn't contain a physical or mental health exemption.

If there were such restrictions, we have good reason to think they'd oppose them, just as they advocate for repealing the Hyde amendment and the Helms amendment.

What is the stronger argument? That they are opposed to position A because of stated opposition to it, or that they are in favor of position A because they've not stated opposition to it?

This is an argument from silence.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Of course there are. Had i not moved to TX right before the election, I'd have voted for Jon Bel Edwards. Both my parents, life long Republicans, did.

Dud3e how dense are you...….sure you can go around saying that you voted, but for who? Not for anybody with a chance to unseat Trump...or for that matter anybody with a chance to be voted in as president! A vote wasted is as if you never voted!
You are as what was stated above -- Now I’m sure if you try hard enough you will be able to convince yourself that you need to vote for Republicans based on abortion but if you actually think that you’re doing so because the democratic nominee is so ‘radical’ as to be trying to remove all limits on abortion you’re lying to yourself.

In other words -- you are just lying to yourself if you think your vote for some nobody makes a difference!!
you can take as many stands as you want, but nothing will come of them voting for a nobody!

 

[JEDIYoda]

I've said they are opposed to restrictions on late term abortion, and provided evidence, their own words, to support my claim.

You said they are in favor of restrictions on abortion, and offered as evidence the fact that they haven't advocated for removing restrictions on abortion.

But there are no restrictions on late term abortion. It's the status quo, as long as Roe v. Wade stands. It prohibits any restriction on abortion, at any time, that doesn't contain a physical or mental health exemption.

What is the stronger argument? That they are opposed to position A because of stated opposition to it, or that they are in favor of position A because they've not stated opposition to it?

This is an argument from silence.

also NOBODY wants to discuss this one issue because it does not currently matter.....and anybody who does discuss this issue with you will never win unless they totally agree with you!!