2016 Election

[Spider-Dan]

You keep referencing "unprotected sex."  Does that mean it's OK to (in your words) "end an innocent life" if a condom breaks or is otherwise ineffective?  What if you get pregnant while on the pill, or with another form of birth control?  Since you took appropriate action to prevent a pregnancy, does that absolve killing an innocent baby?

And what if you never made a choice to have sex in the first place?  There is no other situation in which the appropriate response to a violent crime is to take the life of an innocent.  So why start here?

This is this issue: once you start defining clumps of cells as "innocent life," rape victims should logically be forced to undergo the (medically unnecessary) trauma of carrying their rapist's baby to term, then additionally forced to either abandon the baby they have bonded with over the last 9 months, or keep the rapist in their life forever.  Miscarriages potentially become negligent homicide, and should properly be criminally investigated.

Medical technology has been able to divorce sexual intercourse from pregnancy for many decades; I reject the idea that we must forcibly re-integrate them.  I see no way to logically reconcile the following:

abortion: killing of an innocent life
IUD: sensible precaution
Plan B: killing of an innocent life
birth control pill: sensible precaution

I don't classify a fetus as independent life until it can survive outside of the womb.  Until that point, it is a part of the woman's body, and she has the freedom to make her own choices about her body.

[Cathal]

You should have been responsible upfront so you wouldn't need to be irresponsible in the back-end.

Yeah... I'm not going to force someone to carry a child for 9 months, let the pregnancy screw up their body, go to the hospital and pay those bills, then decide to either let that child go to an adoption agency or live with it for the rest of their lives. That seems a little punishing just to teach someone a lesson.

[CF DolFan]

I personally don't believe a fetus is "alive" until it can exist outside the womb on its own. 

By your own definition it wouldn't be a life until it was several years old. A baby cannot survive on it's own and requires someone to care for it.


It comes down to opinion and that isn't' likely to change. I mentioned it earlier but it seemed to go over people's head. I don't understand how anyone can say you don't have a right to comment, make laws or have an opinion about what women do with their bodies but yet be expected to pay for the "health" of their bodies. You can't have it both ways.

It really comes down to this one question for me.  If we separated the country into two groups ... one liberal and one conservative ... do you really think the liberals paying for each other while banning guns and public displays of religion would fare better than the conservatives who would teach each other to take care of themselves and be more self sufficient?   

[Spider-Dan]

By your own definition it wouldn't be a life until it was several years old. A baby cannot survive on it's own and requires someone to care for it.

I think that's rather obviously not what he meant.

He meant that if it cannot survive with assistance out of the womb, it is not a life.  No one would argue that an infant (or a disabled senior) is "not a life" just because they require care.

It really comes down to this one question for me.  If we separated the country into two groups ... one liberal and one conservative ... do you really think the liberals paying for each other while banning guns and public displays of religion would fare better than the conservatives who would teach each other to take care of themselves and be more self sufficient?   

It doesn't really take that much imagination to make this comparison, since we've already had the ideal conservative country: it is the America of the Industrial Revolution.  Back then, "job creators" were free to practice unfettered capitalism without intrusive government regulation, citizens were free to live a life of maximal liberty without oppressive income taxes or demoralizing safety nets, and individuals were free to associate with whomever they chose without the government ramming political correctness down their throat.

Our society has consistently become more progressive over time, and I would happily take 2016 America over 1896 America.

[bsmooth]

Can there be an option for none of the above in the poll?

[CF DolFan]

Can there be an option for none of the above in the poll?

Outside of people supporting Trump I think most everyone else is really in that category.

I have to say ...regardless of the picks it is surprising to me how close the voting is for Democrats and Republicans in here.  I wonder how many Trump supporters would typically vote Democrat?

[Cathal]

Can there be an option for none of the above in the poll?

More than likely, if I actually go out and vote, it'll probably be for some 3rd party.

[Dave Gray]

I have to say ...regardless of the picks it is surprising to me how close the voting is for Democrats and Republicans in here.  I wonder how many Trump supporters would typically vote Democrat?

Trump is unique.  He simultaneously crosses over between parties and is detested by segments of both parties.  On the issues, Trump is the most moderate of the GOP candidates.  He's just a blowhard and there is almost no substance to any of his policies.  He just repeats how great they're going to be.  That lack of specifics turns some people off, but it also is a blank slate for people to project their own ideas.

And Trump is (or has been) on both sides of most of the major issues, so you can either tell yourself that (on abortion, for example) he's a changed man who found Jesus and is now Pro Life OR you can tell yourself that he doesn't really believe that and he's just pandering to the right to get votes.

[CF DolFan]

Trump is unique.  He simultaneously crosses over between parties and is detested by segments of both parties.  On the issues, Trump is the most moderate of the GOP candidates.  He's just a blowhard and there is almost no substance to any of his policies.  He just repeats how great they're going to be.  That lack of specifics turns some people off, but it also is a blank slate for people to project their own ideas.

And Trump is (or has been) on both sides of most of the major issues, so you can either tell yourself that (on abortion, for example) he's a changed man who found Jesus and is now Pro Life OR you can tell yourself that he doesn't really believe that and he's just pandering to the right to get votes.

Former Apple CEO John Sculley who is a friend of Trump wrote a pretty good article today about what is going on. "Trump voters 'don't care about facts," http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/01/technology/john-sculley-donald-trump/

Many Americans are fed up and Trump is tapping into that. They are fed up with many things like being politically correct,  the middle class continues to shrink, having politicians be politicians and so on. He's like a cheerleader for their cause so they are jumping on that cheer and ignoring the facts. Like you said he lacks specifics but he isn't looking for that support yet. To me he is similar to a professional wrestler in that he is just trying to get people riled up to support him and will say anything.  In doing so he really gets the blue collared person excited and it is working for him.

In many ways he has hijacked the Republicans but I bet he could have probably done the same thing with the Democrats. The question is how long will it last?

[Rich]

In many ways he has hijacked the Republicans but I bet he could have probably done the same thing with the Democrats. The question is how long will it last?

I'm not sure about that. Democrats actually try to do what they said they were going to do during the campaign. Republicans, not so much.

There is an interesting piece in the New York Times about the make up of Trump voters. People assume angry white supremacists but they interview some former Democrats and even a Muslim who is supporting Trump. With a guy like Trump, you have to throw out conventional wisdom.

[Spider-Dan]

Trump will probably capture the Reagan Democrats, but I think Romney captured them in 2012 and it didn't make much difference.  The fundamental demographics issues still exist.  I find it difficult to believe that Trump can say something between now and November to make Hispanics forget about the Mexican rapists and blacks forget about his playing footsie with David Duke.  Energizing turnout for both white nationalists and minorities is not a winning play for the former.

Trump's lead solidified last night and there is even more talk about this election marking the end of the Republican Party; either a literal end (as the Whigs did, which seems unlikely) or a complete realignment from the Southern Strategy coalition of Nixon and Reagan.  Currently, the party base consists of the corporate ("establishment") conservatives, the social conservatives ("evangelicals") and working-class conservatives.  Outside of possibly gun rights, the working-class conservatives have been stiffed by the GOP for decades... particularly in the widespread export of jobs; this is a large part of what has fueled Trump's run.

However, I'm unsure of how this realignment could take place.  The corporate conservatives have all the money, so as long as our politics are controlled by money it seems unlikely that they would not be a partner in the new coalition; however, their goals (which are largely libertarian) are pretty much at direct odds with those of the working-class conservatives.  I could certainly see an alliance between the evangelicals and the working-class conservatives, but the first action in such an alliance would have to be a move to get money out of politics (so as to de-power establishment money).  If that were to happen, the American right would be replaced with something more similar to the European right: protectionist authoritarians.

[Rich]

I find it difficult to believe that Trump can say something between now and November to make Hispanics forget about the Mexican rapists and blacks forget about his playing footsie with David Duke.

He has won with Hispanics despite running against two Hispanics. The David Duke thing will get lost in the 24 hour news cycle.

Trump is winning with people that find him unfavorable according to many exit polls. Throw conventional wisdom out the window with him. His campaign was supposed to implode 20 despicable comments ago... but every time he demonstrates what a jackass he is, he gets more support.

[DaLittle B]

An angry bunch of voters,tend to be a stupid bunch of voters.

[Rich]

An angry bunch of voters,tend to be a stupid bunch of voters.

That would explain 2008.

[Spider-Dan]

He has won with Hispanics despite running against two Hispanics.  The David Duke thing will get lost in the 24 hour news cycle.

I humbly submit that if you are a Hispanic Republican, you are likely already fully immune to racism; if you couldn't get past the gently-veiled references to "anchor babies" then you wouldn't be a Republican in the first place.

I also think you are significantly underestimating the importance of David Duke.  You may not think it's a big deal, but frankly, you're not part of the cohort that would think it's a big deal.