+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Serious Shit? (https://mockforums.net/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: POLITICS (https://mockforums.net/forum-36.html)
+--- Thread: Presidential race 2016 (/thread-10229.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
RE: Presidential race 2016 - sally - 03-31-2016
(03-31-2016, 04:49 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I didn't say that changing from pro-choice to pro-life was a problem for me. I said it was fair enough.
I also didn't say that his statement about women having an illegal abortion being punished for it was a problem for me. Regardless of how I feel about it, it's certainly a problem for both Pro-life and Pro-choice advocates however.
What would be a problem for me if I was open to considering voting for Trump is how he made a statement on a very serious key issue on Tuesday night, and then took an exact opposite position on the same issue the next day.
I think it's reasonable for voters to expect that he'd given the issues surrounding abortion and the Pro-life position a lot of serious consideration and been prepared to answer questions about it a long time ago. It's not a new issue and Trump knew his reversal was a subject of criticism by his competitors.
Now, who knows if he really meant what he said Tuesday night, or if he instead really meant what he said Wednesday morning? Not me. But, I'm not considering voting for him anyway.
He was asked if something legal was made illegal then should the person doing it be punished and he said yes. Sounds like a logical answer to me. Then they cut that question out of the video and every headline on the net reads "Trump Wants To Punish All Women For Having Abortions!" So I think he was probably ill-advised to change his position from punishing the women to punishing the doctors instead, but who knows.
I don't recall ever saying I was considering voting for him either except the time that I was obviously joking that I'd vote for him just for shits and giggles.
RE: Presidential race 2016 - Duchess - 03-31-2016
It bothered me when it was said that the woman getting the abortion is the victim and the Dr. performing it is the criminal.
RE: Presidential race 2016 - HairOfTheDog - 03-31-2016
(03-31-2016, 05:16 PM)sally Wrote: He was asked if something legal was made illegal then should the person doing it be punished and he said yes. Sounds like a logical answer to me. Then they cut that question out of the video and every headline on the net reads "Trump Wants To Punish All Women For Having Abortions!" So I think he was probably ill-advised to change his position from punishing the women to punishing the doctors instead, but who knows.
I don't recall ever saying I was considering voting for him either except the time that I was obviously joking that I'd vote for him just for shits and giggles.
I know that he reversed his position sally. I watched the Town Hall and then I watched a video of the Matthews interview.
Town Hall: if abortion was made illegal, there would have to be some form of punishment for women who got abortions. That's what Trump said Tuesday night.
Matthews interview (after getting slammed for contradicting the Pro-life position): If abortion was made illegal, women who got abortions anyway should not be punished. That's what Trump said Wednesday.
That's a reversal or full flip flop, regardless of any headlines or video clip editing.
I think it's reasonable for people considering voting for Trump, especially those who have strong feelings on the issue, to wonder how he really feels about it now. I'm not one of those people, and I know you don't vote.
RE: Presidential race 2016 - Blindgreed1 - 03-31-2016
(03-31-2016, 04:49 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I didn't say that changing from pro-choice to pro-life was a problem for me. I said it was fair enough.
I also didn't say that his statement about women having an illegal abortion being punished for it was a problem for me. Regardless of how I feel about it, it's certainly a problem for both Pro-life and Pro-choice advocates however.
What would be a problem for me if I was open to considering voting for Trump is how he made a statement on a very serious key issue on Tuesday night, and then took an exact opposite position on the same issue the next day.
I think it's reasonable for voters to expect that he'd given the issues surrounding abortion and the Pro-life position a lot of serious consideration and been prepared to answer questions about it a long time ago. It's not a new issue and Trump knew his reversal was a subject of criticism by his competitors.
Now, who knows if he really meant what he said Tuesday night, or if he instead really meant what he said Wednesday morning? Not me. But, I'm not considering voting for him anyway.
He's a reality TV candidate. He's going to say whatever gets him more votes, just as Hilary, Ted and Bern will. What part of this doesn't everybody get? The only difference is Trump will change colors faster. I refuse to believe that when a candidate flip flops on an issue has any relevance whatsoever. They all do it. Who cares WHEN they do it? I think it's great. The whole circus side show of American politics has finally shown what a joke it's been for a very long time. Hilary's not going to take care of your children, but she will bark like a dog. Bernie's not going to narrow the gap between the rich and poor, but his memes sure are amusing. Ted isn't going to get god's vote for president, but I thank him for resurfacing the nude pics of Trump's wife and Trump isn't going to build a wall, but damn, he sure is entertaining.
RE: Presidential race 2016 - HairOfTheDog - 03-31-2016
(03-31-2016, 05:17 PM)Duchess Wrote: It bothered me when it was said that the woman getting the abortion is the victim and the Dr. performing it is the criminal.
Pro-Life leaders/advocates and politicians like Ted Cruz view abortion as a violent act against the woman and the unborn child. Whether the abortion is legal or not, they view both the woman and the fetus as victims of whomever performs the abortion. They believe the woman had to have been desperate or misguided to make such a choice. If abortion becomes illegal, then they will be able to legally punish the perpetrator (the doctor, in their view). That's my understanding.
RE: Presidential race 2016 - blueberryhill - 03-31-2016
(03-31-2016, 05:46 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:(03-31-2016, 04:49 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I didn't say that changing from pro-choice to pro-life was a problem for me. I said it was fair enough.
I also didn't say that his statement about women having an illegal abortion being punished for it was a problem for me. Regardless of how I feel about it, it's certainly a problem for both Pro-life and Pro-choice advocates however.
What would be a problem for me if I was open to considering voting for Trump is how he made a statement on a very serious key issue on Tuesday night, and then took an exact opposite position on the same issue the next day.
I think it's reasonable for voters to expect that he'd given the issues surrounding abortion and the Pro-life position a lot of serious consideration and been prepared to answer questions about it a long time ago. It's not a new issue and Trump knew his reversal was a subject of criticism by his competitors.
Now, who knows if he really meant what he said Tuesday night, or if he instead really meant what he said Wednesday morning? Not me. But, I'm not considering voting for him anyway.
I am sorry for not excerpting above sentence to which I will refer to, but my fingers ache today.
Mr. Greed, I take exception to your remark about Hillary barking like a dog. I do that all the time, and it just normal Liberal behavior. That is how I communicate with my dog. While sleeping, she (my dog, Bitsy) will wake up and bark at me, I bark back at her and she then lays her head back down and goes back to sleep.....When I feed her, she barks until I sit down beside her while she eats (she doesn't like to dine alone)
So, you should just take that remark back......so there.......Jeez!
RE: Presidential race 2016 - Carsman - 03-31-2016
Seemingly sad that it's so True!
![[Image: 2016-sign%201918306_10207541429887353_61...vlssgy.jpg]](http://s1129.photobucket.com/user/carsy2/media/2016-sign%201918306_10207541429887353_6112046624083345977_n_zpsfpvlssgy.jpg.html)
RE: Presidential race 2016 - Maggot - 03-31-2016
We are all so c o n n e c t e d !!
RE: Presidential race 2016 - HairOfTheDog - 03-31-2016
And some people say Hillary Clinton has no cool factor.
She's a ragin' reggae/rap queen!
Bitsy will probably go nuts for it, blueberry.
RE: Presidential race 2016 - Maggot - 03-31-2016
Wait till you hear her sing!
RE: Presidential race 2016 - HairOfTheDog - 03-31-2016
(03-31-2016, 08:56 PM)Maggot Wrote: Wait till you hear her sing!
Alright, lay it on me. I can take it (probably).
For your listening pleasure: Bernie Sanders rocks the folk / spoken word / protest musical combo.
Bob Dylan ain't got a thing on Bernie!
RE: Presidential race 2016 - Cutz - 03-31-2016
Maybe that's part of the issue. Personally I have no problem with Trump not having concrete feelings about every political issue. Of course, I've never felt the system of voting for the guy I agree with 100%, until he loses so I vote for the guy I agree with 90%, then he's out too, so the 80% guy. until I'm left with the most popular candidate who everybody only agrees on 60% of their issues, but they have the most support.
If Trump wants to say, "Sure, let's punish baby killers. No? Shouldn't we? Ok, the voters are telling me no. Let's punish the doctors performing illegal procedures? Yeah? Ok people are cool with that."
Is that not what you want in a leader? Someone that listens to people? Advisers, voters, experts, professionals. So he starts from his value base and moves toward how the populace feels. Yeah that's so awful. God he flip flops so easily. I mean, who cares if at first he disagreed with me, and now we agree, the point is that he changed his mind!
RE: Presidential race 2016 - HairOfTheDog - 04-01-2016
Someone who frequently does a complete 180 or modifies his positions on important issues when he gets a different immediate reaction than he'd like is unprepared and uniformed. Or, he's weak. It's a disadvantage for a leader who will need to make a lot of hard decisions which won't please everyone in this very diverse country.
Those of us who still vote for the purpose of selecting the presidential candidate who we believe serves the best interests of the country, in good part, make our decisions based on where the candidates stand on the key issues. For me, it matters a lot.
I do not see Bernie Sanders flip flopping all over the place. He's been very consistent in his positions, which match his long senatorial voting record. I see Ted Cruz as knowledgeable and also very consistent in his platform points and his record. John Kasich is also consistent when it comes to his positions, which align with his gubernatorial record. If they've 'evolved' or changed their stances on some issues over time, they've explained their reasoning.
Hillary Clinton is less consistent, in my opinion. Bernie Sanders has pushed her to the left in her campaign rhetoric and her current stances on some key issues don't match her past political record. But, she is not changing her positions often and making inane statements in regards to foreign policy, women, entire classes of people... Trump's the only one doing that (Rubio did flip flop on immigration and a couple of other issues, but nothing like Trump).
RE: Presidential race 2016 - blueberryhill - 04-01-2016
Back in Feb or early March, I wrote that I thought Donald Trump would never reach the final step of running for the Presidency of the United States....To date, I have been consistently surprised by his support from all over the country. There are a lot of uh....uninformed people who believe what he says.....
Just let me say, for the record, that I feel something is still going to happen which will prevent his name from being on the official ballot in November......Just mark my words and be prepared to vote for someone else if you have Trump's sign in your front yard.
RE: Presidential race 2016 - Duchess - 04-01-2016
I hope he's on the ballot. I'm going to enjoy watching Hillary wipe the floor with him.
Women voters make up over half of all voters and right now he has a 73% disapproval rating among women. Seven out of ten women will not vote for him and that number is likely to climb in the coming months. Those kind of numbers are unheard of in politics and I've heard more than a couple people say it is unprecedented.
RE: Presidential race 2016 - Duchess - 04-01-2016
(03-31-2016, 06:32 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Pro-Life leaders/advocates and politicians like Ted Cruz view abortion as a violent act against the woman and the unborn child. Whether the abortion is legal or not, they view both the woman and the fetus as victims of whomever performs the abortion. They believe the woman had to have been desperate or misguided to make such a choice. If abortion becomes illegal, then they will be able to legally punish the perpetrator (the doctor, in their view). That's my understanding.
I just have an aversion to the word victim and I particularly don't like it in this case as the victim
is the one making the decision. I can't know this of course but I feel confident that all those "victims" would own their decision. It shows poor judgement for a group of people to absolve the decision maker.
RE: Presidential race 2016 - Maggot - 04-01-2016
If something is called "illegal" it should be illegal. Abortion will never be completely illegal. Hillary believes late term abortions should not be illegal.
link
It’s difficult to find research on late-term abortions, but data you can find do not support her statement.
Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sept. 20, when host John Dickerson asked if she supports a “federal limit on abortion at any stage of pregnancy.”
Clinton answered that this was a painful question, then went on to discuss the medical need for late-term abortions, FactCheck.org reported.
Clinton responded: “I think that the kind of late-term abortions that take place are because of medical necessity. And, therefore, I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision.”
When FactCheck.org asked her campaign about her statement, a spokesman said that she meant that many late-term abortions — not all or even most — are because of medical reasons.
But her statement sounded as if most, if not all, late-term abortions are medically necessary. And the available evidence does not support that, FactCheck.org found.
The Guttmacher Institute, which researches sexual and reproductive health and abortion, found that only 1.2 percent of all abortions in the United States take place after 20 weeks’ gestation. (FactCheck.org points out that “late-term” does not have a specific definition, but some states that prohibit later abortions define them as occurring after 20 weeks).
RE: Presidential race 2016 - F.U. - 04-01-2016
![[Image: 12801239_10207958001802463_8818611235017...atvpnk.jpg]](http://s215.photobucket.com/user/911JB/media/12801239_10207958001802463_8818611235017019391_n_zpssxatvpnk.jpg.html)
RE: Presidential race 2016 - Blindgreed1 - 04-01-2016
(03-31-2016, 07:02 PM)blueberryhill Wrote:That actually explains a lot. Always good to know how much of a deck is present with those you communicate with.(03-31-2016, 05:46 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:(03-31-2016, 04:49 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I didn't say that changing from pro-choice to pro-life was a problem for me. I said it was fair enough.
I also didn't say that his statement about women having an illegal abortion being punished for it was a problem for me. Regardless of how I feel about it, it's certainly a problem for both Pro-life and Pro-choice advocates however.
What would be a problem for me if I was open to considering voting for Trump is how he made a statement on a very serious key issue on Tuesday night, and then took an exact opposite position on the same issue the next day.
I think it's reasonable for voters to expect that he'd given the issues surrounding abortion and the Pro-life position a lot of serious consideration and been prepared to answer questions about it a long time ago. It's not a new issue and Trump knew his reversal was a subject of criticism by his competitors.
Now, who knows if he really meant what he said Tuesday night, or if he instead really meant what he said Wednesday morning? Not me. But, I'm not considering voting for him anyway.
I am sorry for not excerpting above sentence to which I will refer to, but my fingers ache today.
Mr. Greed, I take exception to your remark about Hillary barking like a dog. I do that all the time, and it just normal Liberal behavior. That is how I communicate with my dog. While sleeping, she (my dog, Bitsy) will wake up and bark at me, I bark back at her and she then lays her head back down and goes back to sleep.....When I feed her, she barks until I sit down beside her while she eats (she doesn't like to dine alone)
So, you should just take that remark back......so there.......Jeez!
RE: Presidential race 2016 - Cutz - 04-01-2016
(04-01-2016, 12:46 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Someone who frequently does a complete 180
I've never known you to be willfully ignorant HotD.
"We should punish women who get illegal abortions" to "We should punish doctors who perform illegal abortions instead" is not a complete 180. It's a minor redirection of blame.