2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I think the obvious outrage is that we're going from Roe v Wade where abortion is illegal and offered safely, to TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (May as well be Against Providers)), to abortion is illegal again and you'll be criminally punished for doing it. It's that whole "Gee everything was great during the cold war let's go back to that" philosophy.

Was it wrong to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Was it wrong to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment?

If you have a point by bringing in something that doesn't have an obvious relation to the topic, you can make it yourself.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

If you have a point by bringing in something that doesn't have an obvious relation to the topic, you can make it yourself.

You made the snide comment about how repealing a law was a bad step backwards for humanity. I thought my comment was germane to the discussion, and that going backwards with our thinking is not always a bad thing.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

You made the snide comment about how repealing a law was a bad step backwards for humanity. I thought my comment was germane to the discussion, and that going backwards with our thinking is not always a bad thing.

You're being more than a little disingenuous here - he was talking about laws on a specific topic, not all laws, which was incredibly clear in his post, and frankly, very difficult to misinterpret.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t see how it was an outrageous original statement on Trump’s part. If abortion is to be made a crime then common sense dictates the people perpetrating the crime should face charges... the illegal abortionist, the mother of the unborn baby seeking the illegal abortion, and the father of the unborn baby if he is complacent in an illegal abortion. Only punishing the abortionist would be akin to having a law against prostitution, but only the hooker can be charged, not the person seeking the prostitute. Or someone seeking to hire a hit-man to commit murder. Should only the hit-man be charged, and not the person seeking someone to commit the murder? Or should it be that we need accept that we live in a society where womanhood is simply victimless by design?

Do you believe abortion should be banned in all circumstances?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Do you believe abortion should be banned in all circumstances?

No I don't. I'm actually on the fence over abortion. I believe killing is wrong, but understand it is acceptable in circumstances like war. And it disgusts me that it is often just another method of birth control for some. I just have a hard time understanding what the baby did that was so bad as to allow it to be legally killed.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

No I don't. I'm actually on the fence over abortion. I believe killing is wrong, but understand it is acceptable in circumstances like war. And it disgusts me that it is often just another method of birth control for some. I just have a hard time understanding what the baby did that was so bad as to allow it to be legally killed.

Very few, if any actual people view it that way. It's like that illegal immigrant OB posted about, stealing your job and lazing about on welfare at the same time. A ridiculous red herring of statistical insignificance.

54and56

Amerika wrote: »

I just have a hard time understanding what the baby did that was so bad as to allow it to be legally killed.

No baby has ever been aborted. Collections of cells and foetuses incapable of unsupported life are aborted.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Very few, if any actual people view it that way. It's like that illegal immigrant OB posted about, stealing your job and lazing about on welfare at the same time. A ridiculous red herring of statistical insignificance.

In a “Reasons Given For Abortions: AGI Survey, 2000-2001, it listed “Not using contraception” as the reason given for 46% of all abortions.

Amerika

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

No baby has ever been aborted. Collections of cells and foetuses incapable of unsupported life are aborted.

When, in your view, can 'it' be classified as 'life?'

FISMA.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

No baby has ever been aborted.

WHAT???

Unfamiliar with partial birth abortion?

Unfamiliar with Dr. Kermitt Gosnell?

You do understand that during some "failed" abortions it is not uncommon for babies to be alive, ex-utero, fully viable, don't you?

In such cases, the babies receive no care, and die, as was the original intentions of the mother and "doctor."

In the case of Gosnell's, he helped speed the deaths of the babies by cutting spinal cords of the babies.

And that was in a first world country. Have a look at what goes on in India and China.

Try googling aborted + baby + cries and then tell us how your "Collections of cells" is able to scream.

BoJack Horseman

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

No baby has ever been aborted..

Inaccurate and flame bait.

ancapailldorcha

Back on topic, please.

Overheal

FYI there is already a very long, thorough, and constructive discussion on abortion specifics here: http://touch.boards.ie/thread/post/99238208

54and56

Amerika wrote: »

When, in your view, can 'it' be classified as 'life?'

When it is capable of living preferably without extreme medical intervention leading to permanent disabilities, dis-figurations or other sever abnormalities and BTW I speak as someone who has had close family members experience several traumatic births including still borns and one Triosomy 13 baby who survived 3 weeks of agony and constant medical intervention after being born before dying. All should have been aborted. The agony visited upon the parents was permanently scarring (leading to one person having a complete mental breakdown resulting in a broken marriage) and the suffering of the baby was completely pointless. If it was an animal it would have been put out of it's misery on compassionate grounds.

54and56

Overheal wrote: »

FYI there is already a very long, thorough, and constructive discussion on abortion specifics here: http://touch.boards.ie/thread/post/99238208

Apologies, I responded to the first response to my post before seeing the subsequent posts. Not trying to derail the thread. I'll drop it here.

Last thing before I do. When I said no babies are aborted I meant at the point a foetus becomes an independent sustainable life it becomes a baby (in my view) and at that point if it's life is terminated it's not an abortion, it's something very very different which I will refrain from commenting on as it will likely start another off topic discussion!!

ancapailldorcha

Again, no more abortion discussion. Take it to somewhere more appropriate.

JPNelsforearm

Clint Eastwood endorses The Donald
https://twitter.com/RichardWeaving/status/715329876925014018


Meanwhile the so-called anti establishment "tea party candidate" Lyin' Ted picks up a nomination from Republican insider Gov Scott Walker to fight "big government special interests"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXX9n3pJDV0

....not forgetting the millions in Fracking donations he's picked up, all of course to fight special interests....


Two low-profile Texas brothers have donated $15 million to support Lyin' Ted, a record-setting contribution that amounts to the largest known donation so far in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Farris and Dan Wilks, billionaires who made their fortunes in the West Texas fracking boom, have given $15 million of the $38 million that the pro-Cruz super PAC, Keep the Promise, will disclose in election filings next week, according to sources outside the super PAC with knowledge of the giving.

Billy86

To be fair, while he makes some great movies, Clint Eastwood spent the last election cycle shouting at empty chairs.

Manach

That Eastwood is supporting Trump is a tad disappointing given his perceptive nature, as per his movie catalog, who usually can recognise those who are talk and little action, such as Obama.

BorneTobyWilde

That picture of Donald with his arm up '' trying to protect himself from that reporter'' was just him reaching into his jacket pocket for his pen, which he took out and signed autograph with in next part of vid. He was not protecting himself from a beating from that reported before she was grabbed to the ground and raped by his campaign manager.

BorneTobyWilde

Trump '' o my poor arm should I press charges''

HE WAS REACHING FOR HIS PEN, HE THOUGHT SHE WANTED SOMETHING SIGNED, HE SIGNED FOR NEXT PERSON HE CAME TOO.
He was not protecting himself from her grabbing and punches.

Overheal

Billy86 wrote: »

To be fair, while he makes some great movies, Clint Eastwood spent the last election cycle shouting at empty chairs.

Lest we all forget

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Eastwood_at_the_2012_Republican_National_Convention

Billy86

Overheal wrote: »

Lest we all forget

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Eastwood_at_the_2012_Republican_National_Convention

This one is typically interesting and weird, but also darker. I don't know that we'll ever come across a comedy roadshow quite like the 2012 Republican Primaries ever again. Brian Cowen would have been the more qualified and competent than the majority of them. Think about that! :pac:

Black Swan

4 out of 5 recent polls by different organisations show Cruz defeating Trump in Wisconsin's 5 April 2016 primary. The state has 42 delegates. Caution should be exercised when viewing these polls, as some of the percentages fall within the margin of error, and because they have been conducted by 5 different organisations it is problematic to average them.

InTheTrees

The News channels are hammering on Trump today like they havent ever before.

His defense of a violent campaign manager by attacking a female reporter plus his comments on women and abortion mean that he is hemorrhaging female support on an historic scale.

He also apparently made some comments yesterday about not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in Europe which got lost in the hysteria of his abortion comments but are raising a lot of questions today.

Amazingfun

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Trump '' o my poor arm should I press charges''

HE WAS REACHING FOR HIS PEN, HE THOUGHT SHE WANTED SOMETHING SIGNED, HE SIGNED FOR NEXT PERSON HE CAME TOO.
He was not protecting himself from her grabbing and punches.

Whether or not you have respect for Trump, he is the Republican frontrunner, and the time for questions from the Press was over. This was the event they had the Press in a pen of sorts, lol, way at the back of the room. She was not supposed to be near him, and you are never supposed to touch a candidate anyways.




http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-is-right-he-could-seek-to-have-michelle-fields-prosecuted/

According to the Florida Court of Appeals, the battery statute’s prohibition of an “intentional” touch or strike covers situations where a defendant knows that a touch or strike is substantially certain to result from his acts. In other words, it is the substantial certainty of a touching or striking that satisfies the intent element of battery statute. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the alleged victim be injured. All that matters is that the intentional touching is against the victim’s will.

Therefore, when Michelle Fields approached Trump and put herself in a position to be close enough where she (allegedly, according to Trump) touched Trump’s arm, against his will, it could be argued that her conduct satisfied the elements of the statute and that she could be charged with simple battery.

I think he should press charges, just for the craic, of course

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

The News channels are hammering on Trump today like they havent ever before.

His defense of a violent campaign manager by attacking a female reporter plus his comments on women and abortion mean that he is hemorrhaging female support on an historic scale.

He also apparently made some comments yesterday about not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in Europe which got lost in the hysteria of his abortion comments but are raising a lot of questions today.

It's weird how a Presidential candidate can get away with saying over the top remarks about bombing a European, African or wherever country but say something touchy about abortion and the earth comes down on you.

Amazingfun

InTheTrees wrote: »

The News channels are hammering on Trump today like they havent ever before.

His defense of a violent campaign manager by attacking a female reporter plus his comments on women and abortion mean that he is hemorrhaging female support on an historic scale.

He also apparently made some comments yesterday about not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in Europe which got lost in the hysteria of his abortion comments but are raising a lot of questions today.

Violent campaign manager? lol, hardly.

Also, who says he is "hemorrhaging female support"? The same "news channels" you watched today? If anything, I am noticing more women than ever speaking out in support of Trump on social media.

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

Also, who says he is "hemorrhaging female support"? The same "news channels" you watched today? If anything, I am noticing more women than ever speaking out in support of Trump on social media.

CNN Politics Reports: Overall, 73% of female voters in a mid-March CNN/ORC poll said they had a negative view of Trump, just 26% view him positively. That unfavorable number is up 14 points in the last few months: from 59% in December and 67% in late February.