The 2016 US American Election Thread

[calf]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

"Moral obligation" for a fetus to be born--and yet those same people who are staunchly "pro-life" certainly don't seem to care much once that fetus is actually out of the womb and is a living, breathing human. They don't support early childhood education, they don't support welfare for children in poverty, they don't support ensuring that mothers have paid leave to take care of those children, they don't support ensuring that parents have access to healthcare and child care, they don't support the idea of a livable minimum wage so that parents can afford to feed and clothe and house those children, they don't support the idea of paid time off so parents can deal with those children if they get sick.

But sure, gotta make sure those fetuses become actual real life babies, to hell with their well-being once they're born. Moral obligation indeed.

These people are usually pro death penalty too.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by ah123

Of course, he can always claim that his candidacy for president was just a PR move to promote Trump TV

My first thought on this is that there's no way that all the people he duped into supporting him would ever become followers (or more importantly, paying customers) of this Trump TV idea. If he claims that, he'd be telling the whole world that he never wanted to be President but was willing to give it to the Democrats to line his own pockets.

But on second thought, maybe they would follow him. They seem to be a little on the gullible side.

I just don't see it flying though. There already is Breitbart and Fox. Would this new media venture go even further to the right than them? I don't see a big enough following.

Just seems sorta like trying to, oh I don't know, compete with the NFL. Of course, he did get in on that with the USFL in the early 80's. Maybe he would do it and fail spectacularly. Could be worth it!

[driveway]

Here's how the Trump TV thing launches:

Step 1: Contest the Election.
-Regardless of the vote totals, he contests. He argue there is fraud, cites "Project Veritas," Clinton should have been in jail, whatever. Refuses to concede defeat. This actually has little impact, as there are very clear laws about what triggers a re-count in almost every state & county. In many cases, the vote totals need to be within 0.1% of each other, or no recount. Simply refusing to accept the election results are legally meaningless, so the business of the nation moves on, but the energy and anger of the Trump voters remains activated.

Step 2: Soft-Launch 'Trump' News
-They've actually already been doing this with the Facebook live stuff, but basically, you claim that the "Mainstream Media" isn't reporting the truth of the rigged/stolen election. Argue that with more media attention, these states and counties would have to recount even though that's total BS. Claim it is needed to save the Make America Great Again movement. Republicans and Democrats are in it together! They're conspiring to take America away from real Americans (old white people).

Step 3: Monetize it.
- Buy or partner with existing cable, radio, and Internet media outlets (Breitbart). Rebrand and hire talent. Sell advertising, all under the guise of finding the 'truth' and keeping the movement alive.

In this way, Trump and Banon can launch their stupid TV channel and media empire without it looking like it was premeditated or planned. They had no choice but to do this because the media wasn't getting their story out! I mean, just look! Hillary was sworn in January 20th like she thinks she's the real President!. Did you know that there was unusually long early voting lines in the same county where Hillary's bus dumped its waste on the street? Did you know? Of course not, because the media won't report that kind of story! (Never mind how 1,500 early voters are supposed to cram onto a single bus, or why in the name of God they would literally wrap the bus in Hillary's name if they're involved in illegally busing in voters).

Trump needed to start TrumpTV to get the truth out there, because, more than anything, Donald Trump cares about others and he cares about the truth!

[RougeUnderoos]

Yeah it could unfold that way and I have no doubt that it's least being considered, but it just seems like an inevitable failure. Of course, what do I know? I don't pretend to be an expert, but I do know he fails at plenty of stuff he slaps his name on.

I just think he'll disappear (at least from the political realm) not long after this gambit fails. There's nothing more in it for him. He's not a true believer even in his own cause, and after getting flushed by that nasty woman, I think he'll get out of it altogether. It's not like he actually cares about the people that support him.

That being said, there may be no limits to what his ego can propel him to do. He might bitch (and spend money on) righting this "wrong" until it's all gone. Or he croaks. I guess both could happen at the same time.

[Fuzz]

Trump is going to make a lot of noise for a week after the election, and people are going to move on. Sure, there may be a few hangers-on, bu no one wants to have the back of a loser. His supporters are not going to stick around.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Trump is going to make a lot of noise for a week after the election, and people are going to move on. Sure, there may be a few hangers-on, bu no one wants to have the back of a loser. His supporters are not going to stick around.

He didn't lose, it was stolen.

He lost Birthirism and that fraud continued. And most importantly if someone wants to pay him money to slap his name on something he's in.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

"Moral obligation" for a fetus to be born--and yet those same people who are staunchly "pro-life" certainly don't seem to care much once that fetus is actually out of the womb and is a living, breathing human. They don't support early childhood education, they don't support welfare for children in poverty, they don't support ensuring that mothers have paid leave to take care of those children, they don't support ensuring that parents have access to healthcare and child care, they don't support the idea of a livable minimum wage so that parents can afford to feed and clothe and house those children, they don't support the idea of paid time off so parents can deal with those children if they get sick.

But sure, gotta make sure those fetuses become actual real life babies, to hell with their well-being once they're born. Moral obligation indeed.

I can't even. This post, like so many of your posts, is just 100% caricature.

To be short about it, the basic conservative position on any of this is that the family, and local communities do a much better job of managing childcare, employment, education, etc... than the state does. This is a respectable political perspective. You may not agree with it, but don't take something and twist it into something morally repugnant just to score cheap points in a discussion.

[Red Slinger]

That may be your basic conservative position but I don't think that's THE basic conservative position.

[burn_this_city]

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2...amily-fortune/

Trump's family fortune originated in Canada. I can see where his love of beauties comes from.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by peter12

I can't even. This post, like so many of your posts, is just 100% caricature.

To be short about it, the basic conservative position on any of this is that the family, and local communities do a much better job of managing childcare, employment, education, etc... than the state does. This is a respectable political perspective. You may not agree with it, but don't take something and twist it into something morally repugnant just to score cheap points in a discussion.

When conservatives and evangelicals start acting like Jesus, worrying about the sick, the poor, the disadvantaged, I'll give them credit for their morality. As it is, they only seem to care what the Bible said about homosexuality and abortion. They don't even care what Jesus said about divorce, because they sure aren't arguing the legality of divorce in all their panic over "the sanctity of marriage."

Having grown up in an extremely religious environment, I can say with conviction that religiously pious individuals are often the most hypocritical. Put your money where your Bible is, conservatives.

[chemgear]

A bad hombre did this.

[Senator Clay Davis]

To be fair it could have been a nasty woman too.

[burn_this_city]

Bet the hammer was made in Mexico.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

When conservatives and evangelicals start acting like Jesus, worrying about the sick, the poor, the disadvantaged, I'll give them credit for their morality. As it is, they only seem to care what the Bible said about homosexuality and abortion. They don't even care what Jesus said about divorce, because they sure aren't arguing the legality of divorce in all their panic over "the sanctity of marriage."

Having grown up in an extremely religious environment, I can say with conviction that religiously pious individuals are often the most hypocritical. Put your money where your Bible is, conservatives.

Once again, who are these people?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

I can't even. This post, like so many of your posts, is just 100% caricature.

You're still falling into the trap of accepting the premise here; namely that there's some necessary link between the two policy areas.

The problem with Wittynickname's post isn't that it misrepresents the conservative approach to supporting kids or families (though of course you could argue about how accurate it is or isn't). The problem is that her post is not an argument against the pro-life position. It's just her changing the subject. This is logic 101.

"We should support kids after they're born by doing X, Y and Z" doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether, or at what stage of its development, a fetus has moral value that should overwhelm a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a baby.

Even if, after hours of arguing about it, we all decide we agree that "yes, Wittynickname is right; we absolutely should do X Y and Z after a baby is born in order to support it", we've gotten literally nowhere in answering the first question - that is, whether the mother should have been forced to carry the fetus to term against her will (as the adamantly pro-choice might characterize it), or permitted to murder it (as the adamantly pro-life might).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You're still falling into the trap of accepting the premise here; namely that there's some necessary link between the two policy areas.

The problem with Wittynickname's post isn't that it misrepresents the conservative approach to supporting kids or families (though of course you could argue about how accurate it is or isn't). The problem is that her post is not an argument against the pro-life position. It's just her changing the subject. This is logic 101.

"We should support kids after they're born by doing X, Y and Z" doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether, or at what stage of its development, a fetus has moral value that should overwhelm a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a baby.

Even if, after hours of arguing about it, we all decide we agree that "yes, Wittynickname is right; we absolutely should do X Y and Z after a baby is born in order to support it", we've gotten literally nowhere in answering the first question - that is, whether the mother should have been forced to carry the fetus to term against her will (as the adamantly pro-choice might characterize it), or permitted to murder it (as the adamantly pro-life might).

Well, no, I mean the last sentence of my post pretty clearly states that she is twisting different strawmen into a single worldview to score cheap political points. Her premise is also false, and she victimizes herself to protect her from engaging in serious discussion.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by peter12

I can't even. This post, like so many of your posts, is just 100% caricature.

To be short about it, the basic conservative position on any of this is that the family, and local communities do a much better job of managing childcare, employment, education, etc... than the state does. This is a respectable political perspective. You may not agree with it, but don't take something and twist it into something morally repugnant just to score cheap points in a discussion.

Your statement that this is 100 percent caricature is false.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, no, I mean the last sentence of my post pretty clearly states that she is twisting different strawmen into a single worldview to score cheap political points. Her premise is also false, and she victimizes herself to protect her from engaging in serious discussion.

I'm not a mother, I never intend to have children, and I am not doing anything to result in me ever needing to seek an abortion. My insurance covers my heathcare needs. The policies I'm arguing in favor of won't actually affect my life in any way. I don't see how I'm victimizing myself.

I just want examples of conservatives in politics who have actually fought for policies that would make life better for those babies they're so insistent must be born.

Otherwise "pro-life" isn't an accurate term, "pro-birth" is. Prove to me where the pro-life part comes in past the delivery date.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You're still falling into the trap of accepting the premise here; namely that there's some necessary link between the two policy areas.

Okay, but if we want to put it in moral terms, the conservative position on abortion has an overall negative effect on women's health, so it does appear in that sense to be a sexist position. I know you like to argue that there needs to be demonstration of intent, which I don't agree with, but I would argue that purposefully ignoring the aspects that make it women's health issue when those aspects have been studied and are well known constitutes some form of intent.

[Drak]

"Pro life" indeed.


Yet:

Pro guns - Tools designed to take life away.

Pro death penalty

Pro war tendency

Anti immigration - Leave them to a poor quality of life. Or, let em die in their war torn country. See Trump's rhetoric on Syrian refugees for example.

Anti health care - Why should we pay for other people's healthcare? Free handouts etc. If you can't afford it then die.

Anti social programs - For poor quality of life.

Denial of human rights and civil rights - Historic war against minorities and the LGBT community.

Advocate deregulation of safety standards in factories and industries - Work at your own risk. Why can't children work? Slave labor.

Promotion of the highest prison population in the world.

Anti climate change - All life on the planet.