For NeverTrumpers: An appeal to not vote Hillary over Trump

[Grunt]

51 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

 

Now, because they agree with Trump, suddenly the moral character of presidents isn’t that important. Oh, they’ll give lip service to it being important. But it no longer matters that much. 

I'd argue that Americans haven't largely cared about moral character for decades.  Conservatives still claim it does (as of the 2018 Gallup Poll, anyway) but I believe it's just lip service for most of them as well.

That said, even for those that it does really matter for it's a tough choice.  Take the last, or upcoming, election.  I don't personally believe that either candidate has a moral character that I'd support.  However, one of them is going to be president so I have a choice of voting for who I believe will be best for America or I write in a candidate that has character I can support.   In a national election, that's a safer way to stand on moral high ground and say "it wasn't me" because my one vote likely isn't going to change the outcome.   In my local election, where candidates win by 10's of votes and sometimes less, doing so could have serious negative impacts on my life.

[LDSGator]

28 minutes ago, Grunt said:

but I believe it's just lip service for most of them as well.

I totally agree, and I think all of us, including @LDSGator and @Grunt, are guilty of it too. 

[LDSGator]

Just to be clear, if a liberal, electable “Trump” came on the field (assaulting women, bullying, juvenile behavior, abrasive) liberals would embrace him with open arms. They won’t admit it, but they would. And they would have before 2016 too. 

[Traveler]

On 4/24/2016 at 11:03 PM, Traveler said:

Just a note in passing for those, that for whatever reason, think that the election of a single individual is going to make an actual difference in this country.  You seriously ought to review history.  The following is a method that anyone can use to realize that a candidate has no clue or intention to change anything.

1. They claim that they can bring lost jobs back to America.  The truth is – at this point, we really do not what the jobs that were lost; back – That ship sailed a long time ago - what we should focus on is creating new jobs that fit better the economic and educational demographics of this country.

2. They claim they can solve the national debt.  This actually proves that they are an idiot that is incapable of doing math.  But then being math literate in our current society is considered to be a negative trait.  Go figure! 

3. They claim they can bring people together and unite the nation.  This only proves that they do not understand what divides this nation.  No one has ever solved a problem that they do not understand.

4. They claim they are the only one that can solve the nation’s problems.   If this claim has any chance of being true they will have to destroy our republic form of government in order for this to make any sense of possibility.

Having followed politics since my childhood – I am convinced that the political evolution that has continued in this country has had nothing at all to do with who was elected president.  I purport that the government of this country is a reflection of the citizens – not that the citizens are a reflection of this country.

 

The Traveler

This was my last post on this thread.  I was somewhat incorrect in statement #1.  Trump actually did bring back some lost jobs.  Strange that no one in politics seems to be happy about it.  The never Trumpers will not even recognize this. 

#2 should concern everyone – This was one of the greatest failure of Trump that his ardent supporters refuse to recognize.

#4 Should be a wakeup call to everyone.  Both the Republican and Democratic parties are destroying our form of government.  That one is more advanced than the other is of little reason to believe there is a political solution.  I would also note that Trump did not get along with his own administration and there is no (no being relative) support from his vice president.

I would add one more thing – I did not realize how quickly the USA would deteriorate under Democratic control of the Executive and legislative branches of government.  I also did not realize how divided the Republicans were in the House.  Obviously Trump is not smart enough to understand he needs a team to drain the DC swamp.  

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

Speaking of Trump, I’m placing bets that he’ll suddenly turn pro choice or moderate on the issue because of recent elections. He flipped on the issue 45 times before, so what’s one more flip?
 

Anyone want to take me up on it? 

[NeuroTypical]

I bet you that he'll suddenly do it so quickly, that he'll actually do it 2 months ago.   

 

 

[Carborendum]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

This may be a bit of a threadjack, but that video posts an interesting definition of "abortion."

I don't know who came up with it.  I don't know if the origin was from the right or left.  But it is a seriously flawed definition.

That definition can be accurately applied to induced labor.

[mordorbund]

On 11/27/2023 at 12:18 PM, LDSGator said:

Just to be clear, if a liberal, electable “Trump” came on the field (assaulting women, bullying, juvenile behavior, abrasive) liberals would embrace him with open arms. They won’t admit it, but they would. And they would have before 2016 too. 

Yeah, could you you imagine how liberals would act if there was another Kennedy running for public office?

[Vort]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Yeah, could you you imagine how liberals would act if there was another Kennedy running for public office?

The exchange that never happened but should have:

BENSON: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.

QUAYLE: Yes, Senator, you're right. I'm no Jack Kennedy. I sleep with my own wife.

[Traveler]

On 11/27/2023 at 3:05 PM, Carborendum said:

This may be a bit of a threadjack, but that video posts an interesting definition of "abortion."

I don't know who came up with it.  I don't know if the origin was from the right or left.  But it is a seriously flawed definition.

That definition can be accurately applied to induced labor.

I am very impressed with your logic – the way many liberals look at abortion we should be able to include any birth and the child being adopted outside of any consent from the mother.

I have long had the idea that abortion is not an all or nothing option with only two possibilities.  The “Declaration” given by our prophets indicates that all children have the right to be born to parents that love and care for them.  The great problems is that a male and female are required to create a human – there are many options that can occur that result in a human life.  If there is an abuse, regardless of if it is one or both – justice requires that the abuser be punished.  The child – whether born or unborn is always innocent and ought not be punished.   But then there are circumstances (including natural circumstances) where there is no survival option for that which is innocent.

Beyond all the possibilities – it seems to me that taking the life of the innocent during the 3rd trimester is unnecessary unless it is required to save the life of the mother.  I do not understand why such a moral law is opposed by anyone concerned about justice and freedoms within the human species.   

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Beyond all the possibilities – it seems to me that taking the life of the innocent during the 3rd trimester is unnecessary unless it is required to save the life of the mother.  I do not understand why such a moral law is opposed by anyone concerned about justice and freedoms within the human species.   

 

The Traveler

I can't think of a single thing that would occur in the 3rd trimester that would require killing the baby to save the life of the mother.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Grunt
changed a question to a statement

[LDSGator]

33 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I can't think of a single thing that would occur in the 3rd trimester that would require killing the baby to save the life of the mother.

Even my pro choice friends struggle with late term abortions like the ones you are describing.  

[Carborendum]

32 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I can't think of a single thing that would occur in the 3rd trimester that would require killing the baby to save the life of the mother.

Only exceptionally rare conditions which are so rare that they are simply exceptions.  They have no "category" to include them into.   

For the vast majority of cases, there is a way to save the baby AND save the mom.

The reason why people aren't looking at it this way is that we've had R v. W for so long, that doctors simply don't look at the possibility of saving both.  They either abort or let the mom die.  They don't even consider other options.

[NeuroTypical]

34 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I can't think of a single thing that would occur in the 3rd trimester that would require killing the baby to save the life of the mother.

It tracks.  Here's the most extreme example I can come up with: 

Woman escapes from abusive controlling relationship, adequately described as kidnapping and slavery, and gets her first bit of healthcare since the pregnancy.  The exam reveals she's malnourished, in borderline shock, and any attempt at vaginal birth will likely kill the mother.   Just for moral certitude, we can add that the woman is 14 yrs old, the baby is a product of both rape and incest, and has little or no chance of surviving outside the womb.

Answer: Immediate c-section.  No killing the baby necessary.  It may or may not live, but there's nothing about an immediate c-section that requires killing the child.

[Traveler]

Just a note -- This enduring thread that has brought to the table many classic thoughts and points was initially started by @anatess2 (one of my favorite thinkers an posters) that no longer posts on the forum.  It would be beyond just wonderful if she returned to post more of her classic thinking.

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Just a note -- This enduring thread that has brought to the table many classic thoughts and points was initially started by @anatess2 (one of my favorite thinkers an posters) that no longer posts on the forum.  It would be beyond just wonderful if she returned to post more of her classic thinking.

 

The Traveler

She was banned.  I still talk to her from time to time.

[zil2]

I miss Anatess, LiterateParakeet, @Sunday21 and too many others.  New folks seem to come, make a post or two, and disappear.  Long-time folk drop off never to return. The close-knit nature of our small-group discussions likely scares off newbies.  We should all make an effort to love-bomb anyone brave enough to post.

[LDSGator]

17 minutes ago, zil2 said:

LiterateParakeet

One of the benefits of this forum is that you are able to form friendships that can last a long time. She’s one of them. LG and I just sent her a Christmas gift a few days ago.

 

We were blessed to meet her and her daughter several years ago. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by LDSGator

[zil2]

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

One of the benefits of this forum is that you are able to form friendships that can last a long time. She’s one of them. LG and I just sent her a Christmas gift a few days ago.

We were blessed to meet her and her daughter several years ago. 

Please let her know she's missed, next time you connect.

[Grunt]

I've met a few people from this group that we don't see anymore.   I'm still a newb, though.

[zil2]

24 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm still a newb, though.

Nope, sorry, you're now a long-time member of this community.

[LDSGator]

If you really want to humble yourself, try to meet someone you dislike online.
 

Many years ago (2009ish!) I was on a forum and a poster and I had several long running arguments. There we times we absolutely hated  each other. Through dumb luck we stayed connected on Facebook and eventually we got to talking. We’ve become so close that I view her as an aunt and we plan to meet early next year. 

[Grunt]

43 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

If you really want to humble yourself, try to meet someone you dislike online.
 

Many years ago (2009ish!) I was on a forum and a poster and I had several long running arguments. There we times we absolutely hated  each other. Through dumb luck we stayed connected on Facebook and eventually we got to talking. We’ve become so close that I view her as an aunt and we plan to meet early next year. 

People typically are betting in person.  Conversations are better with real time feedback and body language, and people are generally just more polite in person.

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

People typically are betting in person.  Conversations are better with real time feedback and body language, and people are generally just more polite in person.

I generally agree, with exceptions. I think online forums are very revealing, especially for people who are long time posters. A smart mouth jerk like me is (surprise!) a smart mouth jerk in real life too. An abrasive fool on here is…an abrasive fool offline too. 
 

Also, one could be forgiven if they asked “If you are so much more polite in real life, why are they acting like a jerk online?” 

[Grunt]

27 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I generally agree, with exceptions. I think online forums are very revealing, especially for people who are long time posters. A smart mouth jerk like me is (surprise!) a smart mouth jerk in real life too. An abrasive fool on here is…an abrasive fool offline too. 
 

Also, one could be forgiven if they asked “If you are so much more polite in real life, why are they acting like a jerk online?” 

I'm going to "kinda" disagree.   I'm extremely sarcastic.  I think I'm much funnier than I really am.  I'm also very dry and tend to post short, precise sentences.   Those can easily be interpreted as being a smart mouth jerk, but I might actually be a smart mouth nice guy, and you'd be able to see that if you could read my facial expression and body language.