Presidential Election 2016

2016-04-08 11:28:21

#876

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6848|949

making it illegal means the doctors that perform them bear the burden of the judicial process, not the women seeking out the abortions. There are some places where the female is also punished judicially, but it's rare and it's generally not what the pro-life movement is pushing towards.

Not sure if your last statement is an absolute you attribute to the pro-life movement at large or a matter-of-fact argument, but either way it's wrong.

I think being pro-life as a concept has been hijacked by the religious right in the US. I'm pro-life in every sense of the word, but I still believe abortions should be legal. I get that it's just a place-holder for the religious views on abortion, but it's stupid.

2016-04-08 11:40:57

#877

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6898|Disaster Free Zone

I'm sorry but you are not pro life. The entire point of pro life side is to remove the choice of the pro choice side by making abortion illegal.

2016-04-08 11:44:20

#878

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3936

I am pro-choice but think there is a lot of merit to pro-life positions. Unfortunately, the pro-life people are tied to all sorts of awful political causes that undermine their own pro-life ideas. A lot of liberals would be comfortable with more restrictions on abortion if it was traded for more government support for families in order to promote potential parents to have children. But the pro-life people are also the biggest opponents of the welfare state so that won't ever happen.

2016-04-08 11:50:58

#879

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6848|949

DrunkFace wrote:
I'm sorry but you are not pro life. The entire point of pro life side is to remove the choice of the pro choice side by making abortion illegal.

pro life means you are for life, right? I'm definitely not pro-death. IT's a hijacked term.

2016-04-08 13:56:07

#880

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3936

Trump tweeted out this cartoon on his personal twitter account. Absolutely awful for someone to be proud of.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CffILiqXEAAoJ-r.jpg

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/718269255872081922

2016-04-08 14:21:30

#881

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6848|949

that about sums up what Americans understand about world geography.

2016-04-08 14:40:52

#882

uziq: Member; +493|3668

so much for noblesse oblige and the decorum of office.

2016-04-08 14:55:24

#883

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5574|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:
Why is everyone getting mad at trump saying he would punish women for having abortions? Isn't that like the entire point of the 'pro life' argument?

Yes, but they aren't supposed to admit that part. Only the doctors are to be punished. Then you ask "well what about the woman with a coat hanger all alone?" and you get uncomfortable silence. They know that openly saying they will punish the woman will make their movement go poof.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-04-08 15:46:16

#884

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3936

How does a hanger abortion even work? No one has ever explained it to me nor have I googled it. I'm guessing someone just sticks a hanger up the vagina and then scrambles whatever is up there and it flows out? How does an abortion work at a clinic too? I never looked into it.

2016-04-08 16:00:05

#885

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6848|949

take it to the abortion thread

2016-04-08 16:01:35

#886

pirana6: Go Cougs!; +691|6507|Washington St.

yes

pill if it's early enough. it's a hormone blocker that blocks hormones the fetus needs to survive up there

if you're past the pill it's a surgical procedure - imagine a very tiny vacuum.

2016-04-09 16:38:21

#887

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3936

Was looking through the election numbers for the past few years. It is pretty crazy how well Obama did compared to Bush.

Election	Winner Electoral Count	Loser Electoral Count	Wiinner Popular Count	Loser Popular Count	Turnout
Bush-Gore 2000	271	266	50,456,002	50,999,897	51.2%
Bush-Kerry 2004	286	251	62,040,610	59,028,444	56.7%
Obama-Mccain 2008	365	173	69,498,516	59,948,323	58.2%
Obama-Romney 2012	332	206	65,915,796	60,933,500	54.9%

So the GOP picked up 1,000,000 more voters in 2012 than they had in '08 while Obama lost 4,000,000 but still won the popular count by 5,000,000.

It seems like the problem with democrats might not be message but instead mobilization. If they conjure up the Obama coalition that won in 2012, it would be impossible for the GOP to win in '16 baring something cataclysmic. Especially since the GOP lost 1,000,000 voters between their last victory in '04 and their recent defeat in '12.

Hillary 2016. Making America 1992 Again.

2016-04-09 18:33:11

#888

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5574|London, England

I predict this election will have a lower turnout than bush-gore

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-04-09 19:57:46

#889

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3936

Disagree. Turnout is pretty dependent on who is running though. Cruz-Bernie are both uninspiring and wouldn't energize people to get out. Trump on the ticket would push turnout among democrat supporters. Fear is a bigger motivater to the polls than Making America Great Again hats.

2016-04-10 01:36:07

#890

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6901|United States of America

Cruz is just as bad, if not worse than Trump to motivate Democrats. I don't know how you say Bernie is uninspiring when his rallies are larger than pretty much anyone else, meaning energized supporters who would get out to vote. The rank and file Democrats might be another story, but Hillary has the same problem with those who aren't registered Dems. She doesn't have 2008 Obama levels of support, so Indiana doesn't have a chance in hell of going blue, which at least means I get to write-in Bernie in November.

2016-04-10 01:52:26

#891

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3936

Bernie lacks broad appeal and he is running on the same negative energy Trump is. When was the last time we had a president who won on a platform of anger?

And I don't see where you or anyone else is getting this idea that Cruz is worse than Trump in either an objective sense or in the minds of outside observers. Trump is as awful as you can get. A lot of the rest GOP candidates look like respectable people compared to him.

If you are going to write in Bernie, you might as well just skip voting for the day.

2016-04-10 16:41:06

#892

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5574|London, England

Cruz is incredibly unlikable. Like, I want to punch him in the face every time I see his face on tv. I'm not alone.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-04-10 17:25:03

#893

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6901|United States of America

SuperJail Warden wrote:
Bernie lacks broad appeal and he is running on the same negative energy Trump is. When was the last time we had a president who won on a platform of anger?

And I don't see where you or anyone else is getting this idea that Cruz is worse than Trump in either an objective sense or in the minds of outside observers. Trump is as awful as you can get. A lot of the rest GOP candidates look like respectable people compared to him.

If you are going to write in Bernie, you might as well just skip voting for the day.

How can you say he lacks broad appeal when AFAIK, all the other candidates (with maybe the exception of Kasich) are more unfavorable than him? The only people who support Bernie who are running on anger are the out-there folk who say things like "I'd vote for Bernie or Trump" as though they're similar options. The last time a President won proposing an idea of getting people involved in change, however, was 2008.

Jay is correct though. A Cruz government is straight up Christian theocracy, complete with all the hypocrisy you'd expect from that. He came into the limelight when he filibustered for hours for no goddamn reason. He's no better than Trump. They're both at 0 on the desirability scale.

2016-04-11 06:07:56

#894

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3936

DesertFox- wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
Bernie lacks broad appeal and he is running on the same negative energy Trump is. When was the last time we had a president who won on a platform of anger?

And I don't see where you or anyone else is getting this idea that Cruz is worse than Trump in either an objective sense or in the minds of outside observers. Trump is as awful as you can get. A lot of the rest GOP candidates look like respectable people compared to him.

If you are going to write in Bernie, you might as well just skip voting for the day.
How can you say he lacks broad appeal when AFAIK, all the other candidates (with maybe the exception of Kasich) are more unfavorable than him? The only people who support Bernie who are running on anger are the out-there folk who say things like "I'd vote for Bernie or Trump" as though they're similar options. The last time a President won proposing an idea of getting people involved in change, however, was 2008.

Jay is correct though. A Cruz government is straight up Christian theocracy, complete with all the hypocrisy you'd expect from that. He came into the limelight when he filibustered for hours for no goddamn reason. He's no better than Trump. They're both at 0 on the desirability scale.

He hasn't won his own primary yet and there isn't any proof his platform would be popular outside of progressive dems and college students.

Oh please, Cruz wouldn't and couldn't form a Christian theocracy in the U.S. The guy is the same sort of social climber Trump is just without the hateful demeanor. Cruz would push the same economic policy as Trump and other people without promoting violence. He won't push to codify discrimination towards Muslims or alienate our allies and neighbors. The country won't slip into a Christian state anymore than it did during the Bush years.

2016-04-11 06:29:34

#895

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6322|eXtreme to the maX

He's already promised unquestioning military support for Israel, that's bad enough.

Fuck Israel

2016-04-11 06:54:07

#896

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3936

Supporting Israel is a requirement for running for president nowadays. I blame the media.

2016-04-11 07:38:30

#897

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6901|United States of America

SuperJail Warden wrote:
DesertFox- wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
Bernie lacks broad appeal and he is running on the same negative energy Trump is. When was the last time we had a president who won on a platform of anger?

And I don't see where you or anyone else is getting this idea that Cruz is worse than Trump in either an objective sense or in the minds of outside observers. Trump is as awful as you can get. A lot of the rest GOP candidates look like respectable people compared to him.

If you are going to write in Bernie, you might as well just skip voting for the day.
How can you say he lacks broad appeal when AFAIK, all the other candidates (with maybe the exception of Kasich) are more unfavorable than him? The only people who support Bernie who are running on anger are the out-there folk who say things like "I'd vote for Bernie or Trump" as though they're similar options. The last time a President won proposing an idea of getting people involved in change, however, was 2008.

Jay is correct though. A Cruz government is straight up Christian theocracy, complete with all the hypocrisy you'd expect from that. He came into the limelight when he filibustered for hours for no goddamn reason. He's no better than Trump. They're both at 0 on the desirability scale.
He hasn't won his own primary yet and there isn't any proof his platform would be popular outside of progressive dems and college students.

Oh please, Cruz wouldn't and couldn't form a Christian theocracy in the U.S. The guy is the same sort of social climber Trump is just without the hateful demeanor. Cruz would push the same economic policy as Trump and other people without promoting violence. He won't push to codify discrimination towards Muslims or alienate our allies and neighbors. The country won't slip into a Christian state anymore than it did during the Bush years.

The guy who called for police to patrol Muslim neighborhoods won't discriminate?

2016-04-13 15:46:57

#898

CC-Marley: Member; +407|7045

SuperJail Warden wrote:
Hillary 2016. Making America 1992 Again.

Thank you Ross Perot

2016-04-14 13:06:11

#899

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3936

Hillary and Obama may have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in Libya., The two wars there are very low intensity 15,000-30,000 people dead compared to Syria where 250,000-470,000 died over the same time frame.

2016-04-14 14:34:54

#900

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6988|PNW

This is getting out of hand.

BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

DrunkFace wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Board footer