# [Discussion+Poll] How are Trump supporters even a thing?



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

I really have a hard time understanding why they still exist.
Seriously, I have a whole list of reasons why you shouldn't support him.


He's racist
He wants to build an expensive and ultimately useless wall that nobody is going to pay for (former mexican presidents and mexican politicians have all said no.)
He's misogynistic (proven MULTIPLE times)
He's against gay marriage
He wants to revive the coal industry (for what coal?)
He wants to remove the department of education.
He's pro-life, which is a very dangerous quality to have as president, especially when you consider the victims of sexual assault and incest, especially children and the sick, who could die trying to finish a pregnancy, and abortion is a much, much, safer option.
He's against clean sources of energy for stupid reasons.
He thinks global warming is a conspiracy
The list goes on!
I honestly don't understand how you could possibly support him! If you have a legitimate answer from a decent person why he would be a good president, please comment below! But I don't think you can.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

There's already a discussion and poll on the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election here. Your poll question is also pretty loaded.


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> There's already a discussion and poll on the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election here. Your poll question is also pretty loaded.


This is specific though.


----------



## zezzo (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> This is specific though.


IMO, prolife is good. If you will die having a child, let the child live for you. Why kill your baby. Trump suck, yes. But abortion is wrong


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

zezzo said:


> IMO, prolife is good. If you will die having a child, let the child live for you. Why kill your baby. Trump suck, yes. But abortion is wrong


Having a child "live for you" isn't good. The child will probably live a horrible life considering they will start it out without a family and they will probably carry that burden of never knowing their parents for the rest of their life. That alone could be a source of serious depression, or even worse. Besides, the golden rule of abortion; *If it's not your body, it's not your god damn choice. *And preventing people from doing what they want with their own body sounds awfully cruel doesn't it?


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Besides, the golden rule of abortion; *If it's not your body, it's not your god damn choice. *


That sounds more like an argument _against _abortion to me. The foetus isn't choosing to be aborted - that decision is made by somebody else.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> That sounds more like an argument _against _abortion to me. The foetus isn't choosing to be aborted - that decision is made by somebody else.


A fetus lacks the capacity to make choices because it lacks sentience as much as a tree does. Even if a fetus were as sentient as you or me, a woman still has a right to bodily autonomy.


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A fetus lacks the capacity to make choices because it lacks sentience as much as a tree does.


Do you have evidence for that?



Lacius said:


> Even if a fetus were as sentient as you or me, a woman still has a right to bodily autonomy.


I realise that is the legal standpoint (in some places). I don't happen to agree with it, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the argument that "if it's not your body, it's not your choice" should go both ways. We don't get to kill babies because they aren't able to say "ok, I'd rather die". We assume they want to live until they can make their own choice about it.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Having a child "live for you" isn't good. The child will probably live a horrible life considering they will start it out without a family and they will probably carry that burden of never knowing their parents for the rest of their life. That alone could be a source of serious depression, or even worse. Besides, the golden rule of abortion; *If it's not your body, it's not your god damn choice. *And preventing people from doing what they want with their own body sounds awfully cruel doesn't it?


but if it's in your body you've got a choice, each girl female should have the choice what goes in to her body and what not you know!


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> That sounds more like an argument _against _abortion to me. The foetus isn't choosing to be aborted - that decision is made by somebody else.


You could make the same argument about a parasite, but are we going to make antibiotics illegal? I don't think so.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Jack Daniels said:


> but if it's in your body you've got a choice, each girl female should have the choice what goes in to her body and what not you know!


You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 14, 2016)

I support Trump.
Why?
Cause I want to laugh, see if he makes a bigger mess then Bush did.

In all seriousness, I cbf with it.
Glad I live in Europe I guess...


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> You could make the same argument about a parasite, but are we going to make antibiotics illegal? I don't think so.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



try to think like it's your body, if some one puts something in there that you didn't like... you wanna get it removed right? the same goes for abortion.


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> try to think like it's your body, if some one puts something in there that you didn't like... you wanna get it removed right? the same goes for abortion.


I get it. You're right.


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> You could make the same argument about a parasite, but are we going to make antibiotics illegal? I don't think so.


The obvious difference being that a parasite or an infection is an intruder which will harm the host, whereas a foetus is an organism which is supposed to exist within the host as part of the normal reproductive process. I don't think you can conflate the two. Also, a foetus is human - it will develop into a person, so the ethical question of 'should we kill a foetus' is completely different to 'should we kill a virus' or 'should we kill a tapeworm'.


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> I support Trump.
> Why?
> Cause I want to laugh, see if he makes a bigger mess then Bush did.
> 
> ...


Well that falls under not legitimately supporting him (people actually seriously support him in the u.s.). But, you do live in europe so it's not like you can vote for him!


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> Do you have evidence for that?


I'm not going to go back and post all the research here, but if you research brain development in fetuses, brain activity in fetuses, fetal pain, prenatal perception, etc., you will see that there's a consensus of around 20-25 weeks as the age in which a fetus begins to have anything we could call real brain activity. A lot of experts on the topic of fetal pain typically throw around the number of 24-25 weeks.



mashers said:


> I realise that is the legal standpoint (in some places). I don't happen to agree with it, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the argument that "if it's not your body, it's not your choice" should go both ways. We don't get to kill babies because they aren't able to say "ok, I'd rather die". We assume they want to live until they can make their own choice about it.


A woman has a right to bodily autonomy as much as a hypothetically sentient fetus does. However, a right to bodily autonomy does not extend to a right to someone else's body. You've made a false comparison.



mashers said:


> The obvious difference being that a parasite or an infection is an intruder which will harm the host, whereas a foetus is an organism which is supposed to exist within the host as part of the normal reproductive process. I don't think you can conflate the two. Also, a foetus is human - it will develop into a person, so the ethical question of 'should we kill a foetus' is completely different to 'should we kill a virus' or 'should we kill a tapeworm'.


A woman can, for many reasons, see a fetus as comparable to a parasite. In can be unwanted and cause anything between mild to lethal harm.


----------



## CeeDee (Jul 14, 2016)

Oh boy, more Trump drama! _grabs popcorn_


----------



## bi388 (Jul 14, 2016)

Saying a fetus is a person is like saying a seed is a tree. If you dig up a seed, would you say thats cutting down a tree?


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm not going to go back and post all the research here, but if you research brain development in fetuses, brain activity in fetuses, fetal pain, prenatal perception, etc., you will see that there's a consensus of around 20-25 weeks as the age in which a fetus begins to have anything we could call real brain activity. A lot of experts on the topic of fetal pain typically throw around the number of 24-25 weeks.


You said it is as sentient as a tree. That's what I want evidence for. Also, how about potential? It will be sentient at some point. Do you not see any value in that?



Lacius said:


> A woman has a right to bodily autonomy as much as a hypothetically sentient fetus does. However, a right to bodily autonomy does not extend to a right to someone else's body. You've made a false comparison.


No, I've made the same point you have: "a right to bodily autonomy does not extend to a right to someone else's body". Yet despite that, it's ok to kill an unborn child? That seems like a pretty significant infringement of the rights of someone else's body to me.


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> He wants to build an expensive and ultimately useless wall that nobody is going to pay for (former mexican presidents and mexican politicians have all said no.)


That's not entirely true, PikM. My campaign also appealed to the poor... who were too stupid to understand what I'm saying, so I held up pretty pictures and then I gave out candy bars to appeal to their most base insticts.

What does the rest of the world have to tell us about how to do things? Build more trains? Have people elect their leader rather than an elite electoral college? Ride a bike to work like a girl scout or a clown with dietary concerns? No thanks, Vladmire.



Pikm said:


> I honestly don't understand how you could possibly support him!



Well... I'm afraid that's apparently quite a difficult question, but my solution is easy.  I'm going to talk for a long time about a subject not in anyway related and pretty soon people will forget about it.

I'll remind people that I have a great haircut, and under my stewardship The Trump Organization has had, on average, 15% better weather than before, while crime rates only go up if you don't turn the graph upside down.  Turn it upside down, and they have halved- HALVED under me, Donald Trump.

Vote Trump for president and you'll have a friendly face in the White House.  A man you can trust.  A local man who likes golf, and laughing, and photo opportunities at your store or place of business.Just send me a letter.  I'll send you an automated, photocopied response.  We call it "democracy" and that's where the money goes.

Everyone knows politicians lie and steal and cheat, but at least with me in charge, you know I look good and I have a very supercilious manner.  Besides which, I've been abroad and I prefer it here because I'm a man of the people. 

*Vote Trump!  You'll get richer and you won't feel guilty about it!*


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> You said it is as sentient as a tree. That's what I want evidence for. Also, how about potential? It will be sentient at some point. Do you not see any value in that?
> 
> 
> No, I've made the same point you have: "a right to bodily autonomy does not extend to a right to someone else's body". Yet despite that, it's ok to kill an unborn child? That seems like a pretty significant infringement of the rights of someone else's body to me.


a child lives on it's own where a futus is still part of the females body...


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Well that falls under not legitimately supporting him (people actually seriously support him in the u.s.). But, you do live in europe so it's not like you can vote for him!



I think the real issue is that people want something extraordinary.
Obama became president not because he had good promises but because he's black.
Come on think about it.
Ever since 1776? up until 2008, all the US presidents have been white.
If Obama was white, he probably wouldn't be president.
Remember his campaign "change"?
Well, people voted for change and he became the first black US president.

Same will happen with Trump.
If he wasn't so.. eccentric? people wouldn't pay so much attention to him, thus lowering his chances to become president.

Then again, I know nothing about the statistics nor would I know if it is actually true.
I just base this out of me own observations and they seem rather plausible.


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> The obvious difference being that a parasite or an infection is an intruder which will harm the host, whereas a foetus is an organism which is supposed to exist within the host as part of the normal reproductive process. I don't think you can conflate the two. Also, a foetus is human - it will develop into a person, so the ethical question of 'should we kill a foetus' is completely different to 'should we kill a virus' or 'should we kill a tapeworm'.


That, however, falls under placing the value of certain lives over others. Fetuses, although it's biologically written that they are meant to be created, still essentially act as parasites, literally as defined; Parasite: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. So it really depends on a specific person valuing one organism's life over another. Parasites will develop inside a human host in that same sense that a fetus will. Humans of the female sex are only willing to live with fetuses inside them for 9 months because they are looking at the end prospect of birthing biological children. When you remove the willingness to have children, is it really okay to force someone to carry the parasite?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DinohScene said:


> I think the real issue is that people want something extraordinary.
> Obama became president not because he had good promises but because he's black.
> Come on think about it.
> Ever since 1776? up until 2008, all the US presidents have been white.
> ...


Well I suppose if trump does become president he'll be the first orange president of the U.S.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 14, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> I think the real issue is that people want something extraordinary.
> Obama became president not because he had good promises but because he's black.
> Come on think about it.
> Ever since 1776? up until 2008, all the US presidents have been white.
> ...


As much as fox news would tell you otherwise Obama did not win the election twice based off of his color


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> i child lives on it's own where a futus is still part of the females body...


It isn't part of the female's body. It is made up of different DNA; it exists parasitically; even the placenta is an outgrowth from the foetus which burrows into the wall of the womb in order to extract nutrients and oxygen and dump waste and CO2. It Is a separate organism which just happens to be inside another organism.


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Well I suppose if trump does become president he'll be the first orange president of the U.S.



I can already see Matt Stone and Trey Parker poking fun at that.



bi388 said:


> As much as fox news would tell you otherwise Obama did not win the election twice based off of his color



I don't watch nor receive Fox news.
Sorry boy, I'm no 'murican.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> You said it is as sentient as a tree. That's what I want evidence for. Also, how about potential? It will be sentient at some point. Do you not see any value in that?


A fetus without brain activity and a tree without brain activity have the same level of sentience. Potential is about as relevant as saying a sperm and egg on opposite ends of a Petri dish has a right to life.



mashers said:


> No, I've made the same point you have: "a right to bodily autonomy does not extend to a right to someone else's body". Yet despite that, it's ok to kill an unborn child? That seems like a pretty significant infringement of the rights of someone else's body to me.


A woman has a right to bodily autonomy. It is not an infringement on anyone's rights to say, "You can't use this other person's body," when nobody has a right to another person's body. This is true even if the fetus is sentient, which it is not. If you're going to claim to have made the same point I have, then you have to understand that a right to bodily autonomy means a right to be autonomous.


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

I love how this turned into a debate about abortion but nobody can come up with a legitimate reason to support trump.


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> I love how this turned into a debate about abortion but nobody can come up with a legitimate reason to support trump.



Welcome to Temp.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 14, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> I can already see Matt Stone and Trey Parker poking fun at that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doesnt change the fact that youre wrong. (Most) people didnt look at him and say "wow hes black, I need to vote for him cause hes black" and if any did it is certainly not a relevant percentage.


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> I can already see Matt Stone and Trey Parker poking fun at that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're lucky. Fox News is a corrupted piece of shit full of white people who call everything racism and can't understand why people would want equal rights. *Fox News prepares to ridiculously read out everything I just said on live television because they don't understand the internet


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 14, 2016)

bi388 said:


> Doesnt change the fact that youre wrong. (Most) people didnt look at him and say "wow hes black, I need to vote for him cause hes black" and if any did it is certainly not a relevant percentage.



You still don't get it do you?



Pikm said:


> You're lucky. Fox News is a corrupted piece of shit full of white people who call everything racism and can't understand why people would want equal rights.



Forgot to mention, I barely watch telly and if I do, it's Nat geo and Discovery.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> You're lucky. Fox News is a corrupted piece of shit full of white people who call everything racism and can't understand why people would want equal rights.


ahh racist! not only fox is alike that the police is aswell you know


----------



## bi388 (Jul 14, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> You still don't get it do you?


No, enlighten me please


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> It isn't part of the female's body. It is made up of different DNA; it exists parasitically; even the placenta is an outgrowth from the foetus which burrows into the wall of the womb in order to extract nutrients and oxygen and dump waste and CO2. It Is a separate organism which just happens to be inside another organism.


I agree that a fetus is a separate organism, but it doesn't have a right to be inside another organism. I don't think anything has rights if it lacks brain activity, but even if it had brain activity, a woman has a right to bodily autonomy. A woman must consent to foregoing her bodily autonomy.


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> ahh racist! not only fox is alike that the police is aswell you know


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> That, however, falls under placing the value of certain lives over others


So does abortion. Abortion says, "adult lives are more important than unborn children". Also, do you really think it's unreasonable to elevate the life of a human child above a single-cell infectious disease or a worm?



Pikm said:


> . Fetuses, although it's biologically written that they are meant to be created, still essentially act as parasites, literally as defined; Parasite: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. So it really depends on a specific person valuing one organism's life over another. Parasites will develop inside a human host in that same sense that a fetus will.


Yes I understand the concept. My point remains though that a foetus is a parasite which is intended to be there. The female body has evolved specifically to be able to contain it and allow it to grow, whereas it will attempt to destroy any other parasites or intruders into it.



Pikm said:


> Humans of the female sex are only willing to live with fetuses inside them for 9 months because they are looking at the end prospect of birthing biological children. When you remove the willingness to have children, is it really okay to force someone to carry the parasite?


I assume you're talking about rape. I realise it's a very sensitive subject but this is another example of valuing one life over another: "I didn't want the child, I was assaulted and now have to carry a child and birth it, and that is too traumatic. My need is paramount so I will kill the child to avoid further trauma." I'm not saying I know the answer to this situation, I'm just making the point that even in this situation abortion is saying that one person's life is more important than another.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> So does abortion. Abortion says, "adult lives are more important than unborn children". Also, do you really think it's unreasonable to elevate the life of a human child above a single-cell infectious disease or a worm?
> 
> 
> Yes I understand the concept. My point remains though that a foetus is a parasite which is intended to be there. The female body has evolved specifically to be able to contain it and allow it to grow, whereas it will attempt to destroy any other parasites or intruders into it.
> ...





Jack Daniels said:


> a child lives on it's own where a futus is still part of the females body...


 i mean it's not functioning as a living beïng for a reasanable time...
and another thing is the life of an unwanted child...


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 14, 2016)

bi388 said:


> No, enlighten me please





DinohScene said:


> Then again, I know nothing about the statistics nor would I know if it is actually true.
> I just base this out of me own observations and they seem rather plausible.



Second to that, I cbf with it, as said here.



DinohScene said:


> In all seriousness, I cbf with it.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 14, 2016)

This is a completely serious question about the "potential" argument. So if the potential of a human is whats important, and killing that potential is evil, then isnt anyone who is not currently having a kid evil, because they have the potential to create life but theyre destroying that potential in a way with the exact same result as abortion.


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

bi388 said:


> This is a completely serious question about the "potential" argument. So if the potential of a human is whats important, and killing that potential is evil, then isnt anyone who is not currently having a kid evil, because they have the potential to create life but theyre destroying that potential in a way with the exact same result as abortion.


The human carrying the child also has potential, should you kill that over an unborn child who will grow up without ever knowing their parents?


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A fetus without brain activity and a tree without brain activity have the same level of sentience. Potential is about as relevant as saying a sperm and egg on opposite ends of a Petri dish has a right to life.


That's very convenient.



Lacius said:


> A woman has a right to bodily autonomy. It is not an infringement on anyone's rights to say, "You can't use this other person's body," when nobody has a right to another person's body. This is true even if the fetus is sentient, which it is not. If you're going to claim to have made the same point I have, then you have to understand that a right to bodily autonomy means a right to be autonomous.


I couldn't agree less with this viewpoint. Lack of capacity should not imply lack of rights. That's why we have the mental capacity act (in the UK at least) which protects people who are unable to self-advocate. Even the most profoundly disabled person who may have no cognitive ability to speak of has rights under this law. But according to abortion enthusiasts, it's apparently OK to say "this foetus is too young to decide whether to live or die, so we'll choose on its behalf". I don't think that's right.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> The human carrying the child also has potential, should you kill that over an unborn child who will grow up without ever knowing their parents?


Im not making a pro or anti abortion statement. Im asking people who say the potential is what matters whether it isnt then wrong for them to not be having a kid since theyre 'killing' a potential child.


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 14, 2016)

But seriously in regards to the abortion debate that has devoured the thread thus far, as a female I won't hesitate to get an abortion if I cannot offer a life a child requires and support myself at the same time. Fetuses are literally attached to the women's body, and are thus an extension.

(and honestly, even after birth, all human babies can do is support themselves structurally but cannot provide for themselves_--_continuing to prove they are leeches until they can comprehend their environment and attain a form of sustenance on their own)

Besides that, the one thing that I hate about prolifers is that they place WAY too much value in life. They act as if EVERYONE will become some super genius scientist who will cure cancer. No, they won't. People need to stop acting like everyone is special. We're animals, FFS. Go to a graveyard or war site and see how insignificant your life is. In a hundred years or so, I wouldn't even be surprised if we could make synthetic humans on a factory line sooner than robots.


----------



## 8BitWonder (Jul 14, 2016)

Not pro trump myself, but your poll seems kind of one-sided. It would be fair to add a "genuinely agree/support him" option, but that's just my opinion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Engert (Jul 14, 2016)

You're missing an option in your poll:

They're enjoying the show. 

And that's all American politics is. A show.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> That's very convenient.
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree less with this viewpoint. Lack of capacity should not imply lack of rights. That's why we have the mental capacity act (in the UK at least) which protects people who are unable to self-advocate. Even the most profoundly disabled person who may have no cognitive ability to speak of has rights under this law. But according to abortion enthusiasts, it's apparently OK to say "this foetus is too young to decide whether to live or die, so we'll choose on its behalf". I don't think that's right.


you're male right...

 have you tried to get in to the other posistion? 
a child is only sepperated from body when it got blood circulation, before that state it's just bio tissieu, so the argument of being a person is incorrect.
ever seen an unloved child? it'll break your heart
like i said before, if there something put in your body whithout your consent, hope i write this correct, you want this removed right? well go figure if that something is a futus.


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> you're male right...


Yes.



Jack Daniels said:


> have you tried to get in to the other position?


Of a female? Well of course I would try to empathise in a specific situation, but it would not change my opinion on the subject in general.



Jack Daniels said:


> a child is only sepperated from body when it got blood circulation, before that state it's just bio tissieu, so the argument of being a person is incorrect.


Says who? Who gets to decide that it's enough of a person not to be summarily terminated?



Jack Daniels said:


> ever seen an unloved child? it'll break your heart


I've been through the adoption assessment process, and work with young children with disabilities. So yes, I've seen, heard about and met some awful situations. I don't really see how that is relevant to this discussion though.



Jack Daniels said:


> like i said before, if there something put in your body whithout your consent, hope i write this correct, you want this removed right? well go figure if that something is a futus.


I've answered this particular aspect of the discussion above.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> Of a female? Well of course I would try to empathise in a specific situation, but it would not change my opinion on the subject in general.
> ...


happy to know you're not female and don't understand what i try to tell... you get the idea, but you judge people in situations you can't even begin to understand...


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> happy to know you're not female and don't understand what i try to tell... you get the idea, but you judge people in situations you can't even begin to understand...


So because I'm not female I'm not allowed to have an opinion about it? Sorry but that's ridiculous.


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 14, 2016)

IMO, men shouldn't even be allowed to enter this debate. They cannot even comprehend the concept of the child-bearing process in one's body. The ideal of motherhood, conscious and/or instinctual, that is forced upon women is the biggest problem in abortion. Pro-lifers treat women like cattle.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> So does abortion. Abortion says, "adult lives are more important than unborn children". Also, do you really think it's unreasonable to elevate the life of a human child above a single-cell infectious disease or a worm?


Adult lives are more important than unborn fetuses. Adult bodily autonomy is more important than unborn fetuses. In the vast majority of abortion cases, the fetus is not sentient, and the rights of the sentient infinitely outweigh the rights of the non-sentient.

I should also point out that you've made the distinction between a single-cell infectious disease and a pregnancy, but when we're talking about an abortion, we're often talking about something that's barely more than a clump of unspecialized cells.



mashers said:


> Yes I understand the concept. My point remains though that a foetus is a parasite which is intended to be there. The female body has evolved specifically to be able to contain it and allow it to grow, whereas it will attempt to destroy any other parasites or intruders into it.


Although it's irrelevant to the conversation because a woman is the arbiter of what belongs in her body, women's bodies have immune responses against fetuses all the time, causing miscarriages and other problems. Blood type disparity alone can cause a lethal immune response.



mashers said:


> I assume you're talking about rape. I realise it's a very sensitive subject but this is another example of valuing one life over another: "I didn't want the child, I was assaulted and now have to carry a child and birth it, and that is too traumatic. My need is paramount so I will kill the child to avoid further trauma." I'm not saying I know the answer to this situation, I'm just making the point that even in this situation abortion is saying that one person's life is more important than another.


A woman, regardless of whether or not she was raped, has to consent to allowing something to further violate her bodily autonomy. Anything else would be a violation of that autonomy and another form of rape.

You keep calling a fetus a _child_ and a _person_. It has not yet developed into these things. I'd like to know when specifically you think something becomes a person with rights.



mashers said:


> I couldn't agree less with this viewpoint. Lack of capacity should not imply lack of rights. That's why we have the mental capacity act (in the UK at least) which protects people who are unable to self-advocate. Even the most profoundly disabled person who may have no cognitive ability to speak of has rights under this law. But according to abortion enthusiasts, it's apparently OK to say "this foetus is too young to decide whether to live or die, so we'll choose on its behalf". I don't think that's right.


Your conflating my position on a fetus with no cognitive abilities and a mentally disabled person with diminished cognitive abilities. I'm saying that if something has the same cognitive ability as someone who is brain dead, that thing has no rights. I've also said numerous times that the cognitive abilities of a fetus are irrelevant when we approach this from a bodily rights argument.



mashers said:


> Of a female? Well of course I would try to empathise in a specific situation, but it would not change my opinion on the subject in general.


You and I are in a hospital. You're perfectly healthy, and I am dying. I need a kidney to survive the week. You are my only match. Should you be required by law to give me your kidney?


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Ok, well I've made my points. I respect everyone's right to have their own opinion and had hoped others would do the same, but if this is going to become a matter of 'you shouldn't even be able to voice your opinion' then there's really no point continuing this discussion.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> Ok, well I've made my points. I respect everyone's right to have their own opinion and had hoped others would do the same, but if this is going to become a matter of 'you shouldn't even be able to voice your opinion' then there's really no point continuing this discussion.


Please answer my hypothetical situation at the bottom of my last post.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 14, 2016)

Dissatisfaction with American legislators is the primary reason Mr Trump has such a significant support following. Much as was the case with President Obama, many see him as an "outsider". His supporters believe he will best serve their own interests, and not just his political constituents. There has been a very "clique" atmosphere in DC for awhile now. 


As for abortion, I don't agree with it personally. If I'm involved with a woman who is pregnant with my child, I will vehemently pursue a course of birthing, and sole custody if she does not want children. I love my children, and have even adopted a beautiful girl to raise as my own also. However, I qualify as no ones judge, therefore they are entitled to their choices as I am to mine. I don't feel anyone has a right to condone/condemn a person for choices such as abortion. It's a choice for the fetus' responsible parties to make, not mine or yours.


----------



## TarkinMX (Jul 14, 2016)

Your poll is somewhat idiotic, leaving a trump supporter no room to feel good about themselves and with that said it seems like your trying to push your opinion on people. You like much of America want others to think the same way you do and I'm sure that you get your opinion from those that you spend time with, whether it be family, friends, teachers or idles. What I see you doing here is an age old thing and is no different than someone trying to accuse a Christian of pushing their opinions on others which sadly they're not the only ones that do it. We have so many rights activist groups that do this every day, whether it's the LBGT community, black lives matter, KKK, black panthers, Jehovah's witnesses, scientologists, extreme republicans, extreme democrats, anarchists, libetarians or any other group that thinks their opinion is right and yours is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, why are you trying to force yours? Personally I think both Hillary and trump are idiots. Hillary has just as many skeletons in the closet that trump does and Bernie is just an all around idiot. I very much dislike any political figure that pushes for socialism and think that they're hurting our nation more than helping. Why you may ask? It's because socialism isn't much different from communism and I'd hate to see this country go that route after fighting communism for so many years.


----------



## ric. (Jul 14, 2016)

Wow I can't believe people have different opinions than I do. Don't they know it's the CURRENT YEAR? How dare people have different opinions, that kind of thing shouldn't be allowed in the CURRENT YEAR. Come on people!


----------



## Ricken (Jul 14, 2016)

Its either Trump or Hillary and some people just don't trust Hillary due to her past
I'm not too trusting of her, but I really don't like Trump
Ugh


----------



## bi388 (Jul 14, 2016)

Personally Im voting Jill Stein. I know she doesnt have a chance this election, but if she got double digits it would give her mainstream attention and maybe she could win next election after the likely disaster of Hillary/Trump.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> Ok, well I've made my points. I respect everyone's right to have their own opinion and had hoped others would do the same, but if this is going to become a matter of 'you shouldn't even be able to voice your opinion' then there's really no point continuing this discussion.


sure you can.. and i will accept it as being as it is.. just since it came close, it happened in my fam. i felt the need to defend her as a person who did what she felt needed to do... her emotions couldn't handle the situation you know...


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

TarkinMX said:


> Your poll is somewhat idiotic, leaving a trump supporter no room to feel good about themselves and with that said it seems like your trying to push your opinion on people. You like much of America want others to think the same way you do and I'm sure that you get your opinion from those that you spend time with, whether it be family, friends, teachers or idles. What I see you doing here is an age old thing and is no different than someone trying to accuse a Christian of pushing their opinions on others which sadly they're not the only ones that do it. We have so many rights activist groups that do this every day, whether it's the LBGT community, black lives matter, KKK, black panthers, Jehovah's witnesses, scientologists, extreme republicans, extreme democrats, anarchists, libetarians or any other group that thinks their opinion is right and yours is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, why are you trying to force yours? Personally I think both Hillary and trump are idiots. Hillary has just as many skeletons in the closet that trump does and Bernie is just an all around idiot. I very much dislike any political figure that pushes for socialism and think that they're hurting our nation more than helping. Why you may ask? It's because socialism isn't much different from communism and I'd hate to see this country go that route after fighting communism for so many years.


I agree that this thread appears to push an agenda with a loaded question, is unnecessarily confrontational, gives a Trump supporter nowhere to vote, and smells a bit like troll bait (e.g. "I challenge you to prove me wrong, ignorant awful people"), which is why I pointed out earlier that there's already a thread about the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. However, this thread doesn't appear to have gotten out of control, and I don't expect it would be locked until it did.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2016)

Let the hate flow through you!!!! Lol

Voting for the president is literally choosing between the lesser of two evils. Your other option besides Trump is Hillarity..... Pun intended lol 

Vote Palpatine this election and I promise to crush the rebel scum!!!!


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I agree that this thread appears to push an agenda with a loaded question, is unnecessarily confrontational, gives a Trump supporter nowhere to vote, and smells a bit like troll bait (e.g. "I challenge you to prove me wrong, ignorant awful people"), which is why I pointed out earlier that there's already a thread about the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. However, this thread doesn't appear to have gotten out of control, and I don't expect it would be locked until it did.


Stop being a smart ass!! No one likes smart people who say smart things and make sense!!!


----------



## Engert (Jul 14, 2016)

Actually Lacius there should be more confrontational threads to get people moving cos everyone's sleeping around here.
A typical thread should start with "Fuck you, you're all pieces of shit and here's why". Then the other side of the argument should respond "No fuck you! You fucking fruitcake!".
Then after the fight, there's a party and a Nintendo 3DS prize.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2016)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Let the hate flow through you!!!! Lol
> 
> Voting for the president is literally choosing between the lesser of two evils. Your other option besides Trump is Hillarity..... Pun intended lol
> 
> Vote Palpatine this election and I promise to crush the rebel scum!!!!


The lesser of two evils is still less evil. If Secretary Clinton is less evil than Donald Trump (and Palpatine), then a vote for her is the logically sound thing to do. However, I would personally argue that she's not actually evil.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 15, 2016)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Let the hate flow through you!!!! Lol
> 
> Voting for the president is literally choosing between the lesser of two evils. Your other option besides Trump is Hillarity..... Pun intended lol
> 
> Vote Palpatine this election and I promise to crush the rebel scum!!!!


You know theres more than two parties right? If you dont like them vote Libertarian or Green


----------



## Pikm (Jul 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The lesser of two evils is still less evil. If Secretary Clinton is less evil than Donald Trump (and Palpatine), then a vote for her is the logically sound thing to do. However, I would personally argue that she's not actually evil.


Honestly none of them are really evil (except Palpatine). Trump is more of an stupid(ly) ignorant man-child, and Clinton just tries to get everyone to like her.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



bi388 said:


> You know theres more than two parties right? If you dont like them vote Libertarian or Green


The last time we had a president who wasn't from the democratic or republican parties was in 1850, and I don't think it's likely to happen again this year


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 15, 2016)

Ricken said:


> Its either Trump or Hillary and some people just don't trust Hillary due to her past
> I'm not too trusting of her, but I really don't like Trump
> Ugh


You're not forced to vote "one or the other". You can write in anyone you want if they're not listed.

For instance, you can write in Bernie Sanders if you wanted him.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 15, 2016)

Pikm said:


> The last time we had a president who wasn't from the democratic or republican parties was in 1850, and I don't think it's likely to happen again this year


No but that doesnt mean they arent options. In fact the REASON we havent is because people have the attitude they arent options. I can pretty much guarantee you people would prefer Stein and Johnson to Hillary and Trump but dont vote for them because they think they cant win. Someone has to support them first, might as well be me.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 15, 2016)

Good and evil are subjective terms. I prefer to look at truth and non-truth, as I feel righteousness is ultimately determined by those factors.


----------



## IAmLeggings (Jul 15, 2016)

How do you guys feel about the term "anchor baby"?


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jul 15, 2016)

Clinton or Trump, either way it seems America is screwed. I suggest moving to Canada.


----------



## IAmLeggings (Jul 15, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> Clinton or Trump, either way it seems America is screwed. I suggest moving to Canada.


So you can enjoy the benefits of a horrible economy that's only getting worse...?


----------



## rasputin (Jul 15, 2016)

They sit in front of the tv with their tin foil funnels on, begging fox news to shovel it in as fast as possible


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2016)

bi388 said:


> You know theres more than two parties right? If you dont like them vote Libertarian or Green


You are absolutely right, but a third-party candidate is almost certainly not going to win. To vote Libertarian, Green, etc. is to merely make a statement and not actually influence the presidential election.



Pluupy said:


> You're not forced to vote "one or the other". You can write in anyone you want if they're not listed.
> 
> For instance, you can write in Bernie Sanders if you wanted him.


In 35 states, a write-in candidate can only win if he or she applied for write-in access. A write-in vote for Senator Sanders in one of those states will basically be thrown away, since he's not running. Senator Sanders also wouldn't want someone to vote for him over Secretary Clinton in the general election.



brickmii82 said:


> Good and evil are subjective terms. I prefer to look at truth and non-truth, as I feel righteousness is ultimately determined by those factors.


If you define _good_ and _evil_ as _that which is conducive to well-being_ and _that which isn't conducive to well-being_, respectively, then _good_ and _evil_ are objective terms.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You are absolutely right, but a third-party candidate is almost certainly not going to win. To vote Libertarian, Green, etc. is to merely make a statement and not actually influence the presidential election


There's no chance of either of them winning this time, but if enough of a statement is made, whether this election or in 4 years or 20, it will influence SOME election. I'd rather work towards future progress than accept it won't happen because we can't do it in one year.


----------



## Lia (Jul 15, 2016)

Not a Trump supporter, in fact I hate Trump, but please respect other's opinions, before saying that they're wrong.


----------



## Xenon Hacks (Jul 15, 2016)

Voting for him just out of spite


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2016)

bi388 said:


> There's no chance of either of them winning this time, but if enough of a statement is made, whether this election or in 4 years or 20, it will influence SOME election. I'd rather work towards future progress than accept it won't happen because we can't do it in one year.


The way to become a major political party in the United States is to start with lower offices. The Green Party only asserts itself as a publicity stunt every four years, and if this continues, they will never become notable. The Libertarian Party is a little less guilty of this, but they still spend a lot of time and effort on the presidential election every four years that they should be spending on lower offices. But you might be right that making a statement now will influence an election in the future. Who knows?


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 15, 2016)

The fact that it's either Trump or Hilary is more than enough reason for people to support Trump. At least a lot of Trump's retarded ideas are basically impossible because he has no concept of money and doesn't realize stupid shit like building The Great Wall of Freedom costs more money than the US could ever afford.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 15, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Having a child "live for you" isn't good. The child will probably live a horrible life considering they will start it out without a family and they will probably carry that burden of never knowing their parents for the rest of their life. That alone could be a source of serious depression, or even worse. Besides, the golden rule of abortion; *If it's not your body, it's not your god damn choice. *And preventing people from doing what they want with their own body sounds awfully cruel doesn't it?


I'll just leave this here


----------



## VinsCool (Jul 15, 2016)

I'm sorry.



Spoiler


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jul 15, 2016)

Trump exists so that the retarded left won't take over the USA and screw the country like it happened here in Brazil, or in Sweden, or Germany. 

If Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton get elected, you guys are going to deep shit. 
Boris Johnson x Donald Trump x Bolsonaro are the heroes of this decade.


----------



## IAmLeggings (Jul 15, 2016)

SirBeethoven said:


> I'll just leave this here



What about it?


----------



## Viri (Jul 15, 2016)

Xenon Hacks said:


> Voting for him just out of spite


Second. 

You also forgot to call him the KKK, Hitler, the Anti-Christ, and every other boogey man in the book.


----------



## urherenow (Jul 15, 2016)

Wow. The OP is wrong on EVERY. SINGLE. POINT. The man isn't well spoken and certainly not PC. That does not make him guilty of ANY of the above.


He's racist - How, exactly? Funny how he has never been accused of this until running. 

He's misogynistic (proven MULTIPLE times)--- Where and when? I call BS. You're just a sheep who only listens to what the media wants to tell you.

He's against gay marriage--- so what if he was? He never said he would outlaw it.

He wants to remove the department of education.--- He wants to give control of education back to the States and out of the federal government's hands. Is that a bad thing? Perhaps you think common core and Mrs. Obama's lunches are the bees knees...

He's pro-life, which is a very dangerous quality to have as president, especially when you consider the victims of sexual assault and incest, especially children and the sick, who could die trying to finish a pregnancy, and abortion is a much, much, safer option.--- Again, so what? He never said he was going to outlaw abortion. He acknowledged that there are very valid reasons FOR ABORTION. He simply vowed to defund it. NEver should have been federally funded in the first damn place.

The list goes on! -- the list of why you are one of the many ignorant sheeple goes on and on.
I'm voting for Trump because he is actually the least of all running evils.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 15, 2016)

urherenow said:


> I'm voting for Trump because he is actually the least of all running evils.


Do you think Trump is better than Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and Bernie? Theyre all in the top 5 candidates most likely to win


----------



## Jao Chu (Jul 15, 2016)

OP should run back to their safe space if they feel triggered by Trumps anti-political correctness stance


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 15, 2016)

Political debates never go well. Especially on GBATemp. Please don't fall into the arguement trap by not responding to this forum.
Thanks.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> There's already a discussion and poll on the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election here. Your poll question is also pretty loaded.


Nah, seems as unbiased as possible to me


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 15, 2016)

urherenow said:


> Wow. The OP is wrong on EVERY. SINGLE. POINT. The man isn't well spoken and certainly not PC. That does not make him guilty of ANY of the above.
> 
> 
> He's racist - How, exactly? Funny how he has never been accused of this until running.
> ...


It's people like you that are the reason why other countries have better test scores in schools. Trump blatantly makes misogynistic remarks on his bloody Twitter and openly says on TV he'll "build" a wall to keep out Mexicans, and yet people like you are so blind to see this happening. The dude makes himself look like a complete jackass on Twitter all the damn time. 



Spoiler



















Oh and before you ask, YES it's a fucking bad thing if the schools don't have their own department of education. The country needs a curriculum to organize the schools of the country, otherwise we'd end up with Texans who don't know how to count and Californians who are studying Calculus in Elementary school. <sarcasm>You know what, let's tear down the government too! We can manage ourselves!</sarcasm> Do you realize how _stupid_ that sounds?

But no, let's have someone who is less qualified than even George W Bush run for presidency. Let's prove the rest of the world right how stupid America is!

This is why we can't have nice things. The list fucking goes on_ indeed. _


----------



## YayIguess (Jul 15, 2016)

IAmLeggings said:


> So you can enjoy the benefits of a horrible economy that's only getting worse...?


Canadian, can confirm economy sucks.


----------



## DKB (Jul 15, 2016)

People are voting for a cartoon character. I'm scared.


----------



## YayIguess (Jul 15, 2016)

Pluupy said:


> Oh and before you ask,* YES it's a fucking bad thing if the schools don't have their own department of education.* The country needs a curriculum to organize the schools of the country, otherwise we'd end up with Texans who don't know how to count and Californians who are studying Calculus in Elementary school. <sarcasm>You know what, let's tear down the government too! We can manage ourselves!</sarcasm> Do you realize how _stupid_ that sounds?
> 
> But no, let's have someone who is less qualified than even George W Bush run for presidency. Let's prove the rest of the world right how stupid America is!
> 
> This is why we can't have nice things. The list fucking goes on_ indeed. _


Canada has provincial education instead of federal, I can safely say everyone knows how to count and we haven't all become anymore stupid that the rest of the world has.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 15, 2016)

I agree there should be some level of accountability for schooling at a federal level, but the DOE has failed massively. Schools haven't been this segregated since the times of the Civil Rights movement, teachers are still vastly underpaid, equipment and resources often have to be donated, and children are not uniformly developed and learn most effectively in many different fashions. Things are a mess in public education right now. I'm not a Trump supporter, but there are some very large changes that need to be made in regards to public education.


----------



## IAmLeggings (Jul 15, 2016)

YayIguess said:


> Canadian, can confirm economy sucks.


Yeah sorry about that, beautiful land, just not doing too great economically.


----------



## MionissNio (Jul 15, 2016)

I am a Muslim and voting for trump cause' let the games begin!

Seriously though, everyone has their opinion we cannot force them to not follow it. They like trump they like him, nothing we can do about about. Besides I do not think he can be 100% evil. I mean there are many candidates that might be worse than trump or other presidents.


----------



## Foxchild (Jul 15, 2016)

Right now, we have two horrible choices for president.  The right thinks that if Hillary is elected, it is the end of our country, and the left thinks the same thing if Trump is elected.  Reality is that our lives won't change much either way (remember they have to get stuff past congress before it matters).  Basically the difference would be:  if Hillary gets elected, the news media will constantly be covering whatever her latest legal scandal is, and if Trump is elected the news media will constantly be covering the latest dumb thing he's said.


----------



## urherenow (Jul 15, 2016)

Pluupy said:


> It's people like you that are the reason why other countries have better test scores in schools. Trump blatantly makes misogynistic remarks on his bloody Twitter and openly says on TV he'll "build" a wall to keep out Mexicans,


He didn't you idiot. You quote him just like the press does. He welcomes ANY Mexican that comes here legally. He's building a wall to control the* illegal *immigrants and *drug traffickers.*

Bernie is a socialist sociopath. Most likely to win? He already endorsed HRC, you blatant moron. You probably voted for Obama too. And you think he's done a good job.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 15, 2016)

urherenow said:


> He didn't you idiot. You quote him just like the press does. He welcomes ANY Mexican that comes here legally. He's building a wall to control the* illegal *immigrants and *drug traffickers.*
> 
> Bernie is a socialist sociopath. Most likely to win? He already endorsed HRC, you blatant moron.


Can confirm, using multiple ad hominems makes your case stronger, especially when you provide no evidence to back up your claims.


----------



## urherenow (Jul 15, 2016)

bi388 said:


> Can confirm, using multiple ad hominems makes your case stronger, especially when you provide no evidence to back up your claims.


Youtube videos are a google away. He's clarified that, word for word. On many occasions. What there is no evidence of, is that he's racist. In the slightest.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 15, 2016)

urherenow said:


> Youtube videos are a google away. He's clarified that, word for word. On many occasions. What there is no evidence of, is that he's racist. In the slightest.


I was referring to when you said 


urherenow said:


> Bernie is a socialist *sociopath*. Most likely to win? He already endorsed HRC, you *blatant moron*. You probably voted for Obama too. And you think he's done a good job.


Also you might want to look up what a socialist is  (hint: Bernie isnt one)


----------



## urherenow (Jul 15, 2016)

bi388 said:


> I was referring to when you said
> 
> Also you might want to look up what a socialist is  (hint: Bernie isnt one)





> In the Bernieverse, there’s a whole lot of nationalism mixed up in the socialism. He is, in fact, leading a national-socialist movement,
> 
> Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421369/bernie-sanders-national-socialism


----------



## bi388 (Jul 15, 2016)

Nazis were a right wing movement  I guess hes a republican now.
http://shoqvalue.com/the-nazis-were-leftists-lie
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Nazis-considered-to-be-right-wing-parties
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm


----------



## Viri (Jul 15, 2016)

Pluupy said:


> openly says on TV he'll "build" a wall to keep out Mexicans


No boarder = no country. 

Walls do work, you can ask Israel about how well walls work. He also said to keep out *ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, *he's not stopping Mexicans from immigrating here legally. He just wants to cut down drug trafficking and cut down on crimes. There is nothing at all wrong with that. We got this huge ass army, we should have some of it patrol our border and keep our own country safe. America first!

Of course a wall won't work well on its own, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than what we have at the moment.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2016)

urherenow said:


> Wow. The OP is wrong on EVERY. SINGLE. POINT. The man isn't well spoken and certainly not PC. That does not make him guilty of ANY of the above.
> 
> 
> He's racist - How, exactly? Funny how he has never been accused of this until running.
> ...


I'll let this Washington Post article speak for itself:


> _The things Trump is doing now — disparaging the “Mexican” judge, disqualifying Muslim judges, calling somebody claiming Native American blood “Pocahontas” and singling out “my African American” — is very much in line with what he has been doing for the past year, and before.
> 
> More than six months ago, I began a column by proposing, “Let’s not mince words: Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist.” His bigotry went back decades, to the Central Park jogger case, and came to include: his leadership of the “birther” movement suggesting President Obama was a foreign-born Muslim, his vulgar expressions for women, his talk of Mexico sending rapists into America, his call for mass deportation, his spats with Latino news outlets, his mocking Asian accent, his tacit acceptance of the claim that Muslims are a “problem” in America, his agreement that American Muslims should be forced to register themselves, his call to ban Muslim immigration, his false claim about American Muslims celebrating 9/11, his tweeting of statistics from white supremacists, his condoning of violence against black demonstrators and his mocking of a journalist with a physical disability._


As for your claim that Donald Trump would not actually outlaw abortion, he's not only said that he would, but he thinks women seeking abortions should be criminally punished. To be fair, he's held several different positions (within 24 hours) on whom should actually be punished.

As for your claim that Donald Trump would not actually outlaw same-sex marriage, he has said he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would specifically overturn _Obergefell v. Hodges_.


----------



## IAmLeggings (Jul 15, 2016)

Viri said:


> No boarder = no country.
> 
> Walls do work, you can ask Israel about how well walls work. He also said to keep out *ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, *he's not stopping Mexicans from immigrating here legally. He just wants to cut down drug trafficking and cut down on crimes. There is nothing at all wrong with that. We got this huge ass army, we should have some of it patrol our border and keep our own country safe. America first!
> 
> Of course a wall won't work well on its own, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than what we have at the moment.


Israel's wall is not used for immigration security.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2016)

Viri said:


> No boarder = no country.
> 
> Walls do work, you can ask Israel about how well walls work. He also said to keep out *ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, *he's not stopping Mexicans from immigrating here legally. He just wants to cut down drug trafficking and cut down on crimes. There is nothing at all wrong with that. We got this huge ass army, we should have some of it patrol our border and keep our own country safe. America first!
> 
> Of course a wall won't work well on its own, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than what we have at the moment.


I'll let John Oliver explain some of the many reasons why the wall is a silly idea:


----------



## Viri (Jul 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'll let John Oliver explain some of the many reasons why the wall is a silly idea:



I can't stand John Oliver and 18 fucking minutes, just no.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 15, 2016)

In the age of UAV's, satellite surveillance, keyword/phrase recognizing telecommunications scanning, your solution to stopping ill-willed border crossing is....a wall.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 15, 2016)

IAmLeggings said:


> Israel's wall is not used for immigration security.


Hungary's security fence is though and has proven quite successful.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2016)

Viri said:


> I can't stand John Oliver and 18 fucking minutes, just no.


In summary, the cost is ridiculously expensive, Mexico is not paying for it, much of the land where the wall would need to be built isn't owned by the United States federal government, there are environmental regulations that would get in the way, the wall won't actually stop the vast majority of illegal immigration for various reasons, etc.


----------



## IAmLeggings (Jul 15, 2016)

clownb said:


> Hungary's security fence is though and has proven quite successful.


That is true, and we already tried a fence here, different things work for different countries, for different reasons. I'm not against stricter border control, I'm just unsure of the feasibility of a wall.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 15, 2016)

IAmLeggings said:


> That is true, and we already tried a fence here, different things work for different countries, for different reasons. I'm not against stricter border control, I'm just unsure of the feasibility of a wall.


Exactly! I wouldn't be opposed to utilizing the National Guard to work in conjunction with Immigration to monitor border activity. I mean, they are called "National Guard". They're already paid for their service so cost effectiveness would be easily accomplished. A lot more than building a wall.


----------



## Xanthe (Jul 15, 2016)

This is my opinion on his racism. I don't believe he is racist. I am aware of some of the things he has said about others (Asians, Mexicans, etc.), but it is fairly obvious what he was saying was not meant to come off as intentionally racist. Yes, many of Trumps’s statements seem racist, but it’s just a plain fact that they’re not. Again, a LOT of the things he says sounds racist (*unintentionally*), but the things he says that sound racist, really aren't.

For example: “I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks,”
That does sound pretty racist right? Well, not intentionally. Yes, he could have substituted "blacks" for "African Americans" or "Africans" or "Dark-skinned", but even if he did people would still harsh on him for it! Would could he say without sounding racist? There are not many terms out there for black people that don't sound racist. In reality, our society made these words sound derogatory and not Trump himself. Again, it's the people wanting to believe he's racist just for the sake of it. 

Another example: "I am the least racist person there is"
The media love to use this quote and I'm not sure why. Who is he being racist towards? Whom would it be in the picture? There is not other way to say "I'm not racist", correct? It's the media trying to make it sound racist. If you're asked, "Are you racist?", you may respond the same way he did. Put yourself in his shoes.

Some people say: Oh, what about the Mexicans and Muslims entering the U.S? Is that not racist?
Well, no. It isn't.

Illegal immigrants is not a race; and the term "Mexico" is not a race
Muslim is not a race but rather a religion. The correct term would be Islamic
He doesn't want Muslims entering the U.S. Why? Because of terrorist attacks! One of the being today, in fact! Do we want that in the U.S? Of course not! He's not saying that he wants the Muslims to be temporarily banned from entering the U.S for no reason! He is concerned about the safety of our country, but people seem to want to focus on ruining his campaign. 

I have never heard him say anything (and I watch all of his debates, speeches, etc.) about Mexicans other than the fact that a lot of them are in the U.S illegally. "I'm going to make the Mexicans build the wall" So, is that racist because he is saying that they work a lot? They work a lot in construction? No, he's saying he won't pay for the wall. Yes, the is completely idiotic and a stupid thing to say, but it's not racist. It's honestly one of the stupidest things that has come out of his mouth because it's not likely they're paying for a wall he wants put up. 

If you look very carefully at what he says then racist is not an accurate word. Racism is hatred towards someone based on their race. Trump wants legal Mexican immigrants to come in and illegal Mexican immigrants to leave. He believes that they are causing a loss in jobs (which is true) and possible increase in crime. He's not against Mexicans at all

He does not hate against the dark-skinned, however what he says makes him come off like he does. 

That is my opinion.


----------



## Greymane (Jul 15, 2016)

(shenanigans) Not even a minigun with uranium shells is this loaded, i meaning the entire discussion btw (shenanigans)


----------



## tatripp (Jul 15, 2016)

You are a fool. Trump is clearly annoying and will not be a good president. He has changed his mind on every position he has ever taken. He once supported Hillary Clinton. He will say whatever he needs to get votes. I will address some of your main points.

1) He is racist: Where is the evidence? Please use his words to demonstrate this. He said that Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists and criminals. This is true. He never said that all of them are criminals, but illegal immigrants are criminals by definition. Sure, many are coming over to try to help their families, but many are not. Illegal immigration is a huge problem in California which is where I live.
2) The Wall: You're completely on point with this. It's stupid. Mexico won't pay for it. He should be called out on it more.
3) Misogynistic- His statements against Rosie O'Donnell were true and hilarious, but his statements against Megyn Kelly were below the belt. Just because he criticizes women in disgusting ways does not mean that he is misogynistic.
4) The department of education sucks. They are going to create another recession like the housing crisis due to all of the stupid loans that they are giving to 18 year old students who are never going to have the ability to pay back. Despite this, he can't just close down the department of education.
5) Being pro-life is a great quality. Trump claims that he is pro-life, but who knows what he really stands for. Here is an example of what he said in 1999: 
With abortion there are either two possibilities: The fetus is a person or it is not a person. If it is a person, it is immoral to have abortions because it is murder. Parents don't have "choice" to murder their kids. If it is not a person, it is important to determine when it becomes a person? How can you potentially allow abortion if you don't know at which point the fetus becomes a person?
Anyways, the point to take here is that no one has any idea what Trump really believes.
6) Global Warming- It may or may not be man-made. I don't know. I'm not a scientist in that area. There have been other environmental hoaxes or exaggerations before (i.e. the hole in the ozone layer). If it is man-made we can stop all of our output (the US), and it will hardly make an impact. China doesn't care about global warming and they produce so much more emissions than we do.
7) A lot of people don't like Donald Trump, but they prefer him over Hillary. Hillary lies as much or more than trump and she is at least as corrupt as he is. I think she is far more dangerous than Trump.
8) Bottom line: Hate trump, but hate him for the right reasons. Don't give me all of this crap about how he is so pro-life even though he used to say that he is pro-choice. Don't give me the crap that he is racist when you don't even know what he ACTUALLY said. Hate trump because no one really knows what he stands for. Hate trump for stupid policies that don't make any sense (like the wall). Hate trump because he spoke to the Christian school how the Bible was his favorite book even though he didn't even know that "2 Corinthians" is generally pronounced "Second Corinthians."
9) Everyone I have seen who actually believes in Trump reminds me of these people from South Park:


----------



## cots (Jul 15, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Having a child "live for you" isn't good. The child will probably live a horrible life considering they will start it out without a family and they will probably carry that burden of never knowing their parents for the rest of their life. That alone could be a source of serious depression, or even worse. Besides, the golden rule of abortion; *If it's not your body, it's not your god damn choice. *And preventing people from doing what they want with their own body sounds awfully cruel doesn't it?



All I see are excuses to commit murder.


----------



## urherenow (Jul 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'll let this Washington Post article speak for itself:
> 
> As for your claim that Donald Trump would not actually outlaw abortion, he's not only said that he would, but he thinks women seeking abortions should be criminally punished. To be fair, he's held several different positions (within 24 hours) on whom should actually be punished.


Again, you're trying to take advantage of some dumbshit thing he said, and glossing over the fact that he corrected himself. Try reading/listening to the whole damn thing instead of reading biased crap. That instance ENDED this way:

"
Mr. Trump recanted his remarks, essentially in full, a rare and remarkable shift for a candidate who proudly extols his unwillingness to apologize or bow to “political correctness.”

If abortion were disallowed, he said in a statement, “the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman.”
*"*

and this is "IF abortion were disallowed". Nothing like this will happen without the approval of congress in the first place. His stance on fixing jobs, economy, and imigration are spot on. Most other arguments people are having are in the wrong damn place. You need to to vote for better Senators and representatives.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 15, 2016)

IAmLeggings said:


> That is true, and we already tried a fence here, different things work for different countries, for different reasons. I'm not against stricter border control, I'm just unsure of the feasibility of a wall.


It really may not be feasible considering how large the US border with Mexico is. It would need to be over 6x the length of Hungary's fence or about 4x the length of Israel's final proposed wall which is estimated at around $2.1 billion, so we could say maybe roughly $8 billion for Trump's wall.


----------



## cots (Jul 15, 2016)

The Liberal media takes things Trump says out of context and with no reference and make an entire story (if you can call it that) out of it. I think the OP needs to actually listen and read some more before posting such a 1-sided debate.


----------



## Xanthe (Jul 15, 2016)

cots said:


> The Liberal media takes things Trump says out of context and with no reference and makes an entire story (if you can call it that) out of it. I think the OP needs to actually listen and read some more before posting such a 1-sided debate.


Agreed. A lot of it seems "band wagony". Excuse me for using a non existent word.


----------



## cots (Jul 15, 2016)

Adamant Lugia said:


> Agreed. A lot of it seems "band wagony". Excuse me for using a non existent word.



Yeah, like posting something Trump said without providing any facts or context and then posting peoples Tweets in response to their made up shit is somehow passed as news.


----------



## Xanthe (Jul 15, 2016)

cots said:


> Yeah, like posting something Trump said without providing any facts or context and then posting peoples Tweets in response to their made up shit is somehow passed as news.


Agreed. On CNN and Huffington post, I see a lot of their evidence is backed up by celebrity tweets, which I'm not sure should count as a liable source to influence your opinion.


----------



## cots (Jul 15, 2016)

Adamant Lugia said:


> Agreed. On CNN and Huffington post, I see a lot of their evidence is backed up by celebrity tweets, which I'm not sure should count as a liable source to influence your opinion.



Young adults don't see the difference as they've grown up using social media. They're literally at a disadvantage and the Liberals know and exploit this.


----------



## urherenow (Jul 15, 2016)

clownb said:


> It really may not be feasible considering how large the US border with Mexico is. It would need to be over 6x the length of Hungary's fence or about 4x the length of Israel's final proposed wall which is estimated at around $2.1 billion, so we could say maybe roughly $8 billion for Trump's wall.


And how hard will it be to raise $8bn by selling the MJ confiscated from border busts in states that legalized it (and better yet, if Trump does something to legalize it federally). He could then spin it and say "See? They paid for it. With the weed we confiscated".


----------



## cots (Jul 15, 2016)

urherenow said:


> And how hard will it be to raise $8bn by selling the MJ confiscated from border busts in states that legalized it (and better yet, if Trump does something to legalize it federally). He could then spin it and say "See? They paid for it. With the weed we confiscated".



Why is the price even an issue for Liberals; don't they know how much money Obama has spent on various projects?


----------



## urherenow (Jul 15, 2016)

cots said:


> Why is the price even an issue for Liberals; don't they know how much money Obama has spent on various projects?


I'm no fan of Obama, but again, you need to take things in context. If you go by actual Dollars, then no president in history matches what Obama spent. Leave Bush Jr out of the picture, and you couldn't combine 6 presidents to come close. But... this article, while maybe a little too forgiving, is one of the least biased (from my own interpretation).It shows you a few different views of that picture, and it may be an eye opener.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 15, 2016)

Mexican weed is garbage. And yea, maybe $8 billion really isn't that much these days.

Ultimately, my thinking is that we'll still be better off with Trump as a failure than with the damage Hillary will assuredly bring during a minimum of four years.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 15, 2016)

triple post


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 15, 2016)

triple post


----------



## cooroxd (Jul 15, 2016)

Atleast Trump is better than Sanders.  That guy hasn't received his first paycheck until he was 40 years old.  In addition, Sanders started to jump boats and endorse Hillary Clinton. Sanders may look and sound like a genuine guy but underneath he's trying to milk the system of all its worth.  From the very beginning of the race, Sanders was in it for Sanders.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2016)

urherenow said:


> Again, you're trying to take advantage of some dumbshit thing he said, and glossing over the fact that he corrected himself. Try reading/listening to the whole damn thing instead of reading biased crap. That instance ENDED this way:
> 
> "
> Mr. Trump recanted his remarks, essentially in full, a rare and remarkable shift for a candidate who proudly extols his unwillingness to apologize or bow to “political correctness.”
> ...


I fully acknowledged in my post Donald Trump's inconsistent positions.



cots said:


> Why is the price even an issue for Liberals; don't they know how much money Obama has spent on various projects?





urherenow said:


> I'm no fan of Obama, but again, you need to take things in context. If you go by actual Dollars, then no president in history matches what Obama spent. Leave Bush Jr out of the picture, and you couldn't combine 6 presidents to come close. But... this article, while maybe a little too forgiving, is one of the least biased (from my own interpretation).It shows you a few different views of that picture, and it may be an eye opener.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/


The U.S. budget deficit is the lowest it's been since 2007 thanks to President Obama and the Democrats.


----------



## b17bomber (Jul 15, 2016)

OP can't even.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 15, 2016)

urherenow said:


> quote


Bruh you gonna respond to my quote? You make false claims and I respond with evidence showing why you're wrong and you go on ignoring that I gave 3 heavily researched sites saying your wrong while you provided one far right site that makes up biased stories


----------



## Windowlicker (Jul 15, 2016)

This thread need not exist. Especially in this particular site.


----------



## Queno138 (Jul 15, 2016)

Trump is constantly flip flopping and recanting his damn statements.

He's going to fire a warhead and watch the world burn, then regret it? Lol

It's okay for humans to make mistakes, but probably not okay to make that much mistakes so frequently.

For one thing, I'm glad that he's moving  away from conservative Republican views, however he's totally moving away from being presidential.
Has he turned in his taxes yet?
Has he decided to stop using campaign funds to paying his company when he's using his own assets?

Not that Hilary is an angel too. 
Republicans won't stop hounding her on Benghazi(however it's spelled) and investigated her 9 times?
And she's so bad with tech she can't keep her emails in check lulz.

I think US is a great country, but I'm afraid of the firearms there, and afraid to see what happens when either gets elected..


----------



## cots (Jul 15, 2016)

@urherenow @Lacius

I think you misunderstood my point. I don't care what Obamas spending has done, I was simply stating that he's spent a lot of money so why are Liberals upset that Trump plans to spend money too? It's not like anyone can veer into the future to see what impact it will have so that's a mute point, however it's a pretty simple argument.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2016)

cots said:


> @urherenow @Lacius
> 
> I think you misunderstood my point. I don't care what Obamas spending has done, I was simply stating that he's spent a lot of money so why are Liberals upset that Trump plans to spend money too? It's not like anyone can veer into the future to see what impact it will have so that's a mute point, however it's a pretty simple argument.


You either misunderstood my point, or you don't understand how a budget deficit works from year to year, president to president. The deficit is how much more we spend in a year than we're bringing in with revenue. As long as there's a deficit of any kind, debt accrues. President Bush severely increased the deficit with increased spending and decreased revenue. President Obama inherited that budget and cut the deficit by more than half since then. He and Congress could have potentially wiped away the deficit if a.) It had been a Democratic Congress post-2010, and b.) We hadn't been in a fragile economy in part dependent on current levels of spending and revenue.

In short, Democrats tend to want to offset spending with things like revenue. There's a reason why deficits consistently go down under Democratic presidents and go up under Republican presidents. Donald Trump wants to pay for a wall that costs much more than he's claiming, and he offers no _real_ way to pay for it. There's your difference.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 15, 2016)

I'm neutral either way and would rather not vote for either party for reasons I'd rather not say.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Jul 15, 2016)

Clinton is the type of people I hate of the US: she already said that want to start a war against Iran, and why? Because she is fool! She is the worst candidate possible to govern a country. For her, if a Country don't obey to the US, is reasonable to bomb it and kill all its people only to "export democracy".
So, the real question is: Why people support a warmonger like Clinton?
The US are terrorist, they supported al-Qaeda in 80s, now supports ISIS and they will not stop to do this with Clinton because she needs ISIS to menace the Middle East free Countries like Libya and the Europeam Country to kill the President Assad and put someone allied with US.
She searching a direct war against Russia.
And maybe someone will give her a Nobel prize for peace, like Obanana...


----------



## cots (Jul 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You either misunderstood my point, or you don't understand how a budget deficit works from year to year, president to president. The deficit is how much more we spend in a year than we're bringing in with revenue. As long as there's a deficit of any kind, debt accrues. President Bush severely increased the deficit with increased spending and decreased revenue. President Obama inherited that budget and cut the deficit by more than half since then. He and Congress could have potentially wiped away the deficit if a.) It had been a Democratic Congress post-2010, and b.) We hadn't been in a fragile economy in part dependent on current levels of spending and revenue.
> 
> In short, Democrats tend to want to offset spending with things like revenue. There's a reason why deficits consistently go down under Democratic presidents and go up under Republican presidents. Donald Trump wants to pay for a wall that costs much more than he's claiming, and he offers no _real_ way to pay for it. There's your difference.



You're thinking is way too deep. Obama's Administration spent a lot of money and Trump plans on doing the same. Pretty clear cut. If you're going to bash Trump for planning on spending money one must also bash Obama.


----------



## MRJPGames (Jul 15, 2016)

mashers said:


> Do you have evidence for that?


It has been proven that at that stage of development the brain is not developed (enough) to be capable of any thought or will, so yes. A baby does have a functional brain capable of though and will that's the difference.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 15, 2016)

Somebody's MAD. LOL. 

I can't wait for the debates.


----------



## MisterPantsEyes (Jul 15, 2016)

It's simple. Stupid people vote stupid "politicians". The USA have a lot of stupid people, those make a lot of Trump supporters.


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 15, 2016)

Adamant Lugia said:


> This is my opinion on his racism. I don't believe he is racist. I am aware of some of the things he has said about others (Asians, Mexicans, etc.), but it is fairly obvious what he was saying was not meant to come off as intentionally racist. Yes, many of Trumps’s statements seem racist, but it’s just a plain fact that they’re not. Again, a LOT of the things he says sounds racist (*unintentionally*), but the things he says that sound racist, really aren't.
> 
> For example: “I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks,”
> That does sound pretty racist right? Well, not intentionally. Yes, he could have substituted "blacks" for "African Americans" or "Africans" or "Dark-skinned", but even if he did people would still harsh on him for it! Would could he say without sounding racist? There are not many terms out there for black people that don't sound racist. In reality, our society made these words sound derogatory and not Trump himself. Again, it's the people wanting to believe he's racist just for the sake of it.
> ...


You know, by him merely identifying a group of peoples as "black" is racist. Racism doesn't imply negativity on it's own, it's the prejudice. And so, Trump is pretty racist.



urherenow said:


> He didn't you idiot. You quote him just like the press does. He welcomes ANY Mexican that comes here legally. He's building a wall to control the* illegal *immigrants and *drug traffickers.*
> 
> Bernie is a socialist sociopath. Most likely to win? He already endorsed HRC, you blatant moron. You probably voted for Obama too. And you think he's done a good job.



lmao yeah, ok. Because identifying Mexican citizens who were born here and have a right to be here are the "illegals". Trump wants to kick latinos and muslims out of the country because he thinks all spanish are drug dealers and all muslim are terrorists. I wouldn't be surprised if he wants to white-wash the country. The dude is too obsessed with having sex with his daughter to lead a country. 

Bernie is an old man who gave up when he realized all people want is a two-sideded presidential election, which Washington warned the country should never become but here we go.


----------



## urherenow (Jul 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I fully acknowledged in my post Donald Trump's inconsistent positions.
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. budget deficit is the lowest it's been since 2007 thanks to President Obama and the Democrats.


What? The debt has increased by 8 TRILLION under Obama. You must be a part of that common core thing.



Pluupy said:


> lmao oh boy let me guess
> You live in a red state.



You guess wrong. Unless you consider military its own state. I've been serving overseas for a very long time.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 15, 2016)

Oh yay. It's another kid who believes whatever he sees in the media! I always rejoice when I see threads like this.

*He's racist*

Please tell me where you saw this? Any proof or sources would be nice m8. I have heard this countless times but they NEVER prove it. You can't also since you are probably 12 based on the poll options..

He's misogynistic (proven MULTIPLE times)
I also hear this tons of times. "MUH MISOGENY!!!!". It's pretty funny because nobody can prove it. I would like some examples...

*He's against gay marriage*
Nope, he said it should be a state issue....please check your facts

*He wants to remove the department of education.*
lol wut? He never said this. If you can source to a credible site than I will check it out but you're just making shit up.

*He's against clean sources of energy for stupid reasons.*
*He thinks global warming is a conspiracy*
All of this is just making stuff up.....lol wut

Check your facts. If I had more time I would dissect your arguments. But I feel my time if better spent elsewhere.


----------



## BORTZ (Jul 15, 2016)

What started off as a baity topic ended up like i thought.


----------

