|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 20 2016 18:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Good on Trump for bringing up the Haiti situation with regard to the Clinton foundation.
Some really important stuff finally getting out into the mainstream media recently.
It was amazingly stupid timing of him though. Hilary was not answering the main question and the moderator was trying to get her back on topic when Trump changed it back to her being able to talk about the charitable work her foundation does.
|
Did anyone else think Trump's whole abortion answer was really weird?
First, he doesn't say "I want Roe v. Wade overturned." He says "if I appoint the judges I want to appoint, Roe v. Wade will inevitably be overturned." Even when pressed he wouldn't say it.
Then, when he's talking about late-term abortions, he keeps talking about "ripping a baby out of the womb the day before 9 months." There's a word for "ripping babies out of the womb at nine months" if it's possible for the child to live: it's called a c-section. Otherwise, it's called induced labor. It is NOT abortion, not even under the laws prohibiting late-term abortion.
Doctors are not doing c sections and murdering the baby or something.
Of course, it's not surprising he knows nothing whatsoever about women's health. But still.
|
He mistook cesarian sections for abortions. I'm pretty sure everyone, even pro life voters, found that one off the rails.
Even pro life supporters are saying what the fuck. That's terrific.
|
The abortion issue is the weirdest issue for debates and this debate in particular highlighted why. You had the Democrat arguing that the government shouldn't be involved in an issue while the Republican argues it's the government's right to regulate or ban it.
With almost every other issue you can flip that'll script.
|
I think a lot of Democrats are ok with regulating abortion within reason. Most discussions and polls online accept that abortion past a certain time, if the mother is not at risk, would be closer to killing an actual baby.
The argument hinges on the fact that extreme prolifers are loudest at calling murder on any abortion.
|
George Soros connected company delivers voting machine in 16 states
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/soros-connected-company-provides-voting-machines-in-16-states/
Smartmatic, a U.K.-based voting technology company with deep ties to George Soros, has control over voting machines in 16 states including battleground zones like Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Other jurisdictions affected are California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin.
Its website includes a flow-chart that describes how the company has contributed to elections in the U.S. from 2006-2015 with “57,000 voting and counting machines deployed” and “35 million voters assisted.”
In 2005, Smartmatic bought-out California-based Sequoia Voting Systems and entered the world of U.S. elections.
According to Smarmatic’s website, “In less than one year Smartmatic tripled Sequoia’s market share” and “has offered technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States.”
The chairman of Smartmatic is Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, who sits in the British House of Lords and on the board of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. He was formerly the vice-chairman of Soros’s Investment Funds and even the deputy secretary-general of the United Nations when he worked as chief of staff to Kofi Annan.
In addition to a close relationship with Soros, Malloch-Brown has worked with consulting firms that are well-connected to Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was an international partner with the Sawyer-Miller consulting firm and was a senior adviser to FTI Consulting.
One of Sawyer-Miller’s alumni is Mandy Grunwald, who ran the firm’s communication contract for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential run. She was also the head of communications for Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.
|
From what I've seen Wallace was the best and fairest host from all three debates.
|
On October 20 2016 20:34 JinDesu wrote:
I think a lot of Democrats are ok with regulating abortion within reason. Most discussions and polls online accept that abortion past a certain time, if the mother is not at risk, would be closer to killing an actual baby.
The argument hinges on the fact that extreme prolifers are loudest at calling murder on any abortion.
I'm sure democrats are the authority on when an abortion is 'killing an actual baby', please do tell what this 'certain time' is and how that was determined.
|
On October 20 2016 20:57 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 20:34 JinDesu wrote:
I think a lot of Democrats are ok with regulating abortion within reason. Most discussions and polls online accept that abortion past a certain time, if the mother is not at risk, would be closer to killing an actual baby.
The argument hinges on the fact that extreme prolifers are loudest at calling murder on any abortion. I'm sure democrats are the authority on when an abortion is 'killing an actual baby', please do tell what this 'certain time' is and how that was determined.
My statement is regarding the idea that Democrats are willing to accept regulation on abortion, given reasonable constraints.
With regards to what levels of regulation and the reasoning, I am on mobile and not as capable of providing you the sources you so seek. However I do believe that, generally, all Democrats are for allowing abortion in the event that the conception was created through sexual assault or if the carrying the child further will endanger the mother's life (and by proxy, the child's life anyways).
|
The only thing local Trump fans are talking about on my Facebook feed today is that Hillary's lack of American Flag pin is a true sign that she's a communist insurgent. As for the debate, my law student org hosted a watch party at a bar and, as you can imagine, shit got rowdy. The bad hombre line practically caused a riot lol.
|
played a drinking the game for the debate, drink everytime someone said China, mexico, trump interrupts with WRONG, bengazi, and emails chug your drink if they say wikileaks. we did not last long
|
On October 20 2016 21:24 farvacola wrote:
The only thing local Trump fans are talking about on my Facebook feed today is that Hillary's lack of American Flag pin is a true sign that she's a communist insurgent. As for the debate, my law student org hosted a watch party at a bar and, as you can imagine, shit got rowdy. The bad hombre line practically caused a riot lol.
What changed so much in eight years?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7860
Point #1
|
What did change? Was gold trading lower or higher? Surely, you must know.
|
On October 20 2016 20:57 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 20:34 JinDesu wrote:
I think a lot of Democrats are ok with regulating abortion within reason. Most discussions and polls online accept that abortion past a certain time, if the mother is not at risk, would be closer to killing an actual baby.
The argument hinges on the fact that extreme prolifers are loudest at calling murder on any abortion. I'm sure democrats are the authority on when an abortion is 'killing an actual baby', please do tell what this 'certain time' is and how that was determined.
Surely they'd seek advice from a healthcare professional. Seeking regulation is reasonable, and the details would be determined by consultation with an expert.
|
People came to the realization that having to wear a silly pin to somehow prove you care about the country is childish?
|
On October 20 2016 21:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 21:24 farvacola wrote:
The only thing local Trump fans are talking about on my Facebook feed today is that Hillary's lack of American Flag pin is a true sign that she's a communist insurgent. As for the debate, my law student org hosted a watch party at a bar and, as you can imagine, shit got rowdy. The bad hombre line practically caused a riot lol. What changed so much in eight years? https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7860Point #1
This sounds like an email discussing poll to be conducted with McCain supporters to find out what they dislike most about Obama. Hence the "we need to put an actual legit grievance into the poll" response.
So I'm pretty fucking confused why you think the people writing it give a shit about Obama wearing flag pins anymore than they care about Obama supporting gay adoption.
|
On October 20 2016 22:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 21:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 20 2016 21:24 farvacola wrote:
The only thing local Trump fans are talking about on my Facebook feed today is that Hillary's lack of American Flag pin is a true sign that she's a communist insurgent. As for the debate, my law student org hosted a watch party at a bar and, as you can imagine, shit got rowdy. The bad hombre line practically caused a riot lol. What changed so much in eight years? https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7860Point #1 This sounds like an email discussing poll to be conducted with McCain supporters to find out what they dislike most about Obama. Hence the "we need to put an actual legit grievance into the poll" response. So I'm pretty fucking confused why you think the people writing it give a shit about Obama wearing flag pins anymore than they care about Obama supporting gay adoption.
You're doing it wrong. Let me explain this in some simple steps: it was in an email on wikileaks, linked to John Podesta. That means John Podesta has that opinion, and by transitivity Hillary Clinton. No logic failure anywhere here, it is clear as day that Hillary thinks pins are necessary for patriotic duty, yet doesn't wear them. This is simply yet another reason why she is the antichrist.
|
On October 20 2016 15:53 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 15:32 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 20 2016 15:29 oBlade wrote:On October 20 2016 15:08 JW_DTLA wrote:On October 20 2016 14:52 oBlade wrote:
Appeals to hypocrisy won't stop the international and national headlines condemning Trump for his ever-so-meme-able "I'll Keep You in Suspense, Okay?" Trump flubbed his only possible chance to come back with that nonsense. Yes, because the people writing those headlines don't have the self-awareness to explain the difference even to themselves before coming up with something like "appeal to hypocrisy" as you did. People just use him as a punching bag. On October 20 2016 15:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:Are you being real right now? Bush also refused by that logic. Florida went to Bush by 500 votes FIVE HUNDRED. Of course neither person was going to concede until the recount was done. You'd have to be insane to throw in the towel if things are that close until the final ruling was in. If Florida went to Gore by 500 votes and Bush wanted to wait for the final tally to give up no sane person would hold that against him either. But once it was all said and done Gore conceded the election like a man. Something Donald has no idea how to do. Neither Gore nor Bush said things were rigged or cried like a loser months before the election. Okay, good, Bush also refused, so we can count him as another example - did you think I was attacking Al Gore or something? The real possibility of this election ending up in court is one of the reasons people on both sides of the aisle chastised Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments. There's no possible way this ends up in courts if Donald is an adult when he gets slaughtered. But he's a manchild of unprecedented levels and a clear and present threat to our democracy. 2000 has zero parallels to this year. If you have an argument for why he's a "clear and present threat" to democracy, that would be a much more interesting point to witness than you calling the nominee a manchild and saying that he cries like a loser. Because all I see is poll flogging and a media that's found yet another story to concoct, whether it's how Trump won't denounce David Duke, won't denounce Putin, won't denounce this, won't denounce that, won't say he'll "accept" the result of a future vote. What kind of question is that, and why keep at it after the answer they got springing it on him at the first debate? Because they're stumping for his opponent and want him to say it's over? Or because you're scared he'll somehow start a civil war? I beseech you or anyone to use more than their feels to explain what's so threatening.
You realize not even Pence & Conway are defending this shit? When did you become the #1 Trump zealot? How is it a fabricated story that a major party nominee is saying with 0 evidence that there will be massive voter fraud, the election will be rigged and he may not accept the result
|
On October 20 2016 20:57 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 20:34 JinDesu wrote:
I think a lot of Democrats are ok with regulating abortion within reason. Most discussions and polls online accept that abortion past a certain time, if the mother is not at risk, would be closer to killing an actual baby.
The argument hinges on the fact that extreme prolifers are loudest at calling murder on any abortion. I'm sure democrats are the authority on when an abortion is 'killing an actual baby', please do tell what this 'certain time' is and how that was determined.
Maybe they deferred to the medical professionals to make that distinction. Crazy to listen to the experts, I know. Clinton clearly said she was against a blanket ban on late term abortions due to the fact that there are circumstances where the mother's health may be at risk or the fetus is likely unviable or probably going to have a shit, short life. As a future physician, do you agree with making exceptions for those scenarios?
|
On October 20 2016 21:54 OuchyDathurts wrote:
People came to the realization that having to wear a silly pin to somehow prove you care about the country is childish?
You would think her emulating the dress style of Mao Tsetung is more alarming than a silly pin but meh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
