If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If

[rb]

Just thought I'd point out that "Just shoot me. :(" is now in second place!

I thought it was kind up there all along.

[SmallCap]

Trump supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Hillary.

Hillary Supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump.

 

How does that actually work????

 

Is one of them right or are they both wrong? If only one of them is right then which is it and why?

[Liberty]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/08/dear-ann-coulter-just-say-you-only-want-white-people-to-vote/

 

As I posted previously, Coulter is actually an advisor to Trump and he got some policy ideas from her books.

[rb]

Trump supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Hillary.

Hillary Supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump.

 

How does that actually work????

 

Is one of them right or are they both wrong? If only one of them is right then which is it and why?

They're both right.

 

Since America is so polarized Trump supporters are likely to say that to people on the right who would break Trump's way if they don't go 3rd party. Ditto for H. supporters.

[rkbabang]

Just thought I'd point out that "Just shoot me. :(" is now in second place!

I thought it was kind up there all along.

 

It was in third last time I noticed.

 

[rb]

Yes but very close

[rkbabang]

Trump supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Hillary.

Hillary Supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump.

 

How does that actually work????

 

Is one of them right or are they both wrong? If only one of them is right then which is it and why?

They're both right.

 

Since America is so polarized Trump supporters are likely to say that to people on the right who would break Trump's way if they don't go 3rd party. Ditto for H. supporters.

 

I'm not voting at all, so considering that if I did vote, I'd vote for Johnson, is my not voting a vote for Trump or a vote for Hillary?

I guess that if you are a Hillary supporter a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump, so my not voting for Johnson must be a for Hillary.

And if you are a Trump supporter a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary, so my not voting for Johnson must be a vote for Trump.

This is all very complicated.

 

[rb]

No it's not complicated. Rkbabang you're so pure libertarian that your Johnson vote would really just be a a vote for Johnson.

[Liberty]

[rb]

LOL! Awesome! Gotta make sure.

 

I don't know why he's so concerned though. It's not like he's gonna be close in New York.

[RichardGibbons]

Right.  Let's not discuss abortion cause that never gets anywhere good (sarcasm).  You try to make a moral argument on help later in life but refuse to engage in moral arguments while in the womb.  Don't misunderstand, I am NOT trying to switch the discussion to the killing of over a million people each year.

 

Just out of curiosity, if you feel this way, would you have the courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  (Like, if you think abortion is the deliberate killing of people then it's murder.  And it's clearly premeditated, which makes it first degree.)

 

I saw a video where they asked some anti-choice protestors that, and only one suggested prison was the right punishment, which seemed odd to me.  So I'm curious if that's where your beliefs lead you, to first degree murder charges.  Or do you just say fetuses are people who deserve to be protected, but are different somehow so it would be a lesser charge than first degree murder?  Or something else?

[cwericb]

"As I posted previously, Coulter is actually an advisor to Trump and he got some policy ideas from her books."

 

Liberty, are you suggesting that Trump has actually read some books?

[CorpRaider]

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!! HA!

[rb]

Wow! When Jennifer "Jenghazi" Rubin accuses you of suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome you have a real problem.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/11/08/give-it-a-rest-republicans/

[Liberty]

"As I posted previously, Coulter is actually an advisor to Trump and he got some policy ideas from her books."

 

Liberty, are you suggesting that Trump has actually read some books?

 

Maybe he had an unpaid intern give him a bullet point version...

[rb]

Here's another one. Apparently there's a certain level of suspicion that the Trump women may be with Her.

 

[Tim Eriksen]

Right.  Let's not discuss abortion cause that never gets anywhere good (sarcasm).  You try to make a moral argument on help later in life but refuse to engage in moral arguments while in the womb.  Don't misunderstand, I am NOT trying to switch the discussion to the killing of over a million people each year.

 

Just out of curiosity, if you feel this way, would you have the courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  (Like, if you think abortion is the deliberate killing of people then it's murder.  And it's clearly premeditated, which makes it first degree.)

 

I saw a video where they asked some anti-choice protestors that, and only one suggested prison was the right punishment, which seemed odd to me.  So I'm curious if that's where your beliefs lead you, to first degree murder charges.  Or do you just say fetuses are people who deserve to be protected, but are different somehow so it would be a lesser charge than first degree murder?  Or something else?

 

That is an excellent question.  Would I have courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  NO.  Prior to Roe v Wade (and Doe v. Bolton) while some state laws made it a crime for the woman, as best I can tell, no one was ever actually prosecuted.  The laws and more importantly prosecution were focused on the abortionist.  The abortionist should be the only one charged.  That is why pro-life people were stunned by Trump's comments in a townhall during the campaign, which he later corrected.           

[rb]

Well if abortion is murder of babies. Why shouldn't murder charges be levied?

[RichardGibbons]

That is an excellent question.  Would I have courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  NO.  Prior to Roe v Wade (and Doe v. Bolton) while some state laws made it a crime for the woman, as best I can tell, no one was ever actually prosecuted.  The laws and more importantly prosecution were focused on the abortionist.  The abortionist should be the only one charged.  That is why pro-life people were stunned by Trump's comments in a townhall during the campaign, which he later corrected.         

 

Thanks Tim, for your thoughtful response.  It is an interesting conundrum for me, because if you hire a hit man to kill someone, I think you can equally be charged with murder, not just the hit man.  And I think you should be.

 

To me, this question might be problematic to the anti-choicers in the same way as "can you abort a baby while the mom is labor, about to deliver it?" is to the pro-choicers.  The pro-choice counter-argument is that such a scenario basically never occurs outside life-threatening scenarios. But that's still intellectually unsatisfying, even if it is a practical position to take. Just as "charge the doctor, not the woman" is a practical anti-choice solution, but still intellectually unsatisfying.  (You can pay a person to kill someone for you, and not be charged? And what if the woman goes at herself with a coat hook so she's the doctor and the patient?)

 

I think the big problem is the main milestones in development that people understand are conception and birth. If technology adds a couple other milestones like "ability to think" (don't ask me to define that, because I don't know), it might make some of these answers easier.  (For instance, we already consider death to be cessation of brain functions, so a loose parallel is already there.)

 

[CorpRaider]

Here's another one. Apparently there's a certain level of suspicion that the Trump women may be with Her.

 

 

Either that or perhaps they were confused about how to vote.

[alwaysinvert]

LOL at the predictableness of that final talking point.

[rkbabang]

No it's not complicated. Rkbabang you're so pure libertarian that your Johnson vote would really just be a a vote for Johnson.

 

I'll try to demonstrate why the theory "if you vote for X it is a vote for Y" is so absurd.  Take someone who prefers Johnson, but their 2nd choice would have been Hillary.  You can make an ordinal list of such a person's preferences as maybe being:

 

1) Johnson

2) Hillary

3) Stein

4) Don't vote

5) Trump

 

Your theory is that this person voting for Johnson is really a vote for Trump, because Hillary is who they most prefer out of the two major candidates. 

 

My preference list is:

 

1) Don't vote

2) Johnson

3) Stein

4) Trump

5) Hillary

 

Sure both Hillary and Trump are further down my list than on the lists of many other people, but it is true that I prefer Trump to Hillary, so why doesn't your rule apply to me as well as the person above?  You are saying if the person above was forced to choose between the two candidates that person would choose Hillary so a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump.  Well if I were forced to choose between the two candidates I would choose Trump, so by your theory a vote for Johnson, Stein, or no vote at all is a vote for Hillary.  I think the whole theory is nuts, because no one is forced to vote for Hillary or Trump. There are multiple other options (at least 3) and one should vote for his or her prefered option.  A vote for Johnson therefore is simply a vote for Johnson.

 

[Guest ajc]

 

That is an excellent question.  Would I have courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  NO.  Prior to Roe v Wade (and Doe v. Bolton) while some state laws made it a crime for the woman, as best I can tell, no one was ever actually prosecuted.  The laws and more importantly prosecution were focused on the abortionist.  The abortionist should be the only one charged.  That is why pro-life people were stunned by Trump's comments in a townhall during the campaign, which he later corrected.         

 

Thanks Tim, for your thoughtful response.  It is an interesting conundrum for me, because if you hire a hit man to kill someone, I think you can equally be charged with murder, not just the hit man.  And I think you should be.

 

To me, this question might be problematic to the anti-choicers in the same way as "can you abort a baby while the mom is labor, about to deliver it?" is to the pro-choicers.  The pro-choice counter-argument is that such a scenario basically never occurs outside life-threatening scenarios. But that's still intellectually unsatisfying, even if it is a practical position to take. Just as "charge the doctor, not the woman" is a practical anti-choice solution, but still intellectually unsatisfying.  (You can pay a person to kill someone for you, and not be charged? And what if the woman goes at herself with a coat hook so she's the doctor and the patient?)

 

I think the big problem is the main milestones in development that people understand are conception and birth. If technology adds a couple other milestones like "ability to think" (don't ask me to define that, because I don't know), it might make some of these answers easier.  (For instance, we already consider death to be cessation of brain functions, so a loose parallel is already there.)

 

 

Area men compete to see who will be the Rachel Dolezal of abortion.

 

 

 

[Tim Eriksen]

 

That is an excellent question.  Would I have courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  NO.  Prior to Roe v Wade (and Doe v. Bolton) while some state laws made it a crime for the woman, as best I can tell, no one was ever actually prosecuted.  The laws and more importantly prosecution were focused on the abortionist.  The abortionist should be the only one charged.  That is why pro-life people were stunned by Trump's comments in a townhall during the campaign, which he later corrected.         

 

Thanks Tim, for your thoughtful response.  It is an interesting conundrum for me, because if you hire a hit man to kill someone, I think you can equally be charged with murder, not just the hit man.  And I think you should be.

 

To me, this question might be problematic to the anti-choicers in the same way as "can you abort a baby while the mom is labor, about to deliver it?" is to the pro-choicers.  The pro-choice counter-argument is that such a scenario basically never occurs outside life-threatening scenarios. But that's still intellectually unsatisfying, even if it is a practical position to take. Just as "charge the doctor, not the woman" is a practical anti-choice solution, but still intellectually unsatisfying.  (You can pay a person to kill someone for you, and not be charged? And what if the woman goes at herself with a coat hook so she's the doctor and the patient?)

 

I think the big problem is the main milestones in development that people understand are conception and birth. If technology adds a couple other milestones like "ability to think" (don't ask me to define that, because I don't know), it might make some of these answers easier.  (For instance, we already consider death to be cessation of brain functions, so a loose parallel is already there.)

 

 

Area men compete to see who will be the Rachel Dolezal of abortion.

 

How does a white woman viewing herself as black relate???

[rb]

Here's another one. Apparently there's a certain level of suspicion that the Trump women may be with Her.

 

 

Either that or perhaps they were confused about how to vote.

HAHAHAHA! Maybe they're with Her as well  ;D :D