CommonCents Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 And if we are going to indulge in hypothetical, people should at least be honest enough to admit the vote would have been significantly different if the rules had been significantly different. If there was no EC, millions of voters would have cast a ballot for one of the two primary candidates rather than a 3d party or write in candidate. Millions more would have come out to vote rather than saying '!@#$ it' because they live in a non competitive state. Hillary doesn't win CA by 4 million votes if it's a national popular vote election. As a result, no one has any idea who would have won in a national popular vote. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Your point was that you're not okay with flyover country dictating to the rest of the country, but perfectly okay with California dictating to the rest of the country? Nope. But I'm fascinated to hear you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 To give southern states 3/5th of a vote for each slave they owned. At the time the Constitution was ratified, there were no "Southern States". There were 13 colonies, each of which allowed slavery at the time the Constitution was written, though some had begun to experiment with gradual paths towards abolition. That aside, the 3/5 provision was as much a boon in a popular election format as in an Electoral format. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Nope. But I'm fascinated to hear you are. Then what was your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Then what was your point? To offer the antithesis of what I thought were you suggesting: that national vote doesn't mean anything once you start parsing out states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 - Requiring anyone using government assistance to raise more than one child to be sterilized, or lose their benefits. - The reassertion of societal values which shamed single motherhood, and shamed sex outside of long term committed relationships - The decoupling of state benefits with multiple children - Easing the adoption process - Hard labor sentences for absentee fathers when caught I could go on. So the bottom line for you is to punish for having/ enjoying sex. Admit it, you hate the though of sex for fun. You cannot stand it. It MUST be punished! We need Government telling women what to do with their reproductive system? Most sex doesn't happen for procreation. Contraception doesn't always work. Abortion should be legal always because no one should tell the woman who has to bear the burden of the pregnancy and everything that goes with it , what to do. It's very simple... No one else should tell her what to do. This is America. It's a needed last resort. It's no one else's business but hers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 At the time the Constitution was ratified, there were no "Southern States". There were 13 colonies, each of which allowed slavery at the time the Constitution was written, though some had begun to experiment with gradual paths towards abolition. That aside, the 3/5 provision was as much a boon in a popular election format as in an Electoral format. Try again. No, you got that wrong. Under the articles they were states and not colonies of any other country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 So the bottom line for you is to punish for having/ enjoying sex. Admit it, you hate the though of sex for fun. You cannot stand it. It MUST be punished! We need Government telling women what to do with their reproductive system? Most sex doesn't happen for procreation. Contraception doesn't always work. Abortion should be legal always because no one should tell the woman who has to bear the burden of the pregnancy and everything that goes with it , what to do. It's very simple... No one else should tell her what to do. This is America. It's a needed last resort. It's no one else's business but hers. This is a morally bankrupt position which endorses murder by convenience. The truth of the matter is that you believe a lifestyle of irresponsibility and depravity is desirable, and value loose women more than human life. The further truth is that while a woman does have the right to her own body, she does not have the rights to the life of another once she has engaged in an activity of which a known consequence it the creation of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) And yet if Texas goes blue (margin was slimmer than California's), HRC wins. And if Stevie Johnson catches the ball in the endzone vs. the Steelers, the Bills win three in a row. We can pretend woulda/coulda/shoulda all day long. And millions more voted for Clinton than The Donald, which obviously bothers him given his latest looney claim of millions of fraudulent votes. Ouch. If he believes it he should call for an investigation. Maybe the fraudulent votes were for him. You'd think after eight years of Obama you'd know what it's like to have a egocentric thin-skinned dumbass in the WH. Edited January 24, 2017 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 No one has the right to end another person's life. But they do have the right to either continue or end a pregnancy. Only that woman should make that decision. Who else should? How much control should government have over personal freedoms such as wanting a child or not? Don't we want less government? That's a better choice, freedom, than any other. You don't like abortion? Fine don't have one. So many baby mamas out there should have had abortions. So many unfit to be parents. Kids cost money. I'd rather even PAY for their abortion by checking a box on my taxes than pay for their welfare etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 What warning signs? And actual bull ****? haha. 35. Never married. Perpetually dating 20 year olds. Living in a small ass town with a bad reputation among other things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 To offer the antithesis of what I thought were you suggesting: that national vote doesn't mean anything once you start parsing out states. So your point was to reinforce that things are, in fact, the way they are, and your earlier "Hillary won the popular vote" post was empty trolling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 But they do have the right to either continue or end a pregnancy. You've completely missed his point. He's arguing that they should NOT have the right to end the pregnancy because to him, ending a pregnancy is ending a life, and you have no right to end a life. You seem to be arguing that the live human inside the woman is not life, in which case you guys need to be having a different conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 This is a morally bankrupt position which endorses murder by convenience. The truth of the matter is that you believe a lifestyle of irresponsibility and depravity is desirable, and value loose women more than human life. The further truth is that while a woman does have the right to her own body, she does not have the rights to the life of another once she has engaged in an activity of which a known consequence it the creation of life. I know a lot of women that just like to have sex. Doesn't mean they are loose, just that they like sex. Many don't have time for relationships with careers etc. nothing morally bankrupt about it. It's fun, and hurts no one. These women , in my experience take every precaution and wouldn't dream of trying to get pregnant. It's the uneducated , poor dimwits that either don't care or they want a bigger welfare check. The other known consequence of that activity is PAYING for a child. Most that want abortions cannot or will not do this.Thats morally "bankrupt". Abortion needs to be an available last resort to a worse consequence. Call it what you will, but that's why this is America . Freedom trumps all. Not punishing sex. It's not Green Acres anymore. You've completely missed his point. He's arguing that they should NOT have the right to end the pregnancy because to him, ending a pregnancy is ending a life, and you have no right to end a life. You seem to be arguing that the live human inside the woman is not life, in which case you guys need to be having a different conversation. I'm not arguing that at all, just that it should be her right to end what she started if she wants to. Better than anybody else making the choice for her. Not perfect, but better than the alternative . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I'm not arguing that at all, just that it should be her right to end what she started So you're arguing that she can consciously do something that she knows can lead to the creation of new life, but still be able to kill that life if she chooses? Some would argue that if you're too irresponsible to practice safe sex, and your answer to your irresponsibility is to end a life that you created because of your irresponsibility, that maybe she shouldn't be left to making any more decisions. But those are people are believe all lives matter. You apparently think they only matter sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I know a lot of women that just like to have sex. Doesn't mean they are loose, just that they like sex. Many don't have time for relationships with careers etc. nothing morally bankrupt about it. It's fun, and hurts no one. These women , in my experience take every precaution and wouldn't dream of trying to get pregnant. It's the uneducated , poor dimwits that either don't care or they want a bigger welfare check. The other known consequence of that activity is PAYING for a child. Most that want abortions cannot or will not do this.Thats morally "bankrupt". Abortion needs to be an available last resort to a worse consequence. Call it what you will, but that's why this is America . Freedom trumps all. Not punishing sex. It's not Green Acres anymore.Wrong. Freedom does not include the right to end another life. That other life is also entitled to it's rights, the first and foremost is the right to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 So your point was to reinforce that things are, in fact, the way they are, and your earlier "Hillary won the popular vote" post was empty trolling? it's not trolling to remind somebody that the aggregate did prefer the dnc candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 So you're arguing that she can consciously do something that she knows can lead to the creation of new life, but still be able to kill that life if she chooses? Some would argue that if you're too irresponsible to practice safe sex, and your answer to your irresponsibility is to end a life that you created because of your irresponsibility, that maybe she shouldn't be left to making any more decisions. But those are people are believe all lives matter. You apparently think they only matter sometimes. Yes , she should because no one else should. It's her body and it wouldn't have started if not for her, so who better to decide to end it? Once it's born, well.. can't put the genie back in the bottle. It's not perfect, but neither is much in the world. It's no more irresponsible than say , continuing the pregnancy and expecting others to pay for it because she can't or won't or to collect a check. Maybe she practiced safe sex and something didn't work. Whatever the case. We can legally do many things that some would believe to be immoral. But not illegal. Like if he was about to get hit by an oncoming rider on horseback, but didn't see it. If I noticed but didn't shout " hey look out! " or jump to push him out of the way, that might be thought of as immoral . But not illegal. Imperfect world. Truth is none of us had a " right" to be born any more than we had a right to be conceived . We didn't. It sounds nice but no. And there isn't really any great meaning to life. Living things come and go all the time in this world. It doesn't mean anything, though humans try to assign it some grand purpose. We didn't have any rights in the womb and could easily have been miscarried or even aborted. All random. We can't apply our rage for order to every single thing, especially others. It's something the government should have no say in, so it truly is the lesser of , some might say " evils". Wrong. Freedom does not include the right to end another life. That other life is also entitled to it's rights, the first and foremost is the right to life. That sounds good, but until it's born it's really not. It had no right to be started , ended whatever. All out of its control and in the power of the woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Great to see all those awesome ladies show up to protest the insane person the GOP has vomited up onto the nation. I feel better knowing their is a mass of good people out there that care about their nation enough to go and demonstrate for a change back to good government. When will you start attacking Trump on what he actually does, decisions he makes, actions he takes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 When will you start attacking Trump on what he actually does, decisions he makes, actions he takes? Exactly. What has Trump done that is bad? Sounds pretty good so far. Or is he not " good government" simply because He is Trump? Typical Dem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts