Now that Bloomberg is done (Elizabeth Warren DESTROYED him last night), who will win Dem primary?

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

It's funny how the babies/people are no longer innocent as soon as they are born into an impoverished household.

How can someone's worldview be:

-Abortion is murder of an innocent being

-That innocent being doesn't deserve health care as a birthright

-That innocent being doesn't deserve a fair education system as a birthright

-If that innocent being's life goes south (which is a statistical likelihood), we'll throw them in prison for petty crimes, and the cycle very well may restart again as we deny them contraception and/or continue to stop abortion

-The person that gave birth to the innocent being should have no agency over any of this.

It's funny that the people most adamant about abortion are often the ones who couldn't care less about helping others who are alive.

You are absurd. You ignore that pro-life Catholic and other Christian hospitals serve tens to perhaps hundreds of millions of patients annually worldwide, that Catholic and other Christian schools educate millions of students annually, that Catholic and other Christian and other pro-life agencies care for the welfare of millions. I know several non-Catholic women who were educated in Catholic schools in India and elsewhere in places where girls education gets a low priority. I know a woman from the Czech Republic who did a triple-major as an undergraduate in the USA who received financial assistance from a Catholic parish in Connecticut. She volunteered that information to me.

rojo wrote:

If the Dems hate Trump for being a sexist pig, then how can they elect Bloomberg? Check these highlights out. Warren did an AMAZING job of making him look like a fool.

If the Reps hate abortion, thievery, rape and adultury, then how can they elect Tubby Trump? Tubby Trump does and AMAZING job of making himself look like the fool he is.

michael furey wrote:

kjhg wrote:

Oh?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/02/05/ralph-northam-advocating-abortion-infanticide-worse-than-blackface-column/2776498002/https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/all-3-senate-dems-including-2020-hopefuls-vote-block-antihttps://www.nationalreview.com/corner/virginia-governor-defends-letting-infants-die/

Here's an except from the link immediately above:

A 21 week old is not "mere days" away from being able to survive outside of the womb. It is weeks away from having a slim chance of survival with likely permanent organ damage after months of intensive medical care in the NICU.

Go for the kill, then:

kjhg wrote:

You are absurd. You ignore that pro-life Catholic and other Christian hospitals serve tens to perhaps hundreds of millions of patients annually worldwide, that Catholic and other Christian schools educate millions of students annually, that Catholic and other Christian and other pro-life agencies care for the welfare of millions. I know several non-Catholic women who were educated in Catholic schools in India and elsewhere in places where girls education gets a low priority. I know a woman from the Czech Republic who did a triple-major as an undergraduate in the USA who received financial assistance from a Catholic parish in Connecticut. She volunteered that information to me.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/

And yet it's clearly not enough...There are millions of American suffering/struggling in an unfair, unequal system. To think the Church could care for the mother and every child they "save" from abortion is absurd. It is a herculean task better saved for someone else. As far as health care and social services, most of the anti-abortion crowd has aligned themselves to have nothing to do with footing the bill and would rather count their money and worry about the unborn babies.

kjhg wrote:

Direct abortion (as opposed to indirect abortion which occurs when, for example, a Fallopian tube is removed during an ectopic pregnancy to save one life, the mother's, when two would likely otherwise die) is the opposite of medicine and health care. It heals or cures no medical issue, yet destroys, willfully, an innocent human being.

You're entitled to that opinion.

I'd like to see the total number of abortions drop just because many of them are unnecessary. Free access to long-term birth control worked really well in Colorado at reducing unwanted pregnancies. In my opinion, it's a no-brainer. Also, better access to abortions in the first trimester and easier access to the plan-B pill would help. A lot of these deep red states have very few abortion clinics left. And then they get mad when a woman can't get an abortion until it is "late-term".

I know you think any abortion is murder. So I don't imagine I'll persuade you that easier access to abortions will actually help reduce late-term abortions, but we should be able to agree on easier access to birth control.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

And yet it's clearly not enough...There are millions of American suffering/struggling in an unfair, unequal system. To think the Church could care for the mother and every child they "save" from abortion is absurd. It is a herculean task better saved for someone else. As far as health care and social services, most of the anti-abortion crowd has aligned themselves to have nothing to do with footing the bill and would rather count their money and worry about the unborn babies.

There were economic problems when we banned slavery too. It was still the morally correct thing to do.

There is some political economist out there that has the idea that there really is not a statistically significant number of swing voters. Most people tend to vote one party or the other and it really comes down to motivating enough of the people who identify with what ever party t actually get out and vote. Embarrassingly, only about 45% of eligible voters ever vote.

Undecided Pennsylvania Voter wrote:

There were economic problems when we banned slavery too. It was still the morally correct thing to do.

Equating abortion and slavery, where to even start....I suppose this is the root of the problem: fetus rights vs. human rights. Personally I care more about human ones.

rojo wrote:

Sam Man wrote:

The big winner last night was Trump. The Dems looked petty, childish, and too focused on insignificant issues. The moderators lost control of the debate early on, and nobody walked away looking presidential.

That's a good point. I turned it on expecting to be excited to see what was going on but the part I saw they moderator couldn't control it and there were too many people trying to raise their hand to make some big point to try to become relevant again.

So I turned it off.

Same situation as the Republicans 4 years ago except they weren't facing an incumbent. Bloomberg isn't finished. If the moderates control the vote he will get the nomination. However if Bernie gets it, he might do enough to overcome what hurt the Dems in 2016 and motivate a bigger voting block of Dem voters.

I don't get why everybody says "Bernie will be beat by Trump".

He gets all the anti-Trump automatically (that's a lot of people).

He gets a huge amount of youth who wouldn't really care otherwise.

He gets all the minorities except some hispanic.

He takes the edge off Trump's trade/China people.

Trump already has the "anti-socialist" people. He has his base. And then he will get a few "moderate" repubs that realistically were probably going to vote for him anyway (the only guy they might've changed for would've been Bloomberg).

So I don't really see how Trump does that well.

Also, in the debates Trump will be dismissive and crass and then that will get old. As long as Bernie doesn't going on his same diatribe about the 2%, then he will look above Trump.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Undecided Pennsylvania Voter wrote:

There were economic problems when we banned slavery too. It was still the morally correct thing to do.

Equating abortion and slavery, where to even start....I suppose this is the root of the problem: fetus rights vs. human rights. Personally I care more about human ones.

Do you not realize that human fetuses are...wait for it... human? Canine fetuses are canine, feline fetuses are feline, and human fetuses are human. Sorry that understanding eluded you.

Further, perhaps the two most infamous decisions of the US Supreme Court were the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Roe v. Wade (1973) cases. They do have a striking peculiarity very much in common. In both cases, the US Supreme Court decided that one or more innocent human beings, in the one case a so-called "fugitive" slave, and in the other a whole class of unborn but living human beings, could be treated not as persons but as property, property to be enslaved or destroyed.

And even further, abortion advocates deploy the slogan Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Applying that reasoning against the abolitionists would have yielded Don't like slavery? Don't have one.

I amend my final sentence above to:

What's this about Bloomberg and NDA's? Did his company have female employees, because that's gonna result in NDA's no matter what actually happens.

Bad Wigins wrote:

What's this about Bloomberg and NDA's? Did his company have female employees, because that's gonna result in NDA's no matter what actually happens.

Why are you pluralizing words by apostrophising them? Do you not understand the difference between the two?

I agree. I think especially if Bernie chooses a good running mate he will easily defeat Trump. He is exactly the kind of candidate that could take down Trump because he will fire people up and not hold back. None of this crap of trying to appeal to Trump voters like the other candidates will likely try. This election about taking down Trump, people these days vote AGAINST candidates not FOR them.

Here is a good article that discusses this.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944?fbclid=IwAR0m4N8n9BLBfUXNLiidlkv05mg08I9CsmcqEMgymQFZKn6IO5ai_h2aJgI

Swaglord wrote:

I don't get why everybody says "Bernie will be beat by Trump".

He gets all the anti-Trump automatically (that's a lot of people).

He gets a huge amount of youth who wouldn't really care otherwise.

He gets all the minorities except some hispanic.

He takes the edge off Trump's trade/China people.

Trump already has the "anti-socialist" people. He has his base. And then he will get a few "moderate" repubs that realistically were probably going to vote for him anyway (the only guy they might've changed for would've been Bloomberg).

So I don't really see how Trump does that well.

Also, in the debates Trump will be dismissive and crass and then that will get old. As long as Bernie doesn't going on his same diatribe about the 2%, then he will look above Trump.

Bernie most definitely doesn't get all of the anti-Trumpers. There are a ton of people of who hate Trump who just won't vote if Bernie is the nominee. I don't think you quote understand how horrific most of what he proposes is, but others do, and they would rather not vote than vote for all of Bernie's nonsense.

Bernie does get youth but so would any Democrat. HRC did and how did that work out?

He doesn't get all of the minorities. He clearly has improved the well-being of blacks (much more so than Obama did) and it's very possible Trump pries away a chunk of them. Even if he doesn't, there is no way blacks are showing up to vote the way they did for Obama.

I don't know what "taking the edge off Trump's trade/China people" means.

The bottom line is that the economy and stock market are roaring with record unemployment so there basically is no chance that some crazy socialist who is promising trillions of dollars of freebies with zero explanation of how they will be paid for (TAXING THE RICH with no specifics doesn't cut) is going to convince millions of people in swing states to vote for him.

rojo wrote:

Sam Man wrote:

The big winner last night was Trump. The Dems looked petty, childish, and too focused on insignificant issues. The moderators lost control of the debate early on, and nobody walked away looking presidential.

That's a good point. I turned it on expecting to be excited to see what was going on but the part I saw they moderator couldn't control it and there were too many people trying to raise their hand to make some big point to try to become relevant again.

So I turned it off.

Rojo you have perfectly described this message board. Well done.

to be fair, NH primaries had record turnout.

Would like a detailed description of how Trump "looks presidential."