Trump supporters want respect

The "support" was for the right of a woman to CHOOSE.

If she chooses to abort a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should be able to make that choice without the government interfering.

If she chooses to continue with the pregnancy...she should be able to make THAT choice without the government interfering.

Wake up.

The "support" was exactly what Nordberg said.

"Choosing" to destroy what one created by her own "choice" is a red herring, and a lie, that ignores the original choice. Maybe you are too dense to understand that unless a woman is extremely ignorant, or stupid, they know that there is a good chance a pregnancy will occur if she has sex. That is where the choice lies. Killing the unborn is not a "choice", it is an irresponsible action.
 
Sorry, Trapper, but I have to respectfully disagree.

This last election there were people supporting third party candidates on the left...and there were people who refused to vote because they were miffed about Sanders not being the candidate.

ANYONE WHO DID NOT ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON IN THE LAST ELECTION...

...helped get Donald Trump elected.

Donald Trump, in significant part, was elected because of the people who refused to enthusiastically support Hillary Clinton.

Anyone who does the equivalent during the next election is equally culpable in what happens.

So, holding your nose, and voting for what you believe is the "lesser of two evils" was the way one should go?

And there were third party candidates (Darrell Castle, and Evan McMullin) who were not on the left, and are moral patriots who could not get the support given to the two most corrupt candidates we have seen in decades.
 
It is not about the right of the woman to "choose". She had that right before engaging in an act that would create the child. After the child has been created that right to "choose" goes away. Then it becomes "to kill or not to kill". And the argument that it is not about support for abortion is a lie. It is all about support for abortion.

In your extremely humble and wrong opinion. A collection of cells is a blastoma, not a baby. The worst abortionist god, stops about 30 percent of them.

I suppose if you are pro birth, then you will be happy to pay for the care of a kid a woman cannot afford. If it is a child of rape or incest, then if it makes it to birth, they can drop it off at your house. Then your decision that they should have it is honest. You share the results of your decision. if not, mind your own business.
 
The "support" was for the right of a woman to CHOOSE.

If she chooses to abort a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should be able to make that choice without the government interfering.

If she chooses to continue with the pregnancy...she should be able to make THAT choice without the government interfering.

Wake up.

The "support" was exactly what Nordberg said.

True, but government is "interfering" when it passes laws regulating abortion--methods, time periods, any other conditions. And, women often cannot choose after 6 months.
 
ANYONE WHO DID NOT ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON IN THE LAST ELECTION...

...helped get Donald Trump elected.

Agreed. Both Clintons turn my stomach, and I voted for Bubba both times and Pants Suit last time.

The only opportunity to vote for somebody who's any good is in the Democratic Primary.
 
"Choosing" to destroy what one created by her own "choice" is a red herring, and a lie, that ignores the original choice. Maybe you are too dense to understand that unless a woman is extremely ignorant, or stupid, they know that there is a good chance a pregnancy will occur if she has sex. That is where the choice lies. Killing the unborn is not a "choice", it is an irresponsible action.

Some women did not make the choice to have sex.

So are you saying that if a woman is raped...or coerced into sex...and the pregnancy is a result of that...you would be okay with laws allowing her to exercise her "choice" when she wants?
 
So, holding your nose, and voting for what you believe is the "lesser of two evils" was the way one should go?

And there were third party candidates (Darrell Castle, and Evan McMullin) who were not on the left, and are moral patriots who could not get the support given to the two most corrupt candidates we have seen in decades.

I do not give a shit what you do...or did.

It is my opinion that anyone who did not enthusiastically support Hillary Clinton in the last election helped get Donald Trump elected.

If you have issue with that opinion, why not deal with it rather than that other crap.
 
True, but government is "interfering" when it passes laws regulating abortion--methods, time periods, any other conditions. And, women often cannot choose after 6 months.

It is my opinion, a woman should be allowed to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...WHENEVER SHE WANTS FOR WHATEVER REASONS SHE WANTS.

I acknowledge that is not a popular opinion...nor one shared by a majority of people...

...but it is MY opinion.
 
I know of no State where the electors are elected. Then again, even if that were true the choices would be extremely slim, and the common person would not be one "elected".

The original intent of the electoral college was to eliminate the chances of larger States determining the results of the election. Hasn't worked.

Being an elector is just an honorary position since they always vote for their party's presidential candidate. Whether they are a common person or political elite does not change the results for that state--the electoral votes go to the popular vote winner. But, they are all free to vote the person of their choice (as 7 electors did in 2016). Even those states that bind electors may not be able to enforce that provision since the Constitution does not bind them.

I do not know if any states still vote for electors, but some Southern states did in the past. For example, in 1960 JFK was credited with the electoral votes from some of the Southern states but in reality electors pledged to other candidates won. In MS JFK received 0 electoral votes and 8 were unpledged. The people would not vote Republican but they would not vote for JFK.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html
 
It is my opinion, a woman should be allowed to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...WHENEVER SHE WANTS FOR WHATEVER REASONS SHE WANTS.

I acknowledge that is not a popular opinion...nor one shared by a majority of people...

...but it is MY opinion.

That would still require some government "interference" by passing laws setting those standards--it would just establish more liberal provisions. That means you do not really support the Roe v. Wade trimester standard, correct?
 
That would still require some government "interference" by passing laws setting those standards--it would just establish more liberal provisions. That means you do not really support the Roe v. Wade trimester standard, correct?

I thought I was pretty clear about where I stand on the issue. But since you apparently didn't understand it or get it...

...here it is again:

It is my opinion, a woman should be allowed to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...WHENEVER SHE WANTS FOR WHATEVER REASONS SHE WANTS.
 
Old Trapper, I would not pass laws forcing you to have or not have a baby. it is none of my business what you do about your family and personal decisions.
 
Old Trapper, I would not pass laws forcing you to have or not have a baby. it is none of my business what you do about your family and personal decisions.

One immoral act to cover up for another immoral act does not make it moral even if it is legal. Then too, as the election of Trump once again proves, morals are at an extreme low in this country. And I am not surprised most cannot grasp the concept.
 
Sorry, Trapper, but I have to respectfully disagree.

This last election there were people supporting third party candidates on the left...and there were people who refused to vote because they were miffed about Sanders not being the candidate.

ANYONE WHO DID NOT ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON IN THE LAST ELECTION...

...helped get Donald Trump elected.

Donald Trump, in significant part, was elected because of the people who refused to enthusiastically support Hillary Clinton.

Anyone who does the equivalent during the next election is equally culpable in what happens.


when you live in the state is backwards is Louisiana voting for Clinton was pointless
 
One immoral act to cover up for another immoral act does not make it moral even if it is legal. Then too, as the election of Trump once again proves, morals are at an extreme low in this country. And I am not surprised most cannot grasp the concept.

Not immoral. You are projecting your religious belief in other peoples lives. Ok if they decide, based on their religions, how you should live your life?
 
Not immoral. You are projecting your religious belief in other peoples lives. Ok if they decide, based on their religions, how you should live your life?

Morality has nothing to do with, or very little anyway, ones religion. The primary biological purpose of having sex is the procreation of children, plain and simple. It used to be that if one wanted sexual pleasure with no responsibility for the outcome you went to the "red light" district for your pleasures. Ever since the 60's that all changed, and now whores go out every night to "hook up" with some male they know is seeking to have a "night of pleasure". Then, if the "inconceivable" should happen, and the woman gets pregnant, well, just have an abortion (kill the baby), end of problem.

Now I realize this is getting to be a minority opinion, yet it is the only moral one. Today's "moral values" allow for homosexual marriages, transgenders, and a whole list of "new morals". That is why you see 13 year olds being given birth control pills, human trafficking of children, and others, for sex purposes, an increase in child porn, and again the list goes on. There are no moral values left, and, of course, one should not tell another how to "live their life".
 
Morality has nothing to do with, or very little anyway, ones religion. The primary biological purpose of having sex is the procreation of children, plain and simple. It used to be that if one wanted sexual pleasure with no responsibility for the outcome you went to the "red light" district for your pleasures. Ever since the 60's that all changed, and now whores go out every night to "hook up" with some male they know is seeking to have a "night of pleasure". Then, if the "inconceivable" should happen, and the woman gets pregnant, well, just have an abortion (kill the baby), end of problem.

Now I realize this is getting to be a minority opinion, yet it is the only moral one. Today's "moral values" allow for homosexual marriages, transgenders, and a whole list of "new morals". That is why you see 13 year olds being given birth control pills, human trafficking of children, and others, for sex purposes, an increase in child porn, and again the list goes on. There are no moral values left, and, of course, one should not tell another how to "live their life".

So you don't like it that todays "moral values" permits people who are acting as god made them, to not be discriminated against. That is pro god.Of course you are anti LGBT.. You are debasing people acting as god made them. What do you have against god creations?
 
So you don't like it that todays "moral values" permits people who are acting as god made them, to not be discriminated against. That is pro god.Of course you are anti LGBT.. You are debasing people acting as god made them. What do you have against god creations?

Man created God, so it follows that man would see things God didn't get quite right.
 
Morality has nothing to do with, or very little anyway, ones religion. The primary biological purpose of having sex is the procreation of children, plain and simple. It used to be that if one wanted sexual pleasure with no responsibility for the outcome you went to the "red light" district for your pleasures.

Yes of course, the eurocentric perception of reality is that hominid societies began in when euros became somewhat aware of their surroundings.
 
So you don't like it that todays "moral values" permits people who are acting as god made them, to not be discriminated against. That is pro god.Of course you are anti LGBT.. You are debasing people acting as god made them. What do you have against god creations?

Seems your only complaint is with my attitude regarding the homosexual. First off, God did not "make" the homosexual if one wants to have a theological argument. God made everything "perfect" (Genesis 1: 31) Following the disobedience of man in succumbing to the temptations of the Serpent, Man then set about to pervert the very creation God had made up to, and including murder. From this come all things evil, unclean, etc. Homosexuality is not by itself "evil" as long as one remains celibate. Marriage was a sacrament "created" for a man, and a woman. Why would you want to pervert such an important act with your perversion?
 
Back
Top