New York Times endorses Harris as ‘the only choice’ for president

[SkepticThinker]

That's why I quoted a more recent one. Much more recent, in fact. It wasn't hard to find. That one is from 1998 but this one is much more recent. Besides that, 2 or 2.8 - what does it really matter? And don't say "It matters to the people involved," because 1) it doesn't matter to half the people involved apparently, and also, way less that 3 percent of abortions are to save the life of the mother, regardless of whether it's 2 percent or 2.8 percent, or even less now.

I'm responding to the one you just quoted. I don't know what other one you're talking about. The one you posted doesn't match what you claimed.

In a discussion about bodily autonomy, I don't care what individuals' reasons are for aborting anyway. That's their business, not mine to judge and shame them. Their life, their business. It would be pretty presumptuous of me to attempt to make other peoples' life decisions for them.

The stats probably aren't published every year because they aren't collected that frequently. I'm sure we've got something more current than 1988-89.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm responding to the one you just quoted. I don't know what other one you're talking about. The one you posted doesn't match what you claimed.

In a discussion about bodily autonomy, I don't care what individuals' reasons are for aborting anyway. That's their business, not mine to judge and shame them.

The stats probably aren't published every year because they aren't collected that frequently. I'm sure we've got something more current than 1988-89.

Oh yes, and I posted it already so I won't again. It's from factcheck.org. And get this - I know it may sound crazy to you, but abortion is a really big deal to some people, including many pro-life people.

 

[anotherneil]

@metis isn't a MAGA, so obviously uses logic and critical thinking skill.

No Trump supporter can offer a rational and lucid argument for why he is the superior option. Even if we ignore Trump's mental problems and erratic behavior the two agendas are exceptionally bad for the future of America and the planet.

You forgot to end your post with this:

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh yes, and I posted it already so I won't again. It's from factcheck.org. And get this - I know it may sound crazy to you, but abortion is a really big deal to some people, including many pro-life people.

Which again, demonstrates why it should be left in the hands of the individual involved. Their life, their choice.

 

[We Never Know]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30/new-york-times-kamala-harris-endorsement-00181639

About time. Talk about an 11th-hour choice. But at least they got there eventually.

This doesn't mean one iota to me.

IMO anyone that votes for someone because of a celebrity, sports player, paper, singer, etc shouldn't vote if that's their reasoning.

"Oh I'm voting for so and so because NYT endorses them".
Gimme a break

 

[Copernicus]

This is incorrect no matter how you try to spin it, because the number of choices you have is nearly infinite. You can write in names. Of course, third party candidates are likely to get more than one vote, so they are infinitesimally more likely to win than third party candidates, but, let's face it, not much more likely than write-ins.
If you ignore the fact that US elections are almost always binary choices between the two major parties, than pretty much the only reason to vote for a third party is to "send a message". Message-sending of this sort is also almost always nothing more than wishful fantasizing, because it never changes anything other than usually to deliver the election victory to the major party candidate least likely to have the political agenda that you favor. That's because you did not lend you support to the one you favored more. So third party votes are very rarely anything but counterproductive spoilers. Nevertheless, people get so angry at the two-party system that they just feel that "send a message" is going to actually get a "message received" response. I've lived a long time, and I've never seen it happen. Not once.

Yep. It’s never happened. And if people continue thinking like you, it never will.

It has nothing to do with people thinking like me, but people thinking like they normally do in an election system that rewards the candidate of a winning plurality: Duverger's Law. If we had a system that required a majority to win an election, then we would have a more representative democracy. However, the current system serves the needs of the less popular, but more powerful, political party. So things are not going to change in the near future.