• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Real Reason Trump Won

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Maybe calling ppl deplorable, nazis, and garbage, wasn't such a good idea. Maybe starting legal funds for freeing rioters while imprisoning the opposition rioters isn't such a good idea. Maybe forced closure of business under the guise of a "sniffle" wasn't such a good idea. Maybe democrats need to up their game.
One million people died in your country from "a sniffle."
Try showing some respect.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
What's that got to do with vaccines?

I agree, and I'd go all the way back to the zygote. Obviously a human genome.

But so what? Are rights based on species, or on the features that confer personhood? A cell or cells, with no consciousness, self-awareness, or awareness of futurity is not a person.
Rights are based on characteristics, not species. A fœtus does not have the requisite characteristics for a claim of personhood, moral consideration, or rights.
Say whatever you want, doesn't matter to me.

You know what, all sorts of rights are not conveyed to not only the unborn but to infants and children. Rights such as the right to live I guess.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
We do agree on that. I take the biological definition of life (homoeostasis, growth, reproduction, etc.) and a human fulfils those conditions from implantation on (if not earlier). What it lacks is personhood (until birth) and sentience (until about week 20 to 24).
Also, I'm willing to make exceptions to the right of bodily autonomy, i.e. after 20 weeks into a pregnancy.
Now, you want to erase that even earlier (when?), but you won't take it away for a small jab, that could save millions?
Can you spell hypocrite?
Apparently not.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
This is why public health is important, and reducing pollution and poisons in water and food. Mothers are expected to value their health when they learn they are pregnant, and it's largely their responsibility, not the state.

But I see the pro-life folks treat preganancy as a single, finite state, as if a week old fertilized egg is the same as an 8 moth old fetus. This isn't the case and why the Roe decison was divided into three trimesters, and the law applied to each stage of development. This requires a nuanced understanding, and something the extremists don't do.
Then I guess to you I am an extremist.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Miscarriages can be caused by many types of infection.

Blood donation (though I probably should have said plasma) would be more for immediately after delivery. For some immediately life-threatening conditions - e.g. extreme jaundice - a newborn is administered intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) to effectively replace all of the baby's "bad blood" that's making them sick.

To make enough IVIG to save one baby's life this way needs plasma from about 1,000 donors, apparently.

So you don't know anyone either. Gotcha.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
If this is true, you've yet to show any indication as to why.



I understand that you think that you feel justified denying the right to bodily autonomy to pregnant people.

There are other situations where people feel justified denying the right to bodily autonomy to people. Why should your exception be the only one?
I believe that pregnancy is the only time two people are directly involved and one person dies.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I believe that pregnancy is the only time two people are directly involved and one person dies.
Well, no. That can often be the case for organ or tissue donation.

I've seen a number of cases where a kid with leukemia is hard to find a match for because of their ethnic makeup, and a huge campaign ends up finding only one compatible donor.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

Wirey

Fartist
This supports what I've told a lot of people I know. Voters are not (and should not be) single-issue voters. A large percentage of people voted both in favor of abortion access initiatives in their state AND for Donald Trump.
AOC asked voters in her district why they voted for her and Trump. The fact that that's a thing suggests single-issue voters are rarer than I thought.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Just spoke with 2 friends who both voted for Trump.
Their reasons seemed to be more a reaction to their
perception of the left demanding that they treat trans
women as women. They both insist that once a man,
always a man.
Odd it is that it's more concerning than economics,
war, AGW, SCOTUS, etc.
 
Last edited:

tytlyf

Not Religious
The US became the world leader in producing oil in 2018.

Is there where I am supposed to say Biden is just riding on what Trump started?
And you'll notice it has zero effect on gas prices.
If gas prices are low, it's because people aren't driving. (pandemic times)
People voted for cheap gas prices back during Trump times Without realizing another pandemic is what's needed for those prices......
Just more ignorance and misinformation when it comes to the electorate.
The voters and their mental laziness are indeed the problem.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Your perception is your reality but it doesn't reflect the truth.

Both sides have said many nasty things about each other and that is a fact!
There are no alternate facts - just one fact!
One side makes evidence-based claims. The other shoots from the hip, panders to a simplistic fan base, and says whatever comes to mind in the moment. As far as actual policies, the Dems have improved the economy, despite neglecting crucial national and foreign issues. Trump's proposed policies are not well thought out, plus long-term, often historically evidenced ramifications are being ignored.
"Politics" - has become the dirtiest and most dishonest word in the dictionary and both parties are responsible for it. Have some courtesy to admit that.
The division is so huge now that it has become like two rival religions advocating opposite tenets.
Dirty? The Democrats are politics-as-usual. It's the Republicans who've changed. They're the calumnious ones; the 'dirty fighters'.
Our criticisms of Trump's proposals are justified, and we can explain them. Yours are specious, and pander to an angry base.
One side primarily consists of Atheists, non-religious folks, believers who are non-practicing, members of the LGBTQIA+, sympathizers of LGBTQIA+, Trump haters, self-centered & a single agenda pushers (i.e. women' right and LGBTQIA+ rights advocates) aka specific special interest groups, etc.

The other side primarily consists of folks with common sense. That is the simplest way to describe them.
Interesting characterization. You feel your opposition consists of what you consider social outcasts and haters. You overlook the fact that most of our criticism of the Right's slide into authoritarianism is coming from historians, academics, and intellectuals, looking at historical precendents and thinking several moves ahead.
Many Dems are busy connecting dots from the past and convincing themselves that they have a lot to lose because of Trump. Even you are so focused on your concerns about Trump that you are forgetting that the alternate option - was worse.

Trump could not do much last time around because of COVID crisis and due to the fact that the Dems were holding him back from succeeding. This time we will see more progression because Dems are currently distracted (they can't figure out which direction to proceed). Their fake world came crashing down on them. Look how they are crying all over the place.
It's the calculated results and and the historical perspective that have us worried. His proposed policies have a history of bad results, I see no reason to expect good results this time.
Dems are blaming everyone else except themselves. They pushed their agenda too far. They tried to redefine what a woman is. :rolleyes:
But that was not all - so many women jumped on that bandwagon!:oops:
Why make such a well defined clear-cut image out of digital pixels into such an ill-defined low resolution out of focus blurry image?:shrug::facepalm:
Huh?
Redefining women? Can you be more specific?
And what's this have to do with politics?
 
Last edited:

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Right wing media dominance.

https://newrepublic.com/maz/post/188197/trump-media-information-landscape-fox

"Today, the right-wing media—Fox News (and the entire News Corp.), Newsmax, One America News Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers, iHeart Media (formerly Clear Channel), the Bott Radio Network (Christian radio), Elon Musk’s X, the huge podcasts like Joe Rogan’s, and much more—sets the news agenda in this country. And they fed their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made it possible for Trump to win."

What do you think? Legitimate analysis? Or liberal hogwash?
I think the reason Trump won is because Kamala aligned herself with Biden's policies, and when people look at how things were under Biden's term vs Trump's, more people preferred how things were under Trump.
 
Top