Trump will end abortion

[Shadow Wolf]

It would be different, somewhat, if the Trump/Pence nominee were only going to rule on abortion. But the same people who generally believe that Planned Parenthood promote abortion also tend to believe that climate change is a hoax and the USA needs to get right with Jesus and a host of other things like that.
Tom

If Trump wins, I strongly suspect it will be a bad day for the LBGT community (especially since Pence already said "**** 'em!"). The North Carolina transgender law will inevitably go before the Supreme Court (as I don't see the voluntarily striking it down, not unless things get dramatically changed next month), and a Trump nominee will rule in favor of discrimination, while the Hillary nominee will rule in favor of decency.

 

[metis]

If Trump wins, I strongly suspect it will be a bad day for the LBGT community (especially since Pence already said "**** 'em!"). The North Carolina transgender law will inevitably go before the Supreme Court (as I don't see the voluntarily striking it down, not unless things get dramatically changed next month), and a Trump nominee will rule in favor of discrimination, while the Hillary nominee will rule in favor of decency.

If Trump wins, I think it'll be a bad day for the world community.

BTW, there's some though that if he did win in November, the stock market could take a noser because his economic plan simply would be economically disastrous if implemented.

 

[Phil25]

Don't the Democrats want to repeal the Hyde Amendment which prevents taxpayer dollars from funding Abortion?http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...ic-platform-abortion-20160725-snap-story.html

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

A very leftish appointment could also damage our rights.
After all we have many constitutional rights, not just abortion & gay marriage.
And the left has been hostile to many, eg, free speech, whistle blowers, jury trial, freedom from compulsory service.

Can you give any specifics? I mean you didn't trot out the Second Amendment right away which leads me to think there might be more to your argument than that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

when can this organism have self-awareness

I was also thinking in terms of sentience. That's a sticky wicket.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And there's reason to disagree with that.

A very leftish appointment could also damage our rights.
After all we have many constitutional rights, not just abortion & gay marriage.
And the left has been hostile to many, eg, free speech, whistle blowers, jury trial, freedom from compulsory service.

What the Scottsman asked. How the hell is this more likely than the sort of utter crap Trump has actually said he will do?

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you give any specifics? I mean you didn't trot out the Second Amendment right away which leads me to think there might be more to your argument than that.

Bill supported the Petty Offense Doctrine when it went before the USSC,
who agreed that our right to a jury trial is inconvenient, & while granted
in the Constitution, they decided that if you're facing less than a year in
jail, government can unilaterally waive your right.
I've listed this & so many more before. Does no one ever read them?

Threats to our freedom come from both the right & the left. One cannot
close one's eyes to one's own side, & only cast stones at the other

 

[Revoltingest]

What the Scottsman asked. How the hell is this more likely than the sort of utter crap Trump has actually said he will do?

I've noticed that in some cases he never said what's been attributed to him,
eg, making it illegal to criticize him.
And I've many more examples than the one I gave Scotty.
Lefties don't seem to ever know of their own terrible record on constitutional
liberties. And Clinton is one of their worst.
Another example....
Bill fought to make it illegal for citizens to challenge the introduction of group
homes in their neighborhood. Leftists are not always friendly to free speech.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've noticed that in some cases he never said what's been attributed to him,
eg, making it illegal to criticize him.
And I've many more examples than the one I gave Scotty.
Lefties don't seem to ever know of their own terrible record on constitutional
liberties. And Clinton is one of their worst.
Another example....
Bill fought to make it illegal for citizens to challenge the introduction of group
homes in their neighborhood. Leftists are not always friendly to free speech.

And plenty he did say, and I've linked to you before. Every bit as unconstitutional as you accuse of 'leftists' doing in the past, he plans on doing tomorrow.

 

[Revoltingest]

And plenty he did say, and I've linked to you before. Every bit as unconstitutional as you accuse of 'leftists' doing in the past, he plans on doing tomorrow.

Yes, I see Trump as no friend of constitutional liberty.
I only point out that the threat comes from both parties.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes, I see Trump as no friend of constitutional liberty.
I only point out that the threat comes from both parties.

You talk about the threats from either other people or from positions in the past or rumored positions brought up by partisan talking heads. I have no reason to believe the threat of Hillary is worse than what Trump has already said he'll do.

 

[Revoltingest]

You talk about the threats from either other people or from positions in the past or rumored positions brought up by partisan talking heads. I have no reason to believe the threat of Hillary is worse than what Trump has already said he'll do.

Reasonable people will disagree about who poses the greater threat.
I don't claim to have "The Truth" when I say I find Trump the lesser danger.
I could be wrong. I only have my best guess.

Btw, I don't use rumors.
I look at Hillary's actual voting record, & her public claims about her agenda.
Trump is more of an unknown, since he lacks a political record.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Threats to our freedom come from both the right & the left. One cannot
close one's eyes to one's own side, & only cast stones at the other

While that is true, when it comes to the Supreme Court nominations, with it likely that the next president will appoint at least two Supreme Court justices (because the Republicans are throwing a tantrum with Obama), and we can either have religious Conservative ideology driving the Supreme Court, or we can make it more secular-based. This election happens to be much bigger than the president, and will have implications for generations to come. Such as, the appointees made by the next president will very likely hear North Carolina's anti-transgender law. One will appoint Justices who will allow it, setting on a chain-reaction of red states enacting similar laws - such as how Indiana would, even to the extend of not allowing local municipalities to establish their own laws, which would suck for me because the city council here actually did rule in favor of allowing transsexuals to use the restroom of their identity/presentation - or a president who will make appointments who will snuff it out. Cases involving medical and recreational cannabis will probably also be heard by the next president's appointees. They may even see a "Mokey Trials.2"
There is a very real potential to push Conservative religious-based legislation up against a cliff. That is much bigger than anyone person, including the president.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Bill supported the Petty Offense Doctrine when it went before the USSC,
who agreed that our right to a jury trial is inconvenient, & while granted
in the Constitution, they decided that if you're facing less than a year in
jail, government can unilaterally waive your right.
I've listed this & so many more before. Does no one ever read them?

Wow, really? That seems like it has a lot of room for mission creep.

Threats to our freedom come from both the right & the left. One cannot
close one's eyes to one's own side, & only cast stones at the other

While I think that's definitely true, can you at least understand why people believe that of the two the right is a greater threat to personal liberty than the left?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

well I like Donald's letter; I don't know what plan parenthood is except they are sticklers; always trying to stick people. Not really my thing. People choose to run off on children or women and men sometimes because of their fear like get this or that. Sometimes peers or relatives. Not their lab rat. Then they splash a rainbow and say its good for you. Gross. Men get that sort of thing in prideful manner that they would utilize the system for their rainbow splash too. Gross. Of course there are situations when men and women decided without instigation of parties to do it. Maybe the people wont let them work or keep their lively hood afloat. Then the other side is why so many get them when they don't have any reason too whether they have benefits or they are well to do. So plan parenthood that doesn't say much to me they may have other options sources in pamphlets. But even so asking these sort of questions too the public would probably be labeled as offensive. Women tend to take surveys and men probably wouldn't take them. There's men that would not have chosen an abortion but there are a great number too its the first words that come out of their mouth I don't mean that as a joke literally they immediately transcend the relationship apart from what was thought of; or that they would definitely have issues that they bring in too, you don't read this or see this; that they can use birth control and abortion threats. You do not get to hear their side and you don't get to chart the whole picture just to get an idea of what they generally think or think of as a way out or what they are against. Or If a person in a clinic would actually really want to be there or not. Many times parenthood is looked at as a woman thing, where as someone who waits in lobby actually is over looked or do they want the other person there; in the clinic they may have brought them there that can even mean relatives or the other person. Plan parenthood doesn't help out much there. Plan parenthood;apart from how it got started we know what abortion clinics do. But even so asking these sort of questions to the public would probably be labeled as offensive.

 

[Revoltingest]

While that is true, when it comes to the Supreme Court nominations, with it likely that the next president will appoint at least two Supreme Court justices (because the Republicans are throwing a tantrum with Obama), and we can either have religious Conservative ideology driving the Supreme Court, or we can make it more secular-based. This election happens to be much bigger than the president, and will have implications for generations to come. Such as, the appointees made by the next president will very likely hear North Carolina's anti-transgender law. One will appoint Justices who will allow it, setting on a chain-reaction of red states enacting similar laws - such as how Indiana would, even to the extend of not allowing local municipalities to establish their own laws, which would suck for me because the city council here actually did rule in favor of allowing transsexuals to use the restroom of their identity/presentation - or a president who will make appointments who will snuff it out. Cases involving medical and recreational cannabis will probably also be heard by the next president's appointees. They may even see a "Mokey Trials.2"
There is a very real potential to push Conservative religious-based legislation up against a cliff. That is much bigger than anyone person, including the president.

Clearly, we need to elect Johnson.

 

[Underhill]

Don't the Democrats want to repeal the Hyde Amendment which prevents taxpayer dollars from funding Abortion?http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...ic-platform-abortion-20160725-snap-story.html

Not that I know of. I'm sure there are some nuts out there in favor of it, but the party as a whole is okay with it.

On the other side of the aisle, I doubt the right would ban abortion even if they could. There are too many single issue pro-life republicans out there for them to actually ban abortion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, really? That seems like it has a lot of room for mission creep.

Aye, that's what I've long thought too.
That one year threshold is arbitrary.
They could easily change it to 2....or 3....or.....you see where I'm going.

While I think that's definitely true, can you at least understand why people believe that of the two the right is a greater threat to personal liberty than the left?

People always believe that the other side is the greater threat.
It largely depends upon a couple things.....
- What they consider a threat
(If they don't care about the 2nd Amendment, then gun rights aren't threatened.)
- They trust their own side, but know the other is evil.

As an outsider of the Big Two, I see them both subverting the Constitution when it suits them.
(And they, especially lefties, see me as a threat.....albeit a rather impotent one.)

 

[Quetzal]

Threats to our freedom come from both the right & the left. One cannot
close one's eyes to one's own side, & only cast stones at the other

I can and I will continue to do so because, dang it, I'm right and I know better! But seriously, it is a good point that needs to be repeated sometimes. The camp I tend to support goobers stuff, too, and I certainly don't agree with all of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can and I will continue to do so because, dang it, I'm right and I know better! But seriously, it is a good point that needs to be repeated sometimes. The camp I tend to support goobers stuff, too, and I certainly don't agree with all of it.

Be aware that under our Constitution, you've no right to probe us.
You must ask for permission first.