Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 148683 times)

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2551
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #700 on: August 22, 2019, 12:15:21 AM »
Inslee's out.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4795
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #701 on: August 22, 2019, 07:07:45 AM »

Fair enough. I've always had a hard time with the lesser of two evils perspective since I am in a real way supporting the person I vote for even if I'm really voting against someone else. I'm personally trying to balance that out with the fact that no candidate would ever be 100% in line with my views and yet I still vote. I'll eventually balance those out once I find out the actual candidate picked to determine to vote Dem or 3rd party. Thanks for the input.

That is fine. But the fact is, someone is going to be president. Not voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean that a perfect candidate magically appears, or that the office of the presidency somehow doesn't get filled. It will be filled by someone. And so, given the choice between two people, I will choose the better one.

It doesn't make a better candidate magically appear, but I still feel accountable for voting for who I vote for in terms of me actually supporting them. While it's true that it could easily be said that I'm being idealistic or pie in the sky or whatever the correct term is for not accepting the fact that one of the two will certainly be elected, I could also say that the chances of my individual vote making any difference whatsoever is less likely than me winning the lottery (by this I mean that the chances of my single vote swinging my state to one side or the other). It's all a little idealistic no matter how you look at it. I'm just trying to decide where I will draw my line.
By not voting or by voting third party when you know that person will lose, you are saying, "I am ok with either of these two potential candidates being elected". It is not more moral to do this vs the one you think is going to be best of those two candidates. I really hate the idea of least bad. It really is, you have two options which can you look yourself in the face of they won by your vote. Because frankly in states like PA, there are people who chose not to vote and they are responsible for Trump's election.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #702 on: August 22, 2019, 10:33:20 AM »

Fair enough. I've always had a hard time with the lesser of two evils perspective since I am in a real way supporting the person I vote for even if I'm really voting against someone else. I'm personally trying to balance that out with the fact that no candidate would ever be 100% in line with my views and yet I still vote. I'll eventually balance those out once I find out the actual candidate picked to determine to vote Dem or 3rd party. Thanks for the input.

That is fine. But the fact is, someone is going to be president. Not voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean that a perfect candidate magically appears, or that the office of the presidency somehow doesn't get filled. It will be filled by someone. And so, given the choice between two people, I will choose the better one.

It doesn't make a better candidate magically appear, but I still feel accountable for voting for who I vote for in terms of me actually supporting them. While it's true that it could easily be said that I'm being idealistic or pie in the sky or whatever the correct term is for not accepting the fact that one of the two will certainly be elected, I could also say that the chances of my individual vote making any difference whatsoever is less likely than me winning the lottery (by this I mean that the chances of my single vote swinging my state to one side or the other). It's all a little idealistic no matter how you look at it. I'm just trying to decide where I will draw my line.
By not voting or by voting third party when you know that person will lose, you are saying, "I am ok with either of these two potential candidates being elected". It is not more moral to do this vs the one you think is going to be best of those two candidates. I really hate the idea of least bad. It really is, you have two options which can you look yourself in the face of they won by your vote. Because frankly in states like PA, there are people who chose not to vote and they are responsible for Trump's election.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Just in case this is unclear, by bringing up morality, I was not saying that my perspective on what's more or less moral in this situation is right and yours is wrong. The whole point of this was kind of that I am still working it through myself. I'm just saying with it being a moral issue in this case, I don't think it's as clear cut as some people tend to make it. I disagree that by voting third party, I'm saying I'm ok with either getting elected. It is certainly true that if I won't vote for Trump as a baseline and don't vote for the Democrat, they'll have one less vote than they could. It's also true that if I vote for someone who I know supports something I think is immoral and they end up pushing through legislation that furthers this, I have to recognize the role I had in getting that change made. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the concept of pacifism (of course it's not exactly the same thing). Some people stand to their principles on pacifism even when what they would be fighting is totally unjust. Are they right to stand on this principle or wrong because they're indicating they're "OK" with the unjustices being perpetuated? I don't know, and I'm not a pacifist although I respect their perspective. Just my 2c.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4795
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #703 on: August 22, 2019, 10:41:18 AM »

Fair enough. I've always had a hard time with the lesser of two evils perspective since I am in a real way supporting the person I vote for even if I'm really voting against someone else. I'm personally trying to balance that out with the fact that no candidate would ever be 100% in line with my views and yet I still vote. I'll eventually balance those out once I find out the actual candidate picked to determine to vote Dem or 3rd party. Thanks for the input.

That is fine. But the fact is, someone is going to be president. Not voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean that a perfect candidate magically appears, or that the office of the presidency somehow doesn't get filled. It will be filled by someone. And so, given the choice between two people, I will choose the better one.

It doesn't make a better candidate magically appear, but I still feel accountable for voting for who I vote for in terms of me actually supporting them. While it's true that it could easily be said that I'm being idealistic or pie in the sky or whatever the correct term is for not accepting the fact that one of the two will certainly be elected, I could also say that the chances of my individual vote making any difference whatsoever is less likely than me winning the lottery (by this I mean that the chances of my single vote swinging my state to one side or the other). It's all a little idealistic no matter how you look at it. I'm just trying to decide where I will draw my line.
By not voting or by voting third party when you know that person will lose, you are saying, "I am ok with either of these two potential candidates being elected". It is not more moral to do this vs the one you think is going to be best of those two candidates. I really hate the idea of least bad. It really is, you have two options which can you look yourself in the face of they won by your vote. Because frankly in states like PA, there are people who chose not to vote and they are responsible for Trump's election.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Just in case this is unclear, by bringing up morality, I was not saying that my perspective on what's more or less moral in this situation is right and yours is wrong. The whole point of this was kind of that I am still working it through myself. I'm just saying with it being a moral issue in this case, I don't think it's as clear cut as some people tend to make it. I disagree that by voting third party, I'm saying I'm ok with either getting elected. It is certainly true that if I won't vote for Trump as a baseline and don't vote for the Democrat, they'll have one less vote than they could. It's also true that if I vote for someone who I know supports something I think is immoral and they end up pushing through legislation that furthers this, I have to recognize the role I had in getting that change made. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the concept of pacifism (of course it's not exactly the same thing). Some people stand to their principles on pacifism even when what they would be fighting is totally unjust. Are they right to stand on this principle or wrong because they're indicating they're "OK" with the unjustices being perpetuated? I don't know, and I'm not a pacifist although I respect their perspective. Just my 2c.
But if you chose not to vote for the "least bad" and the worse candidate wins, you have to recognize the role you had in their legislation.  That is my point. You don't get to not vote and think it absolves you from responsibility.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #704 on: August 22, 2019, 10:48:30 AM »

Fair enough. I've always had a hard time with the lesser of two evils perspective since I am in a real way supporting the person I vote for even if I'm really voting against someone else. I'm personally trying to balance that out with the fact that no candidate would ever be 100% in line with my views and yet I still vote. I'll eventually balance those out once I find out the actual candidate picked to determine to vote Dem or 3rd party. Thanks for the input.

That is fine. But the fact is, someone is going to be president. Not voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean that a perfect candidate magically appears, or that the office of the presidency somehow doesn't get filled. It will be filled by someone. And so, given the choice between two people, I will choose the better one.

It doesn't make a better candidate magically appear, but I still feel accountable for voting for who I vote for in terms of me actually supporting them. While it's true that it could easily be said that I'm being idealistic or pie in the sky or whatever the correct term is for not accepting the fact that one of the two will certainly be elected, I could also say that the chances of my individual vote making any difference whatsoever is less likely than me winning the lottery (by this I mean that the chances of my single vote swinging my state to one side or the other). It's all a little idealistic no matter how you look at it. I'm just trying to decide where I will draw my line.
By not voting or by voting third party when you know that person will lose, you are saying, "I am ok with either of these two potential candidates being elected". It is not more moral to do this vs the one you think is going to be best of those two candidates. I really hate the idea of least bad. It really is, you have two options which can you look yourself in the face of they won by your vote. Because frankly in states like PA, there are people who chose not to vote and they are responsible for Trump's election.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Just in case this is unclear, by bringing up morality, I was not saying that my perspective on what's more or less moral in this situation is right and yours is wrong. The whole point of this was kind of that I am still working it through myself. I'm just saying with it being a moral issue in this case, I don't think it's as clear cut as some people tend to make it. I disagree that by voting third party, I'm saying I'm ok with either getting elected. It is certainly true that if I won't vote for Trump as a baseline and don't vote for the Democrat, they'll have one less vote than they could. It's also true that if I vote for someone who I know supports something I think is immoral and they end up pushing through legislation that furthers this, I have to recognize the role I had in getting that change made. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the concept of pacifism (of course it's not exactly the same thing). Some people stand to their principles on pacifism even when what they would be fighting is totally unjust. Are they right to stand on this principle or wrong because they're indicating they're "OK" with the unjustices being perpetuated? I don't know, and I'm not a pacifist although I respect their perspective. Just my 2c.
But if you chose not to vote for the "least bad" and the worse candidate wins, you have to recognize the role you had in their legislation.  That is my point. You don't get to not vote and think it absolves you from responsibility.

I agree, although I see it as less of a role in that instance. Just because the system is two party and there's nothing realistically that I as an individual can do to change it doesn't mean that that is all my fault. So I see it as Democrat - supports things that are immoral to me, if I vote for them, I have high degree of responsibility in things they get accomplished that I view as immoral. Trump - supports tons of immoral really bad things, if I don't vote for the Democrat, I have some but less culpability because I'm existing in a system that I did not design and can't do anything to change (certainly not for this election cycle). So on the one hand more immoral things but less direct culpability on my part - I could only be accused of indirectly supporting it, on the other hand, less but certainly non-zero immoral things but I would be directly culpable voting for them....

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4795
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #705 on: August 22, 2019, 10:50:43 AM »

Fair enough. I've always had a hard time with the lesser of two evils perspective since I am in a real way supporting the person I vote for even if I'm really voting against someone else. I'm personally trying to balance that out with the fact that no candidate would ever be 100% in line with my views and yet I still vote. I'll eventually balance those out once I find out the actual candidate picked to determine to vote Dem or 3rd party. Thanks for the input.

That is fine. But the fact is, someone is going to be president. Not voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean that a perfect candidate magically appears, or that the office of the presidency somehow doesn't get filled. It will be filled by someone. And so, given the choice between two people, I will choose the better one.

It doesn't make a better candidate magically appear, but I still feel accountable for voting for who I vote for in terms of me actually supporting them. While it's true that it could easily be said that I'm being idealistic or pie in the sky or whatever the correct term is for not accepting the fact that one of the two will certainly be elected, I could also say that the chances of my individual vote making any difference whatsoever is less likely than me winning the lottery (by this I mean that the chances of my single vote swinging my state to one side or the other). It's all a little idealistic no matter how you look at it. I'm just trying to decide where I will draw my line.
By not voting or by voting third party when you know that person will lose, you are saying, "I am ok with either of these two potential candidates being elected". It is not more moral to do this vs the one you think is going to be best of those two candidates. I really hate the idea of least bad. It really is, you have two options which can you look yourself in the face of they won by your vote. Because frankly in states like PA, there are people who chose not to vote and they are responsible for Trump's election.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Just in case this is unclear, by bringing up morality, I was not saying that my perspective on what's more or less moral in this situation is right and yours is wrong. The whole point of this was kind of that I am still working it through myself. I'm just saying with it being a moral issue in this case, I don't think it's as clear cut as some people tend to make it. I disagree that by voting third party, I'm saying I'm ok with either getting elected. It is certainly true that if I won't vote for Trump as a baseline and don't vote for the Democrat, they'll have one less vote than they could. It's also true that if I vote for someone who I know supports something I think is immoral and they end up pushing through legislation that furthers this, I have to recognize the role I had in getting that change made. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the concept of pacifism (of course it's not exactly the same thing). Some people stand to their principles on pacifism even when what they would be fighting is totally unjust. Are they right to stand on this principle or wrong because they're indicating they're "OK" with the unjustices being perpetuated? I don't know, and I'm not a pacifist although I respect their perspective. Just my 2c.
But if you chose not to vote for the "least bad" and the worse candidate wins, you have to recognize the role you had in their legislation.  That is my point. You don't get to not vote and think it absolves you from responsibility.

I agree, although I see it as less of a role in that instance. Just because the system is two party and there's nothing realistically that I as an individual can do to change it doesn't mean that that is all my fault. So I see it as Democrat - supports things that are immoral to me, if I vote for them, I have high degree of responsibility in things they get accomplished that I view as immoral. Trump - supports tons of immoral really bad things, if I don't vote for the Democrat, I have some but less culpability because I'm existing in a system that I did not design and can't do anything to change (certainly not for this election cycle). So on the one hand more immoral things but less direct culpability on my part - I could only be accused of indirectly supporting it, on the other hand, less but certainly non-zero immoral things but I would be directly culpable voting for them....
I genuinely don't understand that mindset.  You are equally responsible for either decision you.  Because you chose to make the decision regardless of what that choice was.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2420
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #706 on: August 22, 2019, 11:12:44 AM »

Fair enough. I've always had a hard time with the lesser of two evils perspective since I am in a real way supporting the person I vote for even if I'm really voting against someone else. I'm personally trying to balance that out with the fact that no candidate would ever be 100% in line with my views and yet I still vote. I'll eventually balance those out once I find out the actual candidate picked to determine to vote Dem or 3rd party. Thanks for the input.

That is fine. But the fact is, someone is going to be president. Not voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean that a perfect candidate magically appears, or that the office of the presidency somehow doesn't get filled. It will be filled by someone. And so, given the choice between two people, I will choose the better one.

It doesn't make a better candidate magically appear, but I still feel accountable for voting for who I vote for in terms of me actually supporting them. While it's true that it could easily be said that I'm being idealistic or pie in the sky or whatever the correct term is for not accepting the fact that one of the two will certainly be elected, I could also say that the chances of my individual vote making any difference whatsoever is less likely than me winning the lottery (by this I mean that the chances of my single vote swinging my state to one side or the other). It's all a little idealistic no matter how you look at it. I'm just trying to decide where I will draw my line.
By not voting or by voting third party when you know that person will lose, you are saying, "I am ok with either of these two potential candidates being elected". It is not more moral to do this vs the one you think is going to be best of those two candidates. I really hate the idea of least bad. It really is, you have two options which can you look yourself in the face of they won by your vote. Because frankly in states like PA, there are people who chose not to vote and they are responsible for Trump's election.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Just in case this is unclear, by bringing up morality, I was not saying that my perspective on what's more or less moral in this situation is right and yours is wrong. The whole point of this was kind of that I am still working it through myself. I'm just saying with it being a moral issue in this case, I don't think it's as clear cut as some people tend to make it. I disagree that by voting third party, I'm saying I'm ok with either getting elected. It is certainly true that if I won't vote for Trump as a baseline and don't vote for the Democrat, they'll have one less vote than they could. It's also true that if I vote for someone who I know supports something I think is immoral and they end up pushing through legislation that furthers this, I have to recognize the role I had in getting that change made. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the concept of pacifism (of course it's not exactly the same thing). Some people stand to their principles on pacifism even when what they would be fighting is totally unjust. Are they right to stand on this principle or wrong because they're indicating they're "OK" with the unjustices being perpetuated? I don't know, and I'm not a pacifist although I respect their perspective. Just my 2c.
But if you chose not to vote for the "least bad" and the worse candidate wins, you have to recognize the role you had in their legislation.  That is my point. You don't get to not vote and think it absolves you from responsibility.

I agree, although I see it as less of a role in that instance. Just because the system is two party and there's nothing realistically that I as an individual can do to change it doesn't mean that that is all my fault. So I see it as Democrat - supports things that are immoral to me, if I vote for them, I have high degree of responsibility in things they get accomplished that I view as immoral. Trump - supports tons of immoral really bad things, if I don't vote for the Democrat, I have some but less culpability because I'm existing in a system that I did not design and can't do anything to change (certainly not for this election cycle). So on the one hand more immoral things but less direct culpability on my part - I could only be accused of indirectly supporting it, on the other hand, less but certainly non-zero immoral things but I would be directly culpable voting for them....
I genuinely don't understand that mindset.  You are equally responsible for either decision you.  Because you chose to make the decision regardless of what that choice was.

Wolfpack, do you have trans friends? Latinx friends? Muslim friends? Friends who wear hijab? Black friends? Female friends of reproductive age?

If you do, and you didn’t vote for the person who would harm them SO MUCH LESS, the you absolutely bear a greater measure of responsibility for what they / we are going through now.

I said it on the last page but you didn’t respond. Where does harm reduction towards vulnerable communities fall in your worldview? Are your “ideals” more important than the fact that brown children are in cages and black trans women are being killed indiscriminately and hate crimes are up several hundred percent since the Donald took office?

I never understand people whose consider their own sense of ideological purity to be more important than the protection of actual human beings. Everyone knew the Donald was gonna be a racist fascist nightmare as president. Folks who were ok with overlooking that because of their own largely incorrect assumptions and ideas about HRC are selfish and myopic in the extreme.

Put another way, Joe Biden is not my idea of a great or even good president but I will absolutely vote for him, canvass, donate, and organize for him if he is the nominee. The country is on fire. If you can’t get behind the idea of doing whatever needs to be done to protect this democracy and the non-white/straight/male/wealthy who live in it, then your head is 100% up your own ass.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #707 on: August 22, 2019, 12:03:35 PM »

Fair enough. I've always had a hard time with the lesser of two evils perspective since I am in a real way supporting the person I vote for even if I'm really voting against someone else. I'm personally trying to balance that out with the fact that no candidate would ever be 100% in line with my views and yet I still vote. I'll eventually balance those out once I find out the actual candidate picked to determine to vote Dem or 3rd party. Thanks for the input.

That is fine. But the fact is, someone is going to be president. Not voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean that a perfect candidate magically appears, or that the office of the presidency somehow doesn't get filled. It will be filled by someone. And so, given the choice between two people, I will choose the better one.

It doesn't make a better candidate magically appear, but I still feel accountable for voting for who I vote for in terms of me actually supporting them. While it's true that it could easily be said that I'm being idealistic or pie in the sky or whatever the correct term is for not accepting the fact that one of the two will certainly be elected, I could also say that the chances of my individual vote making any difference whatsoever is less likely than me winning the lottery (by this I mean that the chances of my single vote swinging my state to one side or the other). It's all a little idealistic no matter how you look at it. I'm just trying to decide where I will draw my line.
By not voting or by voting third party when you know that person will lose, you are saying, "I am ok with either of these two potential candidates being elected". It is not more moral to do this vs the one you think is going to be best of those two candidates. I really hate the idea of least bad. It really is, you have two options which can you look yourself in the face of they won by your vote. Because frankly in states like PA, there are people who chose not to vote and they are responsible for Trump's election.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Just in case this is unclear, by bringing up morality, I was not saying that my perspective on what's more or less moral in this situation is right and yours is wrong. The whole point of this was kind of that I am still working it through myself. I'm just saying with it being a moral issue in this case, I don't think it's as clear cut as some people tend to make it. I disagree that by voting third party, I'm saying I'm ok with either getting elected. It is certainly true that if I won't vote for Trump as a baseline and don't vote for the Democrat, they'll have one less vote than they could. It's also true that if I vote for someone who I know supports something I think is immoral and they end up pushing through legislation that furthers this, I have to recognize the role I had in getting that change made. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the concept of pacifism (of course it's not exactly the same thing). Some people stand to their principles on pacifism even when what they would be fighting is totally unjust. Are they right to stand on this principle or wrong because they're indicating they're "OK" with the unjustices being perpetuated? I don't know, and I'm not a pacifist although I respect their perspective. Just my 2c.

I think it's hard to understand Wolfpack's stance when you really feel that not just Trump, but most of what the Republican party stands for, is bad for society. I tend to agree even.

But Wolfpack's political views aren't entirely aligned with those of the people criticizing him. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your views tend to lean conservative, yet you're able to recognize how dangerous the current president is. You probably even agree with some of the policy that he and his administration are fighting for right now while also seeing the potential long term damage of the divisive tactics they are using.

It's not an easy thing to do, but if you can put yourself in the shoes of someone who supports (some of) the policy and dislikes the president, it actually makes sense that this becomes a difficult decision.

Personally, I'm a numbers person and I think someone in this position should vote for the democratic candidate in order to remove Trump, no doubt about it. I also understand what you're saying Wolfpack, pacifism isn't a perfect anology, but it's the best one I've heard. In the end I hope you vote against Trump even if it doesn't feel so good on your conscience. I'm confident that history will look kindly on your decision.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #708 on: August 22, 2019, 04:58:52 PM »

Fair enough. I've always had a hard time with the lesser of two evils perspective since I am in a real way supporting the person I vote for even if I'm really voting against someone else. I'm personally trying to balance that out with the fact that no candidate would ever be 100% in line with my views and yet I still vote. I'll eventually balance those out once I find out the actual candidate picked to determine to vote Dem or 3rd party. Thanks for the input.

That is fine. But the fact is, someone is going to be president. Not voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean that a perfect candidate magically appears, or that the office of the presidency somehow doesn't get filled. It will be filled by someone. And so, given the choice between two people, I will choose the better one.

It doesn't make a better candidate magically appear, but I still feel accountable for voting for who I vote for in terms of me actually supporting them. While it's true that it could easily be said that I'm being idealistic or pie in the sky or whatever the correct term is for not accepting the fact that one of the two will certainly be elected, I could also say that the chances of my individual vote making any difference whatsoever is less likely than me winning the lottery (by this I mean that the chances of my single vote swinging my state to one side or the other). It's all a little idealistic no matter how you look at it. I'm just trying to decide where I will draw my line.
By not voting or by voting third party when you know that person will lose, you are saying, "I am ok with either of these two potential candidates being elected". It is not more moral to do this vs the one you think is going to be best of those two candidates. I really hate the idea of least bad. It really is, you have two options which can you look yourself in the face of they won by your vote. Because frankly in states like PA, there are people who chose not to vote and they are responsible for Trump's election.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Just in case this is unclear, by bringing up morality, I was not saying that my perspective on what's more or less moral in this situation is right and yours is wrong. The whole point of this was kind of that I am still working it through myself. I'm just saying with it being a moral issue in this case, I don't think it's as clear cut as some people tend to make it. I disagree that by voting third party, I'm saying I'm ok with either getting elected. It is certainly true that if I won't vote for Trump as a baseline and don't vote for the Democrat, they'll have one less vote than they could. It's also true that if I vote for someone who I know supports something I think is immoral and they end up pushing through legislation that furthers this, I have to recognize the role I had in getting that change made. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the concept of pacifism (of course it's not exactly the same thing). Some people stand to their principles on pacifism even when what they would be fighting is totally unjust. Are they right to stand on this principle or wrong because they're indicating they're "OK" with the unjustices being perpetuated? I don't know, and I'm not a pacifist although I respect their perspective. Just my 2c.
But if you chose not to vote for the "least bad" and the worse candidate wins, you have to recognize the role you had in their legislation.  That is my point. You don't get to not vote and think it absolves you from responsibility.

I agree, although I see it as less of a role in that instance. Just because the system is two party and there's nothing realistically that I as an individual can do to change it doesn't mean that that is all my fault. So I see it as Democrat - supports things that are immoral to me, if I vote for them, I have high degree of responsibility in things they get accomplished that I view as immoral. Trump - supports tons of immoral really bad things, if I don't vote for the Democrat, I have some but less culpability because I'm existing in a system that I did not design and can't do anything to change (certainly not for this election cycle). So on the one hand more immoral things but less direct culpability on my part - I could only be accused of indirectly supporting it, on the other hand, less but certainly non-zero immoral things but I would be directly culpable voting for them....
I genuinely don't understand that mindset.  You are equally responsible for either decision you.  Because you chose to make the decision regardless of what that choice was.

Do you not understand the mindset in this particular case or the mindset at all? For the specific case, it's certainly subjective. For the overall concept, an extreme example would be, if you have two people who are going to be president, one campaigns on the promise to kill all red heads, one on the promise to kill all red heads and people with brown eyes. Both are immoral, one with more suffering as a result of their election. If I didn't vote for either one because I couldn't stand voting for the one who was going to do less damage but still kill people, I would certainly be less responsible even if the worse one won, because the game is rigged. To lay the full blame at my feet of the second one getting elected is silly. Let me mention again, this is an extreme example, and I'm not saying this one is like that, but it hopefully explains my perspective.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #709 on: August 22, 2019, 04:59:06 PM »

Fair enough. I've always had a hard time with the lesser of two evils perspective since I am in a real way supporting the person I vote for even if I'm really voting against someone else. I'm personally trying to balance that out with the fact that no candidate would ever be 100% in line with my views and yet I still vote. I'll eventually balance those out once I find out the actual candidate picked to determine to vote Dem or 3rd party. Thanks for the input.

That is fine. But the fact is, someone is going to be president. Not voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean that a perfect candidate magically appears, or that the office of the presidency somehow doesn't get filled. It will be filled by someone. And so, given the choice between two people, I will choose the better one.

It doesn't make a better candidate magically appear, but I still feel accountable for voting for who I vote for in terms of me actually supporting them. While it's true that it could easily be said that I'm being idealistic or pie in the sky or whatever the correct term is for not accepting the fact that one of the two will certainly be elected, I could also say that the chances of my individual vote making any difference whatsoever is less likely than me winning the lottery (by this I mean that the chances of my single vote swinging my state to one side or the other). It's all a little idealistic no matter how you look at it. I'm just trying to decide where I will draw my line.
By not voting or by voting third party when you know that person will lose, you are saying, "I am ok with either of these two potential candidates being elected". It is not more moral to do this vs the one you think is going to be best of those two candidates. I really hate the idea of least bad. It really is, you have two options which can you look yourself in the face of they won by your vote. Because frankly in states like PA, there are people who chose not to vote and they are responsible for Trump's election.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Just in case this is unclear, by bringing up morality, I was not saying that my perspective on what's more or less moral in this situation is right and yours is wrong. The whole point of this was kind of that I am still working it through myself. I'm just saying with it being a moral issue in this case, I don't think it's as clear cut as some people tend to make it. I disagree that by voting third party, I'm saying I'm ok with either getting elected. It is certainly true that if I won't vote for Trump as a baseline and don't vote for the Democrat, they'll have one less vote than they could. It's also true that if I vote for someone who I know supports something I think is immoral and they end up pushing through legislation that furthers this, I have to recognize the role I had in getting that change made. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the concept of pacifism (of course it's not exactly the same thing). Some people stand to their principles on pacifism even when what they would be fighting is totally unjust. Are they right to stand on this principle or wrong because they're indicating they're "OK" with the unjustices being perpetuated? I don't know, and I'm not a pacifist although I respect their perspective. Just my 2c.
But if you chose not to vote for the "least bad" and the worse candidate wins, you have to recognize the role you had in their legislation.  That is my point. You don't get to not vote and think it absolves you from responsibility.

I agree, although I see it as less of a role in that instance. Just because the system is two party and there's nothing realistically that I as an individual can do to change it doesn't mean that that is all my fault. So I see it as Democrat - supports things that are immoral to me, if I vote for them, I have high degree of responsibility in things they get accomplished that I view as immoral. Trump - supports tons of immoral really bad things, if I don't vote for the Democrat, I have some but less culpability because I'm existing in a system that I did not design and can't do anything to change (certainly not for this election cycle). So on the one hand more immoral things but less direct culpability on my part - I could only be accused of indirectly supporting it, on the other hand, less but certainly non-zero immoral things but I would be directly culpable voting for them....
I genuinely don't understand that mindset.  You are equally responsible for either decision you.  Because you chose to make the decision regardless of what that choice was.

Wolfpack, do you have trans friends? Latinx friends? Muslim friends? Friends who wear hijab? Black friends? Female friends of reproductive age?

If you do, and you didn’t vote for the person who would harm them SO MUCH LESS, the you absolutely bear a greater measure of responsibility for what they / we are going through now.

I said it on the last page but you didn’t respond. Where does harm reduction towards vulnerable communities fall in your worldview? Are your “ideals” more important than the fact that brown children are in cages and black trans women are being killed indiscriminately and hate crimes are up several hundred percent since the Donald took office?

I never understand people whose consider their own sense of ideological purity to be more important than the protection of actual human beings. Everyone knew the Donald was gonna be a racist fascist nightmare as president. Folks who were ok with overlooking that because of their own largely incorrect assumptions and ideas about HRC are selfish and myopic in the extreme.

Put another way, Joe Biden is not my idea of a great or even good president but I will absolutely vote for him, canvass, donate, and organize for him if he is the nominee. The country is on fire. If you can’t get behind the idea of doing whatever needs to be done to protect this democracy and the non-white/straight/male/wealthy who live in it, then your head is 100% up your own ass.

I have one person I know who is trans, an hispanic friend, multiple black friends, no Muslim friends or hijab wearing, and of course, tons of female friends of reproductive age including a wife.

Now, let's get to your argument. Here's the thing, I believe wholeheartedly and sincerely that actual, literal harm will come out of any of the Democrats getting elected for many, many people. The specifics of this are not worth discussing, because I am 100% sure we would disagree with on them. Your comment about Joe Biden, assuming I have assessed your political leanings correctly from the posts I have read from you, is, quite frankly, silly. You may not like Joe Biden, but there's a huge difference in how we see the situation. You see getting rid of Trump as a good thing, but then with whomever the Democrat is, it's like getting rid of Trump and also getting cake and ice cream and some balloons no matter who the candidate is. You may not like the flavor of cake or the color of the balloons, but it's icing on the cake. I want to get rid of Trump but see the Democrats as doing actual harm when they are in office. Our perspectives are far separated, so you're comparison is way off, and you're kind of sitting on an ivory tower looking down at someone whose perspective you don't really understand.

You comment that my ideals are more important than stopping bad things that Trump is doing. That alone shows your lack of comprehension. You use ideals as a pejorative as if I'm looking at it like some fun little game. My ideals are that I firmly believe harm will also come from the Democratic side to people if a Democrat gets elected. It's not a game to me or a high minded debate for fun.

Let me recap my comments on this thread. I've said that I did not vote for Trump. I've said that I may still vote for the Democrat but that I am having internal strife over the decision. You comment that I'm being high minded and that if I don't unequivocally see things your way I've got my head up my ass - and remember, the unequivocally seeing things your way (as best as I can tell from what you wrote) is not even that I end up voting Democrat, but that I don't ever even have any second thoughts.

So...yea. I doubt that we'll ever come to anything from our dialogue. It's hard to come back with someone from the "you have your head 100% up your ass" declaration :). I will say I've spent years struggling to listen to other people's viewpoints, going from extremely conservative to more moderate to finally, moderate leaning conservative. It might behoove you to try to do a little bit of that yourself.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 05:05:21 PM by Wolfpack Mustachian »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #710 on: August 22, 2019, 05:04:19 PM »

Fair enough. I've always had a hard time with the lesser of two evils perspective since I am in a real way supporting the person I vote for even if I'm really voting against someone else. I'm personally trying to balance that out with the fact that no candidate would ever be 100% in line with my views and yet I still vote. I'll eventually balance those out once I find out the actual candidate picked to determine to vote Dem or 3rd party. Thanks for the input.

That is fine. But the fact is, someone is going to be president. Not voting for the lesser of two evils does not mean that a perfect candidate magically appears, or that the office of the presidency somehow doesn't get filled. It will be filled by someone. And so, given the choice between two people, I will choose the better one.

It doesn't make a better candidate magically appear, but I still feel accountable for voting for who I vote for in terms of me actually supporting them. While it's true that it could easily be said that I'm being idealistic or pie in the sky or whatever the correct term is for not accepting the fact that one of the two will certainly be elected, I could also say that the chances of my individual vote making any difference whatsoever is less likely than me winning the lottery (by this I mean that the chances of my single vote swinging my state to one side or the other). It's all a little idealistic no matter how you look at it. I'm just trying to decide where I will draw my line.
By not voting or by voting third party when you know that person will lose, you are saying, "I am ok with either of these two potential candidates being elected". It is not more moral to do this vs the one you think is going to be best of those two candidates. I really hate the idea of least bad. It really is, you have two options which can you look yourself in the face of they won by your vote. Because frankly in states like PA, there are people who chose not to vote and they are responsible for Trump's election.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Just in case this is unclear, by bringing up morality, I was not saying that my perspective on what's more or less moral in this situation is right and yours is wrong. The whole point of this was kind of that I am still working it through myself. I'm just saying with it being a moral issue in this case, I don't think it's as clear cut as some people tend to make it. I disagree that by voting third party, I'm saying I'm ok with either getting elected. It is certainly true that if I won't vote for Trump as a baseline and don't vote for the Democrat, they'll have one less vote than they could. It's also true that if I vote for someone who I know supports something I think is immoral and they end up pushing through legislation that furthers this, I have to recognize the role I had in getting that change made. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the concept of pacifism (of course it's not exactly the same thing). Some people stand to their principles on pacifism even when what they would be fighting is totally unjust. Are they right to stand on this principle or wrong because they're indicating they're "OK" with the unjustices being perpetuated? I don't know, and I'm not a pacifist although I respect their perspective. Just my 2c.

I think it's hard to understand Wolfpack's stance when you really feel that not just Trump, but most of what the Republican party stands for, is bad for society. I tend to agree even.

But Wolfpack's political views aren't entirely aligned with those of the people criticizing him. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your views tend to lean conservative, yet you're able to recognize how dangerous the current president is. You probably even agree with some of the policy that he and his administration are fighting for right now while also seeing the potential long term damage of the divisive tactics they are using.

It's not an easy thing to do, but if you can put yourself in the shoes of someone who supports (some of) the policy and dislikes the president, it actually makes sense that this becomes a difficult decision.

Personally, I'm a numbers person and I think someone in this position should vote for the democratic candidate in order to remove Trump, no doubt about it. I also understand what you're saying Wolfpack, pacifism isn't a perfect anology, but it's the best one I've heard. In the end I hope you vote against Trump even if it doesn't feel so good on your conscience. I'm confident that history will look kindly on your decision.

Thanks for your effort to explain my perspective. You have assessed me correctly in my political leanings and my extreme dislike of Trump. The policies that he supports (in my mind because of simple political games versus actual convictions) that I support I am sad and depressed that have any association with him.

If it makes you feel better, I will probably end up voting Democrat in the end....why did it have to be Trump.....

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3667
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #711 on: August 22, 2019, 05:08:29 PM »
What I'm curious about is what the "amoral" things that Democrats are doing. The only thing I can think of, if someone was raised in the Evangelical church or Catholic church, is that Democrats are pro choice. It is not a controversial or extreme basis, it is legal in this country (as well as many others), and in fact reading of the Bible as well as Judiac law do not support a fetus= a human argument that Evangelicals are stating. It does not have Biblical standing. 
The definition of pro choice, is that it is a personal decision, and each woman can choose that decision. They can choose to have an abortion. Or choose not to. No one in the government is forcing people to have abortions, nor are they paying for abortions. So even in the most liberal case, I don't understand why Wolfpack would feel culpable for any woman choosing to have an abortion. It's called freedom of will. We also have separation of church and state that states our laws trump religious doctrine. In the same way if you belong to a religion that says alcohol is sinful. Just because alcohol is legal in this country does not mean that the government is forcing people to drink against their will. The same way if someone commits adultery. it is on that person (and we no longer stone people who commit adultery). It is not for the religious minority to force their rules on the majority secular laws. 

Reality. Ignoring climate change and pushing fossil fuels over trying to addres or mitigate climate change, is going to cause a lot more death and suffering. Not just of people but all life on this planet, and our responsibility, morality-wise is clear.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 05:28:02 PM by partgypsy »

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2420
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #712 on: August 22, 2019, 05:18:06 PM »
Wolfpack ... lol I promise you that I am not sitting in an ivory tower. I fully get that any democratic president will be doing harm. And yet ... still so much less harm than the Donald. Drastically less, in a life and death kinda way.

Let me stop using the rhetorical devise of saying “you” here, because you’re right in that neither of us knows each other. But I don’t understand how *any person* cannot see that X amount of harm is better in absolute terms than X*100 amount of harm.

Any American president is going to do some harm — it’s too big a job not to.  So there’s always going to be some measure of compromise when voting.

But I know it is possible to want and work to change the corrupt two party system and *also* understand that the moral thing to do when vulnerable people are at risk is to vote for someone you don’t love who is going to be competent or at least not be a narcissistic fascist.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4818
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #713 on: August 23, 2019, 01:39:16 AM »

Fair enough. I've always had a hard time with the lesser of two evils perspective since I am in a real way supporting the person I vote for even if I'm really voting against someone else. I'm personally trying to balance that out with the fact that no candidate would ever be 100% in line with my views and yet I still vote. I'll eventually balance those out once I find out the actual candidate picked to determine to vote Dem or 3rd party. Thanks for the input.

It doesn't make a better candidate magically appear, but I still feel accountable for voting for who I vote for in terms of me actually supporting them. While it's true that it could easily be said that I'm being idealistic or pie in the sky or whatever the correct term is for not accepting the fact that one of the two will certainly be elected, I could also say that the chances of my individual vote making any difference whatsoever is less likely than me winning the lottery (by this I mean that the chances of my single vote swinging my state to one side or the other). It's all a little idealistic no matter how you look at it. I'm just trying to decide where I will draw my line.

Just in case this is unclear, by bringing up morality, I was not saying that my perspective on what's more or less moral in this situation is right and yours is wrong. The whole point of this was kind of that I am still working it through myself. I'm just saying with it being a moral issue in this case, I don't think it's as clear cut as some people tend to make it. I disagree that by voting third party, I'm saying I'm ok with either getting elected. It is certainly true that if I won't vote for Trump as a baseline and don't vote for the Democrat, they'll have one less vote than they could. It's also true that if I vote for someone who I know supports something I think is immoral and they end up pushing through legislation that furthers this, I have to recognize the role I had in getting that change made. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the concept of pacifism (of course it's not exactly the same thing). Some people stand to their principles on pacifism even when what they would be fighting is totally unjust. Are they right to stand on this principle or wrong because they're indicating they're "OK" with the unjustices being perpetuated? I don't know, and I'm not a pacifist although I respect their perspective. Just my 2c.

I agree, although I see it as less of a role in that instance. Just because the system is two party and there's nothing realistically that I as an individual can do to change it doesn't mean that that is all my fault. So I see it as Democrat - supports things that are immoral to me, if I vote for them, I have high degree of responsibility in things they get accomplished that I view as immoral. Trump - supports tons of immoral really bad things, if I don't vote for the Democrat, I have some but less culpability because I'm existing in a system that I did not design and can't do anything to change (certainly not for this election cycle). So on the one hand more immoral things but less direct culpability on my part - I could only be accused of indirectly supporting it, on the other hand, less but certainly non-zero immoral things but I would be directly culpable voting for them....

Here's the thing, I believe wholeheartedly and sincerely that actual, literal harm will come out of any of the Democrats getting elected for many, many people. The specifics of this are not worth discussing, because I am 100% sure we would disagree with on them. Your comment about Joe Biden, assuming I have assessed your political leanings correctly from the posts I have read from you, is, quite frankly, silly. You may not like Joe Biden, but there's a huge difference in how we see the situation. You see getting rid of Trump as a good thing, but then with whomever the Democrat is, it's like getting rid of Trump and also getting cake and ice cream and some balloons no matter who the candidate is. You may not like the flavor of cake or the color of the balloons, but it's icing on the cake. I want to get rid of Trump but see the Democrats as doing actual harm when they are in office. Our perspectives are far separated, so you're comparison is way off, and you're kind of sitting on an ivory tower looking down at someone whose perspective you don't really understand.

You comment that my ideals are more important than stopping bad things that Trump is doing. That alone shows your lack of comprehension. You use ideals as a pejorative as if I'm looking at it like some fun little game. My ideals are that I firmly believe harm will also come from the Democratic side to people if a Democrat gets elected. It's not a game to me or a high minded debate for fun.

Let me recap my comments on this thread. I've said that I did not vote for Trump. I've said that I may still vote for the Democrat but that I am having internal strife over the decision. You comment that I'm being high minded and that if I don't unequivocally see things your way I've got my head up my ass - and remember, the unequivocally seeing things your way (as best as I can tell from what you wrote) is not even that I end up voting Democrat, but that I don't ever even have any second thoughts.


I think I'm beginning to understand Wolfpack's thinking more.  I can certainly respect that they are coming from a point of their own idealism and not wanting to compromise that, but being open to the possibility of it.  The pacifist analogy is therefore not a perfect one but does have something of relevance.

I think we all acknowledge that diversity of political views is good?  I've always been of the view that the practice of absolute idealism isn't good (because it inevitably falls down in practice in the face of us flawed human beings and usually makes things worse) but that expressions of idealism can help keep the more practical minding among us a little closer to the straight and narrow.  I also think that there are a lot more people more culpable for Trump's election than people like Wolfpack.  All the people who couldn't be bothered.  All the people who believed Russian propaganda or conspiracy theories (same thing all too often).  All the people who wouldn't vote for a woman as President.  All the covert racists and overt white supremacists (yes, we now know how many of them are out there).   All the failures in Hilary's campaign. 

I hope that anyone who's been having a go at Wolfpack is also working in real life to register voters for 2020, because that's far more likely to get the result they want at local or national level than being a keyboard warrior here.

And I hope that whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be Wolfpack can find a way to vote for them without violating his conscience.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1370
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #714 on: August 23, 2019, 05:11:13 AM »

- SNIP -

I think I'm beginning to understand Wolfpack's thinking more.  I can certainly respect that they are coming from a point of their own idealism and not wanting to compromise that, but being open to the possibility of it.  The pacifist analogy is therefore not a perfect one but does have something of relevance.

I think we all acknowledge that diversity of political views is good?  I've always been of the view that the practice of absolute idealism isn't good (because it inevitably falls down in practice in the face of us flawed human beings and usually makes things worse) but that expressions of idealism can help keep the more practical minding among us a little closer to the straight and narrow.  I also think that there are a lot more people more culpable for Trump's election than people like Wolfpack.  All the people who couldn't be bothered.  All the people who believed Russian propaganda or conspiracy theories (same thing all too often).  All the people who wouldn't vote for a woman as President.  All the covert racists and overt white supremacists (yes, we now know how many of them are out there).   All the failures in Hilary's campaign. 

I hope that anyone who's been having a go at Wolfpack is also working in real life to register voters for 2020, because that's far more likely to get the result they want at local or national level than being a keyboard warrior here.

And I hope that whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be Wolfpack can find a way to vote for them without violating his conscience.

I didn't vote for Trump.  I did have the hope of many.  This hope was that maybe, just maybe he would bring the good jobs back.  There are a lot of people out there now who are willing to work and work hard for a living.  They used to do just that.  The opportunity was taken away from them.  Oh They can still work hard at a fast food place or other low paying place.  The pay is not there.  The self respect is not there.  Hillary struck me as a bit of an elitist.  I didn't see an affection for the common people.  Trump gave the story that he was a winner.  You can be a winner too.  Vote for me.  Make America great again.  Make yourself great again.

Many years ago, I learned in macroeconomics class that tariffs are bad.  I learn when I buy almost any manufactured good that it is made in China.  When I took that economics course, a lot of the stuff was made here.  My job has made me visit many shuttered factories in the past few years.  I've talked with people who said how much better it was.  They'd like to make it here again.

You know I still wouldn't vote for crazy Donald, but I sure can understand a lot of people voting for him over Hillary Clinton.  I understand people thinking, "What have we got to lose?"

In thinking about it, I see Democrats promising a lot of things.  Do any of them do as Donald Trump did and say they are going to get the jobs back?

All people who voted for Trump are not bad people.  Many of them just want the American dream to come back. 

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #715 on: August 23, 2019, 06:34:14 AM »
To partgypsy, madgeylou, former player, etc. thanks for the dialogue. Since it's come up multiple times, I will mention the main issue that I'm referring to. Please note that I did not begin this, intending to bring this issue up. I also want to note that I do not want to debate this issue. If you've seen my posts on here at all, you know that I'm up for debating pretty much everything and have discussed most controversial topics, but I do not see anything productive in discussing this issue on here. The main issue is abortion. Although there are several other issues where I feel that harm will come from a Democrat being elected, this is the main one.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3667
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #716 on: August 23, 2019, 07:18:39 AM »
I'm not out to change anyone's mind, but I wanted to share a story. I work at the VA, in research. I was interviewing an older black man for a study, and at one point he stopped and started talking about abortion. We as employees are not supposed to talk about politics, so if we are ever asked we defer and just nod our heads and when given a chance move on. So I girded my lions for the ride and listened.

He said, I'm a Baptist minister. And I was raised and taught to be pro-life. That is, until I was in the room when my wife was giving birth. I held her hand. I could see what she went through to give birth, the pain and this was a regular birth and she WANTED this baby. I can't imagine putting someone through that who did not want to be there, who was scared. And I realized this was not my decision to make. Ever since I saw my wife give birth I have been pro-choice." I replied something non-committal like "I am glad that you could be there for her" but it almost made me cry.   

All women all over the world have to carry a burden that men do not. It starts usually around 12 or 13, when we get our periods. Yes there is the pms, the monthly periods. But what I am talking about is even though I only had a dim understanding of sex at age 12, it was my burden from that point forward if any man had sex with me (either with my permission or without) I could get pregnant. No man understands what that means. If you are pro-life, to me, it is saying you are comfortable with half the population being 2nd class citizens to the other half.  That my uterus comes before me as an individual, a person.
I am privileged that I was middle class, was relatively sheltered, had sex education, was able to purchase birth control when I wanted. I could choose my sexual partners. But I know many many females do not have those privileges. And if I am privileged, what does it make all men, who on one hand never had to worry about this in the first place, and on the other are the ones making and enforcing the laws of female reproductive rights? It's not a religious issue, or a moral one. It's a human rights issue.   
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 07:39:25 AM by partgypsy »

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4106
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #717 on: August 23, 2019, 07:45:40 AM »
I'm not out to change anyone's mind, but I wanted to share a story. I work at the VA, in research. I was interviewing an older black man for a study, and at one point he stopped and started talking about abortion. We as employees are not supposed to talk about politics, so if we are ever asked we defer and just nod our heads and when given a chance move on. So I girded my lions for the ride and listened.

He said, I'm a Baptist minister. And I was raised and taught to be pro-life. That is, until I was in the room when my wife was giving birth. I held her hand. I could see what she went through to give birth, the pain and this was a regular birth and she WANTED this baby. I can't imagine putting someone through that who did not want to be there, who was scared. And I realized this was not my decision to make. Ever since I saw my wife give birth I have been pro-choice." I replied something non-committal like "I am glad that you could be there for her" but it almost made me cry.   

All women all over the world have to carry a burden that men do not. It starts usually around 12 or 13, when we get our periods. Yes there is the pms, the monthly periods. But what I am talking about is even though I only had a dim understanding of sex at age 12, it was my burden from that point forward if any man had sex with me (either with my permission or without) I could get pregnant. No man understands what that means. If you are pro-life, to me, it is saying you are comfortable with half the population being 2nd class citizens to the other half.  That my uterus comes before me as an individual, a person.
I am privileged that I was middle class, was relatively sheltered, had sex education, was able to purchase birth control when I wanted. I could choose my sexual partners. But I know many many females do not have those privileges. And if I am privileged, what does it make all men, who on one hand never had to worry about this in the first place, and on the other are the ones making and enforcing the laws of female reproductive rights? It's not a religious issue, or a moral one. It's a human rights issue.
As a man, I'm convinced that if men could get pregnant, there would be abortion clinics in every corner drugstore.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4818
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #718 on: August 23, 2019, 07:54:13 AM »
All women all over the world have to carry a burden that men do not. It starts usually around 12 or 13, when we get our periods. Yes there is the pms, the monthly periods. But what I am talking about is even though I only had a dim understanding of sex at age 12, it was my burden from that point forward if any man had sex with me (either with my permission or without) I could get pregnant. No man understands what that means. If you are pro-life, to me, it is saying you are comfortable with half the population being 2nd class citizens to the other half.  That my uterus comes before me as an individual, a person.
I am privileged that I was middle class, was relatively sheltered, had sex education, was able to purchase birth control when I wanted. I could choose my sexual partners. But I know many many females do not have those privileges. And if I am privileged, what does it make all men, who on one hand never had to worry about this in the first place, and on the other are the ones making and enforcing the laws of female reproductive rights? It's not a religious issue, or a moral one. It's a human rights issue.   
You know what is both clever and cowardly and insidious about all those anti-abortion laws?  They don't actually say anything about the rights of a woman or even the rights of a foetus.  What they do is prevent doctors from providing medical services to people.  Oh sorry, they prevent doctors from providing medical services to women, specifically women of childbearing age.  None of those laws say "we are giving a foetus more rights than a woman" - which is the practical effect and which is apparently the "principle" most people think is involved.  Those laws say "The State has legislated to stop a willing doctor providing medical services to a willing woman".  Anyone who supports those laws supports the State walking into the medical consulting room and stopping a doctor from providing medical services to a woman.  Funnily enough, most of the same people think they are in favour of a small government that doesn't interfere with the lives of people living within its borders.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #719 on: August 23, 2019, 08:02:41 AM »
I'm not out to change anyone's mind, but I wanted to share a story. I work at the VA, in research. I was interviewing an older black man for a study, and at one point he stopped and started talking about abortion. We as employees are not supposed to talk about politics, so if we are ever asked we defer and just nod our heads and when given a chance move on. So I girded my lions for the ride and listened.

He said, I'm a Baptist minister. And I was raised and taught to be pro-life. That is, until I was in the room when my wife was giving birth. I held her hand. I could see what she went through to give birth, the pain and this was a regular birth and she WANTED this baby. I can't imagine putting someone through that who did not want to be there, who was scared. And I realized this was not my decision to make. Ever since I saw my wife give birth I have been pro-choice." I replied something non-committal like "I am glad that you could be there for her" but it almost made me cry.   

All women all over the world have to carry a burden that men do not. It starts usually around 12 or 13, when we get our periods. Yes there is the pms, the monthly periods. But what I am talking about is even though I only had a dim understanding of sex at age 12, it was my burden from that point forward if any man had sex with me (either with my permission or without) I could get pregnant. No man understands what that means. If you are pro-life, to me, it is saying you are comfortable with half the population being 2nd class citizens to the other half.  That my uterus comes before me as an individual, a person.
I am privileged that I was middle class, was relatively sheltered, had sex education, was able to purchase birth control when I wanted. I could choose my sexual partners. But I know many many females do not have those privileges. And if I am privileged, what does it make all men, who on one hand never had to worry about this in the first place, and on the other are the ones making and enforcing the laws of female reproductive rights? It's not a religious issue, or a moral one. It's a human rights issue.

Thank you, and I agree. We don't apply the same responsibility of the sanctity of life in this country, or  in the world (children die everyday from treatable and preventable causes), that we place on the backs of women.

It is absolutely the case that when a person, a law states a woman should be forced to go through the trauma of childbirth, that they are putting her in the same category as merely a vessel, and not a human being that could have life-lasting mental and physical complications from being put through such a thing.

I have never given birth, but of course know many who have, and it is not something that is over and done. Most women I know who have given birth and been open about it, have been physically changed forever, and alot in ways that interfere with their comfort, and some that may interfere with their health.

Men who feel so moved to believe they can force women what to do with their bodies, should just shut up and mind their own family, if that is something important to them. If this is something you cannot stand by for, then make sure your partner is on the same page, just like is expected of any other intimate decision made between partners. And if she changes her mind down the road, have the human decency to be a support.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3667
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #720 on: August 23, 2019, 08:42:20 AM »
Not just changes and tears to muscles and ligaments. A person can look at a female skeleton, with no other information and tell if that female gave birth because childbirth creates grooves on the bones from tearing of ligaments.

I'm not an especially harsh person but this is one subject...I think it's because I went to a planned parenthood to get on birth control in my 20's, and found out I had dysplasia of the cervix. They caught a precancer and treated me. If it wasn't for planned parenthood I may not have been around to, or healthy enough to bear two healthy wonderful kids later on when I was ready to. I owe them literally my life and the life of my two kids. And pro-life people are trying to shut down PP and other clinics taking care of women's reproductive health. 

 I just think males being pro-life is, a way of feeling good about yourself or moral or superior without any of the work or burden or responsibiltiy of that decision. It's a cop out.
 

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #721 on: August 23, 2019, 08:49:49 AM »
I'm not out to change anyone's mind, but I wanted to share a story. I work at the VA, in research. I was interviewing an older black man for a study, and at one point he stopped and started talking about abortion. We as employees are not supposed to talk about politics, so if we are ever asked we defer and just nod our heads and when given a chance move on. So I girded my lions for the ride and listened.

He said, I'm a Baptist minister. And I was raised and taught to be pro-life. That is, until I was in the room when my wife was giving birth. I held her hand. I could see what she went through to give birth, the pain and this was a regular birth and she WANTED this baby. I can't imagine putting someone through that who did not want to be there, who was scared. And I realized this was not my decision to make. Ever since I saw my wife give birth I have been pro-choice." I replied something non-committal like "I am glad that you could be there for her" but it almost made me cry.   

All women all over the world have to carry a burden that men do not. It starts usually around 12 or 13, when we get our periods. Yes there is the pms, the monthly periods. But what I am talking about is even though I only had a dim understanding of sex at age 12, it was my burden from that point forward if any man had sex with me (either with my permission or without) I could get pregnant. No man understands what that means. If you are pro-life, to me, it is saying you are comfortable with half the population being 2nd class citizens to the other half.  That my uterus comes before me as an individual, a person.
I am privileged that I was middle class, was relatively sheltered, had sex education, was able to purchase birth control when I wanted. I could choose my sexual partners. But I know many many females do not have those privileges. And if I am privileged, what does it make all men, who on one hand never had to worry about this in the first place, and on the other are the ones making and enforcing the laws of female reproductive rights? It's not a religious issue, or a moral one. It's a human rights issue.

Thank you for your story and perspective.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #722 on: August 23, 2019, 08:59:55 AM »
I dont think men shouldn't be excluded from the abortion discussion; there is also a voiceless party that requires representation as well and that requires everyone's participation.  That's how western laws function. 

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #723 on: August 23, 2019, 09:16:51 AM »
We all remember this photo from when the GOP discussed healthcare, including maternity benefits. Obviously, women's opinions and priorities are taken seriously.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39375228


« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 09:18:43 AM by Nick_Miller »

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #724 on: August 23, 2019, 09:17:37 AM »
I dont think men shouldn't be excluded from the abortion discussion; there is also a voiceless party that requires representation as well and that requires everyone's participation.  That's how western laws function.

But the problem is, pro life people in power are not using their "voices" to contribute to discussion. They are using backhand tactics to circumvent the LAWFUL options of women; that's not how western law was meant to function, even if unfortunately that's what it's devolved into today.

If only they would use their voice. They should use their voice to attempt to change the heart and will of the American people, if they so believe in their message. But that isn't the will of the majority. And no amount of Supreme court hostage-holding or [il]legal circumvention will change that absolute fact.

Anyway. I respect people's opinions (or at least their right to one), but my disgust and anger lies in what I wrote above, and not with those whose opinions differ from mine.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 09:27:41 AM by Lmoot »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4699
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #725 on: August 23, 2019, 09:22:30 AM »
Imagine the hubris of thinking that as a man, you “speak for” and defend a fetus against women.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2420
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #726 on: August 23, 2019, 11:41:17 AM »
Imagine the hubris of thinking that as a man, you “speak for” and defend a fetus against women.

It’s almost unfathomable, except you see it every damn day.

The fact is that 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men ejaculating irresponsibly. If only they took responsibility for that and all got vasectomies until they were damn sure they wanted a child, and had the written approval of their female partner, to get them reversed. A vasectomy is sure as hell a lot less invasive than childbirth.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #727 on: August 24, 2019, 04:02:35 AM »
I dont think men shouldn't be excluded from the abortion discussion; there is also a voiceless party that requires representation as well and that requires everyone's participation.  That's how western laws function.
We all remember this photo from when the GOP discussed healthcare, including maternity benefits. Obviously, women's opinions and priorities are taken seriously.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39375228

Thank you! Nick_Miller. Men CONTROL the discussion. When this photo came out, it stunk of both a history of inequal power, as a country we fought to escape, and a dystopian horror.

Black women, who rank amongst the highest in maternal mortality, having decisions made about their bodies, health, lives...by older white men (who are not their doctor, or doctors period). As a younger black woman, that kinda grinds my gears.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 04:08:17 AM by Lmoot »

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1370
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #728 on: August 24, 2019, 06:26:24 AM »
One Negative Comment - The whining may be valid, but women also make up the majority of voters.  Essentially, they voted all those men into power.  Odd how so many people do not vote to help themselves out.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #729 on: August 24, 2019, 06:44:20 AM »
A lot of women don't want to become political candidates.  I think that politics is especially brutal nowadays -- who wants to get into that?  I am involved in local issues in my community and looking at even county government, whew, it can get ugly.  Why would someone step into it?  I think that having a deep sense of wanting to serve the community can drive people, but it is far too easy to get either roadblocked or manipulated by the money. At some level, you and your family are in the public life to be constantly beaten up.

I know a family from our church who lived next door to our former Governor's mother.  People would bang on their (the family from church's door) in the middle of the night, because they would be at the wrong house, when they were trying to harass and scare the Governor's mother in the middle of the night.  It is one thing to say, "I am willing to put myself out there".  It is another thing to put your whole family out there for potential harassment.

I do think that female candidates have a harder path than male candidates.  I am not sure exactly why, but it is.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 06:55:51 AM by KBecks »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #730 on: August 24, 2019, 06:46:59 AM »
Also, a lot of men are pro-abortion (convenient for them) and a lot of women are anti-abortion.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #731 on: August 24, 2019, 07:19:28 AM »
Also, a lot of men are pro-abortion (convenient for them) and a lot of women are anti-abortion.

How are you defining anti abortion though? I don’t like the idea of abortions, especially since unwanted pregnancies are mostly avoidable. And it can be physically and emotionally draining for a woman. Does it describe women who would never have one for themselves? Earlier in my life I would get one. Now, I wouldn’t for different and changing reasons. Does it describe women who hate the idea of abortion, wouldn’t get it themselves, and prefer other women would make a different choice, but....they hate even more  the idea of someone else making that decision for the woman and supports her right to that choice.

It is not a one side against the other. And pro abortion just sounds icky. Just bc I support choice doesn’t mean I think abortion should have no limits.

 Very good points about the hostile political climate towards women. We need more women especially in the southern states. But it is hard to take power from those that hold it bc they also have the money, connections, and resources to keep that power. So it is not just a matter of running for office.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #732 on: August 24, 2019, 07:32:36 AM »
Also, a lot of men are pro-abortion (convenient for them) and a lot of women are anti-abortion.
Some recent polling would suggest that women are as anti-abortion as men, and possibly slightly more so.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #733 on: August 24, 2019, 07:46:14 AM »

 Very good points about the hostile political climate towards women. We need more women especially in the southern states. But it is hard to take power from those that hold it bc they also have the money, connections, and resources to keep that power. So it is not just a matter of running for office.

Yes, but if you don't have any women stepping up to run for office, it's over before you even start. 
I have acquaintances with a few local politicians and it is interesting.  One of them is a young Boomer man and he will post photos of his events, and who is in them?  All men.  All old men. 

Now I would almost give him a hard time about it but I realize there are so few women at these events -- mostly real-estate related stuff.  It's not his fault. I did tell him to get a woman on the board of a thing that he runs so it's not just a guys group.  He said he was putting his wife on. (smacks forehead).  That's not what I was hoping for. I suggested a woman in the area who is wonderful, but I don't know if she was interested.

Honestly, locally here, I just want more people involved. I don't care if they are men or women, we need more fresh faces who are willing to step up.  Younger people do not have the experience of serving the community and volunteering as much as the older generations do. It is harder to get people involved in the community and to have a sense of community.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 07:49:11 AM by KBecks »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #734 on: August 24, 2019, 07:50:58 AM »
Just bc I support choice doesn’t mean I think abortion should have no limits.

Good!

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #735 on: August 24, 2019, 08:45:42 AM »
One Negative Comment - The whining may be valid, but women also make up the majority of voters.  Essentially, they voted all those men into power.  Odd how so many people do not vote to help themselves out.
It has been argued that voters generally do not vote based on self-interest (e.g. The Myth of the Rational Voter by Bryan Caplan). Why? Because each individual vote--when it is one among hundreds of thousands or millions--is almost completely certain not to be decisive in an election. Because an individual vote is not decisive, voters are free to indulge their fantasies rather than make informed rational decisions. Consequently, voting is an opportunity for people to virtue-signal to themselves on the basis of their dubiously derived political beliefs. See this as a closely related idea.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #736 on: August 24, 2019, 10:05:27 AM »
Also, a lot of men are pro-abortion (convenient for them) and a lot of women are anti-abortion.
Some recent polling would suggest that women are as anti-abortion as men, and possibly slightly more so.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

Which women? The poll unfortunately doesn't specify age for the male/female breakdown, but in the age-related polling on the same link, there is nearly double those in their early childbearing years that are pro choice, vs pro life. Plus they interviewed about 50 less women than men, and with such a low pool of subjects polled, that could make a huge difference.

Just like me, the younger I was the more likely I was to get an abortion. The older I got and more stable, the less likely I am to have an abortion, and although I chose to remain pro choice for those who do, I can see how others might change their view, particularly after having children.

The point is, those who are "in the safety zone" so to speak (post-menopausal or male), IMO have less motivation to be pro choice, and less to lose if abortion is removed as a choice, so put me down for unsurprised that those are the ones more in favor of forcing other people to give birth and have painful and life threatening procedures, so that they can feel good about themselves. Yet how many will step up to support programs and put up their own earnings, to handle the fallout from such a scenario? History suggests almost nobody in that group, or anyone who represents that group. Apparently the "feely goody" stops at the pocket book.

Anyway, I've been down this road before and I've said my piece on this subject.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 10:16:53 AM by Lmoot »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #737 on: August 24, 2019, 10:40:48 AM »
Many males have reason to be pro-abortion and that is that -- they don't want to be a father or pay child support.  I have heard of families that tell their sons that if they get a girl pregnant, they should tell the girl to get an abortion so the boys can live life without the burden.  Pressure on women's bodies comes in all directions!

Then there is the very sick example of men who sexually abuse young women and take them to have abortions so they are not found out / have no consequences.  I would love it if abortion providers asked their clients if they are being pressured or fearful or if they are being hurt, but I honestly don't think this happens as it is contradictory to the abortion providers' interests of performing the procedure.  Forced to have sex + forced to have abortions is doubly sick.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 10:46:40 AM by KBecks »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4818
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #738 on: August 24, 2019, 11:33:12 AM »
Many males have reason to be pro-abortion and that is that -- they don't want to be a father or pay child support.  I have heard of families that tell their sons that if they get a girl pregnant, they should tell the girl to get an abortion so the boys can live life without the burden.  Pressure on women's bodies comes in all directions!

Google tells me that less than 50% of single parents get any child support at all and of the percentage that do more than two thirds are in arrears at any one time.  Chances of a son suffering a "burden" are not great.  And let's not forget that it's the child that suffers from those deadbeat dads and grandparents.

I would love it if abortion providers asked their clients if they are being pressured or fearful or if they are being hurt, but I honestly don't think this happens as it is contradictory to the abortion providers' interests of performing the procedure.  Forced to have sex + forced to have abortions is doubly sick.
If you have evidence of abortion providers doing this you should report them to the medical authorities immediately.  But I don't think you do.  I don't know where you got these ideas from but I bet you can't back them up with any reliable evidence whatsoever, and that makes them utterly irresponsible.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #739 on: August 24, 2019, 11:46:01 AM »

And let's not forget that it's the child that suffers from those deadbeat dads and grandparents.

Oh, only the child suffers??  LOL.

Here's a National Review article on coerced abortion:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/forced-abortion-coerced-women-pregnancy-economic-pressure-pro-life-help/
« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 05:05:22 PM by KBecks »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4818
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #740 on: August 25, 2019, 11:56:02 AM »

And let's not forget that it's the child that suffers from those deadbeat dads and grandparents.

Oh, only the child suffers??  LOL.
If a man chooses to have sex either without protection or with ineffective protection that's his choice.  And there are formula for child support which take account of the father's (or mother's) circumstances, so no, I don't believe they "suffer".  It's only for 18 years anyway.


Here's a National Review article on coerced abortion:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/forced-abortion-coerced-women-pregnancy-economic-pressure-pro-life-help/
Right.  That's some sad stories of underage girls or young women still dependent on their parents and in no position to provide for a child, plus two of women in precarious financial circumstances. All of it is after the fact and unsubstantiated statements to an extreme anti-abortion organisation that I wouldn't trust to be objective or to elict objective statements from those womeni.  There is also a whole lot of tendentious editorialising, particularly as respects abortion providers - the only direct statement about an abortion provider is one who "went against their own interests" (as the article might have argued had it had any internal logic) by not agreeing to perform an abortion.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4818
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #741 on: August 25, 2019, 12:01:52 PM »
Back to the topic of the 2020 POTUS Candidates, is the realistic field now limited to the current front runners of Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris?

I would be a bit sad if that were the case: Biden and Sanders I think are too old, and I like a lot about both Warren and Harris but sexism seems to have been a fairly significant problem for Hilary, more so than racism for Obama. Mayor Pete I think could be the most effective foil against Trump of all of them, but he probably needs to come back strongly in the next debate.

Does this thread also encompass Republican challengers to Trump?

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #742 on: August 25, 2019, 02:21:24 PM »
Back to the topic of the 2020 POTUS Candidates, is the realistic field now limited to the current front runners of Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris?

I would be a bit sad if that were the case: Biden and Sanders I think are too old, and I like a lot about both Warren and Harris but sexism seems to have been a fairly significant problem for Hilary, more so than racism for Obama. Mayor Pete I think could be the most effective foil against Trump of all of them, but he probably needs to come back strongly in the next debate.

Does this thread also encompass Republican challengers to Trump?

Well the OP included a "GOP" section (that obviously just had Trump there at the time), so yeah the OP's intent was clearly to include GOP primary discussion. Have at it!

And I think Pete has a legit shot. He has raised a TON of money, and he's FINALLY starting to use some of it in Iowa now. That corn kernel thing where he came in second place can't be entirely ignored. If he gets to debate against only the other top four candidates in Sept, I think he'll do extremely well.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 02:25:53 PM by Nick_Miller »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3667
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #743 on: August 25, 2019, 03:55:04 PM »
Many males have reason to be pro-abortion and that is that -- they don't want to be a father or pay child support.  I have heard of families that tell their sons that if they get a girl pregnant, they should tell the girl to get an abortion so the boys can live life without the burden.  Pressure on women's bodies comes in all directions!

Google tells me that less than 50% of single parents get any child support at all and of the percentage that do more than two thirds are in arrears at any one time.  Chances of a son suffering a "burden" are not great.  And let's not forget that it's the child that suffers from those deadbeat dads and grandparents.

I would love it if abortion providers asked their clients if they are being pressured or fearful or if they are being hurt, but I honestly don't think this happens as it is contradictory to the abortion providers' interests of performing the procedure.  Forced to have sex + forced to have abortions is doubly sick.
If you have evidence of abortion providers doing this you should report them to the medical authorities immediately.  But I don't think you do.  I don't know where you got these ideas from but I bet you can't back them up with any reliable evidence whatsoever, and that makes them utterly irresponsible.

The only people I know who bring up this spectre of women being forced into getting unwanted abortions, are pro life people. Because of lack of access, the opposite scenario, of a teen or woman wanting to get an abortion, but having a difficult time getting one, or being pushed to get one later when it is more dangerous is really more of a thing. Every single case that I know of, where the guy wanted the woman to get an abortion, but the woman did not, the woman had the child. And obviously, if anyone forces a woman to have an abortion that's a criminal act and should be prosecuted. And it's a totally separate question from, should abortion be legal? Our supreme court says yes, and the majority of Americans want abortion to be legal and safe in this country. 
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 04:20:54 PM by partgypsy »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #744 on: August 25, 2019, 04:09:11 PM »
I think with Pete there may definitely be homosexual bias.  We don't know if this will be a factor or not, but it definitely could be in play if he is nominated. I imagine it would be very quiet bias, but still, I don't know if America is so accepting or not at this point in time.

As far as women running,  I think that Hillary was unique. I think that women will have it harder than men, but I don't think that the women running will have anywhere near as much baggage as Hillary had, so that is a plus.  A relative said that is harder for women to fundraise, and I believe that.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 04:11:07 PM by KBecks »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3667
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #745 on: August 25, 2019, 04:32:06 PM »
I think there is more bias against electing a female, than male no matter what flavor (Catholic, black, gay). For whatever reason, it tough going for a female to be elected in the US not just for president but in the political sphere in general, versus many many other countries. Don't ask me to explain it but it's almost to point it seems a female is unelectable, while the same attitudes does not hold true elsewhere. Many other countries have elected a female in top political position for many years (starting in the 1960's). I'm not just talking about places like UK, Norway, Iceland, Germany. Many African countries, China and India, where you would think there is pretty strong traditional, patriarchal attitudes It's a glass wall no American female has broken thus far. 
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 04:34:24 PM by partgypsy »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4699
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #746 on: August 25, 2019, 04:38:08 PM »
I think there is more bias against electing a female, than male no matter what flavor (catholic, Catholic, gay). For whatever reason, it tough going for a female to be elected in the US not just for president but in the political sphere, versus many many other countries. Don't ask me to explain it. Many other countries have elected a female as top political position many many years before us. (starting in the 1960's). I'm not just talking about places like UK, Norway, Iceland, Germany. Many African countries, China and India, where you would think there is pretty strong patriarchal attitudes It's a glass wall no female has broken thus far.

Among right-leaning people, there is always (or for the very foreseeable future) going to be a bias against anyone who is not a white, straight, Christian man. Their ideologies overlap with a lot of racist, sexist, theocratic trains of thought.

On the left, subtle sexism “works” (as in, goes unnoticed) better on Democrats than racism, in my opinion.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 04:40:38 PM by Kris »

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2531
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #747 on: August 25, 2019, 04:40:43 PM »
It seems Trump has alienated a lot of minorities and that should put a hit on his election. He has bashed native Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, blacks. He has said degrading things about women! He doesn't seem to recognize  LGBTQ people. He sides with dictators and rejects our American intelligence.  Why would anyone from these groups vote for him? 

I like Pete and many of the others. We need someone strong to defeat our current misfit President.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #748 on: August 25, 2019, 04:46:17 PM »
This election may truly be an anybody but Trump election.  It's hard to say.  But will the swing voters be comfortable with a married gay couple in the White House?  I think they may be more open to a female President, but who knows?

If I were to vote Democrat, I am most interested in who would do the best job with international relations and keeping the peace.  I am not sure which candidate is strongest in that arena.  Possibly Biden or Warren.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 04:47:57 PM by KBecks »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3667
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #749 on: August 25, 2019, 04:49:55 PM »
I think with Pete there may definitely be homosexual bias.  We don't know if this will be a factor or not, but it definitely could be in play if he is nominated. I imagine it would be very quiet bias, but still, I don't know if America is so accepting or not at this point in time.

As far as women running,  I think that Hillary was unique. I think that women will have it harder than men, but I don't think that the women running will have anywhere near as much baggage as Hillary had, so that is a plus.  A relative said that is harder for women to fundraise, and I believe that.

We'll see. I think who ever is nominated on the Democratic side, especially any woman, will be branded as somehow unacceptable and tainted. Hillary is not a special case, in fact she had tons of real world experience working in goverment and was secretary of state, yet had the "crazy", "shrill", "unwell", "her emails" and running a prostitution ring out of a pizza parlor.  No matter that those things did not turn out to be true, it still damaged her as a candidate so that people stayed home versus voted.
Hopefully I will be proven wrong, but doesn't matter who is nominated, the rumor mill and innuendo will go overtime to smear that person. It won't actually be about, who is the best person to be president, but everything else, make it so ugly everyone so disgusted at all politicians they don't vote.