POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by panerd

I get to vote for three different people for president tomorrow.

I am voting for Gary Johnson which i thought is a vote for the Libertarian candidate for president.

My liberal friends all have told me not only is this a wasted vote but also a vote for Trump.

My mom and other conservative voters have told me this is indeed a wasted vote and basically a vote for Clinton.

So I am excited... 3 for the price of 1!

Didnt realize you were a Dem.

[Buccaneer]

In all, 1,852,029 Coloradans have turned in ballots. The state mailed 3.27 million ballots to active state registered voters. This is the first time that Colorado has conducted a presidential election completely by mail.

Still don't know all the reasons why people have to physically go somewhere to vote in other states (as oppose to go somewhere to drop off the ballots).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Largely sharing here (aside from cheap bumping of my traffic counter purposes) because I've been vocal about my lack-of-voting intentions this year. That's shifted ... and I've explained that reasoning on the ol' blog.

Election Day 2016 | Jon's Three Cents

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Still don't know all the reasons why people have to physically go somewhere to vote in other states (as oppose to go somewhere to drop off the ballots).

I'm assuming that when it says mail-in, that's literal, like USPS.

Or is it "drop off at specified ballot collection locations?"

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm assuming that when it says mail-in, that's literal, like USPS.

Or is it "drop off at specified ballot collection locations?"

Both. You had to have mailed the ballots sometime last week, I think, and there are many locked ballot boxes all over the city. Some are permanent since we have conducted all non-presidential elections since 2010 or so exclusively by mail, plus they have set up temporary boxes in the past week.

Here's one from a rural city out in the Plains

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Didnt realize you were a Dem.

He didn't vote Trump

[JPhillips]

It isn't easier to vote because a lot of people don't want to make voting easier. Look at the myriad of voting restrictions put in place over the last six years. Rather than try to appeal to a larger base, in many areas the GOP has decided to try to restrict traditional DEM constituencies.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Largely sharing here (aside from cheap bumping of my traffic counter purposes) because I've been vocal about my lack-of-voting intentions this year. That's shifted ... and I've explained that reasoning on the ol' blog.

Election Day 2016 | Jon's Three Cents

This is about as surprising as seeing the headline earlier today that Laura Ingraham endorses Trump.

Mental gymnastics. And lots of them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter

This is about as surprising as seeing the headline earlier today that Laura Ingraham endorses Trump.

Mental gymnastics. And lots of them.

It was an interesting journey. It's really a combination "eh fuck it" and "eh fuck 'em" vote. And hell,I was going anyway 'cause of the amendments. Might as well take the free pleasure. Four years ago I didn't even have that enthusiasm.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Largely sharing here (aside from cheap bumping of my traffic counter purposes) because I've been vocal about my lack-of-voting intentions this year. That's shifted ... and I've explained that reasoning on the ol' blog.

Election Day 2016 | Jon's Three Cents

I agree with you on 1 of your 6 endorsements.

[mckerney]

First votes are in from Dixville Notch, NH

Hillary Clinton - 4
Donald Trump - 2
Gary Johnson - 1
Mitt Romney -1

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I agree with you on 1 of your 6 endorsements.

Hmm,lemme think. Almost has to be A4. Unless I'm missing something in it it's kind of a no-brainer.

For non-Georgians, amendment 4 on the ballot would dedicate the funds from an existing tax on fireworks to specifically be applied to trauma care & public safety. Just moves that revenue out of the general fund & goes straight to specific areas.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Books a plane, but is there someplace I can hideout there if Trump wins?

The basement. Plus bonus road trip

[larrymcg421]

Looks like 2 Ayotte voters couldn't bring themselves to vote Trump. She tied Hassan 4-4.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hmm,lemme think. Almost has to be A4. Unless I'm missing something in it it's kind of a no-brainer.

For non-Georgians, amendment 4 on the ballot would dedicate the funds from an existing tax on fireworks to specifically be applied to trauma care & public safety. Just moves that revenue out of the general fund & goes straight to specific areas.

We agree on amendment 2 and for the exact same reasons.

I don't care that much about amendment 4 as I never buy fireworks, but I'm voting no. Seems like a backdoor way to give them a good argument to later increase that excise tax and put the burden of funding trauma centers on people who buy fireworks.

[CrimsonFox]

Seems like a wash to me

I mean all that trauma care would be used on the people that blow off their hands with said fireworks

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Largely sharing here (aside from cheap bumping of my traffic counter purposes) because I've been vocal about my lack-of-voting intentions this year. That's shifted ... and I've explained that reasoning on the ol' blog.

Election Day 2016 | Jon's Three Cents

Two comments come out of reading this:

1. Were you unhappy in 2008 and think you should've voted for Obama?
2. My niece said she feels the same way about voting for Trump for the "f*ck the system" vote.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

But here with Trump we have someone who is genuinely a threat to that. He's for sex and greed and ultracapitalism and doesn't pay taxes and flaunts it, gets into constant fights with people, incites it. And this isn't even making anything up...just watching videos of him. How other Christians view him at all in the same sentence as Christ...is...well you know.

Originally Posted by jaygr

What I don't understand (and this is not an attack on anyone, just a legitimate question), how can anyone who is a deeply religious Christian support Trump? Isn't he nearly the opposite of Christ-like? Do they ignore what he has said and done or just believe it to be lies?

There are basically two parts to it, and to be fair, I must say I've heard many on the left echo these as reasons why they are voting Hillary. I'm not making an equivalency here, but this is the same basic thing I've mentioned at least once in this thread and one issue with it is that you can use it to convince yourself to support literally any candidate.

1. Binary selection/lesser of two evils. Clinton or Trump is going to be president. The choice is between those two, all other options are discarded. Trump's support by the 'deeply religious' was quite weak until a few weeks ago, going all the way back to the primary. However, ultimately most of them are still voting for him, as is particularly evident in Utah for example.

2. Trump's policies are better than Clinton's; ergo the practical effect of his presidency would be better than hers would be. One of many questions I have at this point is why not elect a robot? If the character of the candidate literally doesn't matter ...

A couple of links here for anyone who might be really interested in this. I think these are representative examples. The first is from August, and a response to the NeverTrump sentiment. It has the added 'benefit' of an attack on one of the most respected evangelical authors and pastors in America.

Donald Trump and The Pharisees | James Patrick Riley

A second one came more recently. The author here is Joel Rosenberg, a respected theologian and commenter on geopolitical developments, particularly as they concern Israel.

After much prayer and soul-searching, I have reluctantly decided to vote for the Trump-Pence ticket. Here’s why. « Joel C. Rosenberg's Blog

Rosenberg's is particularly interesting because it is more humble and he's written things in the past such as '32 reasons a Trump presidency would be a catastrophe'.

From my perspective, these sorts of opinions betray, at best, a misunderstanding of Christian duty. At least so far as I'm concerned, I would consider it a terrible lack of faith to fall into the 'lesser of two evils' fallacy. Hence why I am writing-in McMullin, who I disagree with on a number of issues particularly economic ones, but I believe is an honorable man who basically has a sensible view of the concept of the rule of law, a rare thing indeed in modern America. I think people, and I would especially hope Christians would see life this way, should act as they believe and not allow fear of what others will do or the consequences of the actions of millions of their fellow citizens to hijack what they themselves are responsible for. I.e, I'm not responsible for the fact that it seems likely that close to 95% of the electorate will pull the lever for what I consider to be completely, totally reprehensible and unacceptable candidates who I literally would not support for dogcatcher, much less President of the United States. I am responsible for what I do, and only that.

I should make the caveat here though that this is not a problem for the Christian community alone; they are simply, and unfortunately, largely echoing the dominant 'wisdom' of the day -- that there is a binary choice and any other vote is wasted or misguided.

I hope something in this proves useful to those who asked the question, or others who might be interested in the response.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

2. Trump's policies are better than Clinton's; ergo the practical effect of his presidency would be better than hers would be. One of many questions I have at this point is why not elect a robot? If the character of the candidate literally doesn't matter ...

Well, that, and character only seems to matter to that crowd if the character in question is a Democrat's.

You have Barack Obama, who, by all available evidence, is an excellent father who has managed to raise a couple of confident, capable young women - while his family's every move has been under the world's most intense microscope.

But to the "character matters" crowd, he's Satan Incarnate and probably also a secret Muslim terrorist sympathizer.

You have Donald Trump, who is a walking tire fire of a human being, but he gets a pass on literally decades of things he's said and done on the public record (and even STILL saying and doing) because he's a "baby Christian."

It isn't about character. It never was. It's about political power, who wields it, and who resents it.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

There are basically two parts to it, and to be fair, I must say I've heard many on the left echo these as reasons why they are voting Hillary.

For me it is that he has no policies and his direction and intelligence are toward the toilet. I am very much turned off by trolling and stupidity. And he constantly exhibits both. I also very much hate bullying and he shows also that's all he does. But that last it is indeed part of the character thing.

But what I was talking about was more about how religion has entered the political spectrum in modern times. I don't really know where things were in the 50s and 70s. As Kennedy wasx Catholic I think the religious went blue. The mid 80s...that's I think when the religious because rtight aligned following the reagans war on drugs and such. Granted calling drugs immoral as well as illegal does miss the point of what it is...a medical issue ...an adiction that needs healed. But anyway. The 1st bush doubled down with the religious right and touted a lot of "values". and they liked hearing that word. But gradually the republicans have moved away from christian ways in some areas and christians instead of pulling back have followed them. I think that's a good enough way as any to explain the fervor of trump. "oh it's okay to vote for him. he's republican". I think the argument ends there.

2. Trump's policies are better than Clinton's; ergo the practical effect of his presidency would be better than hers would be.

What policies? He has none. When asked for his plans he doesn't answer, says I'll tell ya later, or says someone else will do that. And of course...trickle down economics which is the definition of dumpsterfire for anyone not already rich.

But I actually like Hillary. Always have. LIked Bernie better tho. But they are aligned. THey have similar goals. I'm voting for the package, the direction.
I favor the environment and life. They are one and the same. We have to fix the ecosystem before it starts actually harming us. Moving toward alternative ways of living is part of that. However the red base has made it quite clear that they are against fixing anything, against healing the planet, against anytihng but oil, against education even, a thing which is further turning our populous into something unrecognizable and unfriendly.
And this constant momvement towards hating different kinds of people.
Very sad. I want a president that is over that hump. We're all people. We love everybody. We have a sandwich together. We want to take care of each other and the planet. Jobs, money, whatever...those come when we do the other thing first.

[Neon_Chaos]

Let's go Trump! Might as well end the 2016 shitshow with a bang.

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

But here with Trump we have someone who is genuinely a threat to that. He's for sex and greed and ultracapitalism and doesn't pay taxes and flaunts it, gets into constant fights with people, incites it. And this isn't even making anything up...just watching videos of him. How other Christians view him at all in the same sentence as Christ...is...well you know.

Being selfish and greedy is good for business. I believe if president he do what it takes to succeed just like he did with his businesses. As far as Christian values, I don't anyone that values life which is a main part of Christianity that would vote for clinton.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

As Kennedy wasx Catholic I think the religious went blue.

I dunno about that. Kennedy's Catholicism was a lightning rod issue. The slander against him was that as a Catholic he'd be more loyal to the Pope than to the United States - that electing a Catholic meant undermining national sovereignty.

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

As far as Christian values, I don't anyone that values life which is a main part of Christianity that would vote for clinton.

See, the problem is that religious Republicans define "life" values as "unborn babies." That's it. That's where it begins and ends for Republican-inclined Christians.

Unarmed black men get shot by police? They're thugs.

Government assistance to impoverished families with children to provide them with housing and basic food security? Their mothers are welfare queens who should have kept their legs together or else given the babies up for adoption. Cut food stamps because lobster or some shit.

Government assistance on the health care front, be it subsidies to help ease the impact of health insurance, or an expansion of Medicaid/Medicare for families below a particular income threshold? That's socialism and if those people really wanted to see a doctor they would just un-poor themselves.

Elected Republicans don't give the first shit about life.

What they care about is the appearance of giving a shit so they can win elections.

And the visceral nature of the abortion debate allows them to lead people of conscience by the nose on the issue electorally without any real thought given to what "life" values writ large ought to actually look like.

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hmm,lemme think. Almost has to be A4. Unless I'm missing something in it it's kind of a no-brainer.

For non-Georgians, amendment 4 on the ballot would dedicate the funds from an existing tax on fireworks to specifically be applied to trauma care & public safety. Just moves that revenue out of the general fund & goes straight to specific areas.

Amendment 1 is stupid, the state and feds can already take over poorly performing school districts. All this does is put tremendous power in the hands of an unelected official, most likely a highly uneducated crony of the governor.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Being selfish and greedy is good for business. I believe if president he do what it takes to succeed just like he did with his businesses. As far as Christian values, I don't anyone that values life which is a main part of Christianity that would vote for clinton.

I'd say that defects and diversity in the human genome would be strong evidence that God doesn't really care that much about life either.

And that whole we need to throw ethics out the window as anything related to business, because that's what wins argument is a big part of this whole problem. They've conned you by subtly moving the goal post to support the narrative. Moved it until actively working against you is now the thing you want and expect. The new gig economy that has risen up is a prime example.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Amendment 1 is stupid, the state and feds can already take over poorly performing school districts. All this does is put tremendous power in the hands of an unelected official, most likely a highly uneducated crony of the governor.

Time to end the tyrranny of the education cabal in Georgia. Anything, and I do mean pretty much anything, can't do worse than what we have here currently.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Two comments come out of reading this:

1. Were you unhappy in 2008 and think you should've voted for Obama?
2. My niece said she feels the same way about voting for Trump for the "f*ck the system" vote.

Sorry, the '08 thing probably wasn't entirely clear to people that haven't heard me tell that story before. I was unhappy with myself because I knew,deep down, that McCain had no more business being anywhere near the White House than Obie did. I had a lot of internal angst about that vote for the next few years.

He would have been little to no better than BO had he won, and that would have bothered me to have voted for had he done so.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

As far as Christian values, I don't anyone that values life which is a main part of Christianity that would vote for clinton.

You don't know many people.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

what I was talking about was more about how religion has entered the political spectrum in modern times

I don't think you're quite on target with the reasons here. The foundation of it was in the 60s and 70s. It wasn't Kennedy, it was the breakdown of the nuclear family and other traditional values(since accelerated), Roe v. Wade, etc. Conservative religious groups came to see the federal government as increasingly corrupt and hostile to essential cultural matters, ergo the term 'culture war'. This is primarily what gave rise to the Moral Majority(which some said was neither, and they had a point in some cases). Drugs were part of it but only a part and not a relatively that important one.

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

However the red base has made it quite clear that they are against fixing anything, against healing the planet, against anytihng but oil, against education even, a thing which is further turning our populous into something unrecognizable and unfriendly.

This is simply not true. Generally speaking what they want(I say they, because particularly on economic issues I no longer consider myself as one of them; the short version of my views is socially conservative, economically liberal) is to accomplish these things differently. They aren't against education -- they have a much different idea of how to improve these things. Ditto with environmental concerns.

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

What policies? He has none. When asked for his plans he doesn't answer, says I'll tell ya later, or says someone else will do that.

This is the case on some issues, but not on others. And as you mentioned, at least he's a Republican; which makes him more likely to favor Republican types of policies. Things like closed borders, foreign policy, tax policy, abortion, etc. he has made statements on. And vis a vis your comment on trickle-down economics, you don't have to like or even respect that approach to understand that not everybody sees it as negatively as you do, or understand why they might vote for it.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

See, the problem is that religious Republicans define "life" values as "unborn babies." That's it. That's where it begins and ends for Republican-inclined Christians.

Not entirely. It's the primary piece but not the entire pie. Basically this entire post was chock-full of perverse caricatures of what is generally conservative opinion. There are many types of small-government people, but most of them are not of the 'screw them' or 'I care about nobody' variety. They generally believe that freedom is of primary importance, whereas social justice will be more important to the opposite point of view. On the freedom side, the general philosophy is that economic freedom matters(power to tax involves the power to destroy, etc.), that without the freedom to spectacularly fail, one will never have the freedom to truly succeed, that people know better how to handle their own money than a beauracrat in Washington, and so forth. That is not inconsistent with believing that government should protect vulnerable aspects of society such as the unborn(but not limited to them) from unjustified violence. As before, they do have ideas on how to handle the issues you brought up.

[Subby]

Done and done. Listened to Hamilton with the wife on the way to the polling place for a little extra sprinkle of patriotism.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is the case on some issues, but not on others. And as you mentioned, at least he's a Republican; which makes him more likely to favor Republican types of policies. Things like closed borders, foreign policy, tax policy, abortion, etc. he has made statements on. And vis a vis your comment on trickle-down economics, you don't have to like or even respect that approach to understand that not everybody sees it as negatively as you do, or understand why they might vote for it.

Except he's not. He ran on the Republican ticket, because they are most closely aligned with his anti-immigration stance, which was the main thing he ran on early. But how many interviews did he give where he seemed to literally change policy stances during the interview? I saw more than one. He is a Republican insofar as it will get him elected. But he has almost no inherent beliefs of his own. That's why no one has been able to nail him down on policy, he has very little policy that he believes in himself. He's a Trump running for the Trump party on the Trump ticket running for President of the United States of Trump.

I guess if you want a puppet, then great. I would prefer someone who actually comes into office with some actual convictions on more than just one or two issues.

[ISiddiqui]

So Nate Silver's predictions today have New Hampshire and Nevada blue, but also North Carolina and Florida (the later are slightly blue). We'll see if his incredible skill at Presidential predictions continue on.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Subby

You don't know many people.

Seriously. Then again, all my church friends (including pastors) voted enthusiastically for Clinton. So we all live in our bubbles.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Being selfish and greedy is good for business. I believe if president he do what it takes to succeed just like he did with his businesses. As far as Christian values, I don't anyone that values life which is a main part of Christianity that would vote for clinton.

succeed in this case = try to look good and be popular for 4 years, then ride into the sunset (well, the reality TV version) and screw sustainability.

Just like all he cared in his business was himself, not his employees or sub-contractors or business partners.


Seriously, i am astonished how you can think that being a greedy businessman translates well into leading the affairs of a super-diverse nation as someone with zero experience in Politics.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm not one to go all "liberal media bias" normally, but I've seen a few comments about how hard it has been to vote in NC because of limited early voting. I can't speak for the rest of the state, but I can't help but wonder if part of the issue is that they just had too many sites in the past. I live in the third-largest county in the state by population. Here was our early voting schedule: http://www.myguilford.com/wp-content...sed-092916.pdf

For those not interested in reading all the detail, the recap is that for the bulk of the time, you had 25 locations open for 10 straight days (including weekends), most of them from 8am-6:30pm. And prior to that the courthouse was open as a single location for 5 business days from 8am-5pm.

Maybe they're used to having 40 locations and 7am-7pm or something, and that's why there are complaints, but from where I'm sittin', that's an awful lot of opportunity to vote early in this county.

[digamma]

How long until Drudge posts some totally wild exit poll numbers and we all freak out?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Being selfish and greedy is good for business.

It's good if literally the only thing you care about is the next quarterly return. Which is pretty much everything that's wrong with American business these days. And I'm speaking as someone who currently works in the financial services industry.

I believe if president he do what it takes to succeed just like he did with his businesses.

What, spend a ton on gold paint and other cosmetic stuff, stiff the people who worked for you, and then declare bankruptcy? You're not describing the U.S. government, you're describing a random 3rd world dictatorship.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm not one to go all "liberal media bias" normally, but I've seen a few comments about how hard it has been to vote in NC because of limited early voting. I can't speak for the rest of the state, but I can't help but wonder if part of the issue is that they just had too many sites in the past. I live in the third-largest county in the state by population. Here was our early voting schedule: http://www.myguilford.com/wp-content...sed-092916.pdf

For those not interested in reading all the detail, the recap is that for the bulk of the time, you had 25 locations open for 10 straight days (including weekends), most of them from 8am-6:30pm. And prior to that the courthouse was open as a single location for 5 business days from 8am-5pm.

Maybe they're used to having 40 locations and 7am-7pm or something, and that's why there are complaints, but from where I'm sittin', that's an awful lot of opportunity to vote early in this county.

My mom went to vote this morning and she told me that here were very few people waiting in line.

This is in Greensboro of course.

[mckerney]

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Turnout is ridiculous in Missouri. No clue what it means, but I think we're going to hear about a lot of polls staying open late to allow everyone to get through the lines.

[QuikSand]

Shares of Trump to win FL had plummeted from around 36c to something like 29c in the last few hours. No real news to back it up, that I can find. That smells like something's getting out.

[Thomkal]

And the first of probably many Trump lawsuits:

Trump Files Lawsuit in Nevada Over Poll Closing Time | NBC Chicago

And in Florida:

http://wsvn.com/news/pompano-beach-p...s-office-says/

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Not entirely. It's the primary piece but not the entire pie.

And that's what's wrong with the entire mindset. If your primary focus from a "pro-life" standpoint is the 9 months of gestation, you're doing it wrong. In fact, you're doing it precisely backwards. Focusing on the 9 months of gestation and failing to follow through on a policy level after birth not only betrays the principle, but it undermines the Republic by ensuring that some percentage of its citizens unnecessarily face extra hurdles between them and a healthy, productive adulthood.

I've said it before and God knows I'm going to say it again - if you build and maintain that support structure, it will reduce the demand for abortion. Most women are not callous sex-having sluts who get abortions because "damn it that baby is an inconvenience to my hedonistic sex-having ways." Most abortions happen for economic or health reasons.

If you focus on abortion bans without addressing the underlying causes that drive women to seek abortions, all you do is perpetuate the cycle. A politician who truly values life would recognize that and act on it. Instead, most of the rhetoric from the political right talks about 'thugs' and 'welfare queens' and similar things because that's the language that resonates with the base and gets votes.

Basically this entire post was chock-full of perverse caricatures of what is generally conservative opinion.

Oh, I've been known to engage in hyperbole, but I don't think this really qualifies as such. I said in our other discussion, "by their fruits ye shall know them." Listen to the words coming out of the mouths of the people Republicans have either elected or nominated in the last 8 years. Look at the policy priorities those elected Republicans have chased in the last 16 years.

You've a binary option set here: either this is what conservatism is, or conservatism has been betrayed by a group of people for whom Republicans keep voting.

There are many types of small-government people, but most of them are not of the 'screw them' or 'I care about nobody' variety. They generally believe that freedom is of primary importance, whereas social justice will be more important to the opposite point of view.

But how can you separate "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" from the concept of social justice - which has at its core that particular groups have been marginalized and suppressed throughout the history of the Republic, and that that needs to stop? Unless the freedom you're banging the drum for is the freedom to discriminate, "freedom" and "social justice" should be fundamentally inseparable.

Oh, unless you have in your mind a caricature of "social justice" as "white males deserve to be repressed by women and minorities." That isn't social justice; that's social vengeance.

On the freedom side, the general philosophy is that economic freedom matters(power to tax involves the power to destroy, etc.), that without the freedom to spectacularly fail, one will never have the freedom to truly succeed, that people know better how to handle their own money than a beauracrat in Washington, and so forth.

The power to tax involves the power to destroy, certainly. On the other hand - and this is something creative folks miss - those tax dollars support things like roads and bridges on which to transport your products, education to make sure you draw your employees from a capable workforce, and so on down the line.

What it boils down to is the social compact. If you want to live in a civilized society, it's not ALL puppies and rainbows. There are responsibilities along with the rights, and those responsibilities include NOT TRYING TO BURN THE FUCKING NATION DOWN. Which is what the "Freedom Caucus" in the House has been trying to do since 2010, but I digress.

That is not inconsistent with believing that government should protect vulnerable aspects of society such as the unborn(but not limited to them) from unjustified violence.

Well, as I said above, the bottom-up approach that Republicans have spent the last 40 years advocating drops the ball when gestation ends. If you tackle it from the top down, you can reduce the number of vulnerable women who choose abortion in the first place. That's the "rare" part of "safe, legal, and rare."

As before, they do have ideas on how to handle the issues you brought up.

Do they? Do they really? Part of the Affordable Care Act included an expansion of Medicaid to make it more widely available to those living in or near poverty. A few Republican governors accepted the federal funding for that; most rejected it. The Republican focus on "repeal and replace" has amounted to "repeal and we'll figure it out later." They've had SIX YEARS to propose an alternative (or to have proposed one in the first place, before ACA became law, given that ACA is fundamentally similar to the Republicans' alternative to "HillaryCare" from 20 years ago). The entire legislative focus against it has been either "fuck you, I got mine" or "delegitimize the black President," whichever you prefer.

When disaster aid is necessary for "blue" states, Congressional Republicans have demanded dollar-for-dollar cuts to the social safety net to make it revenue neutral - "if we're gonna help the vulnerable who just got devastated by a natural disaster, then we gotta cut aid to those who are vulnerable in their daily lives."

Congress cut food stamps - you know, that staple of basic food security? - by $8 billion or so in 2014, and that isn't enough. They want to cut it a further $150 billion over the next ten years.

Tell me where ANY of this sounds like a basic respect for postnatal life and advocacy for the most vulnerable among us.

"By their fruits ye shall know them." I cannot fucking repeat this often, or loudly, enough.

Republicans have spent the 40'ish years since Roe using it as an issue to drive religious voters to the polls, but they haven't done a thing in support of "life" values otherwise in that time.

And what that turns into is religious (single-issue) voters of conscience voting for Republicans because they're led by the nose on the issue of abortion. You call it caricature; I call it fact.

[Thomkal]

While you are waiting for the results, why don't you play a little of Settlers of Catan-Trump edition:

Settlers of Catan: Trump Edition - it’s tremendous! | 22 Minutes - YouTube

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Shares of Trump to win FL had plummeted from around 36c to something like 29c in the last few hours. No real news to back it up, that I can find. That smells like something's getting out.

I would think today those markets are extremely susceptible to insider trading.

[Brian Swartz]

I was surprised to see the closeness of the polls mentioned yesterday in Michigan, and also surprised to see the turnout today. In the rural township where I live, there were quite a few people there both in the morning and in the afternoon, and at just past 2pm I cast the 962nd ballot, which is quite high for this neck of the woods. Definitely bigger than 2012. If, and obviously it's a big if, that repeats itself across the state, Michigan could indeed be much closer than I thought. A little disturbing. This is definitely Trump country, not the rabid version(you'll see no Hillary for Prison signs here) but for county and township seats the Republicans run uncontested and there's a lot of people very concerned about their guns.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I would think today those markets are extremely susceptible to insider trading.

Though they have designed it to not be worth a big effort (you cannot make thousands and thousands of dollars on that site), I agree.

To me, it looks like some degree of in-person intel is seeping out and moving the markets. I see it not as a money-making opportunity, but rather as a sort of leading indicator of where things may be headed.

Back when I used to follow this sort of stuff more closely, I became convinced that on issues of this sort (amorphous, political) the markets tend to move ahead of the news. When PALIN4VP shares suddenly jumped up from 3 to 20+ in an hour one morning, I moved in and bought a ton... and she was announced as McCain's running mate later that day.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Focusing on the 9 months of gestation and failing to follow through on a policy level after birth not only betrays the principle, but it undermines the Republic by ensuring that some percentage of its citizens unnecessarily face extra hurdles between them and a healthy, productive adulthood.

It might betray what you think the principle is, but not what it actually is. The pro-life movement generally thinks it's better to have 'extra hurdles' than not to have the chance to face them at all, because you've been killed.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

if you build and maintain that support structure, it will reduce the demand for abortion.

And I'll say it again, conservatives don't believe that doing that is any of the government's business. They think it's the job of the private sector to provide that, and many of them contribute to such endeavors. There are several such services within a reasonable drive of where I'm posting this.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But how can you separate "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" from the concept of social justice - which has at its core that particular groups have been marginalized and suppressed throughout the history of the Republic, and that that needs to stop?

What comes after that statement you quoted? Inalienable rights, a few of which are listed(life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). It is a plain fact that the pursuit of social justice has resulted in less freedom for many. I think it has often been justified; most conservatives don't. But the two will always be in conflict; it cannot be otherwhise.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

There are responsibilities along with the rights, and those responsibilities include NOT TRYING TO BURN THE FUCKING NATION DOWN. Which is what the "Freedom Caucus" in the House has been trying to do since 2010, but I digress.

Again, from the conservative perspective they are trying to save the nation, while others burn it down. It really all depends on what faction you favor.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Tell me where ANY of this sounds like a basic respect for postnatal life and advocacy for the most vulnerable among us.

"By their fruits ye shall know them." I cannot fucking repeat this often, or loudly, enough.

Again, they don't believe it's government's job. The #1 most generous city in the United States, in giving per capita, is Salt Lake City. I'm not a Mormon, but respect what they do. #2 is Grand Rapids, close to where I live. Conservative-leaning states give more per capita to charity than do liberal-leaning ones, unfortunately; America as a whole gives far more than anywhere in Europe. I don't think we give close to enough, but the point is that this is what a conservative calls the 'fruits'. You are defining in by how they spend taxpayers's money, something they are against for this kind of purpose. And you then conclude they don't care because they don't accept your basic premise that this is the job of the federal government.

I see no difference at all, besides which policies you are in favor of, between your rhetoric and that of those who accuse Obama, Clinton, etc. of being traitors and worse. You've simply chosen different people to presume nefarious motives of based on your allegiances.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

IThe #1 most generous city in the United States, in giving per capita, is Salt Lake City. I'm not a Mormon, but respect what they do. #2 is Grand Rapids, close to where I live. Conservative-leaning states give more per capita to charity than do liberal-leaning ones, unfortunately; America as a whole gives far more than anywhere in Europe. I don't think we give close to enough, but the point is that this is what a conservative calls the 'fruits'. You are defining in by how they spend taxpayers's money, something they are against for this kind of purpose. And you then conclude they don't care because they don't accept your basic premise that this is the job of the federal government.
.

There's some nuance to that statement that I can't tell if you are purposely not getting or conveniently avoiding.

[Brian Swartz]

Maybe you can explain it to me then?