Trump / Clinton--Final Presidential Debate Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dwyer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
randomuser said:
It’s not “pro-life” to deny care for handicapped or autistic kids or cut them off because of pre-existing conditions, so in that respect, it did. ( :rolleyes: optional)
Click to expand...
Well for the time being anyway.Watch for that to change eventually as we devolve farther into the death culture by way of euthanasia.We in Colo. have a prop.for assisted suicide on the ballot this election cycle.This is the nose of the camel under the tent.Just look at Denmark!:o
 
kat07 said:
The arguments to be, if you agree or even disagree with Schluter’s opinion, are a lot more rich than the ones you posted above and I would hope people would be able to have a much more substantive conversation on what Schulter said and be able to delve into the concepts raised in his essay. **Did you even read the essay? **The essay had a lot of examples and references to Church teaching, and what John Paul II stated in his The Gospel of Life, as well Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Thomas Aquinas’s argument in his Summa Theologiae, etc.
Click to expand...
I suggest, if you wish to discuss his thoughts, you post the link in the philosophy thread.

Posting it here gives every impression of trying to convince others of your opinion – campaigning – rather than just wanting an open discussion.

I did not read it. I have made my choice and don’t feel the need to read the propaganda of those who are desperate to sway my vote to their side.
Peter_Plato said:
I suppose you will have the self-satisfaction of not having voted for what is distasteful to you. But is it all about you? Or is it about what is really good for your country?
Click to expand...
Wow. Now I’ve gone from being ignorant to being selfish.

First my brain, now my soul.

Anyone want to disparage my looks?

🤷
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You have misstated the purpose of voting for a third party. It is definitely not to send a message to the two major candidates. No one who votes third party expects that. So I call straw man on that argument. The purpose of voting for a third (or fourth or fifth) party is to send a message to the public at large that you support this candidate. This is what lets other voters who might feel similarly inclined know that they are not alone. It is much like voting Republican in a solid blue state. You don’t expect to win that state, but you don’t want everyone to think the Democrats are universally preferred. That will encourage more people to vote Republican in the next election, where they might actually win the state. If that thinking is valid for Republicans, why would it be invalid when applied to other parties? Having only two major parties is not the inevitable result of representative democracy, as many other countries have shown. Even in the US, major parties have come and gone.
Click to expand...
Whether a message is sent intentionally or otherwise is something of a red herring.

The implication of someone voting third party (or fourth or fifth) is that some issue or issues the third party voter considers important are to them on the whole far more important than the ones the two major candidates promote. The implication here is that one would rather waste a vote than make the difficult choice between the positions of the two major candidates because there is such a huge policy discrepancy OR that one would rather waste a vote on a third party candidate regardless of policies than vote for one of the two flawed characters representing the two major parties because of their accumulated character flaws, as if the third party candidates, themselves, have no character flaws.

In the first instance, to make your case, you would have to demonstrate that the policies of the third (or fourth or fifth) party are so superior to the other two that it is worth signaling to “send a message to the public at large” and wasting your vote. In the second, you have to make the case that voting against the flawed characters or personae of the two major candidates warrants your voting for a third party candidate despite that little is known about their character flaws for the simple reason that they haven’t been paraded in front of us by the media.

I have never seen either of those cases made compellingly by anyone EVER.

How would you even begin to argue that character counts more than policy without assuming a boatload of unprovables? Or how would you argue that the largely unknown and presumed non-existent character flaws of third party candidates should definitively count against voting for the major party candidates?
 
randomuser said:
Considering abortion rates have been declining for years, I simply don’t see any evidence that any types of abortions will increase.

OTOH, the obscenely expensive costs of childbirth and delivery have been increasing for years – so much so that abortions average $300 a pop compared to thousands more than that for delivery (excluding prenatal care costs) and I never see this disparity being addressed as part of the pro-life cause.
Click to expand...
How much is an acceptable number?

I certainly don’t deny that killing the unborn is more affordable. Killing life is more cost-effective than raising it, no matter how one looks at it. In the short-run, that is.

That’s because the nature of life is self-donative. Something to ponder.
 
Gertabelle said:
I suggest, if you wish to discuss his thoughts, you post the link in the philosophy thread.

Posting it here gives every impression of trying to convince others of your opinion – campaigning – rather than just wanting an open discussion.

I did not read it. I have made my choice and don’t feel the need to read the propaganda of those who are desperate to sway my vote to their side.
Click to expand...
That my be your interpretation of things, but I respectfully disagree. It’s not my opinion and quite frankly I have no opinion on those who wish to vote for a 3rd party candidate. Interestingly I’ve seen similiar like articles posted on this forum. The essay is not something I would call “propaganda” it’s just a view for people to read. It’s nice to read different views and some people like to. You don’t have to agree with it or accept anything at face value, but it’s nice to learn how some people think. Hence the fact that in my post I wrote this is an interesting essay and pretty much left it at that - open for discussion for those who may have wanted to comment. The post wasn’t in response to any particular poster nor you directly.
 
Gertabelle said:
I suggest, if you wish to discuss his thoughts, you post the link in the philosophy thread.

Posting it here gives every impression of trying to convince others of your opinion – campaigning – rather than just wanting an open discussion.

I did not read it. I have made my choice and don’t feel the need to read the propaganda of those who are desperate to sway my vote to their side.

Wow. Now I’ve gone from being ignorant to being selfish.

First my brain, now my soul.

Anyone want to disparage my looks?

🤷
Click to expand...
What do your looks have to do with the issue? 😃

Let me remind you of this:
I did not read it. I have made my choice and don’t feel the need to read the propaganda of those who are desperate to sway my vote to their side.
Click to expand...
So anything that you don’t feel the need to read is “propaganda” and anyone who brings up an alternative perspective is always “desperate” to sway your vote?

I am sure you are beautiful. :flowers:

You are batting .333. Not bad for the majors! 😛
 
Michael68 said:
But its ok to lie to the people that you can keep your doctor and your health plan and that this will lower premiums and deductibles.
Click to expand...
I think it’s almost mandatory to lie in campaign promises. How else can you get elected?

🙂
 
The cost of living is much higher in Australia …

numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Australia&country2=United+States
Indices Difference Info
Consumer Prices in United States are 8.61% lower than in Australia
Consumer Prices Including Rent in United States are 8.30% lower than in Australia
Rent Prices in United States are 7.67% lower than in Australia
Restaurant Prices in United States are 12.80% lower than in Australia
Groceries Prices in United States are 3.43% lower than in Australia
Local Purchasing Power in United States is 6.11% higher than in Australia
Click to expand...
The poster that discussed the paid leave did not factor in the cost of living nor the equivalence of money Australian $$s to US $$s

Especially for Basics like housing, food and purchasing power
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
You can make a case for secure borders without indiscriminately deporting “Hispanics.” That was the point.
Click to expand...
But if Trump said that Obama has deported the most Hispanics, why are Mexicans his main point?
Is it a scare tactic?

Btw, I liked how at his vegas hotel, the tacos truck build a wall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top