US presidential elections thread

Who do you want to be POTUS?

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 6 18.8%

  • Ted Cruz

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • John Kasich

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 23 71.9%
  • Total voters
    32
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
Punishing the doctors but not the women would be like thieves being completely inculpable, but the fences getting arrested anyway.

Why should women be able to willingly break the law and get away with it?
Click to expand...
More like punishing the drug addict instead of the drug dealer. A woman will have a single abortion at a time while the doctor might perform 5 in a day, so as far as the shit law goes doctors have the most culpability.
 
61EpbfB.jpg
 
Spacemunkey said:
More like punishing the drug addict instead of the drug dealer. A woman will have a single abortion at a time while the doctor might perform 5 in a day, so as far as the shit law goes doctors have the most culpability.
Click to expand...
You chose a bad example, drugs are an illegal product, not an illegal service.
Izak said:
Thanks @Spacemunkey for making a far more convincing argument, I'm not sure it matters though since Illuminati is almost certainly a troll.
Click to expand...
Buxbaum666 said:
Government control is bad only when it concerns corporations.
Click to expand...
The issue here isn't whether or not abortions should be banned. It's about consistency, which is a rather important thing when it comes to laws. The women in question are paying for an illegal service of abortion. When you pay for an illegal service, you should be held accountable for it.

Otherwise, it's like going after the hitmen, but letting the people using their services get off the hook.
 
MutantScalper said:
About Trump possibly using nukes in the Middle East or even in Europe. Consider me not convinced of Trump.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Trump is in this case at least, just parroting what many other politicians said before him.

President Jacques Chirac has set out the post 9/11 roles for French nuclear weapons, which are now intended to deter "leaders of States who would use terrorist means against us" and those "who would consider using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction".[1] The statement has attracted criticism around the world, including in the parliaments of some of France's closest allies, where the speech is regarded as a proliferator's charter, more likely to fan the flames of proliferation than to reduce the risks. (...)


I can't believe it ... I am defending Trump.
 
Spacemunkey said:
The selling of narcotics is an illegal service.
Click to expand...
Because narcotics are an illegal substance.
Crni Vuk said:
To be fair, Trump is in this case at least, just parroting what many other politicians said before him.

President Jacques Chirac has set out the post 9/11 roles for French nuclear weapons, which are now intended to deter "leaders of States who would use terrorist means against us" and those "who would consider using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction".[1] The statement has attracted criticism around the world, including in the parliaments of some of France's closest allies, where the speech is regarded as a proliferator's charter, more likely to fan the flames of proliferation than to reduce the risks. (...)


I can't believe it ... I am defending Trump.
Click to expand...

Be careful, you can't un-swallow the red pill.
 
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
Because narcotics are an illegal substance.
Click to expand...
What's your point? A doctor providing abortions where it's illegal is providing an illegal service, the same an individual selling narcotics is also providing an illegal service. Also to be clear in the sale of narcotics it's not always the narcotics that are illegal since it's also against the law to sell your own prescribed medication. I'll sit here and debate law with you all day considering I've spent the last decade of my life in criminal law, but be prepared to read a lot of case law.
 
Spacemunkey said:
What's your point? A doctor providing abortions where it's illegal is providing an illegal service, the same an individual selling narcotics is also providing an illegal service. Also to be clear in the sale of narcotics it's not always the narcotics that are illegal since it's also against the law to sell your own prescribed medication. I'll sit here and debate law with you all day considering I've spent the last decade of my life in criminal law, but be prepared to read a lot of case law.
Click to expand...

In the case of abortions, it's the procedure itself that's illegal.

In the case of drugs, the procedure in question is selling, which is not illegal by itself, but is in this case illegal because it involves an illegal or controlled product.
 
Arguing with the Illumanity about something that is actually obvious to every normal thinking human beeing with a rational mind ... you have no clue how deep this rabit hole can go, in which you just stepped ...
 
I'd consider myself a pro-Republican Libertarian. I don't agree with abortions at all but here's the thing: It's not up to me. It's not up to the government. That sort of thing is between a woman, her conscience, and God. There shouldn't be a middle man. So long as the baby doesn't have a heart beat yet, it should be up to the woman. Like I said, I don't agree with it but who knows what actually happened to make that baby? For example, if I were raped and ended up pregnant from my attacker, I certainly wouldn't want to have a baby that would remind me of my rape for the rest of my life.

I'll also point out that even though I'm a pro-Republican Libertarian, I don't agree with 90% of what Trump says. Fuck, at this point I'd rather vote for SANDERS than Trump or Hillary. I'd rather vote for a Socialistic Democrat than someone closer to my own party affiliation. These are dark days people.
 
Ragemage said:
I'd consider myself a pro-Republican Libertarian. I don't agree with abortions at all but here's the thing: It's not up to me. It's not up to the government. That sort of thing is between a woman, her conscience, and God. There shouldn't be a middle man. So long as the baby doesn't have a heart beat yet, it should be up to the woman. Like I said, I don't agree with it but who knows what actually happened to make that baby? If I were raped and ended up pregnant from my attacker, I certainly wouldn't want to have a baby that would remind me of my rape for the rest of my life.
Click to expand...

Well said, but I think it should be added that the father should also have a say in it if he's married or in a relationship with the mother.

I'll also point out that even though I'm a pro-Republican Libertarian, I don't agree with 90% of what Trump says. Fuck, at this point I'd rather vote for SANDERS than Trump or Hillary. I'd rather vote for a Socialistic Democrat than someone closer to my own party affiliation. These are dark days people.
Click to expand...

What bothers you about Trump, exactly?

I don't agree with everything the man says, but his victory will be a huge blow to political correctness and big media control over positions of power. He's winning despite the fact that every large media outlet is shilling against him.

Spacemunkey said:
Come to think of it the entire argument is moot since in the United States woman have a Constitutional right to abortion. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Roe+v.+Wade+and+Doe+v.+Bolton That decision was also upheld at least as recent as 2000. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html So yeah took me all of 5 minutes to find this debate pretty pointless.
Click to expand...

It took you 5 minutes to realize that you don't have a logical argument, post two links and try to convince yourself that you won the debate, or that you simply don't give a fuck.
1449995686563.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top