The alternative makes it crystal clear what needs to be done.
There are several on this board that, unlike me, find Trump to be too much. They know the msm overdoes it, but they still are bothered enough to consider voting for the Dem which had been their history in previous decades. But then the COVID shutdown hysteria, the massive destructions of the economy for politics, and now the rioting with clear talk of reparations make the decision simple. They will stick with Trump. Tweets are nothing compared to Molotov Cocktails, baseball bats, and unemployment.
I don't even need to ask those people. Their decision was made for them this past week. The Left always goes too far. It gets overconfident everytime and shows it's true self, peering its ugly head too far out from the curtain it usually hides behind.
(no message)
Link: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1267895257221513216
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
..... you live in a vacuum
after the house has been cleaned.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
You should know by now that I think separation of church and state is good for both Church and State. No justice he has appointed wants to move away from that. So, nice fabrication.
My pro-life views are as secular as your typical anti-murder statute is secular. I know your antifa buddies think murder and burglary statutes are probably based in religion, but I think you and I know that they are supportable on a purely secular basis.
That's your cover.
If protecting the vulnerable and innocent was your priority, you would vote Democrat, especially when the other choice is Trump.
Second, it is about protecting the innocent from violations of their natural rights. Voting GOP is the best single way to do that. It is not a perfect way, to be sure, but it is the best. I am about protecting natural rights...to be free from assault, murder, burglary, etc.
I am not about taking money from people and giving it to others...or using the force of law to violate religious conscience and to forcibly require someone to labor for someone else in a way that endorses views antithetical to one's religious conscience. The Dems are not about protecting rights at all. In contrast, they are about using the power of government to change society. That is a Very different thing.
(no message)
......if our votes are based purely on abortion, and that issue is not really important since it merely involves “zygotes”, why is it that you haven’t conceded the issue years ago in order to get the politically "important things" that your heart desires?
Why have you so obsessively clung to your abortion sacrament?
Why do you keep bringing abortion up? (I love Trump for many things and wasn’t even thinking of abortion in my post).
Could it be that you are doing what liberals always do......projecting? Accusing others of your own obsession?
You would have us believe that the abortion issue involves meaningless tissue, and that it has lead to all sorts of horrors as a result of myopic voting on what actually is a trivial issue.
THEN WHY NOT CONCEDE THE TRIVIA IN ORDER TO GAIN THE IMPORTANT STUFF TO YOU....LIKE DEFEATING THE EVIL TRUMP?????????
Answer: It is far from trivial to you and the Left. It is part of your foundation.
But not on things like immigration.
9 month old children about to be born in US. Jews in Germany. Armenians in Turkey. Sometimes a country is wrong, and you need to save that country if you can from the evil it perpetuates.
Happily, though. It is not just abortion.
He also appoints justices who are less inclined to curb free speech and less inclined to compel leftist-compliant speech.
He also appoints justices who are more likely to support the Second Amendment, and we all saw the need for that this past week, as police stood by, abdicating their responsibility to protect the innocent.
Basically, he appoints justices who support the natural rights of individuals.
My vote for him is totally validated, because I would not have gotten any of that from HRC justices.
(no message)
(no message)
First, I advocate for treating the unborn humans the same as born humans. You are the one who finds it easier to treat one better than the other, not me.
Second, "potential children"? What are those? I'm talking about actual biological humans at all stages of life having the same right to life. Are you really caring less about one type of human by trying to redefine them as not human, in opposition to science?
Honest question to you: Do you believe abortion is the ending of a biological human life?
(no message)
Link: http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm
But please don't accuse me of having inconsistent morals when you are the one who refuses to face the moral reality that your answer to the question would force upon you.
(no message)
You don't want to look where my question points, because you know you will find that you are putting party platform over your own church's (presumably) doctrine.
You know you and I should agree on this issue, but we don't because you put politics ahead of doctrine. I'm assuming you are Catholic based on past posts, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Happily, if secular humanism / atheism is your thing, I can engage you at that level. All morally consistent paths lead to a pro-life stance when properly applied. They don't always lead to personally convenient options for everyone, but they always lead to life. The ethical gymnastics only start when we use ethics to justify killing.
Perfectly willing to throw their country overboard.
But lots of hardcore pro-choicers are equally unbearable. So you got that going for you.
You are not on the side of history, and it should embarrass you that your arguments are the same as all evil men--political power first over rights of it's own people?...shame on you.
Stand up for what is right. Don"t let your country eliminate the rights of its own people.
Added point: If I were as crazy and monomaniacal (or whatever) as you say, given the science of matter (what is a human life), I would take up arms. But, I do not. I merely vote. You would be more accurate to call me an wimpy appeaser to holocaust than a singularly focused crazy man.
(no message)
those who would protest for their civil rights.
Do I limit your rights with murder and burglary laws? Of course not. Your rights stop when another person's rights begin. Same with abortion. A woman's rights are not limited by abortion laws because the right to life trumps all. You twist the concept of rights on it's head.
I have never advocated for silencing civil rights protesters...not once. You cannot find an example of that. I have advocated against violence. Are you saying civil rights protesters have a right to violence? of course not. You and I agree 100% on this issue, and it is disingenuous for you to pretend we disagree.
And your post makes no sense at all. You try awfully hard, I’ll give you that.
It is not a violation of a person's rights to prevent them from taking another person's rights. I would say that 99% of posters here understand that. They will at least try to formulate a sophisticated argument to get around this truth when they find this truth inconvenient. But you don't seem to even understand this concept at all, so I suppose you are free to continue living in ignorance. Keep saying something doesn't make sense...to you.
It must be very difficult for you having such a weighted burden as the one who knows how rights in America work, or don’t work the way you want them to. You’re such a self made know it all so it’s good FOX TV gives you your information.
It is you who stands alone, wheher in genuine ignorance, or in the ignorance of some who refuses to face tough issues.
My view is not a convenient one. I had to be willing to be a grandfather the moment my kids reached puberty. But, as inconvenient for me that my view on this is, I just happen to believe it is correct, because it is totally in line with the totally conventional and noncontroversial explanation of rights I gave you.
Now, I am aware that some leftist academics are trying to change what a "right" is, so that they can justify uses of power as if they were merely exercising rights. But, based on your posts here, I don't believe you are aware of the academic gymnastics your side is going through to get around the simple rules of rights accepted by nearly everyone.
But ignorance can indeed be bliss, as you don't have to face that.
(no message)
Link: https://mobile.twitter.com/rvat2020/status/1267970271337680896?s=12
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)