A month from now, 50 million Americans will vote for Trump

[Teddy B 17,252]

Because you don't need to win over a majority of primary voters. You need to win a plurality of voters in early states. Trump won New Hampshire even though 67% of GOP voters there didn't vote for him. He won South Carolina even though 65% of voters there didn't vote for him. He won Nevada even though 62% of GOP primary voters there didn't vote for him. He won most of the early voting states even though 70% of voters there voted for Rubio, Kasich, Cruz, Carson etc.

By the time 25 states had voted, the only real options left were Cruz and Trump.

I get how the process works, my statement was directed at the people that actually thought Trump would be a good choice for president. That boggles the mind.

[Rob L 3,811]

I get how the process works, my statement was directed at the people that actually thought Trump would be a good choice for president. That boggles the mind.

Fast forward to today: I cannot understand the rationalizations and flip flops my right-wing evangelical friends are going through trying to convince folks to stay with Trump. The consensus argument appears to be that the Supreme Court is the prize and without it we are bound to descend into the 6th ring of Hades

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

Fast forward to today: I cannot understand the rationalizations and flip flops my right-wing evangelical friends are going through trying to convince folks to stay with Trump. The consensus argument appears to be that the Supreme Court is the prize and without it we are bound to descend into the 6th ring of Hades

The issue here seems to be one primarily of abortion and immigration. They won't vote for Johnson because he's pro choice and somehow believe that Trump is super pro life. I don't get it. Abortion is basically what their lives revolve around, which is bizarre when there is so much other going on the world.

In my congressional district, which is a mix of progressives and super Lutherans, Trump came in third in the primary caucuses behind Cruz and Rubio. Bernie got a whopping 66% of the primary votes. We are obviously not in line with the majority of American voters on either front and it mostly urban and Southern voters who seem to be the issue.

All this election has made me realize is that most of the people in this country are too dumb to realize how issues actually impact their lives and vote based on name recognition alone. Personally, I'd rather not interact with anyone ever again who voted for either of these fools (Clinton or Trump) in the primary.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Fast forward to today: I cannot understand the rationalizations and flip flops my right-wing evangelical friends are going through trying to convince folks to stay with Trump. The consensus argument appears to be that the Supreme Court is the prize and without it we are bound to descend into the 6th ring of Hades

That and Bill did it too. So Hillary, by default must be just as bad as them both. The leap in logic is just as ridiculous as Trump's 2005 sexual assault statements. But I really don't expect too much from anyone who is still backing Trump at this point.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Teddy B

[yuna628 9,676]

The issue here seems to be one primarily of abortion and immigration. They won't vote for Johnson because he's pro choice and somehow believe that Trump is super pro life. I don't get it. Abortion is basically what their lives revolve around, which is bizarre when there is so much other #### going on the world.

In my congressional district, which is a mix of progressives and super Lutherans, Trump came in third in the primary caucuses behind Cruz and Rubio. Bernie got a whopping 66% of the primary votes. We are obviously not in line with the majority of American voters on either front and it mostly urban and Southern voters who seem to be the issue.

All this election has made me realize is that most of the people in this country are too dumb to realize how issues actually impact their lives and vote based on name recognition alone. Personally, I'd rather not interact with anyone ever again who voted for either of these fools (Clinton or Trump) in the primary.

If anything Trump is an advocate for abortion or birth control. He seems to hate a woman's body when she's pregnant.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

If anything Trump is an advocate for abortion or birth control. He seems to hate a woman's body when she's pregnant.

Right? Hillary, stick by your man even if he has a wandering appendage, Clinton is more the family values candidate. Maybe it is time they started acting like real Republicans and stayed out of people's bedrooms and uteruses if they want to keep their gun rights. If they actually brought voters who value Liberty back into the fold, they might have a chance of winning an election.

[Teddy B 17,252]

The issue here seems to be one primarily of abortion and immigration. They won't vote for Johnson because he's pro choice and somehow believe that Trump is super pro life. I don't get it. Abortion is basically what their lives revolve around, which is bizarre when there is so much other #### going on the world.

In my congressional district, which is a mix of progressives and super Lutherans, Trump came in third in the primary caucuses behind Cruz and Rubio. Bernie got a whopping 66% of the primary votes. We are obviously not in line with the majority of American voters on either front and it mostly urban and Southern voters who seem to be the issue.

All this election has made me realize is that most of the people in this country are too dumb to realize how issues actually impact their lives and vote based on name recognition alone. Personally, I'd rather not interact with anyone ever again who voted for either of these fools (Clinton or Trump) in the primary.

You hit the nail on the head NOLA. Not only are a very large amount of Americans dumb, but they are extremely lazy as well and will not lift a finger to find these things out. Whenever someone says to me that a certain candidate will do this or that, my idiot bells start going off. Anyone that votes who thinks that one elected official in the US (even the president), has the power to immediately change things to their liking without checks and balances, does not have a clue how our gov't is set up and probably shouldn't be voting to begin with.

I voted for Bernie in the primary, I'm in the clear!

[JayJayH 546]

I get how the process works, my statement was directed at the people that actually thought Trump would be a good choice for president. That boggles the mind.

These are also the same people who believe an online Drudge poll showing 80% of people think Trump won the debate is an accurate alternative to Nate Silver.

I still think it would be incredibly dangerous to dismiss them all as "deplorable" crazies after November 8th. They're still going to make up at least 40% of the electorate (though many of them will be anti-Clinton voters rather than pro-Trump).

Edited October 12, 2016 by JayJayH

[JayJayH 546]

Maybe it is time they started acting like real Republicans and stayed out of people's 1. bedrooms and 2. uteruses if they want to keep their gun rights. If they actually brought voters who value Liberty back into the fold, they might have a chance of winning an election.

1. I never did understand "small-government" Republicans' infatuation with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Boggles the mind indeed.

2. While I'm pro-choice, I think the abortion issue has been dangerously portrayed by many on the left. It shouldn't be an easy issue. No ethical dilemma should ever be. I have never met a single conservative whose main motivation for their pro-life stance was to meddle with women's rights, and I think that's a fundamentally unfair allegation. If you believe that ending a pregnancy is equivalent to ending the life of a child, I'd be worried for you if you were pro-choice.

I'm all for women's rights, but abortion has nothing to do with womens' rights if you believe it's murder. No one has the right to kill a living child no matter their life circumstance. The fact that no science can accurately pinpoint when human life begins (just when it hasn't) should be food for thought. That's why I'm opposed to late-term abortion, and that's why I can respect conservatives who are staunchly pro-life, even in the first trimester.

Edited October 12, 2016 by JayJayH

[ILikeBread 43]

I'm all for women's rights, but abortion has nothing to do with womens' rights if you believe it's murder. No one has the right to kill a living child no matter their life circumstance. The fact that no science can accurately pinpoint when human life begins (just when it hasn't) should be food for thought. That's why I'm opposed to late-term abortion, and that's why I can respect conservatives who are staunchly pro-life, even in the first trimester.

It's up to the women And their partners to decide if they should pursue an abortion.

The option should be there (albeit until the pregnancy reaches a certain number of weeks). If you are pro life, simple you don't abort, but please don't tell others what to do.

If you are pro choice the option should be there.

My mother was a midwife, the difference between the time abortion was illegal and when it was legal is less women died from complications of clandestine abortions.

[JayJayH 546]

It's up to the women And their partners to decide if they should pursue an abortion.

The option should be there (albeit until the pregnancy reaches a certain number of weeks). If you are pro life, simple you don't abort, but please don't tell others what to do.

If you are pro choice the option should be there.

My mother was a midwife, the difference between the time abortion was illegal and when it was legal is less women died from complications of clandestine abortions.

I agree.

The point is, I don't think you'll find a single conservative whose main motivation for wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade is to infringe upon women's rights. If you genuinely believe that human life begins at the moment of conception, then you're fighting a good cause by wanting to overturn Roe v.s Wade. If people were legally murdering 5 year-olds, I would protest it (to say the very least). It would matter very little to me if people told me I was "infringing on their rights" or if it prevented other nasty stuff. So if you believe human life begins at conception, then it (rightfully) matters very little if someone accuses you of infringing on women's rights or if the alternative can cause more harm. Killing children is an absolute no no and not up for discussion.

So while I disagree with the foundation for pro-life advocates' positions, I'm willing to concede that they're generally great people. The way to protect Roe v. Wade is through education, treating it as the ethical dilemma it is and respect for other people's opinions - Not accusing them of being misogynistic extremists, which I see people on my side do far too often.

[OriZ 3,157]

It's up to the women And their partners to decide if they should pursue an abortion.

The option should be there (albeit until the pregnancy reaches a certain number of weeks). If you are pro life, simple you don't abort, but please don't tell others what to do.

If you are pro choice the option should be there.

My mother was a midwife, the difference between the time abortion was illegal and when it was legal is less women died from complications of clandestine abortions.

How many weeks would you suggest? To me 20 seems fair. Otherwise I guess nobody should tell a mother what to do with THEIR children after they are born either, and Casey Anthony should have never gone to trial. Because there is no difference between that and an abortion after 20-25 weeks. None.

Edited October 12, 2016 by OriZ

[ILikeBread 43]

How many weeks would you suggest? To me 20 seems fair. Otherwise I guess nobody should tell a mother what to do with THEIR children after they are born either, and Casey Anthony should have never gone to trial. Because there is no difference between that and an abortion after 20-25 weeks. None.

In France the law says 12 weeks max for an abortion.

Talking with my American wife, it seems there is a huge emphasis on sex ed here in France as opposed to the US.

Oops babies don't happen as much and thus the need for abortion is lower.

[millefleur 5,046]

I'm really depressed after reading this whole thread...

I'm not sure most people are against G. Johnson because he's pro-choice...I think it's because he just lacks charisma.

Say what you want about Hillary, but she has a presence. Trump obviously has some kind of chaotic charisma as well. Trump understands salesmanship and crowd manipulation. Hillary is obviously a master at politics (doesn't matter if you find her awful, she knows what she's doing) and the legacy of her husband during the prosperous 90's only bolsters this.

I think in addition to the third party candidates being pushed out by the mere fact that they are already on the fringes, the candidates just aren't charismatic enough to excite the masses. That's my take on it. But I totally agree that the masses of Trump supporters should not be ignored. In fact, it's a great opportunity to make a new third party and have third parties be taken more seriously. I wish Trump HAD run as third-party just for that fact. But I think Hillary actually preferred it this way, because it was inevitable that Trump would do something dumb/embarrassing and thus ensuring her victory.

Edited October 12, 2016 by millefleur

[OriZ 3,157]

In France the law says 12 weeks max for an abortion.

Talking with my American wife, it seems there is a huge emphasis on sex ed here in France as opposed to the US.

Oops babies don't happen as much and thus the need for abortion is lower.

I'll take 12 weeks in a heartbeat(no pun intended).

The sad thing is though in the US, they couldn't even get a 20 week ban passed, because of the democrats.