MigL

I apologize to any other women on this thread. Unless the information is offered, I don't make it a point to ask, as my arguments are not based on the gender of the people involved. At no time have I mentioned multiple abortions and women's morals. I have simply made the argument that at some point, the fetus is a person, with rights equivalent to the woman that is carrying it. The argument has changed direction, however, and seems to be focused more on the right of women to do as they will with their body. The problem is rights are not isolated. With rights come responsibilities. You can't have one without the other. Example... I have the right to drink irresponsibly. But I have the responsibility not to be stupid about it, such as driving under the influence and killing somebody. They put you in jail for that and take away a whole bunch more rights. Now lets get back to the woman with the five abortions... Your argument is that its her right to have sex irresponsibly, and then avoid all consequences and further responsibilities, by killing a possible human being ( depending on when in the pregnancy, society deems that to be ). And not go to jail ! So you can call us bigots if you want, and take your marbles and go home, but so far these are just alternate viewpoints. We have no power over what you do. And the only intolerant person here has been you, Sirona, for immediately labelling our viewpoints 'bigoted and sexist', simply for being at odds with your own.

I noticed Ten oz didn't comment on option # 5 in his post # 82...

Becoming a dictator involve the condoning or backing of the military. I don't imagine it could ever happen in the US. At one point it couldn't even happen in Russia when Yeltsin was around. Sadly, Putin seems to subjugating the newborn democracy ( if it can still be called that ) to his will.

Bill was, is, and always will be a male whore ( not that there's anything wrong with that ). He's personable, interesting, and flirts with every woman he sees. Hillary seems cold and distant in comparison, and, although very competent, comes across as unlikeable to many. I really don't think they spend much time together, as his mistress ( the energizer bunny ) visits him quite often ( according to Secret Service sources )

Trump changes his mind ( and denies having made the previous statements ) as often as he changes underwear. Judging him on things he says he's going to do is a bit premature.

Well, here we are... A bunch of guys sitting around discussing what rights women should, or shouldn't, have. Doesn't seem right ( or ethical ) to me.

So again I have to ask... What should a good man do, other than protest and riot ? Do you think the election should be annulled and done over ? I would predict an even bigger win for D Trump in that case ( then again my predictions have sucked so far ). Do you think the 'progressive' areas should go their separate ways ? I don't think the break-up of the country is a viable solution. Do you think the Electoral College should be scrapped ( I do, by the way )? That would seem a lot less self-serving had you ( or any Democrat, including the President ) mentioned it during the last 8 yrs. Do you think the evil D trump should be shot ? OK, that's a little extreme, maybe just wounded ( i'm joking, and in very bad taste ) Heck, even Robert DeNiro has stated that he would not punch D Trump in the face anymore, as he is now his President, and the Office deserves a certain amount of respect. Even though the election results made him feel like he did after 9/11 ( now THAT is extreme and in bad taste; he equates it with 3000 people dying ? )

My apologies. I recognize this is a very sensitive issue. I should not have used the term 'cancer-like growth'. I hope that isn't what caused Sirona to leave the conversation. Any discussion of women's rights would be pointless without a woman's point of view and input.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Take that to mean ... All politicians lie ( requisite for the job, or you don't get elected ) or... The reality of the Presidency is vastly different and constrainig than the la-la-land of the campaign.

I really don't think it was the fact that she's a woman, Stringy. The way the Democrats rigged the nomination is what 'soured' her to a lot of people ( well, OK, me ). The Democrats showed themselves to be as self-serving as the Republicans, and so people voted for the anti-establishment candidate, the outsider, the 'wrench in the works' candidate if you will. D Trump is not a Democrat, but he hasn't made too many Republican friends either ( except for the boot-lickers/ a*s-kissers ). He was simply seen by many, as the outsider who will change the way Government does business.

AS has been stated many times on this forum by Phi and many others, Conservatives, and Republicans in particular, appeal to people's emotions ( fear, insecurity, etc. ). D Trump certainly did, he appealed to people's dissatisfaction with the government and how it failed to represent/serve/answer to them. A lot of people felt disenfranchised and ignored by the government, and this was, in effect, a protest vote ( my opinion, and boy, are they in for a rude awakening ). Now, after the election, The people who railed against the fearmongering, are themselves reacting emotionally. The have let fear of what D Trump will do control their actions. What do they expect to gain/change with the protests/riots ? Do they want the election annulled, and the chaos and anarchy that will bring ? Do they want the north-eastern seaboard separating along with California and forming their own countries ? Or are they simply venting frustration, with no particular aim, but making things worse ? I also find it ironic that you guys who can tell me the high percentage of times D Trump has lied during the campaign, now, all of a sudden, believe that everything he said is the gospel truth, and he will do everything he promised.

What I find more troubling is the statement " a fetus is not a human being ". Does that mean that until the umbilical cord is cut, we are just dealing with a cancer-like 'growth' which can be simply cut out and discarded ? A lot of people and lawmakers have agonized over deciding when the fetus is accorded human rights. And I realize there will be extreme opinions ( some at conception and others at delivery ), but surely, at some point, the fetus has to be granted human rights. What would be your reaction if ( in a country like China ), as soon as the gender is known, couples abort their female fetuses ( or is it fetii ? ) simply because they prefer male offspring ? Would you say it is their right to do so, as the fetus doesn't have rights or legal standing ?

We have the same issue in Canada with proportional representation ( which does seem like a more fair system, but I'm sure would create new problems ), but it only ever gets brought up when the Liberals lose an election. But that wasn't the main point I was striving to make... Why such a low voter turnout in what is arguably the most important election of the last 50 yrs ? And given the low turnout, why all the anger and angst at the results ?

The fact of the matter is that about 50% of ALL Americans who voted in this election also think and respond that certain way. Do you want to censor their opinions also ?

Getting back to the topic, which is the protests, not the legitimacy of the election. ( if there is a problem with the Electoral College system, why does it only get brought up when Democrats lose ? And why was there no talk of changing it during the last 8 yrs ? It does seem a rather archaic system and maybe change is in order ) Most of the videos I've seen show a lot of younger protesters, a lot of high school age as a matter of fact. Given the fact that historically that is the demographic that is least likely to vote, Why do they feel they have the right to complain about the results ? Instead of blaming our apathy at the results, why not blame the apathy of those who didn't bother to vote and caused this in the first place ? If people were worried about a D Trump win, why such a low voter turnout ( lowest since '96 ) ??? It wasn't important enough for people to get off their butts and go vote, why is it, all of a sudden, important now ???

On the contrary, there are almost yearly amendments and regulatory changes to NAFTA. All involve discussions/negotiations among the members. ( google NAFTA amendments )

Ahhh Americans. They're my neighbors and I love them, but they're not ones to pass up an opportunity to riot every chance they get. But you guys gotta relax, and keep things in perspective. There are things that are way more important than this election. Family, health, your job, etc. all are way higher on the importance list. Life will go on, even with D. Trump as President. And don't forget, in four years you have the opportunity for a do-over

So, what next for Mrs. Clinton ? Now that she's lost her chance for the Presidency, and doesn't need him anymore, will she kick her husband to the curb ? ( personally, I like Bill, more so than Hillary )

So D Trump wants to re-negotiate NAFTA. NAFTA is approx. 25 yrs old. Do you know how many times NAFTA has already been re-negotiated ?

This seems to be off-topic as this thread is about the American President Elect. If the Mods deem this discussion should continue, it should be split off.

Whoah, Ten oz, that was two months ago. We have bigger fish to fry now than Islam. We have the Trump situation, and how both you and I said it could never happen. Try to keep up.

Certainly not equivalence, CharonY. I was under the ( mistaken ) assumption that personal rights can be suspended in a life or death situation of another person. I was just re-certified in CPR/first aid/ defibrillator this past summer, Delta. Instructors now tell you that anything you do is helpful if a person has no heartbeat, even compressions only, as that person only has approx. 4 min. The professionals will NOT be there in time. ( sorry for the off topic jaunt )

Its obvious where I'm going with this. The discussion is all about the frustration with the election results, and how people feel that Waitforufo is 'rubbing salt in their wounds. Shouldn't we be able to get past that and discuss B. Obama's accomplishments and shortcomings with civility, and without having to wait for the frustration and grieving to end ? Whatever happened yesterday, the US is still one of the only countries in the world I'd consider living in. And there's enough checks and balances in the government that half of the outlandish things D. Trump has mentioned, he won't be able to do. The other half, he won't want to do once he takes office in January and reality bites him in the ass ( remember how B Obama was going to close Guantanamo Bay ? How did that turn out ? ) Besides, I don't see why you guys are worried. I'm the one who has to take four people out for lunch and drinks tomorrow because I lost the bets I made against D Trump.

"A thread on the legacy of Obama might be welcomed - but not if, from the get go, the thread is designed to provoke and insult." I don't think that the fact that some people are a little upset or disappointed by the results of a democratically decided President Elect is a valid reason to shut down a thread. Why would it be different if the same thread was opened a year from now ( and not provocative ), other than the fact that some are a little sensitive and raw about the election outcome, and so, its considered 'provocative' currently ? Shouldn't we be able to discuss 'sensitive' issues on this forum, or do we need to account for when someone is in a 'bad mood' ? And as far as I can tell, the only person to hurl an insult is Phi, although he did provide the 'reasoning' behind his assertion. Just providing my opinion, which isn't necessarily worth anything.

My bad. That's what happens when you get your understanding of the law from TV shows like Seinfeld. I always thought Good Samaritan laws enforced assistance. ( and also Depraved Indifference laws from Law and Order ) So its not criminal to watch someone die of a heart attack and not render CPR/first aid ? Their right to life does not supersede your right to go about your business ? Seems, at the very least, immoral.