Anonymous wrote:If you are pro-life and also will support said woman through the pregnancy as well as support the baby once it is here, fine. I personally won't accuse you of being inherently sexist. An argument can be made in that direction, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, that isn't how most see it. It's a "punish the sinners for their mistake"...then screw then afterwards.

And then most so called pro-lifers are pro-war and pro-death penalty. Which doesn't follow with the "all life is precious" line AT ALL.

most catholics are pro-life and anti death penalty.

Of course! I could easily vote for McCain, Romney, Rice, Powell, Lugar...tons of decent Republicans out there. I don't consider Trump to be a Republican; he's just a monster.

--Bleeding-heart liberal

Anonymous wrote:If you are pro-life and also will support said woman through the pregnancy as well as support the baby once it is here, fine. I personally won't accuse you of being inherently sexist. An argument can be made in that direction, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, that isn't how most see it. It's a "punish the sinners for their mistake"...then screw then afterwards.

And then most so called pro-lifers are pro-war and pro-death penalty. Which doesn't follow with the "all life is precious" line AT ALL.

This thread is for debating whether or not it would be impossible for people who hold these beliefs to vote demoncrat under any circumstance, not whether or not it is right to hold these beliefs. We all know people who hold these beliefs. I believe that unless they find murdered babies buried at Mar Largo, they will feel that, as bad as he is, he is better than Hilary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the difference is the Democratic party would not have nominated someone like this.

Op here. I agree with you, but still...what if?

The Ds nominated Bill.

What in the fuck is the difference?

Bill was smart enough to keep his mouth shut. That's all.

The difference is, is that we knew about his one affair, with Gennifer Flowers, when he ran for president the first time. (And I didn't vote for him, I voted for Tsongas).

We know a heck of a lot more about Trump's sordid history during this election.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the difference is the Democratic party would not have nominated someone like this.

Op here. I agree with you, but still...what if?

The Ds nominated Bill.

What in the fuck is the difference?

Bill was smart enough to keep his mouth shut. That's all.

You really think there's no difference between a Rhodes scholar who was governor of Arkansas for 12 years and a four-times bankrupt famewhore who pretends to be successful at business?

Look half of all women are pro-life. You can't say they're sexist because they have a different view of fetal life than you do.

Citation needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the difference is the Democratic party would not have nominated someone like this.

Op here. I agree with you, but still...what if?

The Ds nominated Bill.

What in the fuck is the difference?

Bill was smart enough to keep his mouth shut. That's all.

Anonymous wrote:So, Democrats, you have no problem with what Hillary did to a twelve year old rape victim? Painting her as a "temptress"? Laughing about it later?

She says that she has always been there for women and children--except for this one?

switch to Ind.
either not voting for prez or going third party b/c it's all a joke now

done with the hypocrisy in both camps

but might vote R for the first time in my life if they replaced Trump

Hillary, I believe, is just as bad. no doubt in my mind

If you are pro-life and also will support said woman through the pregnancy as well as support the baby once it is here, fine. I personally won't accuse you of being inherently sexist. An argument can be made in that direction, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, that isn't how most see it. It's a "punish the sinners for their mistake"...then screw then afterwards.

And then most so called pro-lifers are pro-war and pro-death penalty. Which doesn't follow with the "all life is precious" line AT ALL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You really don't see how someone can be morally opposed to killing unborn life? They can only be opposed to it because of internalized sexism?

They put the rights of a bunch of cells above the rights of a living human being. It's sexism because that human being is a woman, who you would legally force to become an incubator.

Look half of all women are pro-life. You can't say they're sexist because they have a different view of fetal life than you do.

Not that poster, but I think they are sexist. They are valuing a woman's life less than an unborn baby's life.

I'm the OP and I really don't want this to become an abortion debate. I'm pro-choice myself (although with strong moral reservations), but suffice it to say thst I don't believe pro-life=sexist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your question is valid, but it ignores what PPs have pointed up -- this isn't some isolated incident. It isn't a sudden, damaging revelation, it's further proof of a pattern of thought and behavior that makes Donald Trump unfit for the office.

You could liken this video to Hillary's speeches, which provide further evidence about her pretty much well-known views on Wall Street and trade. I happen to agree with much of what she says, so it doesn't surprise or bother me.

I think Trump supporters are not surprised or bothered by this revelation, because they've known their candidate is a woman-hating scumbag from the beginning and they either don't care or agree that some women need to be grabbed by the pussy.

I can assure you my mother does care that he is a woman hating scum bag and does not believe any woman needs to be grabbed by the pussy. She hates it, but she still feels like she needs to vote for him.

WHY?

Because she's a Republican and she think having Democrats in charge would be damaging to the country.

Anonymous wrote:I think the difference is the Democratic party would not have nominated someone like this.

Op here. I agree with you, but still...what if?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your question is valid, but it ignores what PPs have pointed up -- this isn't some isolated incident. It isn't a sudden, damaging revelation, it's further proof of a pattern of thought and behavior that makes Donald Trump unfit for the office.

You could liken this video to Hillary's speeches, which provide further evidence about her pretty much well-known views on Wall Street and trade. I happen to agree with much of what she says, so it doesn't surprise or bother me.

I think Trump supporters are not surprised or bothered by this revelation, because they've known their candidate is a woman-hating scumbag from the beginning and they either don't care or agree that some women need to be grabbed by the pussy.

I can assure you my mother does care that he is a woman hating scum bag and does not believe any woman needs to be grabbed by the pussy. She hates it, but she still feels like she needs to vote for him.

WHY?

I think the fundamental flaw in the original question is that it seems to assume the the candidate in question is one who, from a policy standpoint, is in line with the party platform, but says things that are deeply repugnant. That is not who Trump is, though. Trump is pretty far off from the traditional Republican platform on many key issues, and to the extent he's aligned himself with some of its positions for this election (e.g. abortion), Republicans should at least be questioning whether he'd actually pursue policy on that if he was in office.

If a tape was released of Hillary Clinton saying something I thought was really awful, I would probably still vote for her because her policy positions are in line with my views (although I'm sure someone will come up with an example to test my limits there). If the Democrats had nominated Jill Stein, I imagine her saying something equivalent to what Trump would be a deal breaker for me. My views are sufficiently out of line with Jill Stein's, though, that I'd already be hesitant to vote for her.

So to me, OP, the real question is what principles support your mother's decision to vote for Trump that are so key that they override the absolutely vile things he's said on so many topics? Simply being a Republican really doesn't explain it, unless she's someone who blindly votes the party line without thinking at all.

Here's the thing: the latest thing Trump said is nothing new. It's emblematic of his personality. He has always been a power hungry egomaniac with the morals of an alley cat. The fact that some people are only offended by him now based on that tape is what shocks me...although I shouldn't be surprised given how truly stupid most people are.

Hillary would never say anything remotely as inappropriate precisely because she is a seasoned politician who realizes that words matter and therefore thinks before she speaks...it's actually a quality that should be revered, yet her detractors throw rocks at her for being too boring/cold/calculated.