2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Martinus]

Also, I frankly don't get why what Trump said about punishing women for an illegal abortion is so controversial to be the nail in his coffin. That's a pretty logical conclusion if you are pro life. If abortion is murder, then punishing the doctor but not the woman is like punishing a hired killer but not the person who hired him or her.

Hell, I predict he will get some votes from the pro-life crowd for this, and people who support him for other reasons do not care enough about this to stop supporting him.

[Martinus]

Arrest a woman so desperate that she already risked her life by going to a back-alley abortion clinic? How does that serve anyone? How does that help anyone? Where is the benefit to our society in doing something like that?

These are attenuating circumstances that the jury and the judge should take into account in sentencing, and surely not apriori assumptions that apply to every case. Your argument is like saying that because many people steal food when they are hungry and desperate we should not be punishing grocery shoplifters.

[Martinus]

And for the record, the full interview exchange went like this:

Trump was asked by moderator Chris Matthews what the law should be on abortion. He responded, "Well, I have been pro-life." After Matthews asked again what the law should be, Trump stated, "They've set the law."

After talking about the impact of the election on judicial appointments, Trump was asked, "Should the woman be punished for having an abortion? And this is not something you can dodge. If you say abortion is a crime, or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law, should abortion be punished?" He responded, "Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party, and conservative Republicans would say yes, they should be punished."

When asked for his own position, Trump stated that "it's a very serious problem, and it's a problem we have to decide on." Trump further stated that you have to ban abortion, which will perhaps lead to people seeking illegal abortions.

Trump was further asked, "Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle? He answered, "The answer is, that there has to be some form of punishment." After Matthews followed up, "For the woman?" Trump stated, "Yeah. It has to some form."

After further questioning, Trump told Matthews he didn't know what the punishment would be.

[Eddie Teach]

Which circumstances? I would think the shady clinic would be the norm in that situation*, and other than that she didn't give any details about this particular woman.

*And even if not, I'm not sure why it would deserve a lesser sentence than someone getting an illegal abortion from her regular doctor.

[Martinus]

Which circumstances? I would think the shady clinic would be the norm in that situation*, and other than that she didn't give any details about this particular woman.

*And even if not, I'm not sure why it would deserve a lesser sentence than someone getting an illegal abortion from her regular doctor.

Well, ask Merri. I am just saying her argument does not make sense no matter how you slice it.

Edit: Unless you believe you have to recognise "nuance" which I suppose is a code word for "irrational" and "listening to your body".

[MadImmortalMan]

Well, ask Merri. I am just saying her argument does not make sense no matter how you slice it.

I think you're "lawyering" an argument that's primarily emotional in this case.

[Martinus]

Well, ask Merri. I am just saying her argument does not make sense no matter how you slice it.

I think you're "lawyering" an argument that's primarily emotional in this case.

Oh sorry I thought we were discussing logic.

[Martinus]

Bernie was asked this:

Sanders was asked, "Senator, you have been a fierce critic of the influence of the wealthy and big business on our politics, not just on who gets their way, but who sets the agenda. As Republican legislatures and governors have recently been weighing new laws that are discriminatory, particularly against LGBT people, in North Carolina, in Georgia, in Missouri, in Indiana, big business, including Bank of America, today in North Carolina, has weighed in strongly against those discriminatory laws. Do you think those businesses should butt out of those issues? Is it inappropriate for them to try to wield political influence, even when they do it in a progressive way?"

Sanders responded, "Well, you know, look, they have — when we look at politics in America, you have CEOs of major corporations, who have children who are gay, who have friends who are gay, whose wives or daughters have had abortions. They live in the real world, and they're responding to this type of very right-wing reactionary policies, and I understand that, and I appreciate that. When I talk about money in politics, what I talk about is the Koch Brothers and billionaires, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, along with Wall Street, to create a situation where politics — politicians will be elected who represent the wealthy and the powerful."

That's pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.

[Martinus]

Not to mention, the notion that a CEO of a major corporation should be applauded for exercising his corporate authority in the interest of a family member and not the company and its shareholders is quite preposterous.

[Jaron]

You were expecting logic and consistency from that red menace?

[Solmyr]

Except, you know, LGBT rights is not politics, it's basic human rights. Businesses supporting LGBT rights and, say, lobbying for tax cuts is not the same at all. Businesses totally should support human rights, there is nothing hypocritical about that.

[Martinus]

Ok, Languish, I have to ask. Because it is like fifth time in the recent days when I am virtually stumped by a response I am getting here. My question: when I was more of a leftist, did I actually use such "arguments"? 

[Martinus]

I mean, we are not talking here about big businesses lobbying Saudi Arabia to stop killing people for being gay (incidentally, I am willing to bet that a lot of businesses that were threatening to pull out of North Carolina or Georgia over these "bathroom" laws are doing business in Saudi Arabia). We are talking about democratically elected legislative bodies of US states passing laws that may be controversial (and with which I may disagree) but which are nowhere near touching fundamental rights of people - and which, in any case, are subject to judicial review under the US constitution and bill of rights.

[Jaron]

Ok, Languish, I have to ask. Because it is like fifth time in the recent days when I am virtually stumped by a response I am getting here. My question: when I was more of a leftist, did I actually use such "arguments"? 

You are well known for your solid and logical arguments.

[Eddie Teach]

I think businesses' first duty is to make money for their shareholders, however there is some leeway to lobby for causes those shareholders* believe in. People who don't like this have the option to take their money elsewhere.

*with purchase of shares being an implicit endorsement of the policies of the current CEO and Board on such.