Anyone else ready for our first gay president?

[Guard of Guardians]

Or the proper moral decision could be to simply not lock the child away?

The problem with many people is that they think there are only two options to any situation.

There might be a third way.  My point was simply that locking a child in a cage for a limited period of time was less morally reprehensible than murdering even weaker and more vulnerable children, making the choice to vote for Trump quite easy.

---

No, they are not mutually exclusive.  A person can behave in an immoral fashion and still behave in a moral fashion at other times.  Every person on this planet does that every single day.  We've all done wrong things at one point or another, and we've all done good things at one point or another.  They do not exclude one another.

You can look up Hillary Clinton's positions yourself.  And you can see some of the legislation that members of her party in New York & Virginia have put in place to make abortion up to the moment of birth and even immediately after birth...legal.  That's all publicly available information, and I believe YouTube videos of some of those discussions are available.

You originally said

But when your choices are between an immoral man who wants to do good for the country and avoid the legal murder of children vs. an immoral woman

"Immoral person"does not equal "person who did something immoral". You are backpedaling. Otherwise please explain how an immoral man can "behave in a moral fashion at times".

So, no an "immoral person" wont do good for the country if its not by accident, by the very nature of his/her character, which is fundamentally different from being a person who does immoral things, which basically applies to all of us. Now, comparing Trump, an immoral, or at least amoral person through and through, with Clinton, and saying you prefer Trump says a lot more about you than about Trump or Clinton, since their characters are already well known and documented (not saying Clinton is a very pleasant one, but nowhere near the ballpark of Trump).


The truth is, you dont give a fuck about who is an immoral character or not. Trump could be a mass murderer (and he already hinted at this with his famous quote about shooting people on 5th avenue iirc). As long as he supports a position that is important to you, you will give him carte blanche. The end justifies the means, thats your position, and in the end all the immorality will be forgiven, so it really doesnt matter, does it?

Yes, it does...as there is no one that is exclusively moral and no one that is exclusively immoral.  It necessarily refers to someone who did something immoral because cannot refer to someone who is exclusively immoral.  And in my mind at the time was his conduct related to women.  Having said that, there is no backpedaling.  You can gainsay all you want and pretend you know what I'm concerned about, but I'm telling you what ranks in my concerns.  And while I don't like Trumps personal character and find it deplorable, I feel even worse about Hillary Clinton's.  Taken together with their proposed policies, voting for Trump was an easy choice.

[Divinity]

Um, yeah, if my choice was locking a child in a cage for a limited period of time versus murdering and even more vulnerable and defenseless child...yeah.  Obviously, a cage would be the least bad choice, and making that choice would be a mark of moral maturity with regard to decision-making.  I care about women and children, but no one is talking about killing women.  97% to 98% of those women are in the position of having a child in the first place due to their own choices.  They don't have to keep the child.  They simply have to allow it to live and avoid murdering it, which I don't think should be a hard choice.

I have no intention of making you laugh.  It seems to me that if he cared about himself as much as you say, he'd never put himself in the position to take the level of abuse he sustains on a daily basis, though I admit, I could be wrong.  I have a hard time seeing how he's actually helping himself a great deal, but I'll leave that as an open question.  It's possible that he'll be help in some way by what he's doing, but it's a harsh path to follow for a bit of self-help.

No, you want to take rights away from women because "THE FETUS!  THEY CHOSE TO HAVE SEX!  OMG!  THEY CHOSE TO HAVE SEX!  EVIL WITCHES!"  and you don't care about locking literal children in cages.  So don't try to pretend you give a fuck.  You don't even give a fuck about the children given up for adoption and forced to be raised in the system.  So stop pretending like it's about anything more than your desire to control women.  Give me a fucking break.  You don't get to claim to care about children.  You don't.  Your orange messiah doesn't.  All you give ONE RATS ASS ABOUT is controlling women.  If men could get pregnant, you'd probably be the first lining up for an abortion. Well assuming you're not an incel, which you probably are.

[Fake Messiah]

You can look up Hillary Clinton's positions yourself.  And you can see some of the legislation that members of her party in New York & Virginia have put in place to make abortion up to the moment of birth and even immediately after birth...legal.  That's all publicly available information, and I believe YouTube videos of some of those discussions are available.

You mean like this video on YouTube?





Why would you be against it? You know something more? Please explain.

[Amarok]

Um, yeah, if my choice was locking a child in a cage for a limited period of time versus murdering and even more vulnerable and defenseless child...yeah.  Obviously, a cage would be the least bad choice, and making that choice would be a mark of moral maturity with regard to decision-making.  I care about women and children, but no one is talking about killing women.  97% to 98% of those women are in the position of having a child in the first place due to their own choices.  They don't have to keep the child.  They simply have to allow it to live and avoid murdering it, which I don't think should be a hard choice.

I have no intention of making you laugh.  It seems to me that if he cared about himself as much as you say, he'd never put himself in the position to take the level of abuse he sustains on a daily basis, though I admit, I could be wrong.  I have a hard time seeing how he's actually helping himself a great deal, but I'll leave that as an open question.  It's possible that he'll be help in some way by what he's doing, but it's a harsh path to follow for a bit of self-help.

No, you want to take rights away from women because "THE FETUS!  THEY CHOSE TO HAVE SEX!  OMG!  THEY CHOSE TO HAVE SEX!  EVIL WITCHES!"  and you don't care about locking literal children in cages.  So don't try to pretend you give a fuck.  You don't even give a fuck about the children given up for adoption and forced to be raised in the system.  So stop pretending like it's about anything more than your desire to control women.  Give me a fucking break.  You don't get to claim to care about children.  You don't.  Your orange messiah doesn't.  All you give ONE RATS ASS ABOUT is controlling women.  If men could get pregnant, you'd probably be the first lining up for an abortion. Well assuming you're not an incel, which you probably are.

They choose to have sex isn't a argument and now we give them the choice to stay pregnant or not just like that them choose weither they want to be parents via adoption .And I love his defense of locking kids up

---

You can look up Hillary Clinton's positions yourself.  And you can see some of the legislation that members of her party in New York & Virginia have put in place to make abortion up to the moment of birth and even immediately after birth...legal.  That's all publicly available information, and I believe YouTube videos of some of those discussions are available.

You mean like this video on YouTube?





Why would you be against it? You know something more? Please explain.

Funny he claims this but doesn't provide any legislation examples

---

Um, yeah, if my choice was locking a child in a cage for a limited period of time versus murdering and even more vulnerable and defenseless child...yeah.

Too bad those aren't the choices 

 Obviously, a cage would be the least bad choice,

Opinion 

and making that choice would be a mark of moral maturity with regard to decision-making. 

The opposite 

I care about women and children, but no one is talking about killing women.  97% to 98% of those women are in the position of having a child in the first place due to their own choices. 

Ahh yes blame the women and 97 to 98 get real 

They don't have to keep the child.  They simply have to allow it to live and avoid murdering it, which I don't think should be a hard choice.

Nor should they be forced to be pregnant 

I have no intention of making you laugh.  It seems to me that if he cared about himself as much as you say, he'd never put himself in the position to take the level of abuse he sustains on a daily basis, though I admit, I could be wrong.  I have a hard time seeing how he's actually helping himself a great deal, but I'll leave that as an open question.  It's possible that he'll be help in some way by what he's doing, but it's a harsh path to follow for a bit of self-help.

Yeah because he hasn't personally benefited at all from being president

---

Um, yeah, if my choice was locking a child in a cage for a limited period of time versus murdering and even more vulnerable and defenseless child...yeah.  Obviously, a cage would be the least bad choice, and making that choice would be a mark of moral maturity with regard to decision-making.  I care about women and children, but no one is talking about killing women.  97% to 98% of those women are in the position of having a child in the first place due to their own choices.  They don't have to keep the child.  They simply have to allow it to live and avoid murdering it, which I don't think should be a hard choice.

I have no intention of making you laugh.  It seems to me that if he cared about himself as much as you say, he'd never put himself in the position to take the level of abuse he sustains on a daily basis, though I admit, I could be wrong.  I have a hard time seeing how he's actually helping himself a great deal, but I'll leave that as an open question.  It's possible that he'll be help in some way by what he's doing, but it's a harsh path to follow for a bit of self-help.

No, you want to take rights away from women because "THE FETUS!  THEY CHOSE TO HAVE SEX!  OMG!  THEY CHOSE TO HAVE SEX!  EVIL WITCHES!"  and you don't care about locking literal children in cages.  So don't try to pretend you give a fuck.  You don't even give a fuck about the children given up for adoption and forced to be raised in the system.  So stop pretending like it's about anything more than your desire to control women.  Give me a fucking break.  You don't get to claim to care about children.  You don't.  Your orange messiah doesn't.  All you give ONE RATS ASS ABOUT is controlling women.  If men could get pregnant, you'd probably be the first lining up for an abortion. Well assuming you're not an incel, which you probably are.

Actually it's more like 

"women exercise sexual freedom well fuck you ...Pregnancy" 

"women don't want to have another entity living inside them against their will  fuck you have no autonomy "

Also I love the fact he acknowledges women have choices but shouldn't be allowed choices that make him uncomfortable

[Yonadav]

No. I don't care about him being gay. I don't care about ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. Being 'for' America's first gay president is exactly the same sort of nonsense as being 'against' America's first gay president. I'm against him because being for him is basically like being 'for' America's second reality show star. And also because he is just yet another Ivy League educated elite.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No. I don't care about him being gay. I don't care about ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. Being 'for' America's first gay president is exactly the same sort of nonsense as being 'against' America's first gay president. I'm against him because being for him is basically like being 'for' America's second reality show star. And also because he is just yet another Ivy League educated elite.

So, you've started caring again?

Boru

[Yonadav]

No. I don't care about him being gay. I don't care about ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. Being 'for' America's first gay president is exactly the same sort of nonsense as being 'against' America's first gay president. I'm against him because being for him is basically like being 'for' America's second reality show star. And also because he is just yet another Ivy League educated elite.

So, you've started caring again?

Boru

Not really. Just made a mistake and checked in on you folks.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, you've started caring again?

Boru

Not really. Just made a mistake and checked in on you folks.

You cared enough to check in?  That's so sweet!

Boru

[Yonadav]

Not really. Just made a mistake and checked in on you folks.

You cared enough to check in?  That's so sweet!

Boru

Thanks. People don't usually notice how sweet I am.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You cared enough to check in?  That's so sweet!

Boru

Thanks. People don't usually notice how sweet I am.

I can see why.

Boru