Re: Decision 2016
 

This may be bait, but other people take my bait often enough. I guess it's my turn. :)

While I have nothing but respect for people who do adopt, the far more selfish act is the creation of the "currently existing" children without parents. It's a biological imperative to want to raise your own children. It's not "xenophobic" to want to pass on your genes. If you really feel strongly about this issue, the most effective way to permanently fix it is to create a more educated population so fewer people conceive children that they cannot handle.

I was not aware that circumcision was major political issue this election. Maybe I am on the wrong news sites

Re: Decision 2016
 

I should have split up the post.
Only the first sentence was directed at you and was a light heart-ed attempt to acknowledge your willingness to express your views on a rather divisive subject. I respect your strength to be so honest.
I simply was trying to lighten things up a bit and failed miserably. :)

The rest of the post was in to reference to flameslayer93's post which I suppose I should have quoted but I just choose to refrain from quoting when I think I can get away with it. :)

Carry on.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Before it gets too out of hand remember for the religious it is a fact that an unborn child is alive. To them it is a crime.

This is an argument of definition (and tge morals that are a result) not ethics.

In Canada the stance is... there is no stance, each individual makes their choice. The pro choice group can make their choices and the pro life group can condem them to heLl safe in the knowledge that God will punish them.

Its a tough issue and a civil discussion is hard but valeable.

Re: Decision 2016
 

In the United States, as well, there is no stance. People may have them, or not have them, as they please. The people who would choose never to have abortions are also free to be hateful toward those who do (or even to those who believe in the *right* to have one, though they may not themselves choose that path), and are additionally free to attempt to bend the political process in order to control the bodies of others, if they can.

So we're pretty much using the Canadian model. Except that our political system is, apparently, more vulnerable to that kind of abuse than yours.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Okay, so if that is your single most important issue, Gary Johnson is the much better presidential candidate with that stance.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Unless you care enough that you want your vote to matter. If you're content to have a protest vote, and afterward, in the ruins, tell your friends that you proudly voted for a third party candidate, then go for it.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Sadly, do the polarizing nature of the issue, this is an "any one but Trump and Pence" (who is very much against woman's rights) decision. It sucks when you have to vote against someone one rather than for due to certain stances.

Re: Decision 2016
 

You have to play a longer game than that. 5% popular vote in the general election gets the Libertarian candidate federal funding in the next presidential election cycle.
Johnson has the potential to win several states, notably New Mexico, Utah, possibly Massachusetts, contingent on his performance in the upcoming debates. He doesn't need a majority of votes, just enough to send the decision to Congress.

I don't agree with all of Johnson's policies, but I agree with them far more than the others, and a vote with one's conscience is never wasted.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Why would I want Johnson to win? Clinton is perfectly qualified and, unlike the third party candidates or Trump, has piles of relevant job experience.

The more I hear about these grievances against Clinton, the more they sound like nonsense. Did you know previous Secretaries of State have had foundations that took money from foreign donors? No? I thought not. People don't like her, but I'm increasingly suspicious that the myths surrounding her are the product of an (speaking of a long game) industry of character assassination.

You say a "vote with one's conscience is never wasted." I think it's pretty easy to say that if you don't think your vote matters. Would you still say that in the ruins? "Our economy and national dignity are both in ruins, but at least I voted my conscience." Would you say it then?

No thank you. My vote is both more precious than that, and not as precious as that. I will make it count.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I find it hard to write off Clinton's flaws as "character assassination" while saying Trump's flaws are absolute truth (and vice versa). Both candidates have multiple news networks constantly putting out negative information about their past. Is one side consistently deluded while the other is consistently on the mark? I mean, you are free to think that is the case, but I don't think there are such major differences in mental capacity between Democrats and Republicans that would allow for either to be so convinced by blatant untruths.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Eh. Just because there are two perspectives does not mean one of them isn't right, or wrong. It could be that if one group is arguing that the sky is blue, and the other that the sky is green, one is wrong and one is right.

She's not perfect. I've said that before. But as for the list of grievances against her - email server, foundation, Benghazi - the closer I look, the more absurd each accusation appears.

Re: Decision 2016
 

He's not perfect. I've said that before. But as for the the list of grievances against Trump - failed businesses, racism, attraction to his daughter - the closer I look, the more absurd each accusation appears.

Just because there are two perspectives doesn't mean one of them has to be right. It could be that one group is arguing that the sky is yellow, and the other is arguing that the sky is red.