And lie detector test determined that is a lie. It was a long stream of Consciousness hypothetical not just a question about being pro-life or pro-choice.

A 16 year old participating in a mock presidential campaign could answer the question more decisively.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

It's indeterminate exactly when a fetus becomes a person, however one defines that. If there were a definitive answer here then the abortion question would not be controversial. I don't see a small group of cells being a person and most Americans agree with that view, so an abortion very early in the pregnancy is only considered murder by a small subset of Americans. So the best answer to satisfy the most people in the case of rape-induced pregnancy is an immediate "morning after pill." A rape victim doesn't need to wait to find out whether or not she's pregnant before taking preventative action.


As you get to the later stages of pregnancy, where the fetus has arms, legs, a brain, and working internal organs, then a majority of Americans consider abortion wrong (but only a minority of our ruling elderly Ivy League lawyers). There's really no excuse for putting off an abortion for months after the woman knows she is pregnant except if the health of the mother becomes seriously endangered.

I don't think women are carrying around birth control bills because they are anticipating being raped at any point and time.


Plus a high percentage of women who have been tested with a rape kit are tested for pregnancy.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

And yet one side of the argument wants to limit people's access to health care. Birth control, etc.. 

 

And then complain when the person who would be attempting to recognize that bringing a life into the world is not a good idea for them attempts to get a dollar of tax funds to support the life that WAS so important.

 

Difficult to reconcile with a straight face.  

 

Not just difficult.  Impossible.   Illogical.   Absurd.  

---

And yet one side of the argument wants to limit people's access to health care. Birth control, etc..


And then complain when the person who would be attempting to recognize that bringing a life into the world is not a good idea for them attempts to get a dollar of tax funds to support the life that WAS so important.


Difficult to reconcile with a straight face.

No one will acknowledge this though.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Yeh but some of those predate the mosern primary system itself.

Bingo! Totally agree with jj on this one.


The reason we haven't seen a contested convention in the modern era is because we went away (and rightfully so) from political machines. Back during the political machine's day, you'd have brokered conventions and it wasn't a big deal, because that's how it always was, and there were no primaries where voters voted. So our was much less democratic, because the political elite of each party choose the candidates.


Now, we have the ability to actually see what the voters are deciding, so going back to brokering a convention when the plurality of voters are clearly choosing one candidate would be terrible for a party. Saying otherwise is either wishful thinking.

---

Bingo! Totally agree with jj on this one.


The reason we haven't seen a contested convention in the modern era is because we went away (and rightfully so) from political machines. Back during the political machine's day, you'd have brokered conventions and it wasn't a big deal, because that's how it always was, and there were no primaries where voters voted. So our was much less democratic, because the political elite of each party choose the candidates.


Now, we have the ability to actually see what the voters are deciding, so going back to brokering a convention when the plurality of voters are clearly choosing one candidate would be terrible for a party. Saying otherwise is either wishful thinking.

 

A contested convention is not the same as a brokered convention.   Those are two different things. 

 

http://2016.republican-convention.org/br...onvention/

 

"It is also worth pointing out that, contrary to popular belief, brokered and contested conventions are actually two different things; the former actually refers to backroom deals and negotiations involving senior party figures, while the latter entails delegates voting at the convention."

 

You can have a contested convention without having a brokered convention.  

---

A 16 year old participating in a mock presidential campaign could answer the question more decisively.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kasich-avoids-saying-whether-he-would-punish-doctors-who-perform-abortions/'>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kasich-avoids-saying-whether-he-would-punish-doctors-who-perform-abortions/</a>

---

A contested convention is not the same as a brokered convention. Those are two different things.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://2016.republican-convention.org/brokered-contested-convention/'>http://2016.republican-convention.org/brokered-contested-convention/</a>


"It is also worth pointing out that, contrary to popular belief, brokered and contested conventions are actually two different things; the former actually refers to backroom deals and negotiations involving senior party figures, while the latter entails delegates voting at the convention."


You can have a contested convention without having a brokered convention.

True. In this cycle for instance if there was a dramatic collapse and cruz went on amazing run of states and wound up leading in the national polls there is a scenario in which a CONTESTED convention could be seen as a run off between the two candidates to legitimately settle a divided electorate.


If trump comes in leading by 400 delegates sitting at 1220 and you have the party bosses broker the second or third ballot to install jeb bush or paul ryan you are looking at chicago 68.

---

A contested convention is not the same as a brokered convention. Those are two different things.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://2016.republican-convention.org/brokered-contested-convention/'>http://2016.republican-convention.org/brokered-contested-convention/</a>


"It is also worth pointing out that, contrary to popular belief, brokered and contested conventions are actually two different things; the former actually refers to backroom deals and negotiations involving senior party figures, while the latter entails delegates voting at the convention."


You can have a contested convention without having a brokered convention.

Thanks for the clarification, and while it's good to have those definitions properly qualified, I think you're picking at nits.


Whether the plurality leader loses out on the convention floor, or behind closed doors, the result will be the same in the eyes of everyday voters. You'll basically be disenfranchising 35-45 percent of your base.

---

Thanks for the clarification, and while it's good to have those definitions properly qualified, I think you're picking at nits.


Whether the plurality leader loses out on the convention floor, or behind closed doors, the result will be the same in the eyes of everyday voters. You'll basically be disenfranchising 35-45 percent of your base.

 

But what else are you supposed to do if a majority of delegates refuse to vote for the guy?   What are you supposed to do if he has 45% of the votes on the first ballot, but he just cannot get a majority?   The other 55% of the delegates should be free to vote for whomever they want to vote for.  

---

But what else are you supposed to do if a majority of delegates refuse to vote for the guy?   What are you supposed to do if he has 45% of the votes on the first ballot, but he just cannot get a majority?   The other 55% of the delegates should be free to vote for whomever they want to vote for.  

 

United Delegates of America

---

I don't think women are carrying around birth control bills because they are anticipating being raped at any point and time.


Plus a high percentage of women who have been tested with a rape kit are tested for pregnancy.

 

That's not what I was suggesting. Every emergency room carries morning after pills. That wouldn't solve every case of pregnancy due to rape, but could cover the vast majority of cases. I'm personally on the side of rape victims being allowed abortions, I am just trying to point out that there's a solution that's not considered "murder" by a large majority of Americans.


 

The whole 'rape' question is a deflection. Very few abortions are for rape victims.


 

And although I'm not a Trump fan, I can see that the controversy over his rape answer is pure dirty politicking. As someone enough stupid hypothetical questions that have no basis in reality and everyone would eventually come up with a mistaken answer that would be changed with more time to think it over (as he did). Of course he should have recognized it as a stupid question and thrown it back in the face of the reporter, but that's another matter.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

But what else are you supposed to do if a majority of delegates refuse to vote for the guy? What are you supposed to do if he has 45% of the votes on the first ballot, but he just cannot get a majority? The other 55% of the delegates should be free to vote for whomever they want to vote for.

Well, that's a good question, and in most countries a two party system as ours doesn't exist. In those democratic countries, the plurality wins, but concessions are made to the other parties that also had a respectable portion of the vote.


If trump maintains his plurality, he should win and then make concessions to the Cuban Canadian, kasich, and Rubio.


But if trump wins a plurality and does not become the nominee, then you really didn't have a democratic primary, not from a strict political science point of view.


The plurality winner should make the runner up the vp candidate, or whatever concession the second place candidate is looking for.

---

Not just difficult.  Impossible.   Illogical.   Absurd.  

 

[BLEEP]. I'm not "Limiting your access" to a car because I don't want to buy that for you either.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

[BAD WORD REMOVED]. I'm not "Limiting your access" to a car because I don't want to buy that for you either.

 

Isn't giving people some help with birth control a small price to pay to prevent the murder of millions of unborn babies?   Or does it not really matter that much to you? 

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/...tcmp=hpbt1

 

They should ship these morons to Syria for a couple months and then see how they feel about stomping on their flag.

---

Isn't giving people some help with birth control a small price to pay to prevent the murder of millions of unborn babies? Or does it not really matter that much to you?

Has anyone been to walmart?

---

Isn't giving people some help with birth control a small price to pay to prevent the murder of millions of unborn babies? Or does it not really matter that much to you?

That's the problem with conservatives... they are willing to make things actually worst in order to maintain a sense of political "purity" no matter the actual effect on a society.


That exchange really bears it out.


The completely hard-line/fundamentalist stance on self reliance and individual responsibility means that we must never invest in anyone or anything, lest we lose our "principles". Even if a small investment would benefit the greater good.


To a conservative, the greater good is a communist idea that will destroy the country.

---

That's the problem with conservatives... they are willing to make things actually worst in order to maintain a sense of political "purity" no matter the actual effect on a society.


That exchange really bears it out.


The completely hard-line/fundamentalist stance on self reliance and individual responsibility means that we must never invest in anyone or anything, lest we lose our "principles". Even if a small investment would benefit the greater good.


To a conservative, the greater good is a communist idea that will destroy the country.

No that couldnt be further from the truth.


the term investment naturally lends itself to a RETURN on investment. Since the war on poverty the state has spent 22 trillion dollars on poverty programs without making a dent in the rate of poverty but has committed more than half of our annual budget to entitlement spending. At some point we have to realize tgat the matrix of the state does not actually wnd poverty or create prosperity.


The concept of individual responsibility applied to birth control is simple. If a provider such as walmart can fill a perscription for less than 10 a month its easier for someone to just pay the ten bucks as opposed to taxing someone 100 dollars to pay three public sector union workers to waste 144 dollars supervising the transfer of money to the provider.

---

Isn't giving people some help with birth control a small price to pay to prevent the murder of millions of unborn babies?   Or does it not really matter that much to you? 

 

It matters a great deal to me, but It won't prevent anything if they don't use it and it's already so cheap now that not using it is RARELY a matter of cost. It's a matter of behavior and more "education" isn't going to change that. The logical option? If the government is going to pay for it then make it the injectible or make it permanent. 

 

To a conservative, forcing everyone to finance what may or may not benefit the greater good is a communist idea that will destroy the country.

 

You seem to miss several pertinent parts in your blanket statements.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato