Donald Trump: How Do You Feel about Him Now? (Poll)

[irstupid]

Final-Fan said:

Dulfite said:

Sorry, was on vacation and just now replying! I absolutely am against torture. Sadly, it looks like every modern President has had torture in some shape allowed, so that really isn't a Democrat/Republican divide. Capital punishment is also something that has been done under both parties, regardless of what they'd like you to believe. That being said, I could never personally execute someone (let alone murder) and I am morally opposed to that.

Regarding the health of the woman, I am sympathetic and obviously, everything needs to be made available to them, but not at the risk of killing an innocent life that had no choice in any of the woman's actions. People have sex and the consequence of that, often, is being pregnant. You have to know that going into that, whether you're on bc or using contraception, etc. If that woman's life was at risk, I am still against it. If the baby is already dead that is different, but if the baby has a chance to live then why is that more valuable than an adult's chance to live? Both should be given that opportunity as much as possible. And I know that by saying this many will be in an uproar, but again I am standing by my belief that all life, including unborn babies and the elderly and the poor and anyone and everyone, is a precious thing. If the baby is guaranteed to die regardless? I would probably trust the doctor's recommendation in that. But if there was even a small chance of the baby surviving, I would obviously not support abortion.

Regarding rape, again I am sympathetic, and obviously there should be funds to help those women and adoption options, and the men should be held responsible, but again, is it the baby's fault she was raped? Abortion punishes the baby for the actions of a lunatic man and that is wrong. That baby is innocent of that horrible sin that was committed on that woman and shouldn't be punished for it. But if the women can't afford the baby or doesn't want it, then that is where I said we need to fix our adoption situation to allow those to happen more easily and behind less red tape.

The really interesting thing is that people can be relatively close on certain principles but still see underlying facts so differently that they are nearly on diametrically opposed positions.  My position is that before a certain level of development the fetus is not a "person", which is why it is not wrong to kill it.  Once it is a person (or once there is a reasonable likelihood of personhood) then it is wrong to kill it.  Your position is that personhood begins at conception (unless I'm wrong about that—correct me if I am).  So right there we stand on opposite sides of the abortion issue even though we both agree it's generally wrong to kill a "person". 

Beyond that I'd say that there is more gray area to late-term abortion that you seem to be admitting to.  Like, if the fetus only has a 25% chance to live and a 75% chance that letting it come to term will kill the woman, I would say that the woman has the right to choose to defend her own life against the "attacking" fetus, assuming that there isn't a way to remove the fetus non-lethally.  Please let me know if we actually agree on this too!  But where do we draw the line on the "likelihood of fetus living" vs. "likelihood of woman dying"?  It's murky territory. 

I know I'm butting in, but I'm also against abortion. It gets tricky in regards to rape victims, cause even though I would like to say "just give it up for adoption" as many people in the US want to adopt and maybe that would result in adoption not costing a years salary. But I can see the defense of forcing a woman to carry that to term could be tramatizing.

As for everyone else.

1. At conception is a bit lisleading. By the time someone knows they are pregnant they are a bit further along than the day after that you make conception sound like

2. I see a child whether in the womb or in a baby stroller as a life and I just can't murder it. Feels wrong on a personal level. You can't change that thinking, and I'm betting its the same for others.

Smartie900 said:
I still find it unbelievable that the creation of a 'Space Force' seems to be an idea that is supported by many. While the Outer Space Treaty signed by the UN doesn't specifically bar humans from militarizing space; it should be clear that the idea of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a useless branch of a military is illogical. I was cautiously optimistic about Trump's capability to handle monetary issues with some level of competency, but I was clearly mistaken.

A military space force is a big win in my book solely because I feel the best inventions/innovations/ect happen due to military funding. Is this space force going to win the space war against a china/Russia space force or against aliens? IDK, can't predict future, but the thought of it makes me laugh as it being ridiculous. But could this space force vastly improve our space tech which could not only improve our life on earth but lead to the advancement of things that put us closer to our beloved scifi fantasy stuff like Star Wars/Trek/ect.  That I hope and do believe it will.

Machiavellian said:

Smartie900 said:
I still find it unbelievable that the creation of a 'Space Force' seems to be an idea that is supported by many. While the Outer Space Treaty signed by the UN doesn't specifically bar humans from militarizing space; it should be clear that the idea of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a useless branch of a military is illogical. I was cautiously optimistic about Trump's capability to handle monetary issues with some level of competency, but I was clearly mistaken.

I continue to wonder why anyone believe Trump has any competency with monetary issues.  If anything from his business career, you would think that he isn't really good at handling money.  If no US banks will loan you a dime you have to wonder being 50 billion dollar man (so he claims) why no one will touch him.  Then you have President Trump getting all his money from a Bank that is notorious for money laundering.  I kept hearing people say, "He's a billionaire" as if that showed he had any competency in handling money.  One thing you have to give it to Trump that he learned from his dad, never use your own money.  Unfortunately he has a hard time showing that he can be trusted with anyone else money so why entrust him with all of ours.

You do realize that millionaires go broke quite frequently. It kind of has to do with ones nature/thinking to even become a millionaire. I know some and my dad does too and we both have seen how they can have some sort of a missing empathy towards themselves in a way. Like say they put all their money on some stock and it tanks and they lose all their money. Most people would be wallowing in self pity, drinking, suicidal, ect. It doesn't seem to affect them in that way. It's almost like a game to them. They lost that one, on to the next. Some of the millionaires I know have been dead broke half a dozen times, and each time got back to being a millionaire.

They take risks a normal person wouldn't dare take. Those risks can lead to bankruptcy, failed businesses, ect. The safe way of saving money and getting raises, promotions, ect until you become a millionaire is not how the majority of millionaires came to be. They are the rare ones.