QuakerOats;1815169 wrote:It was Sleeper's comment, not mine. I asked the same question you did.
Sleeper mentioned that justices would "uphold" the rights of women. That can be the current ones. It doesn't necessitate any special rights bestowed, which is what your comment stated (see below).
QuakerOats;1815150 wrote:I thought women were afforded the rights that all Americans have pursuant to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or are you talking about some special rights that liberal justices will bestow?
[/quote]
QuakerOats;1815169 wrote:County by county; state by state, massive amounts of people crossed over and voted.
Two things:
1. Evidence of the crossover.
2. Evidence that those who crossed over are the ones who voted for Trump in such a majority as to grant him the nomination.
QuakerOats;1815169 wrote:In Mahoning county alone, there were upwards of 30,000.
Evidence. See above.
QuakerOats;1815169 wrote:I am not sure what you don't get. Do you need a list of thousands and millions of names or something?
I need evidence in order to believe a claim as outlandish the one you've put forth. I'm not saying it's completely impossible (though I would say it probably is practically impossible). However, given how unlikely, I'm going to need evidence to believe it.
QuakerOats;1815169 wrote:Regular folks, many who have not even voted recently, became re-engaged by Trump because he is an outsider ...
Or a celebrity.
QuakerOats;1815169 wrote:... a non-politician ...
At the very least, he had never held political office. I'll grant you that. As far as when someone is a politician, I'd say he was a "non-politician" in the same way First Lady Clinton was a "non-politician." He's been rubbing shoulders and leveraging with them for years. He may not have been in the family, but he's been as close as a consigliere for some time, per his own admission.
QuakerOats;1815169 wrote:... a non-establishment guy ...
I sincerely can't roll my eyes hard enough at this. Per his own admission of having taken advantage of the broken system for his own gain by dealing with the establishment, he's anything but an outsider to the Washington muck.
QuakerOats;1815169 wrote:... who raised the issues that we need to be discussing.
The only issue he built his primary platform on was a wall. Every other portion of his platform was reactionary or ambiguous.
Ironically, you're defending him as though you don't think he's a troubling candidate, but when someone brings up the fact that he's a troubling candidate, you blame crossovers (again, without providing evidence).
You're not stupid, but if you're going to be reasonable, you can't expect anyone to just take your word for it, right? How do you know all this crossover took place? Where did you read it? Where are the numbers?
And beyond that, how do you know that these crossover voters are the reason Trump won the nomination? Again, where did you read it? Where are the numbers?
If the above two cannot be sufficiently backed, there are no justifiable grounds to believe that what you're saying is true.
QuakerOats;1815169 wrote:Who said there was a conspiracy, besides you?
What would you call a mass exodus from other parties all immigrating to the GOP to vote in a single candidate? You described it without saying it.
friendfromlowry;1815172 wrote:I crossed over and voted for Kasich.
You apparently didn't get the memo. You were supposed to cross over and vote for Trump to make sure he got the nomination.