Swimming95

Not at all in the way you are trying to say though.

In its interpretation and meaning? Absolutely

Cool, it is what I thought it is. You are understanding the policy incorrectly then and that article is filled with misinformation. No one is forcing you to have an abortion. It is saying you can't force a person to not have an abortion. A women's right to her body has to be respected for the safety of all those involved.

? Clinton isn't campaigning on removing religious freedom. If you are referring to what I think you are, the problem is people forcing their religious ideals onto others. Having a policy of religious neutrality is not forcing that onto you.

Gay marriage has not been normalized in all 50 states. There is a huge acceptance problem and still a long ways to go. Really doesn't help to promise to overturn it. also I said I'm sorry for being too harsh on the swordsman and should have phrased it more on Donald. I am totally fine with being fearful that a current presidential candidate, one of the two who will be elected has promised intolerance in his campaign. His campaign has enabled and normalized a lot of bigotry which I do consider to be harmful.

Then why is he campaigning on getting rid of marriage equality? He has also made comments and campaign promises against Trans rights. And I definitely did watch both conventions as well as Thiel's recent "attempt" at making a speech supporting Donald. Trump has waffled on LGBTQ rights throughout his campaign so I recognize it can be hard to pin down a certain view for him. At least as of current date he has promised to have us return to traditional marriage. At least for other parts, he has either come out against or has wanted to leave it up to the states. That did not work well for segregation and is honestly unacceptable to try and pass off as being pro-LGBTQ especially compared with candidates who are actually being pro-LGBTQ this election. In addition, his party platform is insanely anti-LGBTQ. Surprisingly, most nominees for various forms of office do try to enact what they run on. For the women part, I think you might be underestimating how important it is to provide abortion related services or how big of a part of planned-parenthood it is. Illegal immigration as a term generally refers to outside people coming into this country illegally. As an issue, its usually referring to non-white immigrants primarily from Mexico or other South/Central American countries. I know you know that but mostly wanted to disentangle it from the other half of that comment part. The problem as Donald puts it does not exist. The way that a good amount illegal immigrants enter the country is not through the border but by overstaying visas. It is also a false statistic that they are more violent or are rapists. We do also already deport people who are here illegally. At least as of recently, we are also actually having more people emmigrate to Mexico. I also don't want to touch his proposed methods of determining if an immigrant is "good" or not. For the second part, I want to disentangle it further. The first part is that unless we go full protectionist and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, it is not fully possible to prevent businesses from staying or leaving. At least as a concept, open trade has been proven to be net positive. In addition, many of the jobs that have left were jobs that were also being automated away. While its a shame that people are unemployed due to mining businesses leaving, there is a lot of nuance left out of that statement. At least in the example of coal, that is a power source that we needed to transition away from regardless. Those jobs were going to be gone for good anyways. It is much better for the country to invest that manpower and knowledge into other sectors. It is a lot more of a movement of types of jobs than a strict loss of jobs. You didn't mention it in that last comment there but: there is a problem with your comments regarding the radicalized terrorism. Ignoring that all forms of religion have their radicalized sects for a moment, it seems that the problem is much more an Anti-West sentiment than a religious one. It is absolutely being expressed through Islam but it is not necessarily a problem with Islam if that makes sense. It is a hijacking of the muslim faith in order to commit acts of terror. Also to add to here regarding the rest of The Swordsman's reasons... I hope you realize that unless you are really upper class, death taxes won't really apply and your income tax will actually would go up more under Donald's plan. At least that's under his current plan. The judges with a strict reading of the constitution I think I've only ever heard in the context of trying to remove people's rights. With the last two, I think you might not be fully aware then of the candidates positions considering that they are both supportive of Israel and second amendment rights. At least those are my initial comments on some of these issues.

Definitely agree on that second part. Can't wait for tomorrow to be here and done.

You are right, I was too harsh on The Swordsman. My comment should have been strictly about Donald and I'm sorry it came out differently.

? I am saying that I am intolerant of being: racist, xenophobic, sexist, islamophobic, homophobic, or really generally bigoted Especially as a campaign platform. I am sorry then, I misspoke. You are supporting a candidate who supports those things. Not that you directly support those things.

About Thiel, I am sure there were Jews who supported Hitler. As far as the rest of your comment goes, I am sorry you are so incorrect about most of those issues or Trump's position and rhetoric on those issues. I am fine drawing the line at being intolerant of intolerance without being intolerant of intolerance of intolerance. I would also like to note that I am not calling The Swordsman those things but the candidate he is voting for.

I'm sorry you decided to support bigotry, ignorance and a lack of understanding about pretty much any issue.

The investigation wasn't reopened. If you check his original letter, there was no mention of it being reopened. It was still a really stupid thing to do with so little information regarding the "new" emails were. In the end, it was found that they were pretty much all duplicates and that not surprisingly there was still no reason for indictment. They made an announcement to that end today. There's also a big confounding factor with the polls tightening. If you look at the cross tabs, it's very little movement away from Clinton and mostly just third party hold outs going back to their candidate. This happens every 4 years. The FBI announcement did cause a small drop for a day or two but then picked back up to normal levels. Also, I still maintain my vote against Donald. I have no interest in supporting bigotry. It deserves to be stomped out and for the score to be run up against him.

1A and 1D.... 2A I have no interest in supporting bigotry.

In regards to the Podesta email you are still wrong... You are given one email. Stripped of context and surrounding discussion. In that snippet, he is concerned with the fact that since the shooter has an arab sounding name that it would play into the islamophobic, xenophobic, or other bigoted rhetoric of the Trump campaign. That is a pretty valid concern. You are welcome to think otherwise but you are definitely misinterpreting it. For the O'Keefe video, it is not proven to be true. In addition, there is no proof of inciting violence. Even if we were to somehow take O'keefe at face value (we can't) it would be about having protestors to ask hard hitting (not physically) questions. I have no doubt that the person in the video was fired for making the idiotic decision to be featured in an O'keefe video. It is not an admission of guilt. Please stop spreading conspiracies about these topics in this thread.

I'm sorry you are so wrong about the Podesta emails. At least read the one about risotto, its a really good recipe. It's less about the shaky evidence O'keefe has in this set of videos (there is no proof of widespread voter fraud, at least how you initially phrased it it seemed like there was some misunderstanding of what the protestors were hired to do if they were, and its at least evident the video has been edited in some way), its that every previous video he has produced in the past has been found to be false. Cool, we do in fact have video evidence of Trump pretty much saying "yes I sexually assault women". It is that hollywood access tape. We also have people corroborating at least one of the accounts. http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/18/13320496/donald-melania-trump-sexual-assault-people-natasha-stoynoff-witnesses I posted that link previously.