AIBU to ask for help to understand the American Election resul

It isn't. It's a 1 in 7 in the UK, 1 in 5 in the US.

https://fullfact.org/news/are-one-five-british-adults-illiterate/

@hazelnutvanillalatte

Can you give me an example of a state that has a law that doesn't allow doctors to perform a life saving abortion?

The illiteracy data is the same for the UK.

No, but it DOESN'T mean 'preserving the most lives we can.' You're fundamentally ignorant of what you're supporting. The 'pro life' laws you support are written in such a way that women will die, and ARE dying, because hospitals aren't allowed to offer life-saving healthcare. So either accept what you're supporting or consider changing your view.

I don't disagree with this reasoning actually. What you have said is not controversial to me. Of course they should be vetted. It's just the crazed propaganda about illegal immigrants inherently presenting an increased danger to citizens which I object to. I just don't like lies. I'm funny that way.

Sure, because native born Americans and legal immigrants never rape children. Makes perfect sense

Every time an immigrant commits a crime, that is a crime that, by definition, did not need to happen.

Crimes committed by locals is your baseline. It takes hard work and good policy to make that go down. But crimes by literal foreigners? Preventable. Utterly preventable.

Particularly the case with illegal immigrants crossing the border with ZERO vetting. When I had to get a work visa in a certain East Asian country, I had to produce clean criminal records from every country I had ever lived in. That’s just to make sure I wouldn’t pose a threat to locals. It makes total sense tbh and the fact this is somehow controversial to you is insane.

Sure, because native born Americans and legal immigrants never rape children. Makes perfect sense. 🙄

Contrary to public perception, we observe considerably lower felony arrest rates among undocumented immigrants compared to legal immigrants and native-born US citizens and find no evidence that undocumented criminality has increased in recent years.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117

This is pretty much it. The Harris campaign never distanced itself from an unpopular Biden administration. People wanted inflation and immigration issues addressed and Harris had little to nothing to offer on that and when asked what she would have done differently from Biden, she actually said "nothing I can think of". You can argue about inflation, but she was part of the administration that changed immigration policy.

Here's a deeper dive on what derailed her campaign.

The Miscalculations That Sent Kamala Harris to a Devastating Loss - Her campaign misread an electorate that was more wound up about inflation and immigration than about Donald Trump’s character

Probably because you don't live there.

Most of your opinion of Trump is probably based on headlines on moral issues like abortion.

Whereas people who actually live there are probably more concerned with their jobs, whether their streets are full of homeless people, what the schools are like, whether they can get medical care, the price of food and fuel etc.

Stuff like that on basic day to day living.

A lot of people would prefer to have more money in their pocket to treat their kids than take a stance on abortion. That's a choice democracy gives them and I would not judge them on that.

@Itsmychristmasdress

I'm not sure if I quite understand your question, but in the question of ending one life to save another, in the specific case of a pregnant woman who is carrying a pre viability baby, then if she dies, the baby will die, and if she is to be saved, the baby will also die. There is no way to save the baby, the question is whether you save the mother or not (obviously you should).

The difference is that you didn't begin with the aim of killing the baby, the decision has been taken out of your hands by whatever problem has occurred with the pregnancy. You would like to be able to save the baby, but you can't.

Abortions that don't fall under this category are different because you are going in and killing a baby that would have otherwise survived.

@adriftinadenofvipers

Thankfully in the US, there are a lot of people who are pro life. I understand that the public debate on abortion has been all but settled in the UK but it's very much alive and well here.

Bodily autonomy ends when you harm or kill another person.

@hazelnutvanillalatte I have nowhere said I'm 'for the killing of women'. I have said I am pro life- that means preserving the most lives we can. I have said in another comment that you must have missed that there should of course be exceptions when the mother's life is in danger. The people that let that woman die in the case you refer to should be prosecuted because every state that has limits on abortions has laws about exceptions for the life of the mother.

As I said in another comment, we need to make sure these laws are robust,. comprehensive and clear.

You won't find a pro-life person defending what happened to that woman. It was awful and wrong.

@coffeesaveslives

I would imagine that would fall under the category of risk to the mother's life and thus be an exception.

Yep and not a Trump fan.

Just someone who's more centrally Sat, can be impartial to both sides and irritated by the predominantly left side using reasoning like that but glossing over how implicated both sides are in some pretty horrible stuff.

Sharing important context about a nationally famous case is not ‘shoehorning’. Especially when we are talking about what is dangerous to American women, and why American women would vote for Trump. As we are doing in this thread

@RingoJuice it's not a trap - PP said herself that she didn't agree with any woman getting an abortion for any reason - so I asked if she'd really let her own 11 year old carry a baby to term - which is what she's arguing should happen.

The case you're talking about is awful but has nothing to do with the question I asked so I'm not sure why you're determined to shoehorn it in and turn it into a discussion about immigration 😏

It’s a trap for pro-choice. You basically are making the case for electives on rape/medical reasons. So states can then legislate for those cases and then say NO electives.

You do realize that, right?

In any case, the ten-year-old could have got an abortion under Ohio law as part of ‘risk to the mother’. It’s been widely discussed in the US.

What’s not been widely discussed as part of this case is the risk of unvetted young men of unknown risk profile coming into America and committing horrendous crimes like this.

This is a good summary. Trump won because of his policies on the economy and immigration.

For the majority being able to pay the grocery bills and pay the mortgage is a higher priority than the policies on abortion.

I also agree that his economic policies are deeply flawed and will result in further increases in Government debt but at the same time the Democrats economic policies were equally deeply flawed and would also have resulted in higher increased Government debt.

But I guess no one ever votes for a politician that says taxes will increase, services get cut but hey I'm paying off the national debt.

@RingoJuice that's awful, but it has nothing to do with the question I asked the previous poster.

And then then were Christians saying that they supported his position on abortion. No thought for the children born into poverty as a result

I think this is unfair. Christians really do believe that life begins at conception and everything is downstream of that. They are also very charitable (you can see studies, they are certainly more charitable than any other group in the US).

Believe me, as a pro-choice conservative, I find their stance really politically inconvenient. It is what it is, unfortunately it is a killer at the ballot box

It was too simplistic

Members of the House of Representatives represent their districts but deal with federal matters, in Washington

each state meanwhile has its own mini government that decides on a lot of (but not all)law. These guys are elected separately. The state government have far more power than say, local councils in the UK.
it will be more akin to the governments of Scotland, Wales and NI

Can we please not bin this off as 'woke'. This is a man LARPing as a woman, deploying the most grossly offensive stereotypes to do so, whilst making a fortune and being invited to the Whitehouse to be all round applauded. It was a massive fuck you to women, now they have returned the favour.

Here’s a great long article in the New York Times (historically very hostile to Trump) explaining his appeal:

archive.ph/9hPha

I listened to Americans talking in a couple of radio programmes this week. What the trump supporters were saying is that, while they didn't necessarily approve of him as a person, it was his policies on the economy and immigration that they supported. I think his policy on the economy is economically illiterate, but his team were clearly able to spin the narrative that the economy was better under Trump than Biden (external forces such as COVID and Ukraine war will of course have impacted that but I don't think voters tend to want a nuanced narrative). And then then were Christians saying that they supported his position on abortion. No thought for the children born into poverty as a result.