We learned our lesson with low-character first round picks in the 90s. I think our nearly spotless track record of first-round picks (both on and off the field) since then has proven us right in avoiding them.
The proposal is to ban after the first 20 weeks. Considering well over 60% of Americans support a ban after the first trimester (12 weeks) an 80% favor a ban after the first trimester (24 weeks), this is a fairly modest proposal. Support for such a ban is actually greatest among women and young people.
Nobody is seriously arguing for a total ban right now. What is up for debate is a 20-week ban, which is supported by a wide majority of Americans. There's also the GOP proposal to make birth control available over-the-counter and allow it to be payable through health savings accounts. It depends. I know plenty of people who adopt. My aunt adopted her two children - one locally, and one from India. I know other families who adopt exclusively from other countries. It's very costly and expensive to adopt, however. Not everyone can do it.
On average, conservatives donate more, both time and money. I personally know many families that have adopted. I'd argue trying to create an economy where everyone has the opportunity to advance, or trying to reform the school system so everyone can have quality education, are great ideas. But the former is impossible because liberals hate businesses, and the latter is impossible because liberals are beholden to teacher's unions. So your 'liberal' solution is to just throw as much welfare (other people's money) around as possible, and then pat yourselves on the back for how "generous" you are and condemn anyone who critiques you for not being "generous" and wanting babies to die and hating black people. It's obnoxious and ridiculous straw man.
No, we're not. You ignore the point it refers mostly to turnout among traditionally Democratic groups - or, to put it simply, people who turn out to vote just because Obama is on the ticket. Naturally, the viability of such a coalition in elections without Obama is questionable. But understanding that means you can't accuse me of being a bigot, so we can't actually try and comprehend what I wrote.
Of course, natural events are totally the same thing as dismembering a baby alive in the womb (but making sure to preserve the parts you want to harvest). Totally no difference between natural death and induced death.
Lol you're quoting Rebecca Watson? Even other atheists know she's an idiot. And abortion is not 'just 3% of Planned Parenthood's services'. It accounts for a third of their non-governmental operating revenue (around $100 million) and the perform over 300,000 abortions a year. And of course Planned Parenthood is the only organization doing cancer screenings or birth control, so that totally excuses selling baby body parts. Perfect example of cognitive dissonance. Fetuses aren't human or babies, but we can totally harvest their human baby organs.
That's the platform. Harper's supported free trade, lower taxes, abandoned Kyoto, and got rid of the Long Gun Registry. Hard to get any better in Canada. Never mind that you said I know nothing about Canada, when literally the only thing I said was the Tories were in power the last ten years. Which they were and are. It's not half the country. It's traditional Democratic voter bases (blacks, young voters), as well as expanded ones (Hispanics, unmarried women), and it doesn't focus on people as much as turnout. Because you can't combat the obvious fact that the GOP field is more diverse than the Democrat you, you drop back to attacking Fox News. Very typical, generic liberal deflection.
Stephen Harper: Conservative (Tory) Prime Minister of Canada since 2006. 2006 to 2015 is? Ten years. Next!
And that's a rhetorical argument that isn't being demonstrated in polls. Trump won't win, everyone knows that. Rubio, Walker, and Fiorina aren't cutouts. It's no different than saying the 'Bush coalition' was evangelicals and religious Catholics. Obama's coalition is fairly clear: millennials, unmarried women, Hispanics, and black voters. If he didn't have those voters, he would have lost. Same with Bush. And you delude yourselves into thinking midterms mean nothing and Hillary's going to have no problem pulling 70% of the Latino vote and 92% of the black vote (which she'll need to do to win if she doesn't pull back white voters, which it doesn't seem like she's aiming to do), with the same amount of turnout in each group as Obama. It's a pipe dream, especially if someone like Rubio - who is young, Hispanic, and has far more of a sympathetic story than Clinton - is the nominee. You're right, Republicans can't win if they lose 55% of the female vote and fail to get more than 30% among Hispanics. Problem is, both of those results from 2012 are incredible outliers. Think Progress, lol. You can read their platform here. Seems reasonably conservative to me, all things considered, and certainly not to Obama's left.
And my 'moving to Canada' thing was my response to a hypothetical Trump-Obama race. But way to actually take it seriously.