As those who have been reading Ethics Alarms over the past year know, I stated repeatedly that the greatest danger in electing Donald Trump President is that his boorishness, rudeness and vulgarity emitting from the very pinnacle of American leadership would coarsen the culture beyond repair, creating a nation of assholes for the foreseeable future. I did not expect the Democrats to get the jump on him, and to embrace asshole behavior as the norm for those who detest the President.
Yesterday, not one Democrat offered the President a hand to shake as he made his traditional way down the aisle in Congress to give his speech. Not one member of the opposition party possessed the courage, decency and respect to concede this minimum gesture of civilization in a televised event. Had Republicans treated Barack Obama like that, the entire party would have been condemned as racist. Well, it was anyway.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi had many of the female members dressed in Hillary white, a protest against the election. In Congress. During the equivalent of the State of the Union message. Four months after the election.
The Democratic Party has turned itself into the Asshole Party. Depressing. Disgusting. Despicable.
I’m rushing to a seminar.
More later.
Ethics Alarms 
They said they wouldn’t shake his hand and they didn’t. This comes as no surprise. A number of the women said they’d dress in white pantsuits and they did, although I have to say white isn’t Nancy’s color. Schumer looked like he’d been force fed the rind of an entire lime at one point.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, Jack. The unfollow button is definitely my friend, otherwise my facebook feed would have been clogged with reactions to last night’s speech from my liberal “friends.” Breathless posts that this or that statement wasn’t true, outraged interjections that this or that statement was racist/sexist/whatever, condemnation of the various guests he pointed out, calling the father of the murdered football player a sellout and an Uncle Tom, the widow of the cop a tool, and the widow of the slain SEAL an attention whore, rants that this new VOICE initiative was a forerunner of the SS, and that’s just the substantive criticisms. For every substantive criticism there were three insults directed at Trump’s color or intelligence, the First Lady’s background, or the GOP’s gray matter. For every substantive criticism there were five clapping seal responses to the Democrats’ protests, reminding them we must never “normalize” Trump by accepting him.
The thing is, the Democratic Party was already on its way there last year, when they conducted a childish sit-in in Congress regarding gun control until Paul Pyan simply turned off the lights, and maybe as early as 2011 when every Democrat in the Wisconsin State Senate fled to neighboring Illinois to prevent a vote on a right to work bill that they were certain to lose. They don’t handle losing well and they don’t work well with those who sharply disagree with them. They also are inclined to “go outside the lines” to stop or slow those they disagree with, but can’t stop by working within the process.
This is actually more insidious than simply a path to a nation of jerks, or, more mockingly, a nation of two-year-olds (who want what they want when they want it), with respect. This is the mentality of “if you can’t win, make your own rules so you can.” Sounds innocuous enough right now, all it’s produced are delays and some embarrassment. However, it’s the same mentality that led Michael Collins to turn Ireland into a shooting and bombing gallery, Feliks Dzerzhinsky to go into “the business of state terror,” and Pierre G.T. Beauregard to open fire on Fort Sumter. The insidious part of this is that, once you’ve decided you’re going to ignore the system and the rules because they are stacked and wrong anyway, anyone can say the same thing, and it simply becomes about who can impose their way of doing things, by whatever means they can use.
Once a tactic is tried and succeeds, with or without consequence (but especially without) it is fair game for the other side in our brave new world.
Yes, Democrats, the alt right is watching and learning. Hope that whirlwind you are sowing is merciful when you reap it.
The Right is TIRED of these antics, and the ALT Right is embracing them. Democrats have been in power so long they really don’t think they will be held accountable, even at the ballot box. Many of their games could carry prison sentences, if they were to ever be held to the same rule of law ‘fly over’ American citizens are.
Other people can think out of the box, and recent progressive antics are opening whole new doors in the box.
Just saying
Not sure what ‘the Alt-Right is embracing them’ is supposed to mean.
My apparent role has been and perhaps still is to help *explain* the Alt-Right and this I will try to keep doing, according to my own understanding of things. I see this as a useful activity and one that is helpful to understanding things better.
I would suggest that we are in the beginnings of a civil and a social conflict that is just getting started and the terms of which are not yet settled. It is a struggle that will go on for a few generations. It has to do with many or perhaps most of the *forbidden topics* that many people, especially on the traditional conservative right, cannot bring themselves to think about and to talk about openly. If the Alt-Right is anything it is substantially fearless in articulating those topics. And for this reason it is villified by the progressive left and held in distain by the traditional right.
Alt-Right means a number of things, but it means one important thing in my view: It means a more profound and fearless willingness to examine the difficult questions and to turn against the power of Politically Correct thought. Politically correct thought is the enemy of the intellect and politically correct thought is evidence of coercion and thought-control. I do not know if it is fair to say that ‘the Alt-Right starts from the assumption that a great deal of our thinking is coerced, politically correct thinking’, but this is definitely my own view. I start from the premise that *I am being lied to* even by those who do not see themselves as lying. Is this a too-pessimistic starting point? Perhaps. But I have found it very useful.
This thought control and the force of the politically correct, blatantly noticible among the progressive-left camp, is also evident in a general sense and among the traditional conservative right. The progressive left uses guilt and shaming and threats to hold the traitional conservative right to certain constraints. The traditional right relents to this by and large.
The ideological battles that go on between the traditional conservatives and the progressive liberals — the stuff of the culture wars — is now breaking out and showing itself among the right-leaning factions. The classic conservative faction in the pan-European world is being challenged, or better said is just beginning to be challenged.
That is, between the (dread) Alt-Right and the Traditional Conservatives a gap has opened. The ‘alt-right’ mocks the traditional right and makes itself a thorn in their side. This is somewhat of a language convention though because the Alt Right is not a monolith. It is rather a new strain of ideas with both a suspect and shallow side and a deeper and more realistic (and useful) philosophical side.
In a nutshell I would say that alt-right thought is a sort of thought for individuals who are questing for more underpinning and understructure to the ideas that inform a conservative stance. The Alt-Right in this aspect has a dimension that is connected to a person’s spirituality. In an age of the disintegration of value, of meaning, of family and culture and one where blind, highly determined forces act like an acid against these things and the solidity of the individual, it is not difficult to understand why alt-right thought comes to the force. It is best articulated by GRECE and Alain de Benoit. It can be researched and better understood.
I believe Joe Manchin did shake his hand, but he has never stooped to negative partisan behavior.
If I am mistaken I believe it would be because of lack of opportunity on Manchin’s part rather than any assault on the presidency.
One of his biggest critics, Van Jones, said “He became President of the United States in that moment, period,” said Jones, after the evening’s most emotional point was replayed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
“That was one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics,” Jones added.” in response to President Trump addressing the widow of Ryan Owen.
Noting that he still often disagrees with the President, Jones admitted that Trump’s powerful moment shows he may be settling into the role.
“If he finds a way to do that over and over again, he’s going to be there for eight years,” Jones said.
Of course by the end of what he was saying he also said there was a lot in the speech that was counterfactual and that he opposes and will oppose, not surprisingly.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/van-jones-trump-congress-speech-became-the-president-in-that-moment-cnntv/
Needless to say, the Twitter responses were anything but positive saying everything from CNN is getting soft on Trump to calling Van Jones a “coon”. Funny they call republicans racists. Unless I’m just behind the times and calling a black person “coon” is no longer racist or means something entirely different now? I admittedly fail to keep up with all the modern terms and sayings as they change daily it seems. But easy enough to see on his Twitter feed how they turn on their own: https://twitter.com/search?q=van+jones+on+trump&ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Esearch
I think Lincoln would have got a better show of respect from Southern congressmen after the Civil War. This is a truly disgraceful episode in Congress. So much for reaching out across the aisle to make America great again.
Jack,
I’m honestly having trouble believing that you believe this was the most pressing ethics takeaway from this event.
During the speech, Donald Trump:
–Proposed a Nazi-like organization called VOICE (Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement) to monitor crimes committed by immigrants*, based on the Big Lie that immigrants are committing crimes in huge numbers, and exploited the grief of people whose family members had been killed in order to further this propaganda lie.
–Said that a man who was killed on a failed mission he authorized was smiling because he got lots of applause, after refusing to take responsibility for his death and exploiting his widow’s grief
–Repeated lies about crime in the US to make people afraid.
I wouldn’t have shaken his hand either.
*I use the word “immigrant” here, not “illegal immigrant,” because the name of the organization implies it will record crime by all immigrants, not just illegal immigrants. In addition, Trump’s rhetoric and other measures, such as the travel ban that restricted previously legal immigration, indicate his administration is targeting more than just illegal immigrants.
Trump’s entire message is that immigrants are the cause of all America’s problems: crime, terror, and the economy. He has to exaggerate the scope of these problems to justify this, because there is nothing to back up his fearmongering. But immigrants are a convenient scapegoat.
I can’t believe you are still missing this message. It isn’t subtle. It is deafening.
And it’s way more important than a handshake, or lack thereof.
“Trump’s entire message ……..immigrants ……”??? A nation of assholes indeed.
Chris, even though I agree with your sentiment, I think the fundamental gap between you and Jack continues to be his continued belief in the need for respect for the office of the president.
I personally think that Trump is a shameful boob, but stooping to childish antics is not the way to help separate the wheat from the chaff in dealing with him. Making a scene like last night doesn’t help the cause, it only gives ammunition to fire back.
I do agree that there are larger ethical issues coming out of the speech; the bad news is that if the left doesn’t get their stuff together, no one is going to bother to listen when those important issues arise.
“continued belief in the need for respect for the office of the president.”
Gee, what a wild, fanciful and radical concept! Treating the 45th leader in a sequence exactly as the other 44 were treated, without question or controversy. It’s called basic organization function: the role of leader must be respected regardless of the individual, or the organization fails.
This is another view of the VOICE effort, and when seen in this way it looks a great deal more reasonable than a ‘Nazi-like organization’.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445107/trump-immigration-enforcement-guidance-deportation-warranted-any-unlawful-behavior
But what becomes an interesting topic for further investigation and questioning is how it is that a sane and sensible way of looking at the illegal aspect of ‘illegal immigration’, and seeking to clarify it and to describe it accurately, is made into a Nazi-like effort.
Nazi = the Ultimate Evil, in comparison to which there is not greater evil.
By using and exploiting this sort of terminology — very powerful really and it really does work as a ‘shaming-tool’ — the progressive left in the post-Sixties era has very significantly been accomplished in remolding and restructuring all sorts of different policies. It is a guilt and shaming tactic which is used to further a range of progressive policies.
This all turns back to that is called the ‘interwar period’ in Europe, the 1920s and 1930s in all the European countries, when Marxism was making substantial inroads and popular reaction rose up in defense of popular and traditional modes of living, seeing, understanding.
This is why the Progressive Left keeps bringing the topic back to this interwar period: because this is really what it is all about. To understand the Progressive agenda one has to understand this. And one has to understand the tools of psychological manipulation and ‘psychological terrorism’ that these progressive types employ.
Two things can occur. One is that a person simply buckles in to their manipulations and guilt. When that happens one becomes a sort of neutered right-leaning progressive oneself (a cuckservative). Number two is more interesting but more demanding intellectually: One has to turn back in time to examine the civil conflicts of Europe, the 2 Big Wars obviously, but more specifically the philosophical and political underpinning of a Right-Conservative position. When one does this in the spirit of intellectual freedom one then has a more substantial critical platform to see and understand how ‘multi-culturalism’ and also ‘globalization’ and so much of the postwar construction came into being.
At that point the examination, the research project, becomes just as much an external issue (examination of politics and mores) as it does an inner one: How has my own ‘self’ and my view-structure been formed? Through exercise of intellect, and through free-thinking? Or through coercion and the force of the Politically Correct?
I think I am fairly and accurately describing the matter into which all these matters resolve. The purpose? To gain clarity.
I read this right before losing the rest of the day to teaching, travel and exhaustion, and it annoyed me all day.
1. As the title suggests, I had limited time, so confined myself to one, clear-cut issue. I saw the beginning of speech, but did not listen to it straight through, as I was at an dinner. I have yet to review the transcript.
2. As I state over and over, the choice of topic A here does not indicate that topic B isn’t just as worthy, or that conduct B isn’t more unethical than topic A.
3. Usually, conduct trumps words in my ethical priorities. I’m not going to bother explaining why it is important for the members of a unified government to treat each other and the institutions they represent with respect at national events, but it is vitally important. You should know that already.
4. Nothing says you have to shake the President’s hand. You can be a jerk like that if you want. If you did it on TV, it would raise ethical issues.
5. Your items of focus are symptoms of derangement:
–Proposed a Nazi-like organization called VOICE (Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement) to monitor crimes committed by immigrants*, based on the Big Lie that immigrants are committing crimes in huge numbers, and exploited the grief of people whose family members had been killed in order to further this propaganda lie.
Yeah, I remember all those Nazi Germany victims groups. Boy, acronyms are hard. I have no idea what Immigration Crime Engagement means, and I’m not going to wast my time figuring it out. Probably the most meaningless part of the speech, and that’ your #1. By all means, go to the weakest link. But still, anyone killed or harmed by an illegal immigrant is a victim of the failed immigration system, as is anyone harmed by a terrorist who gets in through inadequate vetting. I’m guessing this was all Trump was referring to. The Horror.
–Said that a man who was killed on a failed mission he authorized was smiling because he got lots of applause, after refusing to take responsibility for his death and exploiting his widow’s grief.
Yes, and didn’t his widow look insulted? He made her feel better. Simple as that. Even most anti-Trump commentators have praised that moment, because attacking that is too ugly even for them. I object to every one of the human props used by Presidents since Reagan started it, but some are less objectionable than others.
–Repeated lies about crime in the US to make people afraid.
I have to check what you are referring to. But if you didn’t conclude that you wouldn’t have shaken Obama’s hand because he repeatedly misstated statistics relating to guns and shootings to “make people afraid,” you are reveling in double standards.
Yeah, I remember all those Nazi Germany victims groups.
Do you remember the Nazis pushing lists of all crimes committed by Jews? I do. What do you think the purpose of this group is, if not to scapegoat a minority?
Probably the most meaningless part of the speech, and that’ your #1. By all means, go to the weakest link.
Trump’s continued use of nativist propaganda isn’t “meaningless.” It is crucial to understanding his presidency and what it means for our country. You still deny that Trump is xenophobic, despite “Fear immigrants” being his most consistent and overt message, so you can’t possibly understand Trump’s presidency or what it means until you stop doing that.
Yes, and didn’t his widow look insulted? He made her feel better. Simple as that. Even most anti-Trump commentators have praised that moment, because attacking that is too ugly even for them.
Some anti-Trump commentators have praised it. From what I’ve seen, it isn’t “most.” Again, this was a failed mission that Trump refused to take responsibility for. The man’s father refuses to speak to Trump until there is an investigation. This was cynical even by the standards of “human props.”
I have to check what you are referring to. But if you didn’t conclude that you wouldn’t have shaken Obama’s hand because he repeatedly misstated statistics relating to guns and shootings to “make people afraid,” you are reveling in double standards.
Guns aren’t people, and are never the victims of hate crimes. Trump’s repeated scapegoating and fearmongering regarding illegal immigrants has led to a surge in hate crimes against Hispanics. I wouldn’t refuse to shake Trump’s hand because he lied, I’d refuse to shake his hand because his lies are getting people beaten and killed.
Chris,
Trump’s repeated scapegoating and fearmongering regarding illegal immigrants has led to a surge in hate crimes against Hispanics.
Source, please? I have not heard of a surge of crimes against Hispanics, and live with quite a few.
Just like we have heard about how Trump being elected led to all kinds of crimes against minorities… the vast majority of which have been proven to be made up lies.
http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/
slickwilly, I’d argue that no source is better than a source that “builds on the work of Larry Wilcox,” who is a Holocaust denier. It’s no wonder to me that Holocaust deniers would also be interested in denying hate crimes.
There have been numerous reports about a surge in anti-Latino hate crimes; Google is your friend.
Finally, you cannot possibly back up your assertion that the “vast majority” of hate crimes that have been reported lately are fake.
I gave a link… and offer the FACT that there are VERY few prosecutions following the reports we have had since the election. Made up by sore losers
Also, I just DID google… the stories are almost ALL before the election. Your assertion is that this is a function of Trump’s election, no?
My link proves the vast majority… as it links to the original stories.
But don’t bother with facts, we all know progressives don’t care for them.
So the reports have increased *after* Trump was born?
Yes?
Well there ya go.
sickwilly, as I pointed out, the link you gave me was from a Holocaust denier.
Do you need me to explain why I am not going to take any of its claims seriously?
Would you like to explain why you do?
::: Public Service Announcement from a real Holocaust Revisionist :::
Laird Wilcox is a researcher of political extremism of both the Right and the Left. I could not find anything linking him to a ‘denial’ platform. But keep in mind that not all revisionism is denial. Except if you are a Left extremist. Then, mistimed burps are sometimes signs of Nazi sympathies. Which is to say, anything is possible …
Revisionism is simply a process of revising information. It is part of historiography. Israel itself has revised much information about the European Shoa. It is necessary from time to time.
I read kind of quickly this interview with Laird Wilcox: http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_3/tsc_20_3_wilcox_interview.shtml
Sounds really quite centrist.
Because he did not write the stories, the MSM did (for the most part)
Again with the strawman and ad hominem, Chris
Full disclosure- I struggle daily maintaining my opposition to Trump on ideological grounds (his was and IS a slightly left of center moderate) and on character grounds, because cognitive dissonance is such a strong force and I cannot abide by how far to the Left the Left has flown and how debased they’ve engaged in politics. Though it is hard based on watching just how convoluted he makes the Left, I do have to gut check myself regularly.
If anyone is going to protest his speech, currently no one is being consistent about it. You’ve got Republicans clapping like those toy monkeys with cymbals at every mention of policies based on principles they spent the better part of 2 decades opposing – some of which inconsistent jerks like Paul Ryan made his career opposing. You’ve got Democrats sitting on their hands despite hearing undetailed bullet point after undetailed buzzword advancing the worldview that “the national level of government can solve your problems if we spend enough”.
Trump is precisely what I said he was: a barely Left of center moderate. Advancing policies that, any other day from any other person, middle of the road Republicans and middle of the road Democrats would come to unity on and small government types and libertarians ought to losing their minds over.
It’s a friggin joke of dark humor. And then you’ve got our local Left wing apologists bringing out ridiculous parts of the speech to actually protest. Based on what? Pure hatred of the opposition.
tex:
Trump is precisely what I said he was: a barely Left of center moderate. Advancing policies that, any other day from any other person, middle of the road Republicans and middle of the road Democrats would come to unity on and small government types and libertarians ought to losing their minds over.
What policies would those be? Middle of the road Democrats have never supported giant border walls, broad travel bans, lists of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, withdrawing funds from women’s healthcare organizations overseas…
So what policies are you talking about?
https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/03/01/a-very-brief-observation-on-a-nation-of-assholes/comment-page-1/#comment-430352
Here you go.
Cherry picking is a fallacy by the way – check my response below demonstrating Trump’s policy speech to be essentially a moderate statement even with your cherry-picked protests.
But point by point:
1) Giant Border Wall isn’t a policy. Stronger border security is a policy. The wall is a technique. The Left has supported strong border and immigration enforcement (other than the few years young cynical ploy to buy votes by pushing amnesty). This isn’t a partisan stance. Enforced immigration and border security IS a moderate stance, whether or not one party disagrees with the method of implementation. Try again.
2) Broad travel bans. Justifiable, but yes, probably a right-left split.
3) Lists of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. This sounds like a mis-characterization but Jack has addressed your hyperbole on this one. This is just more “Trump is a Nazi” drivel.
4) “threats to women’s health and safety.” Since to you it seems like the only thing you bring up in regards to this is actually abortion, then I’m not going to bother with this specious claim. Opposing abortion is not a threat to women’s health and safety.
Ok. So, 2 of your 4 protests are legitimate Left-Right splits, though you fallaciously push one of them. By the by, did you listen his speech that drowns out those 2 points with a flood of *moderate* and even a handful of *left wing* visions and goals?
Oops, I forgot:
Trump is, as I said, a slightly left of center moderate.
QED.
1) Giant Border Wall isn’t a policy. Stronger border security is a policy. The wall is a technique. The Left has supported strong border and immigration enforcement (other than the few years young cynical ploy to buy votes by pushing amnesty). This isn’t a partisan stance. Enforced immigration and border security IS a moderate stance, whether or not one party disagrees with the method of implementation. Try again.
This is one of your sillier and more nonsensical parsing of words.
Let’s try this construction with someone else. Banning guns:
“Banning guns isn’t a policy. Keeping citizens safe is a policy. The gun ban is a technique. The Right has supported strong safety precautions (other than the few years young cynical ploy to buy votes by pushing gun deregulation). This isn’t a partisan stance. Enforced safety precautions IS a moderate stance, whether or not one party disagrees with the method of implementation. Try again.”
I mean, even if I concede to your ridiculous definition of “policy,” which has always meant more than what you claim it means, this makes no sense. You would be forced to concede that lefties who want to ban guns are “moderates” under your absurd logic.
Anyway, this started because you claimed Trump was a “Left-of-center moderate.” Again, even if I concede to your definition of “policy,” this is nonsense. You can’t evaluate a politician based solely on vague platitudes that everyone agrees on. You have to evaluate them based on what they actually do.
2) Broad travel bans. Justifiable, but yes, probably a right-left split.
It isn’t justifiable, which is why Trump did not consult with DHS in creating the travel ban, and why the DHS says it’s completely unjustified.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/dhs-report-casts-doubt-on-need-for-trump-travel-ban/2017/02/24/2a9992e4-fadc-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html?utm_term=.4cfe1710df53
3) Lists of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. This sounds like a mis-characterization but Jack has addressed your hyperbole on this one. This is just more “Trump is a Nazi” drivel.
It isn’t a mischaracterization; Trump has said the group VOICE will be accompanied by a list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-speech-voice-immigrants-crimes-list-agency-donald-joint-address-congress-a7604836.html
If you find stating this fact to be “Trump is a Nazi” drivel, then it’s because the Nazi comparisons are, in this case, fair.
4) “threats to women’s health and safety.” Since to you it seems like the only thing you bring up in regards to this is actually abortion, then I’m not going to bother with this specious claim. Opposing abortion is not a threat to women’s health and safety.
I’ve already explained, in detail, with sources, why Trump’s specific actions on the abortion issue are a threat to women’s health and safety. Withdrawing funds from organizations that provide contraception to women in the third world is, of course, a threat to women’s health and safety. The fact that those organizations also refer women to abortion services does not change that fact in any way.
Ok. So, 2 of your 4 protests are legitimate Left-Right splits, though you fallaciously push one of them. By the by, did you listen his speech that drowns out those 2 points with a flood of *moderate* and even a handful of *left wing* visions and goals?
Visions and goals don’t mean shit, tex. His specific plans for achieving those goals are neither moderate nor left wing.
1) No doubt the language is obscure. There is a continuum here with “vision” on one end and “tactics” on the other…with “strategy” falling somewhere in between. Regardless, “border wall” falls closer to the “tactics” end of a particular continuum that involves a strategy that Left wingers *were* wholeheartedly in agreement with – secure borders and controlled immigration. Your rebuttal “safer Americans” definitely falls at the extreme “vision” end of a continuum.
This is more fallacy of “pretending to argue against the general by actually arguing against a specific”.
Again, secure borders and controlled immigration is something the Left agrees with, except when pandering with probably-fake offers of amnesty.
2) I could care less if you think it is justified or not. This discussion is identifying the topics you assert make Trump a right-winger versus a moderate versus a left-winger. And yes, securing the nation by temporarily limiting immigration from extremely unsecure nations is a right-wing position. Not sure why you went off on a tangent.
3) Monitoring crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Let alone monitoring crimes committed by anyone isn’t a friggin partisan issue. It’s kind of one of the reasons why we invented government. You are the one who made a silly claim that this is “nazi-like”.
4) And you are still wrong about your assertions in this regard. But that isn’t the issue, when identifying stances, yes this is a right-left split.
So, again, only 2 of these *actually* demonstrate a Right-lean by Trump.
Juxtaposed with the vast swathe of his commentary from his speech and the one month of actually pushed policies, those two items are somewhat drowned in a sea of middle of the road Trumpism.
It’s actually more of the dark humor. Trump is literally the moderate candidate you Lefties ought to really have been crowing for. But never mind, the guy who was a Democrat until not long ago had an R next to his name for the election, and your camp is programmed like automatons to hate that R.
1) No doubt the language is obscure. There is a continuum here with “vision” on one end and “tactics” on the other…with “strategy” falling somewhere in between. Regardless, “border wall” falls closer to the “tactics” end of a particular continuum that involves a strategy that Left wingers *were* wholeheartedly in agreement with – secure borders and controlled immigration. Your rebuttal “safer Americans” definitely falls at the extreme “vision” end of a continuum.
This is more fallacy of “pretending to argue against the general by actually arguing against a specific”.
Again, secure borders and controlled immigration is something the Left agrees with, except when pandering with probably-fake offers of amnesty.
I don’t even know what you’re saying here. This is gibberish.
My statement was pretty clear and unambiguous–a guy who advocates for a giant border wall that he claims Mexico will pay for is not a “moderate,” but rather an extremist. That is simple and clear. That you cannot rebut it simply and clearly indicates you can’t come up with a good rebuttal. Because my statement is obviously true.
3) Monitoring crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Let alone monitoring crimes committed by anyone isn’t a friggin partisan issue. It’s kind of one of the reasons why we invented government. You are the one who made a silly claim that this is “nazi-like”
Again, it’s a list of crimes committed by one minority population, meant to spread the Big Lie that this population is more prone to crime. Nazi-like. I stand by it, and the only way you rebut it is by soft-pedaling it.
The rest of your comment is just as much gibberish as the first half.
Who cares what color people are wearing? Even if it is an organized effort, sheesh.
It’s not the color, Spartan. It’s the message the color sends in this case: we won’t accept that you won the election, we think you are illegitimate, and you are a misogynist. If the President is welcoming a member of the House of Windsor and a strongly pro-Irish congressman shows up in an emerald green shirt to make his point, wouldn’t you consider that inappropriate? If the President is hosting a top cops-type gathering and some black radical legislator shows up wearing the Black Lives Matter colors, wouldn’t you consider that obnoxious? This is the same kind of nonsense.
Yes, I agree it is nonsense. I hear what you are saying, but I think we have more important things to talk about than whether or not wearing white is sending a message to the President. Now, if they showed up in white t-shirts and sneakers, I’d be with you. But as long as they were dressed appropriately? I don’t care.
Classic Sparty: Change the subject. Throw in a little misdirection here, a little superiority there. Viola, the point of Jack’s post is made to go away without having to be addressed. There!
I don’t have to address every single point of every one of Jack’s posts. 1) I don’t have the time. 2) Why hold me to a different standard than everyone else here?
I’ve repeatedly said that people need to stop throwing temper tantrums over Trump because he was properly elected. You keep forgetting that and instead try to lump me in with the leftist hysteria right now which is completely inaccurate. That being said, I am not going to take a position over the color of Pelosi’s dress. Because I don’t care.
It isn’t the first time a democrat-heavy organization wore white to express distaste for someone they hate.
Funny.
Interesting. I have been influenced through your posts to devote attention to understading fallacies better. When I read your ironic comment — it did take me a second to get it — I asked myself Is what you state here is fallacious or true? Normally, analytic is applied to a *serious* argument and fallacies can be relatively easily uncovered. But what about ironical statements? and humor? The reason I ask the question is because it seems to me that some people now get a good deal of their political information, or their attitude toward politics in general, from the latenight humor shows. Designed to be ‘funny’ (and people sure laugh) in fact it is not funny at all, it is deadly serious and has reprecussions.
Still, it is interesting that these comparisons — the one you are making if only in a joke — are being made: That the defenders of righteousness are acting like the people they advocate against. And that in hating the *hate* they become hate-ful. And then the whole thing of mob-psychology, profound shaming, ostracization and all that corresponde to banishment.
It’s not the color, Spartan. It’s the message the color sends in this case: we won’t accept that you won the election, we think you are illegitimate, and you are a misogynist.
Two out of three of those messages are indeed stupid. The third, however, is entirely correct.
All three are inappropriate in that forum. What if female Congressmembers wore blue dresses at Clinton’s last SOTU? better yet, blue dresses with stains? What if Republicans wore Kenyan garb to Obama’s speeches?
All three are inappropriate in that forum. What if female Congressmembers wore blue dresses at Clinton’s last SOTU? better yet, blue dresses with stains? What if Republicans wore Kenyan garb to Obama’s speeches?
The latter is blatantly racist. The former is kind of funny, but a low blow, and meant to condemn Clinton’s private sex life. Neither are that comparable to a protest designed to call attention to a president’s horrible policies on women’s rights.
Ted Kennedy spoke at my college. A couple of us righties took two seats up front early on, then about halfway through we slipped out to be replaced by two of our buddies in scuba gear.
Legitimate college protest.
Who cares? The people who thought the white dress Melania wore at the inauguration was a symbol of white supremacy, but the white dresses worn by Democrats last night were standing in solidarity for women.
It’s so hard to keep these things straight, it’s like the rules change, daily, hourly, depending on the subject. It’s like there are no rules.
..
…
Oh…
Oh wait… No, I got it. I got it! Guys, I’m overthinking this. White dresses are symbols of white supremacy and female solidarity. Because all women are white supremacists!
..
Maybe not, I’ll get back to you.
I thought Melania’s dress was beautiful — and not a single one of my leftie friends read any meaning into it.
I didn’t see any lefties say Melania’s dress was a symbol of white supremacy. Are you sure the people who did are the same people who praised the Democrats wearing white dresses?
I think S was being intentionally hyperbolic, Chris.
I was responding to Humble Talent, Jack, who claimed as fact that lefties said Melania’s dress was a symbol of white supremacy.
Wait. Didn’t Melania wear a white ball gown on Inauguration day? Perhaps she’s a Hillary supporter too!
Or maybe all those women are Melania Supporters! Melania 2024!
“I’m with her!”
“She’s the most qualified candidate ever, not only is she a first lady, but she’s NOT Hillary!”
I believe they wore white to represent the Women’s Sufferage Movement. Rather than supporting Hillary, they were calling attention to the threats to women’s health and safety that Donald Trump represents.
jan chapman wrote, “calling attention to the threats to women’s health and safety that Donald Trump represents”
Nancy Pelosi tweeted (see it above), “Tonight, our Democratic #WomenWearWhite in support of women’s rights — in spite of a @POTUS who doesn’t!”
Maybe you can help me with two things:
1. Please quote Donald Trump own words where he has leveled threats to women’s health and safety.
2. Please quote Donald Trump own words where is stated that he’s against women’s rights.
Thanks in advance.
Zoltar Speaks!
Zoltar,
Thanks for asking those questions. I want to know the answers, as well.
jvb
1. Please quote Donald Trump own words where he has leveled threats to women’s health and safety.
His stance on abortion endangers women’s health and safety.
2. Please quote Donald Trump own words where is stated that he’s against women’s rights.
You’re joking. People don’t go around saying they are “against women’s rights.” Do you really believe that people can only be against women’s rights if they say they are?
Chris wrote, “His stance on abortion endangers women’s health and safety.”
Saying so doesn’t make it true; you explain show how anyone’s stance against abortion actually “endangers women’s health and safety”?
Chris wrote, “You’re joking.”
No I’m not joking.
Chris wrote, “People don’t go around saying they are “against women’s rights.””
So how the heck do you know that they are against women’s rights? Explain.
Chris wrote, “Do you really believe that people can only be against women’s rights if they say they are?”
No I don’t believe that people can only be against women’s right if they say they are; however, actually saying so would be undeniable proof.
Please present evidence supporting the statement that Trump is against women’s rights.
Trump’s team wanted details about the US State Department’s spending on gender equality, and names of people whose primary function was to promote gender issues.
“It wasn’t a benign request,” said Ambassador Cathy Russell, head of the Office of Global Women’s Issues in Barack Obama’s State Department, whose office fielded the request. “They were looking for the family planning money and the LGBT programming and spending.”
She didn’t give them the information. Weeks later, President Trump signed an executive order cutting off US funding to global women’s health organizations worldwide if they counseled, referred or advocated for access to abortion.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-02-09/future-global-womens-rights-under-trump-it-could-be-devastating
Keep in mind that in some parts of the world, the only women’s health organizations that are available are ones that counsel, refer or advocate for abortion access.
What this means, in practice, is that women won’t get access to healthcare at all because Trump doesn’t like that the organizations that help them do that might talk about abortion.
Chris is correct. The Trump administration’s anti-abortion stance is seen as a threat to the health and safety of women. Abolishing abortion will not stop women from getting them; they will simply be forced to go to extremes to get one. Women will die as a result. In fact, the rate of abortion is at its lowest since Roe v. Wade was passed, thanks to the multitude of non-abortion services Planned Parenthood provides, including contraception. If Planned Parenthood is defunded, as has been threatened, the rate of abortion could actually go up, not to mention losing the other services PP provides, hence a threat to the health of women.
Jeff Sessions, Trump’s appointment to Attorney General, voted against the Violence Against Women Act, and dismissed as trivial Trump’s grabbing of women’s genitals. This is seen as trivializing domestic violence and sexual harrassment; again, a threat to the safety of women.
No, there are probably no quotes of Trump saying he’s against women’s rights. I am trying very hard not to listen to what he says, since he contradicts himself and frequently lies. I am looking at his policies and appointments to determine his true positions.
The “stance” doesn’t endanger anyone, Jan. Roe v. Wade isn’t going anywhere, and the first SCOTUS justice Trump appointed has made no statements against the current law. This just the old War on Women trope: if you’re republican or conservative, you don’t want women to be healthy. There is no risk to women’s health in any Trump policies. This is just the old gender/race/ pick your division group grievance tactic that apparently is all Democrats have. Pathetic. Democratic women’s “stance” endangers unborn human beings and their health. When they acknowledge this competing issue, I’ll start taking the grandstanding seriously.
janpchapman,
What Jack said!
Even granting your premise that the president can’t be held responsible for the likely consequences of his stance on Roe v. Wade because it’s impractical…
I’ve already explained the consequences of his executive order withdrawing funds from women’s health organizations that mention abortion, which are very real. In fact, I clarified that before Roe v. Wade was even mentioned.
Are you saying there are no risks to women as a result of this executive order? Because I just told you what those risks are, and to pretend they don’t exist is ridiculous.
This seems more in line with the “Trump can’t be held responsible for anything he says or does, ever, for any reason” theme I’ve been noticing here as of late.
It’s called governing principles, Chris. Not the government’s job to subsidize abortion. Or birth control. Or sex. Put all of that nanny state money along with the other stuff and do government’s real job, like fixing roads, national defense, and stopping foreigner from jumping the border. This is how liberals demonize legitimate opinions they don’t like: There are likely consequences of arguing that unborn children have a right o breath.
The consequences of the current Left cant on abortion is millions of innocent lives taken by smiling, shrugging, dead-eyed Planned Parenthood employees like the ones we saw and heard on the undercover tapes. That’s part of the equation too.
It’s called governing principles, Chris. Not the government’s job to subsidize abortion. Or birth control. Or sex.
Except that pro-life Republicans insist that it is the government’s job to reduce abortion.
I contend that if one believes the government should reduce abortion, one should support government policies that reduce abortion.
For some reason, you see this as an unreasonable expectation.
[The threading got to deep here, this is a reply to Chris’s reply]
Sure, just like it’s governments job to reduce murder. Oh I get it, you want government to get out of the “prevent murder” business. You have my admiration, an even more libertarian position than mine.
Except that pro-life Republicans insist that it is the government’s job to reduce abortion.
I contend that if one believes the government should reduce abortion, one should support government policies that reduce abortion.
Wow, this is an interesting one. When you think about it, it is the government’s job, the state’s job, the municipality’s ‘job, to help families to increase themselves, to expand into life, to grow, achieve, obtain, to prosper and thrive in all possible senses.
How a culture defines that is, of course, something having to do with the very base-idea of that culture. Therefor, to bring progeny into the world, if there is anything at all that government should be in-pro of, is exactly what a good government should hold at the center of its political philosophy. Isn’t this one of the most central and salient features that run through the entire governmental philosophy of the US?
Seen from this angle then it is indeed the *job* of government — and I mean of governing structure, of the IDEA that stands behind a government — to at least demonstrate some sort of moral repugnance or ethical concern when a woman, or a family, opts not to bring a child into the world, into the manifest world and into the world of conscious politics.
I would suggest that the correspondence that you have establsihed here, that because a governmental idea or a social value that supports birth must also, correspondingly, support the cessation of a birth, is a very questionable one.
But I suppose that in a larger sense, and given how much government has expanded, and the degree to which it has so much more power in people’s lives than at other times, we ask of government to arbitrate questions that, in the best of all worlds, they should not have to.
There is of course also the question of the problem when it becomes necessary to reduce a population expanding too quickly and what role government should take.
Alizia, the government doesn’t need to promote something that is naturally going to happen anyway. We are in no danger of not enough babies being born.
Nice allusion to eugenics at the end, though. I know not everyone here picks up your dogwhistles, but it’s pretty obvious you’re saying that the government should promote white people having babies while taking action against the “problem” of minorities having babies.
Chris said: “Alizia, the government doesn’t need to promote something that is naturally going to happen anyway. We are in no danger of not enough babies being born.”
One sentence at a time. ‘Gov doesn’t need to promote…’ like welfare? School Lunches? kids did not starve, nor did welfare recipients before there was welfare. And neither is better off for the Gov interference. /snark
‘…enough babies being born’ Actually, Europe is breeding itself out of existence, and needs the immigrants as a tax base (they just have gone too far). The same is true in many areas of America today. So your statement is not necessarily true in many cases.
“government should promote white people having babies while taking action against the “problem” of minorities having babies.”
No Chris. The people taking on the “problem” of minority babies is the progressives. Take a look at Margaret Sanger’s beliefs, and where Planned Parenthood is on a map. Note the minority areas they serve, almost exclusively. You have a lot of gall making that statement.
kids did not starve, nor did welfare recipients before there was welfare. And neither is better off for the Gov interference. /snark
You are deeply ignorant. Please look at poverty statistics both before and after the Great Society. Focus on child poverty. The notion that everything was fine before social welfare programs and that they haven’t helped anyone is bullshit, and cannot possibly be justified by anyone familiar with the facts.
No Chris. The people taking on the “problem” of minority babies is the progressives. Take a look at Margaret Sanger’s beliefs, and where Planned Parenthood is on a map. Note the minority areas they serve, almost exclusively. You have a lot of gall making that statement.
Again, ignorant. I know Margaret Sanger’s beliefs. I also know how the right has misrepresented them, which is what you’re talking about here. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew Sanger’s beliefs, accepted an award named after her, and openly praised her work on behalf of the black community; do you think he was an idiot? Sanger was no more racist than anyone else of her time, and believed that all women–including black women–had a right to control how many children they had.
(If you respond with a list of fabricated and misleading “quotes” from Sanger, I will humiliate you. Don’t do it.)
Planned Parenthood is in poor communities because that’s where they are needed. Your need to make this seem sinister says more about you than it does them.
Chris,
Selling baby parts for profit. Enought said.
slickwilly,
That did not happen, and you only fell for the lie that it did happen because you are a gullible fool who doesn’t know how to fact-check.
Enough said.
That did not happen, and you only fell for the lie that it did happen because you are a gullible fool who doesn’t know how to fact-check.”
So much for a rational debate with the progressive side. WE HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE that baby parts were being sold, and all the progressives had was “the recordings were ilegal” which they were not. All the left could do is spin and lie about getting caught at this, and depending on a progressive in the White House to prevent criminal investigations.
Done with you, Chris. You are so blinded by your ideology that you cannot admit when someone else is right. You have no concept of intellectual give and take, and are a troll.
Chris wrote, “That did not happen, and you only fell for the lie that it did happen because you are a gullible fool who doesn’t know how to fact-check. Enough said.”
I know I’ll probably be chastised for this but I’m getting really tired of the crap from Chris.
That statement from Chris quoted is coming from a person that spouts a claim with absolutely no evidence to support it, calls people that disagree with his claim “naive”; when asked to support the claim he first he says he can’t but others are still naive, then he chooses to present something as evidence that does not support it his claim and reasserts that others are naive. That’s what political hacks do when they spout false political talking points like an incredibly “gullible fool”.
Chris earned himself a “nice” participation trophy, here ya go Chris.
Participation Trophy
slickwilly:-
WE HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE that baby parts were being sold,
No. The video was doctored, and there was no evidence that baby parts were being sold for profit, which was your original contention.
This was covered already on this blog last year. While I didn’t agree with Jack’s ethical conclusions, we did agree on the facts that the video does not show baby parts being sold for profit. Every fact-checker has come to the same conclusion. Seek better sources.
and all the progressives had was “the recordings were ilegal” which they were not
Yes, they were, as Jack has also explained on this blog. And no, that’s not all we had; we had the facts that the videos did not show what they (and you) claimed they showed.
It’s reassuring that you think Roe v. Wade won’t be overturned.
Nothing in my comment referred to a war on women; however, in their zeal to shut down Planned Parenthood and prohibit abortion, Republicans policies at the state level have resulted in women’s health services being shut down all over the country. Look at Texas. Reduced access to health care is harmful to women and women’s health. That was the issue I was addressing. The Trump/Republican agenda emboldens them.
My feelings about abortion have evolved over the years. Your opinion that a fetus is a person is just that–an opinion–and not one held unanimously by the scientific community or, for that matter, the Supreme Court. I respect that opinion as one based on your personal ethics. Mine are different.
This is interesting. I recognize that many people see abortion as a serious crime. And I also understand on what their view is based. The more that one understands it, the more difficult the entire issue becomes, and the harder it is to be a defender of either side.
The best way out of the conflict is to anesthetize it: to bring oneself to a point of not really thinking it through or thinking of the consequences.
But what interests me here is that the Left-Progressive put ‘care of woman’ and woman’s health into one general basket. And one element in that basket is easy access to abortion procedures.
Therefor, is it possible that those who oppose abortion (womb-murder by their perspective) are forced to bring pressure to bear on ‘the basket’ when, as seems likely, they are only concerned that the state and the nation gets out of the business of supporting abortion?
I doubt that anyone is opposed to women being healthy. Most likely they are opposed to easy access to getting abortions and to the state funding of them.
It is also true — having visited some women’s clinics myself — they are usually hyper-progressive in politics.
(I wonder what a Hyper-Republican or Alt-Right woman’s clinic would be like? I am not being completely silly here. Women who lean to the conservative right must define what is the correct overall approach to woman’s well-being.)
By definition it isn’t a crime. It may be immoral, and it may be unethical, but it can’t be a crime. Anyone who considers it so is factually mistaken.
Yes, I see what you mean. A ‘crime’ is technically an action defined through a jurisprudential system.
I was of course speaking of the Christian and the religious perspective. And I think it is true that they see abortion as a spiritual crime with spiritual consequences.
Always interested in the definition of words so I looked up ‘crime’:
Middle English (in the sense ‘wickedness, sin’): via Old French from Latin crimen ‘judgement, offence’, based on cernere ‘to judge’.
I notice what is most likely: at one time one’s moral actions were seen in the same way as one’s mere legal ommissions and misdemeanors. Not assisting at Mass was in a way a ‘crime’. Now, by our modern conventions, we make more stark separations.
But within the Christian and the religious community they still hold to the older (mediaval) idea. I mention this only because it helps to understand the widening gap between different people’s ‘existential systems’.
Here’s what a Hyper-Republcan Alt-Right clinic is like right here in Missouri:
http://kcur.org/post/missouri-lawmakers-debate-whether-pregnancy-resource-centers-must-provide-science-backed#stream/0
Hyper-Republican, possibly. Alt-Right? Less certain. I read the article, thank you.
Your opinion that you are alive and conscious is just that, your opinion. I believe in solipsism (or p-zombies, or your preferred philosophical tool to deny the other’s experience) so it is perfectly ethical for me to terminate your existence.
The fact that he has an opinion proves that he is conscious. But the best available science indicates that the vast majority of abortions happen before a fetus has consciousness. I am always going to prioritize the rights of people with consciousness over those who have never had consciousness.
Oversimplification of the two concerns on the scales.
It isn’t just the “rights” of a conscious human versus just the “rights” of a human that has never had consciousness.
It’s the “right to comfort and convenience” of a conscious human versus the “right to life” of a human who will be conscious and was brought into existence by the very one seeking to prioritize their own comforts and convenience.
1) You have to make the case that “consciousness” is the important definer here.
2) You have to make the case of what “consciousness” really is.
Until you and the pro-abortion crowd can actually articulate the discussion honestly, it’s safe to assume you recognize what is involved here and won’t admit it.
tex:
“The right to comfort and convenience”
Bullshit. The right in question is the right to bodily autonomy.
You know this, so don’t pull that shit and then act like I’m the one ignoring the issues at hand.
Wow. The Left really likes Orwell. It is the autonomy to kill a fetus for comfort and convenience. In general, the autonomy to kill is disfavored in Western ethics and morality. Except in this case. A jumbo. “Life? I don’t see any life!”
Tex,
I think you should tell Chris “change your tone, or I’m going to have to decide to start ignoring your posts completely”.
In general, the autonomy to kill is disfavored in Western ethics and morality.
And in general, the government compelling someone to sacrifice their bodily autonomy to keep someone else alive is also disfavored. The government can’t compel you to give someone a kidney, and it can’t compel you to keep someone else alive inside your body. That’s bodily autonomy. That is a right. “Comfort and convenience” aren’t rights. Whether someone uses one of their rights to achieve comfort and convenience doesn’t make that right any less of a right.
In general, Western ethics and morality, including all major ethics systems, view respect for and preservation of life as outbalancing other valid considerations..
In general, Western ethics and morality, including all major ethics systems, view respect for and preservation of life as outbalancing other valid considerations..
Not when it contradicts when another right. The government does not compel people to donate kidneys.
Bad example. A kidney is not a life, and the government cannot take part of your body to preserve a life. Not remotely the same issue—but the fact that you can’t find a good example proves the point.
“That’s bodily autonomy. That is a right. “Comfort and convenience” aren’t rights. Whether someone uses one of their rights to achieve comfort and convenience doesn’t make that right any less of a right.”
Actually. This is a valid correction.
I’ll adjust my original correction to your fallacious assertion (corrections italicized):
Yeeesh. Your suggested correction makes your stance even uglier.
A kidney is not a life, and the government cannot take part of your body to preserve a life.
But the government can force you to use part of your body to preserve a life?
The government can prevent you from taking a life. You are using the false thought experiment where someone sneaks in and attaches you to a comatose person who needs to share your blood supply to live. But you are not responsible for the lives of strangers. You are responsible for the lives of those to whom your conduct and body gives life, and have an obligation created by nothing other than your natural relationship to that life. It isn’t a tumor or a wart. It is, at some point, and individual requiring a fair balancing of interests.
The government can prevent you from taking a life. You are using the false thought experiment where someone sneaks in and attaches you to a comatose person who needs to share your blood supply to live.
The thought experiment works better if you imagine that the person took some kind of risk that led them to be attached to the comatose person–the extension to the violinist analogy says that the victim decides to go to a concert knowing that people have been kidnapped and attached to violinists before.
The “people seeds” analogy is my favorite. It basically posits the idea that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#Third-party_participation_.E2.80.93_the_.E2.80.9Cexpanding_child.E2.80.9D
But you are not responsible for the lives of strangers. You are responsible for the lives of those to whom your conduct and body gives life, and have an obligation created by nothing other than your natural relationship to that life. It isn’t a tumor or a wart. It is, at some point, and individual requiring a fair balancing of interests.
“At some point.” Exactly. I’m not sure when exactly that point is, but we as a society have decided it’s definitely not in the first trimester, when abortions usually take place.
When do you think that point is?
Anyway, this is all beside the point. Trump’s executive order will increase the abortion rates in the affected rates, as has happened every single time the global gag order has been reinstated. If one is genuinely concerned about abortion, one has an ethical duty to support policies that reduce abortion.
If someone supports policies that increase the abortion rate, that person is ethically estopped from complaining about abortion.
“The thought experiment works better if you imagine that the person took some kind of risk that led them to be attached to the comatose person–the extension to the violinist analogy says that the victim decides to go to a concert knowing that people have been kidnapped and attached to violinists before.”
Holy crap this is disingenuous. You are pretending to make a better analogy and then forget the key component involved: The person BROUGHT THE BABY INTO EXISTENCE. This violinist “analogy” and all your others COMPLETELY ignores this relationship and *naturally* arising obligation.
Which leads me to the fact that you just drummed out an even worse analogy:
“The “people seeds” analogy is my favorite. It basically posits the idea that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.”
You know, I tried this on my friend who was on the roof of a three story building: He said “I don’t want to break my leg but I really want to jump.” So I told him, “dude! You’re totally cool to jump. You aren’t consenting to break your leg and if it happens, we’ll all pretend like it wasn’t obvious that this was a likely outcome! You are only consenting to jump!”
What a dumb, nay weapons-grade dumb analogy… and it’s your favorite?
Telling.
“But you are not responsible for the lives of strangers.”
A baby you create isn’t some vague notion of a stranger based merely on lacking an academic connection with the individual – he or she is an intimate interweaving of the half of your genetics and half of your partner’s genetics. He or she is the consummation of a intimate action between the two adults involved.
By the by, I deleted an opening line to that paragraph calling you a “monstrous asshole”.
“Anyway, this is all beside the point. Trump’s executive order will increase the abortion rates in the affected rates, as has happened every single time the global gag order has been reinstated. If one is genuinely concerned about abortion, one has an ethical duty to support policies that reduce abortion.
If someone supports policies that increase the abortion rate, that person is ethically estopped from complaining about abortion.”
You are estopped from ever using this as a “bam argument over” line. It’s use is disingenuous. Time and again, Jack, myself and others, have solidly demonstrated all the cultural values you break pushing this and you have failed consistently to address those responses. This pushes intentional dishonesty.
Quit.
tex, read better. I didn’t call the fetus a “stranger;” the sentence including that word was a quote from Jack.
The extension to the violinist analogy I just alluded to absolutely does take into account the responsibility of the mother in the creation of the child, and still concludes that abortion can be an ethical choice.
I don’t find your comparison to a person jumping off a three story building convincing. The analogy would work better with a risky yet fun activity, such as bungee jumping. If someone takes precautions and is injured in such an activity, we don’t say they consented to the injury, and we don’t stop them from getting treatment for the injury. We acknowledge they consented to the risks, and we expect them to take precautions, but if they are injured we also assume they will seek treatment.
We would even expect someone jumping off a three story building to seek treatment for the broken leg.
This doesn’t address the part of abortion where “treatment” requires a human life is taken, of course. Which is why the violinist analogy and the people seeds analogy are superior.
Finally, neither you nor Jack has ever been able to explain to my satisfaction why it is ethical for pro-lifers to support policies that increase the abortion rate. Simply asserting that you have doesn’t make it true, and simply asserting that your previous arguments resolved the issue doesn’t make it resolved. The fact is that you and Jack are still defending policies that increase the abortion rate while condemning abortion and those who support the right to it. That is hypocritical in the extreme, and I am not “estopped” from pointing that out.
“The extension to the violinist analogy I just alluded to absolutely does take into account the responsibility of the mother in the creation of the child, and still concludes that abortion can be an ethical choice.”
It flat out does not. I convolutes the “violinist” scenario to one even more odd than before in a desperate attempt to equate *a baby created by the conduct of the people involved* not an ambush “situation” designed by some nefariously despicable kidnap happy musicians into which a reasonably informed victim still walks into.
Are you even listening to yourself?
“I don’t find your comparison to a person jumping off a three story building convincing. The analogy would work better with a risky yet fun activity, such as bungee jumping. If someone takes precautions and is injured in such an activity, we don’t say they consented to the injury, and we don’t stop them from getting treatment for the injury. We acknowledge they consented to the risks, and we expect them to take precautions, but if they are injured we also assume they will seek treatment.”
It’s a thoroughly apt analogy.
And your counter-analogy still requires a reduction in the value of a human life. Because a baby isn’t equivalent to an injury that should “just be fixed”. Not that the analogy should even explore that. The original analogy posed undermines the entire “not consenting to very probable results of behavior engaged in” which is your favorite way to rationalize abortion.
Oops!
DD
Glad to see you’re catching up on the archives!
WOW, Denver Dave, that’s quite a deep dive you engaged in.
I commend you for being persistent but I’ve got to ask a rhetorical question; what drove you to a seven year deep dive and are you still diving for the hope of getting more prediction/opinion “gotcha’s”?
I was hoping one of the discussions here would flush you back out, Jan!
I am always lurking.
No, it’s because he believes that the US should not be advocating, supporting or funding abortions internationally. It’s a completely defensible position, with moral and ethical support.
It’s defensible only if you believe that the consequences of an action do not matter. Anyone who has studied the issue knows that this will put women in danger without significantly reducing the abortion rate, and could even increase the abortion rate due to a lack of contraception access. Literally anyone.
This is the same stance you are taking with the travel ban–because it might be emotionally justified and make some conservatives feel better, the actual consequences do not matter, and no consideration of the consequences should be taken into account when defending it.
This is an unethical stance, Jack.
No, it’s not. Making decisions based on rationalizations, logical fallacies and fear-mongering is not unethical. You don’t know that any of these things are true. “Anyone who has studied the issue” is a gross exaggeration. The claim that the government not paying for people to have sex will be disastrous rather ignores that fact that the government didn’t do this for hundreds of years, for the simple reason that responsible sex is one’s own responsibility. And still is. But thanks for the classic example of toxic left-wing reasoning. Here’s real reasoning: what the government pays for, the culture views as acceptable and desirable conduct. hence the “Joyous abortions” and “I wish I had had an abortion” rhetoric. There is no stop at all, philosophically speaking, between “pay for my sex”, “pat for my abortion”, and pay for my health care, my home, my clothes, my food—in other words, Bernie World. Which I am sure you know, which is why you make these sweeping statements to avoid the nasty details. Nope, sorry, girls, I don’t want to pay for your one-night stand or its consequences. Be responsible, don’t blame me for your screw-ups, and consider consequences.
Jesus, Jack.
You just moved from “funding women’s healthcare organizations that even mention abortion as an option” to “government funded abortions” to “pay for my sex” without missing a beat. How can you think such conflation are honest?
We’re not talking about government paying for women’s “one night stands,” we’re talking about organizations overseas in third world countries, where women are often raped, or where married women in poverty have to choose which children to feed because they don’t have access to birth control. Your assertion that it is right and just to defund such organizations because you don’t want to pay for “one night stands” is based on nothing but sexist, ignorant assumptions.
The other ethical issues you raise aren’t worth engaging in until you actually know the facts about what we’re talking about when we talk about the global gag rule.
You do recall the Sandra Fluke flap over it constituting a war on women to suggest that women should pay for their own birth control, right?
Sure you do.
No, the United States should not use taxpayer money to pay for abortions and birth control in foreign countries. Clear enough?
Going back a bit:
No, it’s not. Making decisions based on rationalizations, logical fallacies and fear-mongering is not unethical.
It absolutely is, especially when the results of those decisions will lead to suffering and death.
You don’t know that any of these things are true. “Anyone who has studied the issue” is a gross exaggeration.
Yes, I do, and no, it is not. Facts are facts. The facts are that higher access to contraception reduces the abortion rate. There are no “alternative facts” that dispute this.
The claim that the government not paying for people to have sex will be disastrous rather ignores that fact that the government didn’t do this for hundreds of years
Ridiculous logic. The government didn’t have child labor laws for decades; does that mean there would be no disastrous consequences if we repealed them?
No, the United States should not use taxpayer money to pay for abortions and birth control in foreign countries. Clear enough?
So I suppose we just should have done nothing about the AIDS epidemic in Africa?
Lack of contraception was and still is a public health crisis in many parts of the world. Your assertion that we should ignore this makes absolutely no ethical sense to me.
First of all, they need to clean house at the US State Department, Office of Global Women’s Issues who didn’t give Trump’s team what they requested, and they should start by firing Cathy Russell for insubordination.
Chris wrote, “What this means, in practice, is that women won’t get access to healthcare at all because Trump doesn’t like that the organizations that help them do that might talk about abortion.”
Chris that’s hyperbole and not just simple benign hyperbole, you’re parroting intentionally misleading propaganda that leaves out facts in a concerted effort to manipulate public opinion (like it has yours) to demonize anyone “they” disagree with.
It is not the duty of the US government to fork over cash to healthcare organizations that only you or I like. There are millions upon millions of people in the United States at fundamentally disagree with abortion and their opinions have just as much right being represented by the President of the United States and the United States government as yours and mine.
The US government is not the only entity that funds these kinds of organizations; how do I know, because a good portion of my charitable giving goes to help fund some of those organizations. If the US government does not directly fund these organizations it will not prevent access to those that want access. Why is it that Liberals defend using US dollars as leverage as long as the policy falls within some Liberal purity test, but yet when the Republicans use US dollars as leverage they are smeared endlessly with false innuendo propaganda and outright lies? It’s ridiculous how many double standards that the political left presents as arguments, it’s political crack to Liberals and Progressives, they are completely blind to its destructive effects on their morals, they justify it with the ends justify the means.
It is not the duty of the United States government to provide healthcare to the world with our tax dollars. Don’t these countries have an obligation to do something themselves for their own people? Why don’t Liberals constantly demonize these foreign governments like you do Conservatives when Republicans stray from the “settled science” Liberal path to enlightenment, or do you absolve these countries of their responsibilities and dump it all on the USA and just blame the Republicans when things don’t go your way?
You people talk as if just because the US government doesn’t hand over some cash that nothing will get done, you’re dead wrong, get your facts straight. It’s time for you and other Americans to dig deep and support the medical organizations of your choice and get the US government out of providing cash for controversial hot topics; in other words, put your wallet where your mouth is like I do.
You’re talking about a president that wants to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on a giant border wall, Zoltar. Lots of Americans don’t agree with that either, and yet that’s probably not going to be what stops him, is it?
If someone opposes abortion, they should…support policies that reduce abortion. Since defunding these organizations will not decrease abortion, and will likely increase it (and will certainly–inarguably– increase the rate of STDs and unintended pregnancies), defunding these organizations cannot possibly be justified on the grounds of “opposing abortion,” unless you believe, as Jack seems to, that intent and ideological purity are all that matters and that the logical consequences of an action have no bearing on its ethics.
That is a ridiculous position. But it is the position of those who are determined to absolve certain people of responsibility for their actions.
You wanna talk double standards? How many times have I seen on this blog that Democrats’ stance on gun rights is unethical? Their intent is to make people safer; by the logic I’m seeing here, that’s all that matters, and their stance is totally defensible. Why should it matter whether their actions actually *do* keep people safer, any more than it matters whether pro-life policies reduce abortions, or the travel ban prevents terrorism?
Chris,
You didn’t really address any of my questions or arguments, did you, but you did flush logic and go off the rails while sticking to being “nice”. You can now walk away knowing full well that your off the rail nonsense did nothing to actually further the conversation, in fact it closed the door to continuing the conversation. You want to “nicely” shut the door on real discussions, fine, be like that.
Don’t you dare reply with some garbage saying I’m not addressing your points when you don’t have the common decency to address mine first.
I had a whole, Zoltar Speaks! needs an attitude adjustment, paragraph to go here but I deleted it so I wouldn’t offend your fragile ego and send you back to your safe haven; I won’t extend you that courtesy again.
Zoltar, Trump may be our President, but he is still a pig. Listen to the audio of his pussy-grabbing comments or his bragging about his privilege of surprising beauty contestants half naked. Putting aside his policies, he is not the kind of man you want dating your daughter.
Spartan,
Stick to the topic Spartan, I already stated my opinions of Trump’s locker room banter, I’m not biting on your deflection.
“he is not the kind of man you want dating your daughter.”
We didn’t elect him because he thought he’d be a good son-in-law who’d leave the office right at 5 to help our daughter with the laundry, surprise her with breakfast in bed on her birthday, and tell her every day she was his One True Love. I’m personally acquainted with at least three police captains who you wouldn’t want to sip coffee with, but if the bad guys needed to get caught, they were your man, and three fire chief types who you might not want over your house for dinner, but if, God forbid, your child was trapped in a burning building, they’d be the men you’d want leading the team to rescue her.
And while we’re talking about the kind of men you want dating your daughter, about that Bill Clinton guy…
Presidents no sane mother would want dating his daughter: Jefferson, Jackson, WH Harrison (too old), Peirce (drunk), Buchanan (gay), Lincoln (weird, depressed), Johnson (drunk), Grant (drunk), Arthur (crooked), TR (nuts), Taft (obese), Harding (satyr), FDR (sociopath), Kennedy (sociopath, satyr, misogynist), Nixon (paranoid), Clinton (sociopath, misogynist). That’s about a third.
J. Adams (depressed, tyrannical), Wilson (racist, proto-tyrant), LBJ (pig), Bush the younger (recovering drunk, fundamentalist), and there are probably others. The fact is high-level people sometimes are not people you would want to know in an ordinary way. Patton was a master tactician…and a walking stress condition. Tesla was a genius….and a whacko. St. Francis was a pious paragon…and of questionable connection to this world.
Unfair to John, who was a proto-feminist, and as loving a husband as there ever was. LBJ was indeed a pig; I should have included him on the list. I don’t think spouses should be disqualified for beliefs: when Wilson was alive, everyone was a racist to some extent. You’re not seriously saying that recovering from alcoholism is a disqualifier, are you? That takes guts, persistence and courage. And were talking about a disease. Similarly religious beliefs: that slides into bigotry.
I’ll give you LBJ.
OK, fair enough for discussion. Looking at this strictly from a spousal standpoint, yes, John Adams was indeed honorable, although I still think he’d be a candidate for Prozac now.
Let’s think a bit about that question of disqualifying spouses for beliefs. If we look at Wilson in the context of being a man of his times, yes, racism was prevalent then. He was a bit more racist than many, resegregating the Federal government, or at least parts of it, but his views weren’t entirely outside the mainstream for his time. If we look at him through the lens of the present day, though, I think he’s right out – you wouldn’t want your daughter dating someone whose views or beliefs could cast shame on the family. Racism is a bit unique in that regard.
Is recovering from alcoholism a disqualifier? In the abstract it certainly doesn’t seem fair, it’s a tough fight against a problem. That said, I’d just as soon my daughter, and my family, didn’t inherit the problems that go with having a drunk, recovering or not, at family functions. I had two relatives who were alcoholic and who we didn’t see much. I’m not sorry we didn’t. At the very least a potential suitor who has that problem is due for being pulled into my study, not invited to sit, and told in no uncertain terms that if he lets his problem become a problem I’M going to have a problem and that’s going to be a VERY big problem for him.
Let’s talk about other beliefs, religious or otherwise. My family is Catholic, both sides, but we’re generally pretty easygoing about it. For the most part no one gets compelled to attend Mass or condemned if they don’t, no one gets quizzed about their personal lives, etc. A few of my generation have drifted because we’re still single or in long-term relationships that fall short of marriage, but generally the believers don’t ask, and the less faithful don’t tell. My family is also mostly conservative, with one or two exceptions.
We’re mostly pretty welcoming, but for a while my brother dated a woman who was Jewish by birth, agnostic by practice, liberal by politics, and obnoxious and selfish by approach. She was a problem not just for me, and I’ll admit I am not the easiest person to get along with, but for my parents and a few others. After a few tense visits they were encouraged to meet up where the rest of us weren’t, and eventually he picked his family over her. Differences of beliefs are always going to produce tension, as Catholic families press non-Catholic daughters in law to procreate, as Jewish families pull really hard on non-Jewish sons and daughters in law to come over to Judaism and raise the kids Jewish, as conservative families make jokes about Obama and Hillary in front of liberal in-laws and liberal families ask conservative in-laws “you didn’t really vote for Trump, did you?” It sometimes goes the other way too, as more beta sons fall for feminists who boss them about like kids instead of partners and butt heads with more traditional dads, or daughters fall for some dark and mysterious Muslim from the Levant, and suddenly her parents have to keep the house pork-free and be deferential. Eventually the families decide they’re not going to be disrespected in their own houses, and you’ve seen this movie before.
Bigotry? Maybe, but also practicality.
Scratch James Buchanan, Jack. He’d be just the person you’d want to date your daughter.
I bet myself $1000 that someone would immediately respond with CLINTON! So what? Doesn’t Jack have about 6 ethics rules about not excusing someone’s unethical behavior just because someone else did it?
And thanks everyone for being so literal (including Mr. Marshall). My comment was obviously shorthand for “Trump is a morally bankrupt human being.” We need our leaders to not just be good statesmen, but good role models too. (And I believe Jack has dozens of posts on that topic as well.)
I think the point is that Clinton enabler are stopped from making the “Presidents no sane mother would want dating his daughter” argument. My point is that leaders in general are not the best bets for spouses. “Morally and ethically unfit” takes less words and is more accurate.
I don’t know, I suspect Bill was a gentleman on dates. I wouldn’t want my daughter working as an intern for him, though.
Spartan wrote, “I bet myself $1000 that someone would immediately respond with CLINTON!”
Point: The closest thing to an immediate response to your comment was mine which said “Stick to the topic Spartan”, “I’m not biting on your deflection.” So in reality, you lost your bet with yourself, do I get a piece of that action? 😉
Now for a moment let’s talk about the deflection bait that you dangled out there, “Trump may be our President, but he is still a pig”, “Putting aside his policies, he is not the kind of man you want dating your daughter” and now it seems to me like your chastising others for taking your deflection bait.
But I wasn’t deflecting. Aren’t you the one who asked to cite examples of how he is a danger to women? Well, I cited examples, to which the responses apparently are: 1) CLINTON!; and 2) probably most Presidents are pigs.
1. “Pig” doesn’t mean “danger to women.” In my experience, most men are pigs to some extent.
2. My list did not assert that most Presidents are pigs. I did leave out Cleveland, whom I had just written about as a possible rapist, however.
3. Based on what we know, rather than what Trump-haters project, the current President is a safer bet to date than Jefferson, Cleveland, Harding, Democratic Hero JFK, and Democratic Rock Star Bill Clinton. The point: the over-the top denigration of this President as if he uniquely sexist is hypocritical and represents selective, partyist outrage.
Jack:
3. Based on what we know, rather than what Trump-haters project, the current President is a safer bet to date than Jefferson, Cleveland, Harding, Democratic Hero JFK, and Democratic Rock Star Bill Clinton.
I haven’t the faintest idea what you could possibly be basing this conclusion on. Just looking at the Trump v. Clinton comparison (since I’m unfamiliar with most of the others), while both have been accused of rape and sexual assault, Trump currently has more accusers than Clinton, and was once accused of rape by his then wife, though she later retracted it. So what makes Clinton more dangerous to date than Trump?
I’ve explained this before. You can track down that exchange as easily as I can. Clinton paid a settlement on one assault accusation; and has a rape accuser who has never recanted, and that is widely regarded as credible. His workplace harassment is documented in Lewinsky’s case. That’s far, far more substantive than anything alleged about Trump. Bill’s pussy-talk just wasn’t taped, that’s all.
I’ll give you Jefferson, since he was a rapist.
Spartan wrote, “But I wasn’t deflecting. Aren’t you the one who asked to cite examples of how he is a danger to women?”
Nope. As a buddy of mine says, correlated that which should not have been correlated.
When talking about stripping US taxpayer dollars from organizations that promote abortion Chris wrote that “[Trump’s] stance on abortion endangers women’s health and safety”; that was the core, policy based, argument that we were discussing and you went off on a tangent about the President being a “pig” and literally shoved aside the discussion about policy and switched to personality and character. You deflected to attacking the person instead of discussing the policy.
You wrote, “Trump may be our President, but he is still a pig. Listen to the audio of his pussy-grabbing comments or his bragging about his privilege of surprising beauty contestants half naked. Putting aside his policies, he is not the kind of man you want dating your daughter.”
That little Miss Spartan was your deflection; it had absolutely nothing to do with the policy discussion, nothing about stripping US taxpayer dollars from organizations that promote abortion, nothing about abortion at all, only about personality and character. I think the proper phrase to use not would be, own it, learn from it, and move on.
Do you want to regroup and go another round?
More evidence of bad typing and proof reading skills…
“I think the proper phrase to use now would be, own it, learn from it, and move on.”
Sometimes I really feel like we are speaking two different languages. I guess I missed the part where I was supposed to defend/oppose abortion. I was responding to the broader, note — not narrower, category of pointing out how Trump is a danger to women. To which I responded and there is Trump’s own evidence to support. The man either has sexually assaulted women or he believes, at a minimum, that this is something to be joked about. That pig is now our President. So yes, he is dangerous to all women. His very presence as a role model is damaging to all women. And I am not alone in thinking this way — see the women’s marches all over the US and in certain other countries. But perhaps these millions of women are engaged in the same deflection as me. But the far more likely result is that you are wrong …. as usual.
Spartan wrote, “Sometimes I really feel like we are speaking two different languages.”
Nope, same language, but we certainly don’t share the same levels of reading comprehension, critical thinking and logic.
Spartan wrote, “So yes, he is dangerous to all women.”
That is Salem Witch Trial School of Thought.
Spartan wrote, “His very presence as a role model is damaging to all women.”
That too is Salem Witch Trial School of Thought
Spartan wrote, “I am not alone in thinking this way”
Aha, so just because a bunch of people think it, it is automatically fact. That’s absurd Liberal Magical Thinking.
I still don’t agree that a settlement is evidence of guilt. And banging an intern doesn’t necessarily make someone “dangerous” to date.
1. Banging a subordinate in a workplace environment is taking advantage of someone you have power over, and is prima facie evidence of being a workplace predator.
2. A settlement that is higher than the amount originally demanded is evidence of someone who desperately wants a case to go away. Once Clinton lied under oath, he was going to lose. It’s like quitting the game before the time runs out so you can say “I quit, I wasn’t beaten.”
Chris,
“I’ll give you Jefferson, since he was a rapist.”
Citation?
Careful… Jefferson was a product of his time, just as others you for whom have dismissed accusations
“What this means, in practice, is that women won’t get access to healthcare at all because Trump doesn’t like that the organizations that help them do that might talk about abortion.”
This is a rhetorical trick. Nice sliding of the terminology used here.
Earlier in your screed, you clearly identified he opposed organizations for “counseling, referring, or *advocating* for access to abortion”. In your sign off (and main punch) you merely mention a “might talk about” condition.
This is a rotten rhetorical trick. There is significant difference between “talking about” and “advocating for access”.
You think this answers Zoltar’s protest, but it doesn’t, it only reveals a weakness caused by your own biases.
Fine, let me rephrase:
“What this means, in practice, is that women won’t get access to healthcare at all because Trump doesn’t like that the organizations that help them do that might advocate for or refer them for an abortion.”
I maintain this is still a ridiculous, counter-productive stance that will increase the abortion rate and cause unnecessary harm and suffering.
It has nothing to do with what Trump “likes”—that cheating rhetoric. It has to do with why PP is disliked: it’s an abortion mill, that hides behind the fact that it provides other services, so it can issue misleading statements about how abortions are just a “small part” of its activities. Try this, PP: stop doing abortions, and see if anyone objects to your funding. In 2013-2014, PP facilitated 327,653 abortions. Those aborted lives don’t care whether they were part of 3% of the PP services or 100%—they are just as dead. The women have a right to the abortions, and it should be a covered medical procedure. But PP can fund itself, it that’s what it wants to do.
Does it bother you, Jack, that the practical effect of your stance, if implemented, will be more abortions?
More hype from Chris.
I just love how these illogical lefties imply that abortions are the fault of everyone including government policy, thus exempting the penis of the males that impregnated the females causing the females to make a choice to have an abortion and end the life of an unborn human and that’s all due to engaging in unprotected sex regardless of how that unprotected sex took place. Yup, Chris it’s everyone else’s fault that, the participants are absolved of all responsibility.
Abortion advocates, and Chris, are promoting sex free of responsibility, just kill the kid. There you go Chris, how do you like it when hyperbole smears you.
Get off your pompous horse Chris, it’s not the fault of policy or the people that support the policy that got these females pregnant and as I said before and you’ve ignored, these programs will NOT cease to exist because the US government chooses not to fund specific organizations that promote ending the life of an unborn human as an option.
Zoltar, I’m not talking about “fault,” I’m talking about reality and what works. You can rant about how people are responsible for their own sex lives all you want, and I can guarantee you neither the abortion rate nor the unintended pregnancy rate will budge.
We all have to live with the social consequences of other people’s sexual decisions. People who have children they don’t want often end up in poverty. Their children often end up in jail. You will be paying for them one way or another. Paying for contraception is a lot cheaper than paying for welfare which is a lot cheaper than paying for prisons.
Desperate people are going to consider abortion as an option whether you like it or not. The most effective way to reduce the use of this option is taxpayer-funded contraception. This is not in dispute. Outlawing abortion doesn’t reduce it, it just makes it more dangerous, and ends with dead mothers as well as dead fetuses.
Planned Parenthood, through their contraception and education programs, have done more to reduce the abortion rate than the pro-life movement ever has or ever will.
More assertions with no verifiable proof. You’re losing this because the way progressives have conflated abortion and women’s health is cynical and dishonest. And we all know it. If women’s health is the issue remove abortion from it, then we can have an honest discussion about women’s health. Dead babies and women’s health should not be (actually cannot honestly be) conflated. And they wouldn’t be if abortion advocates were honest.
wyogranny wrote, “You’re losing this because…”
The hell you say!
Chris thinks he “winning” no matter what he says!
Of course that winning is based on how Liberal Critical Thinking works.
wyogranny:
More assertions with no verifiable proof.
I’d hoped that everyone here was informed enough that “proof” that higher access to contraception reduces the abortion rate would not be required.
But this is the best study on the topic:
What would happen if women at risk for unintended pregnancies received the birth control of their choice — especially the more effective kinds — at no cost?
The national abortion rate would plummet, according to a study conducted by researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology on Thursday.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/
And I’m not “conflating abortion with women’s health,” though I am conflating access to contraception with women’s health, because it’s an important part of it, as I’d wager any woman on this blog can back up. We were talking specifically about women in the third world who will be impacted by the executive order withdrawing funds to women’s health organizations that advocate for abortion, and I’ve already explained the health consequences of that, which are obvious.
If women’s health is the issue remove abortion from it, then we can have an honest discussion about women’s health.
As long as pregnancy has consequences for women’s health, abortion will be perfectly relevant to the question of women’s health. Your statement is about as ridiculous as saying “Let’s have an honest discussion about women’s health that doesn’t include any mention of pregnancy.”
I question the objectivity of any study that contains this in its title: “women at risk for unintended pregnancies . . ” The implication is that women are completely controlled by their biological urges or needs and cannot exercise any decision over those desires. Are we talking about fuylly autonomous beings capable of making decisions or entities enslaved by instinct?
jvb
Chris wrote, “I’d hoped that everyone here was informed enough that “proof” that higher access to contraception reduces the abortion rate…”
I just “love” how things seem to morph with you.
This isn’t about contraception it’s about abortion and the US government not funding organizations that promote abortion; they are not proposing that organizations that promote contraception get their US government dollar support stripped. Plus just because the US government doesn’t directly fund these abortion promoting organizations doesn’t mean that they cease to exist.
jvb:
I question the objectivity of any study that contains this in its title: “women at risk for unintended pregnancies . . ” The implication is that women are completely controlled by their biological urges or needs and cannot exercise any decision over those desires.
It implies no such thing. It implies reality. Women in poverty are much more likely to have an unintended pregnancy than higher-income women. That is a fact. Why do you think that is? Do you believe that women in poverty are “completely controlled by their biological urges,” and women of means or not? Or is it possible for you to consider larger social factors that impact peoples’ options or choices?
Are we talking about fuylly autonomous beings capable of making decisions or entities enslaved by instinct?
What I hear when people say this is “If you are poor, don’t have sex.” And I’m not even going to argue about whether that’s good advice. But it isn’t advice that human beings have ever consistently followed at any period in human history. It’s a utopian argument, not a reality-based one.
The reality-based argument is that we should subsidize contraception because it works. It brings down the abortion rate and the rate of unintended pregnancies. We know this. If your response to that is “So what? Not my problem, they should just stop having sex,” then you’re the one living in a fantasy land, not liberals.
Zoltar:
This isn’t about contraception it’s about abortion and the US government not funding organizations that promote abortion; they are not proposing that organizations that promote contraception get their US government dollar support stripped.
You’re ignoring the fact that in some parts of the world, the only organizations that promote contraception are also those that promote abortion.
In many of those same places, the only organizations that oppose abortion also oppose contraception.
Not funding organizations that promote abortion, in practice, means not funding organizations that promote contraception.
This leads to more abortions, more STD outbreaks, more unintended pregnancies, more poverty, etc. etc.
I don’t know how many more ways I can say this before it sinks in.
From Slate:
Even without the expansion, the global gag rule appears to have had deleterious effects—ones that even its proponents could not have intended. A 2011 paper by a group of Stanford researchers examined the policy’s impact in sub-Saharan Africa, and found that it was associated with an increase in abortions. The researchers could come to no definite conclusions about what explained this correlation, but they suggested, reasonably, that when N.G.O.s promoting contraception lost their funding (because they also talked about abortion) and curtailed their services, more women got pregnant without wanting to. Women who desperately do not want to bear another child will get abortions, whether they are legal or not, dangerous or not. (A legal abortion in the developed world, in contrast, is among the safest medical procedures there is, which is why deaths from abortions are so deeply unnecessary and so frustrating for people who work in public health.) That same year, Kelly Jones, a fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, studied the effect of the global gag rule on women in Ghana. (The fact that Democratic Presidents immediately rescind and Republicans immediately reinstate the policy makes for a helpful natural experiment.) The abortion rate in cities, where women had more health-care options, did not change, but in the villages the effect was dramatic: there had been a fifty-per-cent increase in abortions—two hundred thousand more each year—when the policy was in effect. “The policy-induced budget shortfalls reportedly forced NGOs to cut rural outreach services, reducing the availability of contraceptives in rural areas,” Jones wrote.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/trump_s_global_gag_rule_is_even_worse_than_it_seemed.html
Zoltar:
Plus just because the US government doesn’t directly fund these abortion promoting organizations doesn’t mean that they cease to exist.
This is naive, and untrue in many cases.
Chris wrote, “This is naive, and untrue in many cases.”
Naive, really?
Prove your claim right now by specifically identifying these “many cases” you speak of. They must be right there for easy access in the medial temporal lobe of your brain, so spit it out.
Zoltar, read the last sentence of the article I quoted –which I just realized is from the New Yorker, not Slate; I gave the wrong link. Here’s the right one:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trump-makes-the-global-gag-rule-on-abortion-even-worse
When the US does not fund such agencies, they do not have the resources to effectively do their jobs, meaning the abortion rate goes up. I don’t have specific examples of such agencies closing down entirely, but I don’t doubt this has happened.
I appreciate your answer but hold onto your hat, you earned something in this little debate.
A brief review…
I wrote, “just because the US government doesn’t directly fund these abortion promoting organizations doesn’t mean that they cease to exist.”
Chris said, “This is naive, and untrue in many cases.”
I wrote “Naive, really? Prove your claim right now by specifically identifying these “many cases” you speak of.”
Chris replies, “I don’t have specific examples of such agencies closing down entirely, but I don’t doubt this has happened.”
So Chris admits that he can’t prove the claim he made when he called me naive and then doubled down on his belief that it has happened in spite of no proof; of course a Liberal such as Chris couldn’t possible be incorrect. This is not unique to Chris, he has taken the tactics of the political left to heart.
Now why would Chris or any other Liberal make a claim calling another person naive when he have zero proof of said claim and zero proof that the other person is naive; it’s because Chris is using Liberal Critical Thinking to drive his Liberal Magical Thinking. Yes, it’s that simple.
Chris you earned yourself a great big bar room buddy FU for falsely stating that I’m naive and making an utterly false claim that you cannot prove. The fact is Chris is that you’re using Progressive Magical Thinking to parrot unprovable propaganda.
When will people like you learn?
“As long as pregnancy has consequences for women’s health, abortion will be perfectly relevant to the question of women’s health. Your statement is about as ridiculous as saying “Let’s have an honest discussion about women’s health that doesn’t include any mention of pregnancy.”
The insane idea that abortion is an acceptable, let alone desirable, form of birth control is a deeply dishonest and manipulative lie. Women’s health does not depend in any way on women choosing to kill their own offspring before they are born. Abortions are by definition unhealthy for every person involved. You might as well say that Men’s health depends on them having the right to kill a person who might cause them harm or inconvenience them. Women as viewed, portrayed, encouraged, and manipulated by progressives are selfish monsters. This is as far removed from respect as it’s possible to get.
Zoltar,
Chill the fuck out.
I admitted I didn’t have any examples at the ready that the US withdrawing funds from women’s health organizations around the world caused those organizations to close.
It is not wrong at all to continue to think you are naive to believe that this has never happened. I can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but I still find people who have deep religious faith and no doubts about his existence to be naive.
I have little doubt I could find examples of women’s health organizations around the world shutting down as a result of the US withdrawing funds. But given that, in this conversation, I have already been asked to provide evidence of some pretty obvious, uncontroversial assertions–that greater access to contraception reduces the abortion rate, that contraception is used for more than just one night stands, that pregnancy can endanger women’s health–I don’t much feel like finding evidence for the obvious to educate the ignorant at this point. The cluelessness about these issues that I’m seeing in this discussion honestly boggles my mind, and I think several people here need to make an effort to educate themselves further on this topic before mouthing off about it.
I did provide evidence that withdrawing funds makes these organizations function ineffectively, and has led to an increase in STDs in sub-Saharan Africa. You don’t seem to give a shit about this.
wyogranny:
The insane idea that abortion is an acceptable, let alone desirable, form of birth control is a deeply dishonest and manipulative lie.
I don’t believe abortion is an acceptable or desirable form of birth control.
I believe birth control is an acceptable and desirable form of birth control.
The executive order we are referring to withdraws funds from organizations that provide birth control if they also provide, refer or advocate for abortion.
This increases the abortion rate.
Do I need to sky-write this for you? What will it take for you to accept that the actions you are defending actually increase the abortion rate?
Women’s health does not depend in any way on women choosing to kill their own offspring before they are born.
Unless you literally have no idea that pregnancy can be dangerous, you know this isn’t always 100% true. Sometimes abortion is done for the health of the mother. This is rare in the United States; it is NOT rare in many other countries, where access to healthcare is much more limited and pregnancy is much more dangerous (though pregnancies in the US are still more often fatal than abortions in the US are). The executive order we are discussing limits this access even further. The consequences of this are not even hypothetical, but known and documented. I provided one source explaining this, but honestly, I’m amazed there are otherwise intelligent people here who don’t already know this.
Abortions are by definition unhealthy for every person involved.
Again, no. Sometimes abortions are done for the health of the mother. As far as I’m aware, the global gag order does not make exceptions in these cases.
You might as well say that Men’s health depends on them having the right to kill a person who might cause them harm or inconvenience them.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. If men had people living inside of their body, then yes, there would absolutely be cases where their health depended on them having the right to kill that person.
Women as viewed, portrayed, encouraged, and manipulated by progressives are selfish monsters.
No. If you think the only reason women have abortions is because they are selfish monsters, you are an asshole.
So, I know a woman who has one ovary. That ovary also has a number of cysts. Her doctor has told her that she may not be able to get pregnant, but there is a possibility that she could. If she does, there is a high chance that the pregnancy would be dangerous to her health and the health of the fetus. But she likely wouldn’t know for sure until past the first trimester.
Under the proposed policies of many pro-lifers, she would be unable to get an abortion until she was absolutely certain that the pregnancy was causing her or the fetus extreme health complications. She would be forced to carry this fetus until she knew for sure. She would have to live with that stress and uncertainty for months. She also has an anxiety disorder.
She has said that at this point in time, she would get an abortion pretty much the moment she knew she was pregnant. Early abortions, to me, seem more humane than late-term abortions, but under the laws pro-lifers propose, she’d likely have to get a late-term abortion.
If you tell me that abortion has nothing to do with women’s health, you are simply ignorant.
Chris wrote, “It is not wrong at all to continue to think you are naive to believe that this has never happened.”
You cannot cite even one instance to back up your claim of many cases, not one, and then you have the utter gal to stand by your other claim that I’m naive? Screw your bull shit Chris.
You’re either a consumed partisan hack trolling this blog, a complete idiot, or just a liar. Choose.
Global reproductive health organization PAI notes on its website that previous gag rules had a direct impact on HIV/AIDS prevention services around the world, and even shut down some clinics in Kenya and Ethiopia, which were often the only access some rural men and women had to contraceptives and education on HIV/AIDS.
http://www.self.com/story/trump-global-gag-rule-hiv-aids
The last time the Global Gag Rule was enacted, in 2001, the loss of U.S. funding was devastating to many family planning programs around the world. According to the Guttmacher Institute, organizations in Kenya that were providing vital healthcare to impoverished communities were forced to cut some of their activities and community outreach programs, while government-run clinics – which were exempt from the policy – “were never able to pick up the slack nor regain the trust of women turned away by the NGOs.” A 2014 report shows how reliant Kenya is on U.S. donors: USAID’s budget for health and HIV/AIDS in the country was equal to half of the Ministry of Health’s entire budget.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Voices/2017/02/03/Health-clinics-already-hit-by-catastrophic-global-gag-rule-on-abortion/8601486127659/
When in place, the global gag rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) has had enormous and harmful impacts on women’s lives:
In many communities, the most experienced providers of women’s health care were cut off — sometimes, the only provider of any essential health care in their community and clinics were shut down.
It also stifled the free speech of doctors and of advocates in the country and weakened civil society.
Multiple studies have come out looking at the impact of the global gag rule and they have found that the primary impact is lost access to contraceptives, and in turn, increased rates of abortion — which are primarily unsafe.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blog/trump-moves-to-restrict-access-to-reproductive-health-care-worldwide
“This is really an extreme executive order,” says Lori Adelman, director of global communications at Planned Parenthood, “perhaps the most extreme executive order ever issued in the global health space. It is more extreme than under any other Republican administration.”
Adelman continues, “We know, based on what we have seen over 40 years of global health work, that this will mean thousands of global health organizations will shut down, including ones that deal with Zika, HIV, and maternal health.”
“It is not,” she adds, “an exaggeration to call this catastrophic.”
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/26/14384260/global-gag-rule-trump-abortion-womens-health-global-health-world
There’s your evidence, which you could have easily found yourself, you arrogant, ignorant asshole.
I maintain that your previous stance that no health organizations had shut down due to the global gag order was incredibly naive.
I also maintain that you are defending and supporting policies that increase the abortion rate, and are thus estopped from pretending to care about abortion.
meant “women who have abortions.”
Wow. I mean:
women who have been persuaded that abortions are not just a good idea, but practically a rite of passage,
women who think other people should pay for the consequences of their own actions,
women who write that they wish they had had an abortion,
who post their abortions on social media,
women who dress in vagina suits and scream about getting no respect, women who can’t speak without being vulgar,
women who judge other women by whether or not they toe the progressive line,
women who excuse the most abhorrent behaviors and crimes if the person committing them speaks the correct doctrine,
women who excuse rape by men who say the right things,
women who betray other women who don’t believe the way they believe, women who insist that people don’t have the right to speak if they challenge their dearly held biases,
women who run abortion mills and profit from the tissues of the children they kill
We’ve all seen these women. They are monsters. What else could you call them?
And they all do what they do with the encouragement, blessing, and support of progressives. We judge people by how their beliefs and behaviors manifest. Progressive women are known by their works.
Chris this will likely be my last direct conversation with you.
To review again.
I wrote, “just because the US government doesn’t directly fund these abortion promoting organizations doesn’t mean that they cease to exist.”
Chris said, “This is naive, and untrue in many cases.”
I wrote “Naive, really? Prove your claim right now by specifically identifying these “many cases” you speak of.”
Chris replies, “I don’t have specific examples of such agencies closing down entirely, but I don’t doubt this has happened.”
Now you spouted this a evidence that organizations/agencies have closed down entirely…
Chris wrote, “Global reproductive health organization PAI notes on its website that previous gag rules had a direct impact on HIV/AIDS prevention services around the world, and even shut down some clinics in Kenya and Ethiopia.“
Then Chris was nice enough to present this rebuttal to my previous comments; “There’s your evidence, which you could have easily found yourself, you arrogant, ignorant asshole. I maintain that your previous stance that no health organizations had shut down due to the global gag order was incredibly naive.”
Chris must think everyone except himself is an idiot so he’s using Salem Witch Trial School of Thought to try and prove his nonsense. Guess what Chris, I’m not an idiot; however, the jury is still out on whether your an idiot or not, but I think I know what the verdict will be.
FACT: There is a clear difference between entire organizations/agencies shutting down and a few clinics under those organizations/agencies shutting down, but it appears that Chris is too partisan ignorant to comprehend that fact.
Again; Chris is either a consumed partisan hack trolling this blog, a complete idiot, or just a liar. Choose Chris and then you can politely fuck off.
P.S. It is not the duty of the United States government to provide healthcare, abortion, contraception, clinics, etc to the world with our tax dollars. Don’t these countries have an duty to do something themselves for their own people? Why don’t Liberals constantly demonize these foreign governments like you do Conservatives when Republicans stray from the “settled science” Liberal path to enlightenment, or do you absolve these countries of their responsibilities and dump it all on the USA and just blame the Republicans when things don’t go your way?
Zoltar–
Fine. You got me. I showed that clinics got shut down, not whole organizations.
I guess that makes all the women that weren’t treated as a result less dead.
P.S. It is not the duty of the United States government to provide healthcare, abortion, contraception, clinics, etc to the world with our tax dollars.
I asked Jack this earlier, but he didn’t answer. Maybe you will: Should we have just done nothing about the African AIDS crisis? Because that’s what I hear when you say we shouldn’t fund these types of organizations.
Anyway, earlier you said that this was not about contraception, but about abortion. Clearly you didn’t mean that, since now you are arguing that we shouldn’t fund contraception either.
Anyway, it has been aptly demonstrated that when we revoke funding from these organizations, STDs, unintended pregnancies and abortions all increase. It’s fine if you don’t care about that. But just admit that you don’t actually care whether the abortion rate goes up or not.
The general pro-life position on the gag order is that it should be supported as a way to oppose abortion. The fact that it actually increases the abortion rate makes that stance impossible to justify.
Don’t these countries have an duty to do something themselves for their own people?
Sure. With what money?
Why don’t Liberals constantly demonize these foreign governments like you do Conservatives when Republicans stray from the “settled science” Liberal path to enlightenment, or do you absolve these countries of their responsibilities and dump it all on the USA and just blame the Republicans when things don’t go your way?
Your question seems to be, “Why do liberals spend more time criticizing people in their own governments than they do criticizing foreign governments?” The answer to this seems rather obvious, doesn’t it?
Chris wrote, “Fine. You got me. I showed that clinics got shut down, not whole organizations.”
Meaning so what Zotar, what’s the big deal Zoltar, take a pill Zoltar, “chill the fuck out” Zotar, you’re an “arrogant, ignorant asshole” Zoltar, what’s wrong with you Zoltar, you’re such a meanie Zoltar; and then you try to shift it to more of your hyped up bull shit propaganda. As far as I can tell nothing you have written in this thread is anything but hyped up propaganda bull shit.
Again, I’ll let you choose.
Chris is either a fully consumed hypocritical political hack trolling this blog spouting political talking points with zero facts to back up the propaganda like an incredibly “gullible fool”, or a he’s idiot, or just a liar. Fact is that each one of those describes you Chris, but I bet you’re not man enough to choose just one.
Choose Chris and then go cast your bait lines in someone else’s pond; from this point on, I ain’t biting on any of your BS, but that won’t stop me from talking at you, just not to you. You’ve made your bed Umgwana.
“No. If you think the only reason women have abortions is because they are selfish monsters, you are an asshole.”
I didn’t say that. I said
“Women as viewed, portrayed, encouraged, and manipulated by progressives are selfish monsters. This is as far removed from respect as it’s possible to get.”
You did read ALL the words right?
Yes, I read all the words, which is how I knew that “Women as viewed, portrayed, encouraged, and manipulated by progressives” meant “women who have abortions.”
If that’s not what you meant, then what did you mean?
Oh, sorry I posted the above in the wrong place. It gets a little difficult to see where the reply buttons are.
Let’s backtrack.
The initial challenges assertion was that Trump’s policies are a danger to women’s health.
I believe that the evidence I’ve provided about the consequences of the global gag order prove that this assertion is true.
As you can see, the global gag order has led to increased rates of STDs, unintended pregnancies and abortions in villages in Africa. This has not been meaningfully disputed by anyone in this conversation, and instead we’ve gone off on tangeants where I’ve been asked to prove other, equally obvious and well documented assertions.
My question now is: does anyone give a shit about this? Do any of the people who initially challenged my statement that the global gag order harmed women care about the evidence of harm I’ve demonstrated here?
You did not demonstrate it, you said it.
Wyogranny,
Did you miss the articles I cited which explained that villages in Africa had higher rates of STDs, unintended pregnancies and abortions after the global gag order was last reinstated?
More important — more fun really, much more interesting! — is to stop before the question of woman’s rights and have willingness to look into its meaning. Myself I can see nothing in Trump that indicates that he is not as in-pro of woman rights as the general business community of America, and so I will not make any comment about it.
But from a philosophic and also sociological perspective, and even from a spiritual and religious perspective, the question of woman’s rights can be examined fruitfully.
Since my role — presumptuous I grant it — is to (try to) articulate the ‘alt-right’ to people who do not seem to understand it, my comment may be seen to have some value.
The alt-right therefor is genuinely and philosophically concerned about the effect within our various societies of Progressive-Marxist policies and the link-up between, for example, the civil rights activism and its militant branch, and the feminist movement and its militant anti-‘paternalist’ branch. When it happsn that a woman sees herself as a Marxist operative against the power of her mate and seeks to topple him over, or undermine the structures of society, and install herself as some sort of higher moral power, well, you get the picture.
This is the philosophical and social dimension — the dimension of greater intellectual understanding — of the larger question.
It absolutely and very obviously has to do with how women are seen, how women see themselves, and what ‘forces’ (economic, cultural, mercantile and social) are brought to bear on woman and woman-identity.
A large part of the Alt-Right position, as a philosophical school of thought, involves itself in examining these questions and issues. While no one (at least I do not think so!) could describe this effort as ‘evil’, perhaps someone, I know not who, might describe it as ‘Nazi-like’ and get good mileage from such fuel! 😉
I disagree. I think the Democrats displayed amazing grace, collegiality, and non-partisanship. The women wore nice white professional suits, with just enough style to give Ivanka some ideas for her Spring and Fall lines. Shelia Jackson-Lee permitted others to sit in her time-honored-and-respected aisle seats, giving those with more pressing issues a better chance to talk to President Trump. The Democrats showed huge courtesy to the Republicans vacating the Hall just as quickly as possible right as the speech ended so that the President could spend more quality time with the people he has selected to present his agenda to Congress, providing a perfect vehicle to iron out some of the details where teleconferences and other forms of meetings are too hard to organize, considering everyone’s very busy schedules. They also allowed the Republicans the professional dignity of showing their respect for the military and law enforcement by not intruding on the Republican applause. All-in-all, a win for the Democrats.
jvb
For anyone curious to improve their own sarcasm and satire writing skills, this is a consummate example.
Well done.
Agreed that johnburger2013’s post is brilliant. And it reminded me of another example of Democrat courtesy during the speech. Did anyone else note how, before applauding or standing in response to things said during the speech, many Democrats were seen looking around to be sure it was permissible to do so? What poise and restraint. Beautiful.
It is written that the same was true at the Polituro in the USSR under Stalin, where the wrong choice in applauding or stopping applauding once started could mean liquidation. Just a coincidence, I’m sure…
And yet there are regular commenters here, and the occasional paid one, who would write something very similar and mean it. Think about that.
By the way. When did women lose the right to vote? Did I miss something? I thought white attire was all the rage this Spring. Silly me.
jvb
The Democrat congress people who didn’t shake Trump’s hand were simply trying to make sure they get re-elected by their angry, nasty, peevish base. They don’t want to be seen doing anything to “legitimize” President Trump for fear they will be taken out in a primary challenge by someone further to their left. Can you imagine being a professional pol and having a picture of you shaking President Trump’s hand plastered all over your Democratic Congressional District when you’re trying to get re-elected?
Tooth for tooth…eye for eye…Has any government ever followed the higher law, or is it even practically possible? Thus the results!
I got pushed over my personal limit on social media last night by the reaction to the urgent national security incident of Conway having her feet on the couch. I was often really put off by Obama standing like a stork with one foot up on the desk in the Oval Office, but I didn’t go into hysterics and try to completely debase the man for it. No one did, that I can remember. Photos of Conway with rug burns photoshopped on her knees were the last straw. I calmly stated what I’ve been thinking all along, that this is a horrible way to treat anyone, and for women who are supposedly feminists to be doing it to another woman is hypocritical. That the way people are posting about the new administration says much more about those posting; that I’m ashamed that this is what people are stooping to, and that the degree of outrage depends completely not on actual deeds, but who is doing them. People they like get a slap on the wrist ( Obama’s ‘special Olympics comment, Biden’s convenience store remark) for remarks that would be career-ending for anyone on the right. I am so done.
I keep my account because it’s a really handy way to keep in touch with old friends and relatives in distant places. I won’t be reading or keeping up with anything political anymore.
Yup.
It’s the school kid mentality that’s come to the forefront, but was always there. The first two of the six basic truths about people are that people are biased and that people are partisan. When you were in school you would give the kids you didn’t like all kinds of crap, but if your friends gave grief to someone you didn’t like, you covered for them, maybe even lied for them.
Like maybe Joe pushed less-than-cool Melvin down the stairs, coupled with “Hahaha, did ya have a nice trip?” and you jumped right in with “See ya next fall!” but afterwards,” Oh no, no, Mr. Eckman, my friend Joe didn’t push Melvin down the stairs, you know Melvin, he’s always tripping over his own feet, that’s what happened.” And of course Mr. Eckman just marked the incident closed because he was three years away from retirement and didn’t need this turning into something where the school board might get involved.
However, if Melvin later retaliated by putting glue on Joe’s locker handle or, God forbid, fighting back, you were right there with chapter and verse of everything Melvin did, even embellishing a bit to make certain Melvin drew the maximum penalty.
At this point the left and right are no different than two factions of school kids who hate each other and prioritize hurting each other above all else. If that means situational ethics or moral relativism, it doesn’t bother them. If it means pointing up the other side’s wrongs and looking the other way on theirs, then so be it. As adults we won’t admit this mentality, but we make up other excuses, all of which boil down we’re right and the other side’s wrong, so nothing else matters.
‘ At this point the left and right are no different than two factions of school kids who hate each other and prioritize hurting each other above all else.’
And that’s shameful. They should be decades beyond this behavior.
And no, I didn’t engage in any of that in school. In grade school I was the smallest kid in the class, a bookish introvert with crooked teeth who unfortunately also used to get one of the best report cards in class, a perfect target. I was bullied continually. It was a crash course in how not to treat people, a crash course in how people feel when lies are spread about them. To this day I despise gossip and catty remarks, and am a stickler for fairness. That our government officials, and about half the population, haven’t progressed beyond that level is pretty dismal. While the hordes are busy typing and spreading memes about Conway ‘probably bl*****g Trump’ , that she looks like a witch, and that ‘ Drumpf’ is a Nazi, the world is probably laughing at the childishness of it all.
I know I feel ashamed at it all.
Jan Chapman was correct: the white worn by Democratic women was a reflection of the suffragette movement, not in direct protest of the election. Clinton’s wearing of white referenced the same thing during the campaign.
This isn’t to suggest that they’re not opposed to the election results, only that the white wasn’t specifically in response to the issue.
Suffragette Movement? I don’t mean to be obtuse, but when and where did women in the US lose the right to vote, the right to run for public office, or the right to hold property in their own names and for their own benefit?
According to http://www.merriam-webster.com, “suffrage” means:
1. a short intercessory prayer usually in a series;
2. a vote given in deciding a controverted question or electing a person for an office or trust, or
3. the right of voting.
I must have missed something but I think my wife voted in the last election, runs her own dental practice, and generally is free to do what she wants when she wants to do it, although somehow I still have to take the cars in for service. David Bowie has a song about living in suffragette city but I have never understood it, so . . . .
jvb
If this is you not meaning to be obtuse, jvb, I’d hate to see what it looks like when you are trying. SoM clearly said it was a “reflection” of the suffragette movement, not that women don’t have suffrage today.
Chris,
When I get obtuse, by golly, I am virtually equilateral, verging on isosceles.
However, “reflecting on or of the suffragette movement” confuses me. Aside from David Bowie (whose song I still don’t understand), I have no idea what is being reflected or promoted. Suffrage involved the right to vote; reflecting on that would mean we should be talking about Susan B. Anthony and whether her likeness should be enshrined on US currency. Conflating the penumbra of women’s rights under suffrage is a bridge too far, in my never-to-be-humble opinion. Perhaps the white dresses and suits should have been pink (Code Pink?) or some other color to reflect a part of a woman’s anatomy suffering the impact of Trump’s misogyny(after all we had lady parts on full display at the Women’s March for guidance), an accusation wholly baseless and without merit. That whole “grab ’em by the . . .” kerfuffle in absolutely no way demonstrated that Trump holds women in lesser esteem than men. It was a statement that some women may be attracted to powerful/successful men. And if you don’t believe that, you haven’t been honestly observing popular culture for the last 40 years. How many rubs masquerading as rock stars or entertainers were bouncing from town to town with groupies waiting in the wings simply because those entertainers were part of Def Leppard, Led Zeppelin, Frank Sinatra, or a whole host of politicians? Trump’s actions seem to demonstrate that he holds women in the highest of esteem. For the love of Pete (Townsend?), his campaign manager is KellyAnne Conway, a lawyer. Last time I checked, she was the first woman to run a successful presidential campaign, and now sits in the Oval Office (especially with her feet up under her backside, where she clearly showed unmitigated contempt for Civil Rights icons are there to have a photo taken with the President). Moreover, his companies have women in the highest positions of authority. Some misogyny.
As an aside, I am not sure when and where abortion became the sacred cow of the Democrat Party where there is absolutely no ability to discuss it, other than to open the floodgates on further and more federal funding domestically and internationally: “Some funding is good, more is required and demanded”. And don’t give that nonsense that abortion is simply an element of women’s healthcare. That is Leftist co-opting of language, nothing more.
jvb
Mr. Burger2013: You’re inane commentary is nonsensical. I was simply pointing out that it was a general symbol of solidarity with women and not specifically Ms. Clinton. I made no other suggestion that the dress-code was necessary, appropriate, or a good idea.
In other words, you’re talking to yourself.
Son of Maimonides,
Inane commentary? I thought it was pithy, bordering on whimsical.
jvb
Just facts.
Some people like to lump all immigrants together. Some people want to lump all abortion together.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 66 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 92 percent are performed within the first 13 weeks. Only 1.2 percent occur at or after 21 weeks (CDC, 2013).
In favor of Spartan’s view of Trump’s political leanings – at least, once upon a different time, I agree in that in one of the several kinds of idiotic, illogical or perplexing statements he makes on a regular basis, he may well have simply been mouthing what he thought his supporters wanted.
Tim Russert asked the future Republican nominee on Meet the Press in 1999. “Look, I am very pro-choice,” said Trump, answering that no, he would not ban partial-birth abortions.
It took him [via his uncredited ghostwriter(s)] 16 years to reverse that statement … after learning that back in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal version [Gonzales v. Carhart]. That law, which applies across the country, bans “partial-birth” abortion except when the woman’s life is endangered.
Not wishing to incur Jack’s wrath, I will not reiterate more than once that at least that exception to allowing abortion IS legal, apart from Roe vs. Wade, and *ducking under the desk before the cloud mushroom appears* is ethical.
Might this be the longest “Very Brief Observation” in Ethics Alarms history?
Probably..
However, not only are there other surgical options with less likelihood of legal repercussions, but the variation upholding the law in 2007 regarding the woman’s life did not specify exception of a “danger to women’s health.”
Sorry. Forgot that part.
Historical note: This post now has the highest Comments to length of post ratio in Ethics Alarms history!
Carry on.
Even more than Applebee’s Waitress?
199 word post, 191 comments. The waitress: 700 word post, 353 comments.
Sweet. But should you subtract out the percentage of this that is ultimately just another pro-abortion vs anti-abortion debate? That’s always good for a lengthy argument that could arise anywhere.
Heck, no. It wouldn’t be an Ethics Alarms Commentary if it didn’t have at least one non-sequiturial thread.
. . . like a real conversation among strangers.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, the First Lady of the United States, and Citizens of America:
Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our Nation’s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains. Recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a Nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms.
This seems like something Leftwingers would support.
Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty and justice — in an unbroken chain all the way down to the present.
That torch is now in our hands. And we will use it to light up the world. I am here tonight to deliver a message of unity and strength, and it is a message deeply delivered from my heart.
A new chapter of American Greatness is now beginning.
A new national pride is sweeping across our Nation.
And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp.
What we are witnessing today is the Renewal of the American Spirit.
Our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead.
All the nations of the world — friend or foe — will find that America is strong, America is proud, and America is free.
In 9 years, the United States will celebrate the 250th anniversary of our founding — 250 years since the day we declared our Independence.
It will be one of the great milestones in the history of the world.
But what will America look like as we reach our 250th year? What kind of country will we leave for our children?
Standard Fare that both parties dish out and eat up. So this seems like something the Leftwingers would support.
I will not allow the mistakes of recent decades past to define the course of our future.
So at a minimum he includes the mistakes of Bush the Younger, something that the Leftwing would support, given that they still blame Bush for most problems.
For too long, we’ve watched our middle class shrink as we’ve exported our jobs and wealth to foreign countries.
I can’t count how many times the left runs the “loss of the middle class” buzzword. So check that block for something Leftwingers would support.
We’ve financed and built one global project after another, but ignored the fates of our children in the inner cities of Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit — and so many other places throughout our land.
Ditto this.
We’ve defended the borders of other nations, while leaving our own borders wide open, for anyone to cross — and for drugs to pour in at a now unprecedented rate.
You mention as a specific, Trump’s desire to “build a wall” isn’t a “left wing” policy. Well great, that’s a sneaky trick. No, it was a Left Wing policy to support immigration reform and tougher enforcement except only recenlty in a cynical move to curry and ultimately heist some 11-15 million votes with a hopeful quick road to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Just because the Left disagrees with the *specific* proposal to build a wall, don’t pretend that divorces the Left from its traditional stances. This was a weak rebuttal on your part.
So, dirty politics aside, the Left has generally believed in a controlled and limited immigration system. The modern contructs in opposition to that have little to do with principle and more to do with vote-buying.
And we’ve spent trillions of dollars overseas, while our infrastructure at home has so badly crumbled.
Yet one more item the Left can agree with.
Then, in 2016, the earth shifted beneath our feet. The rebellion started as a quiet protest, spoken by families of all colors and creeds — families who just wanted a fair shot for their children, and a fair hearing for their concerns.
But then the quiet voices became a loud chorus — as thousands of citizens now spoke out together, from cities small and large, all across our country.
Finally, the chorus became an earthquake — and the people turned out by the tens of millions, and they were all united by one very simple, but crucial demand, that America must put its own citizens first … because only then, can we truly MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
Pabulum, but nothing that seems openly hostile to a Leftwing message.
Dying industries will come roaring back to life.
This seems agreeable to the Left. Maybe not. Who knows these days.
Heroic veterans will get the care they so desperately need.
Again, this seems agreeable to the Left.
Our military will be given the resources its brave warriors so richly deserve.
Alright! Finally something that could probably be decidedly partisan and opposable by the Left.
Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways gleaming across our beautiful land.
Nice big fat spending project. Check mark the Left-block for agreeability.
Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately, stop.
Oooo, this one is iffy. We’ll call this one a partisan stance.
And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety, and opportunity.
The Left does still purport to agree with something like this as an objective right?
Above all else, we will keep our promises to the American people.
Yep, bipartisan buzz.
It’s been a little over a month since my inauguration, and I want to take this moment to update the Nation on the progress I’ve made in keeping those promises.
Since my election, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, Softbank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart, and many others, have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs.
Hyperbolic as well as meaningless if all they’ve done is “announce”, but then again, is this really disagreeable to the Left? And of course I always avoid crediting presidents with much “economic boosting”. The government can do loads to hamper and harm the economy, but scant little to improve it other than getting out of the way. So any boost in this regards probably has little to do with Trump and more to do with individual business decisions that are purely coincidental to his claims.
The stock market has gained almost three trillion dollars in value since the election on November 8th, a record.
I’d love to see the math.
We’ve saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of the fantastic new F-35 jet fighter, and will be saving billions more dollars on contracts all across our Government.
Whether or not Trump achieved this, I would assume Leftwingers would be aggreeable with lowering costs of contracts. Right?
We have placed a hiring freeze on non-military and non-essential Federal workers.
Oooo. I’ll grant this one is another right-winger heavy stance. But even at 1 for sure and 2 iffies, almost everything Trump has discussed is a big-government spending action or at least a “vision statement” that ought be aggreeable to the Left. So far your assertion that Trump isn’t a moderate isn’t holding up well. But let’s continue.
We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a 5 year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials — and a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.
Though what he enacted is just a weak version of his promise, this doesn’t seem to go contrary to Left wing hopes.
We have undertaken a historic effort to massively reduce job‑crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every Government agency; imposing a new rule which mandates that for every 1 new regulation, 2 old regulations must be eliminated; and stopping a regulation that threatens the future and livelihoods of our great coal miners.
Ok, this leans Right (on the surface). But of course, the 1 new regulation may just be a super-well worded version of 5 old regulations, leading merely to a net gain of 3. Something like this would need heavy oversight by Congress.
We have cleared the way for the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines — thereby creating tens of thousands of jobs — and I’ve issued a new directive that new American pipelines be made with American steel.
This probably is also uniquely Right wing in favor – in terms of vision at least. In practice, since Obama stalled on this, most of the support tasks that could have been American jobs were sourced to other countries and already complete. Though final assembly and installation would be American jobs. Just less due to inane waffling by the previous administration.
We have withdrawn the United States from the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership.
With the help of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we have formed a Council with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams.
That sounds like legitimate anti-women stuff right…oh. wait, I misread that bit. Sounds peachy to me as a vision statement if I were a Leftist. Of course a libertarian would probably say – give equal opportunity and let us all sink or swim based on our actions.
To protect our citizens, I have directed the Department of Justice to form a Task Force on Reducing Violent Crime.
Whatever the hell that means. Just like the Patriot Act and increased domestic surveillance, it sounds like an increase of federal power, which Lefties are crying about now, but sure as hell embraced with aplomb when they were in power. So, in practical terms, this would probably be agreeable with Leftists.
I have further ordered the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, along with the Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread across our Nation.
Issues? Possibly an opening to further government overreach.
We will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth — and we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted.
Government paying to solve people’s problems. Left wing check mark.
At the same time, my Administration has answered the pleas of the American people for immigration enforcement and border security. By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone. We want all Americans to succeed — but that can’t happen in an environment of lawless chaos. We must restore integrity and the rule of law to our borders.
Already addressed. Only until a recent un-principled bid for free votes, the Left does believe in this.
For that reason, we will soon begin the construction of a great wall along our southern border. It will be started ahead of schedule and, when finished, it will be a very effective weapon against drugs and crime.
Disagree with the technique all you want, the broader policy of border enforcement has been and is agreeable to Left wing ideology.
As we speak, we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens. Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight and as I have promised.
Good.
To any in Congress who do not believe we should enforce our laws, I would ask you this question: what would you say to the American family that loses their jobs, their income, or a loved one, because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?
Pablum.
Our obligation is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States. We are also taking strong measures to protect our Nation from Radical Islamic Terrorism.
According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted for terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country. We have seen the attacks at home — from Boston to San Bernardino to the Pentagon and yes, even the World Trade Center.
We have seen the attacks in France, in Belgium, in Germany and all over the world.
It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur. Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values.
We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America — we cannot allow our Nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.
That is why my Administration has been working on improved vetting procedures, and we will shortly take new steps to keep our Nation safe — and to keep out those who would do us harm.
Jack has trounced you on this before. It’s a responsible stance, whether or not you agree with the implemented technique. This is probably right wing fare. Where are we now, 2 solids, 2 iffies and the *several dozen* other bullet points either happily bipartisan (or ought to be) or Left wing positions?
As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS — a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women, and children of all faiths and beliefs. We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.
Good, so a continuation of an Obama vision. But bipartisan.
I have also imposed new sanctions on entities and individuals who support Iran’s ballistic missile program, and reaffirmed our unbreakable alliance with the State of Israel.
Ooooo, another iffy one, but this definitely leans right wing.
Finally, I have kept my promise to appoint a Justice to the United States Supreme Court — from my list of 20 judges — who will defend our Constitution.
Not to be snarky, but given the Left’s general disregard for anything but a highly malleable view of the Constitution, it’s hard not to call this one a Right wing opinion. But, to be fair and to stifle all my internal protests telling myself, “Me, dude, they don’t even care about the 1st Amendment anymore”, I will go ahead and stay that defense of the Constitution is … a …. is…. a bipartisan value.
I am honored to have Maureen Scalia with us in the gallery tonight. Her late, great husband, Antonin Scalia, will forever be a symbol of American justice. To fill his seat, we have chosen Judge Neil Gorsuch, a man of incredible skill, and deep devotion to the law. He was confirmed unanimously to the Court of Appeals, and I am asking the Senate to swiftly approve his nomination.
Good.
Tonight, as I outline the next steps we must take as a country, we must honestly acknowledge the circumstances we inherited.
Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.
Over 43 million people are now living in poverty, and over 43 million Americans are on food stamps.
More than 1 in 5 people in their prime working years are not working.
We have the worst financial recovery in 65 years.
In the last 8 years, the past Administration has put on more new debt than nearly all other Presidents combined.
We’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved, and we’ve lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
Our trade deficit in goods with the world last year was nearly $800 billion dollars.
And overseas, we have inherited a series of tragic foreign policy disasters.
Well, the exact precision of any of those claims is questionable. But, given the practice of our previous and left wing President, it does seem to be a Left-wing policy to blame predecessors. So, Trump falls into your camp on that one.
He gets to do this for about 2 more months, then he better quit because it’s all his ball game at that point.
Solving these, and so many other pressing problems, will require us to work past the differences of party. It will require us to tap into the American spirit that has overcome every challenge throughout our long and storied history.
But to accomplish our goals at home and abroad, we must restart the engine of the American economy — making it easier for companies to do business in the United States, and much harder for companies to leave.
Right now, American companies are taxed at one of the highest rates anywhere in the world.
This is true.
My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone. At the same time, we will provide massive tax relief for the middle class.
Right wing. Good.
We must create a level playing field for American companies and workers.
Currently, when we ship products out of America, many other countries make us pay very high tariffs and taxes — but when foreign companies ship their products into America, we charge them almost nothing.
I just met with officials and workers from a great American company, Harley-Davidson. In fact, they proudly displayed five of their magnificent motorcycles, made in the USA, on the front lawn of the White House.
At our meeting, I asked them, how are you doing, how is business? They said that it’s good. I asked them further how they are doing with other countries, mainly international sales. They told me — without even complaining because they have been mistreated for so long that they have become used to it — that it is very hard to do business with other countries because they tax our goods at such a high rate. They said that in one case another country taxed their motorcycles at 100 percent.
They weren’t even asking for change. But I am.
I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.
The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned that the “abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government [will] produce want and ruin among our people.”
Lincoln was right — and it is time we heeded his words. I am not going to let America and its great companies and workers, be taken advantage of anymore.
I don’t think the Right or the Left has any consistent stance on foreign trade. So this is a toss up.
I am going to bring back millions of jobs. Protecting our workers also means reforming our system of legal immigration. The current, outdated system depresses wages for our poorest workers, and puts great pressure on taxpayers.
Nations around the world, like Canada, Australia and many others — have a merit-based immigration system. It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially. Yet, in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon. According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs America’s taxpayers many billions of dollars a year.
Switching away from this current system of lower-skilled immigration, and instead adopting a merit-based system, will have many benefits: it will save countless dollars, raise workers’ wages, and help struggling families — including immigrant families — enter the middle class.
On principle this is fine and probably Right Wing, given the Left’s current made up attitude of “open the flood gates because the random poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty is national policy”.
I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security, and to restore respect for our laws.
Empty vision statements… so not really aggreeable or disagreeable with Left OR Right.
If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.
Another Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, initiated the last truly great national infrastructure program — the building of the interstate highway system. The time has come for a new program of national rebuilding.
America has spent approximately six trillion dollars in the Middle East, all this while our infrastructure at home is crumbling. With this six trillion dollars we could have rebuilt our country — twice. And maybe even three times if we had people who had the ability to negotiate.
A big-fat, likely pork-filled spending plan? That has Left-wing written ALL over it. If it’s to boost the Defense-justified interstate system, then that has Right-wing written all over it. Protests? I’m sure you’ll have some.
To launch our national rebuilding, I will be asking the Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in the infrastructure of the United States — financed through both public and private capital — creating millions of new jobs.
This effort will be guided by two core principles: Buy American, and Hire American.
Left and Right… phenomenal.
Tonight, I am also calling on this Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better Healthcare.
Mandating every American to buy government-approved health insurance was never the right solution for America. The way to make health insurance available to everyone is to lower the cost of health insurance, and that is what we will do.
Obamacare premiums nationwide have increased by double and triple digits. As an example, Arizona went up 116 percent last year alone. Governor Matt Bevin of Kentucky just said Obamacare is failing in his State — it is unsustainable and collapsing.
One third of counties have only one insurer on the exchanges — leaving many Americans with no choice at all.
Remember when you were told that you could keep your doctor, and keep your plan?
We now know that all of those promises have been broken.
Obamacare is collapsing — and we must act decisively to protect all Americans. Action is not a choice — it is a necessity.
So I am calling on all Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to work with us to save Americans from this imploding Obamacare disaster.
Yep, it is right wing to oppose the government grab of the medical insurance industry. But, when you hear his “details” it becomes somewhat more left wing, as “repeal and replace” really seems to be “remotely refine”.
Here are the principles that should guide the Congress as we move to create a better healthcare system for all Americans:
First, we should ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage, and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the healthcare exchanges.
Secondly, we should help Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use of tax credits and expanded Health Savings Accounts — but it must be the plan they want, not the plan forced on them by the Government.
Thirdly, we should give our great State Governors the resources and flexibility they need with Medicaid to make sure no one is left out.
Fourthly, we should implement legal reforms that protect patients and doctors from unnecessary costs that drive up the price of insurance — and work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs and bring them down immediately.
All goal-statements, with no techniques to achieve them. And alot are goal-statements that probably won’t go into effect without more government imposition on the market.
Check mark the left box.
Finally, the time has come to give Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across State lines — creating a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring cost way down and provide far better care.
Ooooo sweet, something that sounds right wing.
Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed. Every problem can be solved. And every hurting family can find healing, and hope.
Our citizens deserve this, and so much more — so why not join forces to finally get it done? On this and so many other things, Democrats and Republicans should get together and unite for the good of our country, and for the good of the American people.
Filler.
My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave,
Another left wing dream – for companies to be compelled to pay for the personal decisions of their employees.
to invest in women’s health, and to promote clean air and clear water, and to rebuild our military and our infrastructure.
True love for our people requires us to find common ground, to advance the common good, and to cooperate on behalf of every American child who deserves a brighter future.
Empty goal statements. No meat.
An incredible young woman is with us this evening who should serve as an inspiration to us all.
Today is Rare Disease day, and joining us in the gallery is a Rare Disease Survivor, Megan Crowley. Megan was diagnosed with Pompe Disease, a rare and serious illness, when she was 15 months old. She was not expected to live past 5.
On receiving this news, Megan’s dad, John, fought with everything he had to save the life of his precious child. He founded a company to look for a cure, and helped develop the drug that saved Megan’s life. Today she is 20 years old — and a sophomore at Notre Dame.
Megan’s story is about the unbounded power of a father’s love for a daughter.
But our slow and burdensome approval process at the Food and Drug Administration keeps too many advances, like the one that saved Megan’s life, from reaching those in need.
If we slash the restraints, not just at the FDA but across our Government, then we will be blessed with far more miracles like Megan.
Reducing regulations that stifle competition and innovation are right wing. Add another notch to the paltry quantity of “right wing” check blocks.
In fact, our children will grow up in a Nation of miracles.
But to achieve this future, we must enrich the mind — and the souls — of every American child.
Wow, what a smooth transition.
Education is the civil rights issue of our time.
I am calling upon Members of both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth, including millions of African-American and Latino children.
These families should be free to choose the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school that is right for them.
Joining us tonight in the gallery is a remarkable woman, Denisha Merriweather. As a young girl, Denisha struggled in school and failed third grade twice. But then she was able to enroll in a private center for learning, with the help of a tax credit scholarship program. Today, she is the first in her family to graduate, not just from high school, but from college. Later this year she will get her masters degree in social work.
School choice and increasing competition in the market of education are right wing.
We want all children to be able to break the cycle of poverty just like Denisha.
But to break the cycle of poverty, we must also break the cycle of violence.
Wow, two smooth transitions in rapid succession.
The murder rate in 2015 experienced its largest single-year increase in nearly half a century.
In Chicago, more than 4,000 people were shot last year alone — and the murder rate so far this year has been even higher.
This is not acceptable in our society.
Every American child should be able to grow up in a safe community, to attend a great school, and to have access to a high-paying job.
But to create this future, we must work with — not against — the men and women of law enforcement.
We must build bridges of cooperation and trust — not drive the wedge of disunity and division.
Police and sheriffs are members of our community. They are friends and neighbors, they are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters — and they leave behind loved ones every day who worry whether or not they’ll come home safe and sound.
We must support the incredible men and women of law enforcement.
This is true, but I don’t think there is a definitive ideological divide on this. I know there is a knee jerk opposition to the “authority” of the police from the Left and a knee jerk support of the “authority” of police from the Right, but both sides I think fail to really evaluate the problems pushing the divide between police and community from a principled stance.
And we must support the victims of crime.
I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American Victims. The office is called VOICE — Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement. We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media, and silenced by special interests.
Joining us in the audience tonight are four very brave Americans whose government failed them.
Their names are Jamiel Shaw, Susan Oliver, Jenna Oliver, and Jessica Davis.
Jamiel’s 17-year-old son was viciously murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member, who had just been released from prison. Jamiel Shaw Jr. was an incredible young man, with unlimited potential who was getting ready to go to college where he would have excelled as a great quarterback. But he never got the chance. His father, who is in the audience tonight, has become a good friend of mine.
Also with us are Susan Oliver and Jessica Davis. Their husbands — Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver and Detective Michael Davis — were slain in the line of duty in California. They were pillars of their community. These brave men were viciously gunned down by an illegal immigrant with a criminal record and two prior deportations.
Sitting with Susan is her daughter, Jenna. Jenna: I want you to know that your father was a hero, and that tonight you have the love of an entire country supporting you and praying for you.
To Jamiel, Jenna, Susan and Jessica: I want you to know — we will never stop fighting for justice. Your loved ones will never be forgotten, we will always honor their memory.
Finally, to keep America Safe we must provide the men and women of the United States military with the tools they need to prevent war and — if they must — to fight and to win.
Jack has already disassembled your protest to this bit. So I won’t rehash it.
I am sending the Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the Defense sequester, and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.
My budget will also increase funding for our veterans.
Our veterans have delivered for this Nation — and now we must deliver for them.
The challenges we face as a Nation are great. But our people are even greater.
And none are greater or braver than those who fight for America in uniform.
Yeah great. Increase defense spending. Yay right wing buzz word. Is it justifiable spending increases?
We are blessed to be joined tonight by Carryn Owens, the widow of a U.S. Navy Special Operator, Senior Chief William “Ryan” Owens. Ryan died as he lived: a warrior, and a hero — battling against terrorism and securing our Nation.
I just spoke to General Mattis, who reconfirmed that, and I quote, “Ryan was a part of a highly successful raid that generated large amounts of vital intelligence that will lead to many more victories in the future against our enemies.” Ryan’s legacy is etched into eternity. For as the Bible teaches us, there is no greater act of love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. Ryan laid down his life for his friends, for his country, and for our freedom — we will never forget him.
Interestingly enough, those wailing about the Yemen raid would probably wail just as much if Trump had simply followed the Obama policy of Droning the Bejeezus out of the Yemen target. Given the scenario of suspected terrorists, Obama’s typical response was to arbitrarily blow the targets to hell and be done with it. A practice I guarantee would raise the ire of the same people we see crying crocodile tears today, if Trump had done that. What does Trump do? Sends guys in surgically to avoid the Obamian sledgehammer approach. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
To those allies who wonder what kind of friend America will be, look no further than the heroes who wear our uniform.
Our foreign policy calls for a direct, robust and meaningful engagement with the world. It is American leadership based on vital security interests that we share with our allies across the globe.
We strongly support NATO, an alliance forged through the bonds of two World Wars that dethroned fascism, and a Cold War that defeated communism.
But our partners must meet their financial obligations.
And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that.
We expect our partners, whether in NATO, in the Middle East, or the Pacific — to take a direct and meaningful role in both strategic and military operations, and pay their fair share of the cost.
Good. Strong alliances with like-minded nations are GOOD. If Trump would just declare that we bail on the UN maybe we could really see something useful occur.
The rest of the speech was typical politician fare.
Chris, in no way can you take from this that Trump is anything other than a moderate.
Wow. I had a ridiculous day yesterday, and my plans to go over the speech were rendered into fantasy. Thank you so much for doing this.
I’d conclude, as I had before, that the President is essentially devoid of ideology, yet another way in which he is the anti-Obama. He reaches a moderate stance because he just looks at issues as problems, to be solved, and because most problems have many potential solution, he has no difficulty moving from one plan to another without detecting any inconsistency.
This is trickier for a manager/leader than having a linear constant running through the natural chaos of human events. It is also a much better leadership method than throwing out half the possible solutions to a problem because some abstract philosopher or fanatic activist wouldn’t approve. An Ideologues allows other minds, long dead, to have made up his (or hers) regarding an issue before the particular version of it at hand even existed. There is no special virtue in this; in fact, it’s stupid.
Jack:
He reaches a moderate stance because he just looks at issues as problems, to be solved, and because most problems have many potential solution, he has no difficulty moving from one plan to another without detecting any inconsistency.
I’m still baffled as to what these “moderate stances” are supposed to be. The best tex could come up with before I stopped reading were all some variation of “he likes America, doesn’t everyone like America?” with no specifics whatsoever.
Moderate: reducing excessive regulations. Moderate: Some path to citizenship for some immigrants. Moderate: Not opposing voter ID laws. Moderate: Not opposing same-sex marriage. Moderate: repair to ACA without repealing it. Moderate: reviewing vetting procedures for immigrants from terrorist-teeming countries. Moderate; being willing to engage in educational reform.
It’s only been less than a month.
Trump still wants to repeal the ACA, and I don’t know why you think that’s changed. His plan for reducing excessive regulations is extreme and silly. His other actions on immigration make the “path to citizenship” rhetoric nothing but talk at this point. He pledged during the campaign to appoint a justice who would repeal Obergefell, so his stance on same-sex marriage now is just practicality. His plan to review vetting procedures for immigrants is non-existent at this point, and what he’s doing in the meantime (the travel ban) is extreme. His “education reform” is being led by an extremist.
Really, Jack, this is ridiculous. The way you’re framing things, anyone could be called a moderate.
“Trump still wants to repeal the ACA, and I don’t know why you think that’s changed.”
Are you kidding? You literally just said that “vision statements” are meaningless compared to what he’s actually pushing in terms of tactics…
What he’s *actually* pushing for changes *really* results in a minor modification to Obamacare.
tex, I have no idea what you are talking about at this point. Jack said Trump doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare. I pointed out that this is factually untrue. You don’t even seem to be arguing with this, and are instead bizarrely implying that repealing the ACA is a “vision goal” rather than a “tactic” and that repealing it is a “minor modification?”
You consistently define terms differently from 90% of the public and then get pissy when others don’t get what you’re saying. Why do you find this an effective way of communicating with people?
And this will have a reply later. Since I’ll have to get back to basics it may be lengthy but we’re too busy this morning for me to tackle it.
But in summary- no I don’t use words incorrectly. Yes you did assert a view that totally contracted with your commentary.
I learned long ago that posting at 2 am is a gamble unless you are completely lucid. I’m toying with the possibility that you may reevaluate your responses with a clear head today.
Either way, you will get a response to this attempted diversion later.
You said: “Visions and goals don’t mean shit, tex. His specific plans for achieving those goals are neither moderate nor left wing.”
Cool. Now you said “Trump still wants to repeal the ACA” based purely on his generalized rhetoric.
Yet, “his specific plans for achieving those goals” amount to a mere modification of the ACA…not a repeal.
Your own words hang you here. I can’t help that you have no idea what I’m talking about. These are your own assertions.
And yes, I’ll acknowledge that the concept of hanging terminology related to describing public policy on a continuum can seem esoteric, but it is fully valid. You do it every single day of your own life. You and your friends say “We’re hungry, let’s eat”. Later your friends and you decide “Let’s go to a Steak House”. Eventually you say “Let’s do Texas Roadhouse” (because face it, their complementary rolls and butter settle the issue). At some point you argue internally over “I want the 16 ounce T-bone” or “I want the NY Strip”.
I know you can see the differences in each of those levels of “planning and policy”. That’s all I’m describing here when I say “Vision”, “Strategy” and “Tactics”. I’ll admit those specific terms come from my military back ground, but they are *fully applicable* to public policy as well.
You consistently pick his plans from the detailed end of the spectrum and hope they refute his visions from the generalized end of the spectrum. This is a fallacy.
“You consistently define terms differently from 90% of the public and then get pissy when others don’t get what you’re saying.”
No, but I do get frustrated when I’ve explained what I’m saying and you play dumb.
tex, it was only 11 in my time zone when I posted that, and I was perfectly lucid.
Cool. Now you said “Trump still wants to repeal the ACA” based purely on his generalized rhetoric.
Yes, when people say they want to repeal the ACA, I believe they want to repeal the ACA. I’m weird like that.
Yet, “his specific plans for achieving those goals” amount to a mere modification of the ACA…not a repeal.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
And yes, I’ll acknowledge that the concept of hanging terminology related to describing public policy on a continuum can seem esoteric, but it is fully valid. You do it every single day of your own life. You and your friends say “We’re hungry, let’s eat”. Later your friends and you decide “Let’s go to a Steak House”. Eventually you say “Let’s do Texas Roadhouse” (because face it, their complementary rolls and butter settle the issue). At some point you argue internally over “I want the 16 ounce T-bone” or “I want the NY Strip”.
Terrible work here.
“We’re hungry, let’s eat” is not analogous to “I will repeal the ACA.” It’s analogous to “We need improvements to our healthcare system; now let’s make them.”
A better analogy would be a group of diners starting with the premise “We’re vegetarians, let’s find a place to eat,” and then you pointing at them and telling me “What makes you think they don’t eat meat? They eat food, don’t they? They just said they were going to find a place to eat. I don’t see any reason why a meat-eater would assume these people don’t eat meat, other than bias.”
That’s what you’re doing when you insist that Trump is a moderate. It’s a ridiculous, indefensible stance.
It was a perfectly apt analogy for what I was describing.
You can keep asserting you weren’t arguing against a general by arguing against a specific all day til you are blue in the face.
You were.
But you are hopeless on this, so we’ll move on.
“Yet, “his specific plans for achieving those goals” amount to a mere modification of the ACA…not a repeal.
Please provide evidence for this claim.“
Here’s an enumerated list from Vox:
1) “First, we should ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions have access to coverage, and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the health care exchanges.”
So no change there.
2) “Secondly, we should help Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use of tax credits and expanded health savings accounts — but it must be the plan they want, not the plan forced on them by the government.”
Which is literally how Obama sold Obamacare: that you wouldn’t lose the plan you wanted. Except that was going to happen. How Trump is going to fix this by not changing the problems causing this is just magic nonsense.
So no change there.
3) “Thirdly, we should give our great state governors the resources and flexibility they need with Medicaid to make sure no one is left out.”
Essentially this grants more power to continue the ACA just within state bounds by what, essentially increasing Medicaid.
That sounds like a Left-friendly modification to me.
Uh oh, your stance is getting shakier.
4) “Fourthly, we should implement legal reforms that protect patients and doctors from unnecessary costs that drive up the price of insurance — and work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs, and bring them down immediately.”
This is essentially one of those vague “vision statements” that does little to imply how this will be achieved. Real right-wingers would demand more free market, left-wingers would demand more government subsidies all for the same goal.
So, barring clarification, you can’t say much about Trump’s stance here.
5) “Finally, the time has come to give Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across state lines — creating a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring cost way down and provide far better care.”
Ok, increasing Competition and the Free Market…there’s a right wing adjustment there.
You see the burden is on you for asserting earlier that broad goal statements are meaningless compared to the details pushed and your most recent assertion that you believe his broad goal statement despite the details he’s pushed.
But, by all means keep trying to tap dance out of this.
So, let’s see if I understand your argument here:
1) Trump says he wants to repeal the ACA.
2) Trump has said we need to do certain things in regard to healthcare that are already done by the ACA.
3) Therefore, Trump doesn’t really want to repeal the ACA, and anyone who says he wants to repeal the ACA is completely illogical.
Wow.
It’s one thing to make such a ridiculous argument. It’s quite another to be so goddamn smug about it.
smug
You know, this is just another diversion. You always do this when backed into a corner. You should really stop.
And no that wasn’t the argument made.
And you still are trapped by your own assertion that big picture comments don’t matter but that the specifics do.
You still won’t address this because you know it sinks literally all your commentary this far on the topic of ACA and Trump’s attitudes towards it.
And you still are trapped by your own assertion that big picture comments don’t matter but that the specifics do.
You still won’t address this because you know it sinks literally all your commentary this far on the topic of ACA and Trump’s attitudes towards it.
It doesn’t. Repealing the ACA is the “big picture;” that’s not moderate. The specifics that have just been revealed in the GOP “healthcare” plan are a mixed bag–some are moderate, some are clearly right-wing. The general thrust of the plan, though, is to lower rich peoples’ taxes, not to provide healthcare. Right-wing.
You are the one cherry-picking to try and make the ludicrous argument that Trump is a moderate, but by your logic, everyone’s a moderate. I could have taken any Obama speech and found as many examples proving he’s a moderate as examples you took from the Trump speech. But this is a pointless waste of time.
No. That isn’t what I did. But it’s fine. You will continue to mischaracterize until I get tired of redirecting you.
It’s a cool trick. Well done.
texagg04 wrote, “You will continue to mischaracterize until I get tired of redirecting you”
…and then he will continue to mischaracterize after you stop redirecting him.
I know others might think otherwise; but, is it just me or does it seem like Chris is rapidly approaching just acting like a full blown intentional troll? Maybe I haven’t been around here long enough to know what Chris has been like in the past, it just “seems” different to me recently.
Jack said: “reaches a moderate stance because he just looks at issues as problems, to be solved, and because most problems have many potential solution, he has no difficulty moving from one plan to another without detecting any inconsistency.”
Given the excesses of the ideology driven in modern times, I’ll take practical solutions for now. We can debate solutions and outcomes without the demonization and rhetoric both side use to paralyze the system and short circuit ALL solutions.
Yes, nothing says “practical solutions” like giant border walls that Trump claims another country will pay for, travel bans opposed by his own DHS, and massive tariffs that could end in a trade war.
Chris,
We give Mexico about $135 million a year in aid, cut it off. 26 billion sent to Mexico in 2016 by undocumented workers. (wonder why Mexico is so hostile to the US treating illegals like they themselves do?)
Tax wire transfers to Mexico at x%, pay for wall in y years. Liberals use this logic all the time
Travel bans Obama used, you mean? Except hidden from the public? /hypocrite
Tariffs mean jobs for workers, here. Lowering tariffs have NOT helped the American worker, but Democrats have long been in favor of no tariffs.
See what a drive by smearing feels like?
slickwilly:
We give Mexico about $135 million a year in aid, cut it off.
I suppose solving complex world problems does look rather simple when you’re an idiot.
Travel bans Obama used, you mean? Except hidden from the public? /hypocrite
There was no travel ban under Obama. The closest thing to one was a slowdown in Iraqi refugees after a terrorist plot was uncovered, but there was not a single month in that time period in which no Iraqi refugees came in. Therefore, not a ban, and no hypocrisy.
Hypothetical-
If we receive 2000 entrants annually from country X and 4000 annually from country Y, which is more egregious to stop all 2000 from X or to stop 3500 from Y while permitting 500 to continue?
Never mind the incredible nuance that would skew all calculations based on the relative stabilities of X and Y and the relative culture differences between X or Y and the receiving country.
Chris has proven himself a smug hypocritical party hack, not interested in actual discussion, debate, or fair treatment. He is unethical, as as such I will not dignify his responses any further. Do not feed the trolls.
No, thank you! I really wish I could have waded into each item in real detail.
I would like your opinion on my summary assessment of the Yemen raid and the various responses.
There’s no way I’m reading all that, tex. (And yes, I’ve listened to the entire speech.)
I got up to here:
Pabulum, but nothing that seems openly hostile to a Leftwing message.
It’s all pabulum, tex (at least, all the examples of things you find “agreeable to the left wing” so far are). Forgive me for taking specific proposals more seriously as a reflection of whether someone is on the right or left than vague platitudes about Making America Great Again. Yes, every president has supported investments in infrastructure. You expect me to take that as evidence that Trump is a centrist, when his specific plans for doing so, which involve giant border walls and protectionism, aren’t anywhere near the political center? This is nonsensical, and it’s why I’m not going to waste time reading the rest of your response.
“Forgive me for taking specific proposals”
Yeah…I’ve already mentioned that cherry picking is a fallacy.
Do better,
Your comment is a total non-sequiter, tex. Are you drunk?
When backed into a corner I suppose diversion is the best try. That’s weak Chris.
You do know what cherry picking is right?
It’s when you take “specific” data points from a massive amount of them and conclude from those “specific” data points something in opposition to what the massive whole suggest.
You even apologized for taking specific points. I showed you a vast *swath* of his opinions. We could play that game even further but it seemed sufficient.
Were you drunk? Your comment implied a degraded leve reading comprehension and connecting concepts. And it came at 2 am after a Friday evening.
It came at 11 in my time zone.
I didn’t apologize; you thought the phrase “forgive me” was literal rather than sarcastic?
Your entire argument is bullshit. Trump’s signature policy proposals are right-wing, some of them much more extreme than those of most Republicans. It isn’t cherry-picking to focus a president’s most high-profile and controversial positions. Was it “cherry-picking” to make judgments about Obama’s based on the ACA? Of course not.
Examining Trump’s signature policy proposals, it is absurd to conclude Trump is a moderate.
“Examining Trump’s signature policy proposals, it is absurd to conclude Trump is a moderate.”
I know, when you are so far to the Left and with a solid set of self-imposed blinders, that literally anything looks Right wing, it’s hard to grasp. But I did. I did just demonstrate in a long drawn out piece that Trump is essentially a moderate, and given his general political views for decades it’s not hard to accept.
But you already said you aren’t going to read it.
That’s fine.
But don’t pretend like your case is rock solid.
It isn’t.
I’m not going to read all of it, because what I did read was bullshit. Concluding Trump is a moderate because he has something as generic as “the time for trivial fights is over” (while engaging in trivial fights himself every day on Twitter) is bullshit. Why would I read the rest of that long, long essay of a comment after that?
If dismissiveness is your plan, then fine. Don’t expect anyone to assume you are interested in a good faith discussion.
I continue to learn a great deal reading the comments here and trying to understand better how different people think.
The most interesting aspect of it all is to notice the tension and conflict between different visions of and understandings of ‘morality’. Especially, though I notice that he becomes a needed foil for many people who oppose his brand of Lefty-Progressivism, and yet he bravely defends it which is respectable, I am fascinated by the structure and the base of Chris’ argument. It represents a virulent form of moral superiorism, or moral supremicism it might be called! and in my view it represents an *infection* of both intellect and also morality and ethics. That is to say that this platform of view is highly hypocritical, a fact to which it remains more than often quite blind. I don’t know when it began, though it is useful to examine it historically, but a very dominant aspect of it can be illustrated by citing one of its favorite phrases: “No free speech for fascists!” (You have to always include the exclamation-point because it is always shouted and intoned with bright, moralizing power).
It is encapsulated within the phrase what I think is its operative aspect: thorough intolerance. Absolute moral condemnation. The assumption of having, and holding and occupying, a superior moral ground; a seat from which one looks down on all others and *decides* where they stand on a moral scale that these ones, and only these ones, have the right to adjudicate. These people seem to carry on like Inquisitors. It is a viewpoint, a vantage, a relationship to knowledge and knowing that, through weird and incomprehensible psychological magic, gives these people the power to decide who will be condemned, and who will be elevated. Yet the most interesting aspect, the notable one, is that the basis of their argumentation is moral-emotional with stresses on the *emotive*.
I would wish to suggest that it is by looking into the origins of this attitude, and this particular person, the particular manifestation of this particular person, that a great deal can be understood. But how would one propose to do that? Through definitions. But who is this person? and what informs them? How did they come to think and see and act and advocate as they do? This, I have come to see, has to do with the question of ‘the construction of the self’. It is social, psychological, it has to do with the person who sees — perception and structure of perception — but just as much with how that person sees him or herself. That is why the image of the Social Justice Warrior is a fruitful one for some critique and ridicule. It connotes an ‘angelic self’, a dispensation of Divine Mission which is the equivalent of Grace in some strange sense. These people, selected and blessed by Heaven itself, are justice-operatives.
And yet they will commit, right at the very start of their endeavor, one tangible injustice, one tangible moral sin, and really I would say one act of evil: they will shut out and shut down other people who disagree with them. ‘No free speech for fascists!’ That is, we have decided what you are, you have no argument against our judgment, and we will do against you any harm that we feel is necessary to keep you shut out.
As I have said a few times, they perform a ritual ‘anathema’:
Late Latin, doomed offering, accursed thing, from Greek, from anatithenai, anathe-, to dedicate : ana-, ana- + tithenai, to put; see dhē- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots.]
The rite of anathema, as I understand, was a ritual of excommunication. At the end of the ceremony the attending priests would violently knock over the lighted candles which finalized the shunning. Excommunicated, you were no longer a part of the human world, you were an animal, an outcast.
The term used now is ‘Nazi’. It is a demonological term! If I am being *romantic* in my interpretation I beg to be corrected and straightened up.
_________________
This talk is about an hour and is one given by Kevin McDonald who is quite fully an American exponent of the Alt-Right: a new political perspective filled with relevant ideas, but ones that are held at arm’s distance. Why? Because of the insinuation of immorality and a group of persons who have the power to morally condemn others. But the ideas and the arguments are not immoral. In fact, as is explained, they are morally-based arguments against psuedo-moral positions.
And this is why, in my opinion, the Alt-Right is an ethical and moral movement in ideas.
[audio src="http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/KevinMacDonaldNorthwestForum2.mp3" /]
That link did not turn out so successfully: http://www.counter-currents.com/2017/03/moralism-and-moral-arguments-in-the-war-for-western-survival/
This one links to the page where the audio can be found.
Alizia, I appreciate this post. You have identified why normal Americans have come to despise left coast progressives. Americans like a fair deal, and the progressives have been stacking the deck for decades now, to the point your race can predicate and dismiss your opinion, and you are morally guilty simple for being born to a certain demographic.
I have thought this more several decades, but did not articulate it as well as you did.
As an aside: this is why Chris and I tend to talk past each other: our standpoints are not even within view of each other, our core truths polar opposites.
You may want to think about why you share more core truths with a white supremacist than with me.
This is why I suggest, if one can spare the time to do so, to listen to the full talk that McDonald gives. It is worth it because he is intelligent and coherent. He brings up the subject of the powerful moralizing labels that have been used by Left-Progressives. These are ‘inquisitional’ because once you have been pinned with such a term, you have to create a defence. And the one who controls the accusations assumes a certain power over people. It is bizarre and it really has to do with power.
I do not expect from you Chris anything except condemnation and swearwords and so what I try to do is talk about what I see you do. I think I do this fairly.
While not a supremacist — a really nasty label of course in the same category as ‘Nazi’ — I have strong feelings about identity. It is different.
I will say that some of my ideas are problematic and difficult — and they are — but they are also rational and rationally describable.
Did you actually read slickwilly’s comment and actually read Alizia’s comment to which he responded? Evidence would strongly suggest that you didn’t.
For the component of Alizia’s unnecessarily-and-burdensomely-verbose comment that slickwilly’s comment *obviously* agreed with, she was questioning why the Left is behaving like snarky teenagers putting on airs of superiority as a tactic to quash opposition.
This actually is a concern.
Then slick posits that *you* and *he* are polar opposites.
So, Alizia, who you despise, says something fairly accurate…so by nature you despise it.
Slick nods that it’s an obvious concern and then quips how opposite *you* and *he* are.
Your conclusion?
Alizia and he share a worldview.
What a blatant non-sequitur + guilt by association.
Do you even try to use logic anymore?
I don’t typically read Alizia’s comments, but I did read all of slickwilly’s, and my conclusion that he shared a worldview with Alizia was obviously based on this line of his, addressed to Alizia:
“As an aside: this is why Chris and I tend to talk past each other: our standpoints are not even within view of each other, our core truths polar opposites.”
The implication was that he and Alizia do not talk past each other because their core truths are more similar than ours.
So what I said wasn’t a non-sequitur at all. As usual, your pretensions of logical superiority are just that.
Except that’s not the implication at all.
Chris,
If you did not take the time to read what I was responding to, then you have committed commentary malpractice. You have a hissy fit when someone does this to you (does not read your commentary carefully and thus makes a incorrect assumption) but you apparently think this is OK when YOU do it.
I can only take your willingness to reply simply to smear as evidence that you are a partisan hack, and unwilling to have a rational discussion.
I am here to try to understand those that think differently; you seem to be here to condescend to those lacking the light of liberal ideology.
Do better.
Thank you very much for your generous affirmation. It is much appreciated!