Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 1/8/2019: A “Bias Makes You Stupid” Spectacular! [UPDATED!]

Good Morning!

The first appearance of Donald, Debbie and Gene in the New Year!

1. “A Nation of Assholes” update: Conservatives being ugly. The comments and even the posts around the conservative blogosphere regarding Ruth Bader Ginsberg are repulsive, and  reveal a deep mean streak, a lack of compassion and basic respect. Ginsberg, it was announced yesterday, will miss oral arguments–that means she won’t be able to vote on the cases she doesn’t hear—for the first time in her long career. It also may well mean that she isn’t long for this world, or the Court. The gleeful tone of the jokes, sarcasm and mockery being aimed her way by those salivating at the prospect that she will soon be replaced by a right-leaning justice is palpable. (Yes, some of the mean jokes are funny. The blog referring to her illness as a “belated Christmas present” isn’t.)

2. A classic bad argument for illegal immigration in response to an emotional one against it. The advocate? Geraldo Rivera. On a Hannity segment with conservative Dan Bongino [Correction notice: I mistakenly identified Bongino as African American in the original post. He is apparently Italian-American.]  Rivera tried to defend illegal immigration while condemning the use of individual episodes of violent crimes by illegals to justify stronger border enforcement. As Bongino and Hannity shouted around and over him, Rivera objected to Hannity’s featuring the grieving parents of 22-year-old Pierce Kennedy Corcoran who was killed in a head-on car crash with illegal immigrant Franco Cambrany Francisco-Eduardo. Francisco-Eduardo was charged with criminally negligent homicide and driving without a license or insurance,  was turned over to ICE. (Good!). Hannity lit the fuse when he began his panel by saying,

“Their son is dead. Or the people that also aid and abet these people with their sanctuary cities and sanctuary states, criminal aliens in our custody that are not handed over to ICE. You always say it’s about both parties, it’s not,” Hannity stated. “It’s about one party now that refuses to protect the American people…”

Said Geraldo at his most Geraldo-ish:

“I love you brother, but you are looking at that family, the Corcoran family and what they’ve suffered. There are no words that I can offer that can give them any solace, any relief. I ache for them. I’m so sorry.  I would feel equally upset and pained by their tragedy were the killer Irish or Italian or Puerto Rican or Jewish, or old or young. I think that to use these tragedies to try to make a political point is not useful at this point.”

Comment: What does he mean “not useful?” Pro-illegal immigration advocates and apologists, as well as the news media, have been using a false framing of Trump’s clumsy “they are sending us murderers and rapists” for three years to distort the issue. It is certainly useful to remind the public through the static that murders, rapes and other crimes are indeed committed on U.S. citizens by illegal immigrants who don’t belong here, and who broke the law by coming here and by staying here long enough to hurt someone. Geraldo, as has been the case through his career, signals his compassion and nice guy status—he cares!—to slide past the real issue.

He continued in part…

“It is grotesquely unfair — it is grotesquely unfair to use these anecdotes to make a political argument!…You know as well as I know that these people commit fewer crimes than citizens commit. You know they make things safer and not more dangerous, according to the statistics!”

Comment: It is absolute fair. What isn’t fair is the mainstream news media’s “Good Illegal Immigrant” stories, where a long-time illegal’s hardships at finally having to be accountable for an undeniable breach of U.S. law are used to suggest that law enforcement is cruel. Every crime committed by an illegal immigrant is a crime that might  not have occurred if immigration law enforcement were not hampered and blocked by irresponsible politicians. The argument that illegal immigration makes the country “safer” is beyond idiotic: it’s also dishonest. Let’s say only 1% of illegal immigrants commit crimes. If one out a group of one hundred illegals cause the death of one American, then that hundred getting past the border made our nation one murder less safe, and permit me to add, “Duh.”

Having listened to this debate for many years, I still have yet to hear a pro-illegal immigration defense that isn’t either dishonest or dumb.

3.  Update on the scholarly paper hoax that was the subject of an Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz in October.  This was the academic hoax in which three academics tried to see what nonsensical research papers scholarly journals would treat as serious research as long as the objective was sufficiently “woke.” (The result: unbelievably nonsensical research.) Now the ring-leader of the stunt, philosophy professor Peter Boghossian, has been accused  violating his institution’s policies regarding the ethical treatment of human test subjects by Portland State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB).  “Your efforts to conduct human subjects research at PSU without a submitted nor approved protocol is a clear violation of the policies of your employer,” wrote PSU Vice President Mike McLellan in an email.

Indeed, the “research” was unethical, as I ultimately concluded in October, although there were some spirited and persuasive dissents among EA readers.

4. Do we need any more proof than this? President Trump announced that he would give an address from the Oval Office to the nation. Every single such address by every single President since TV was commercially available has been broadcast by all the networks with news divisions. Every one. (Aside: I have never understood why this blanket coverage was deemed necessary.) Yet yesterday media pundits and network employees were debating whether this President’s address deserved to be broadcast, because, I guess, Trump has diverged from “established democratic norms.” Aside from the hypocrisy, irony and lack of self awareness, could there be a more unequivocal demonstration that the news media is allied with the sinister forces in America that wants to actively interfere with this elected President’s ability to govern, and to treat him as if he were not a President at all?

Here is fake CNN media ethicist Brian Stelter, who has so beclowned himself over the last two years he should really wear a red nose, tweet-quoting with approval a text by a network executive rather than explaining why it’s a smoking gun (because he thinks exactly like the unethical executive does):

No, you utter disgrace to your profession, you are damned because you are hopelessly biased and don’t even understand why that makes your network’s reporting worthless and untrustworthy!

66 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 1/8/2019: A “Bias Makes You Stupid” Spectacular! [UPDATED!]

  1. 1 Nation of assholes

    God, that is so right. Although the major conservative sites I read have been, if not sensitive, at least not insensitive on the whole. But some of them… Yech. Vox Day is a poor example, he is among the worst along with Ace when it comes to this type of behavior.

    2 Bad argument for illegal immigration

    What can you expect from Geraldo? He went around the bend so long ago I’d completely forgotten he existed. Now I wish you hadn’t reminded me. And about this:

    “It is grotesquely unfair — it is grotesquely unfair to use these anecdotes to make a political argument!…You know as well as I know that these people commit fewer crimes than citizens commit. You know they make things safer and not more dangerous, according to the statistics!”

    How is this possible? Their very presence in this country is a crime.

    4 Do we need more proof

    No, you utter disgrace to your profession, you are damned because you are hopelessly biased and don’t even understand why that makes your network’s reporting worthless and untrustworthy!

    Spot on.

    • What Geraldo does is that he combines both legal and illegal immigrants in his equation.

      What no one will demand an answer to is how do they know that illegals or legal immigrants commit fewer crimes when most crimes are never resolved. Without a conviction there is no statistic. How does Geraldo reconcile his argument that sanctuary cities promote people to come foreward to report crime? If this is true there is substantial unreported crime taking place in certain ethnic communities that are not sanctuaries.

      The fact is many ethnic communities protect their own without sanctuary status.

      • Agreed, Chris. I have the same questions. I always understood “sanctuary cities” to mean that illegal aliens did not have to fear deportation from local police/law enforcement for reporting crimes against them. It was intended to keep local law enforcement out of the federal government’s enforcement of immigration laws. It was to keep coyotes from further abusing them by stealing all of their money or forcing them into lives of crime. Maybe that is a noble policy and is open to debate.

        Somewhere along the line, however, the concept flipped on its head when local communities refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement by turning accused/convicted illegal aliens over to ICE for removal. Cynical Democrat politicians, recognizing that Latinos are the new major voting bloc, have curried favor with immigration activists by supporting this new policy as well as open borders. Now, San Francisco will not tell ICE that “El Chapo” is sitting comfortably in the local jail, having been picked up for the minor offenses of not paying sales taxes from his crystal meth and heroin franchises. “El Chapo” simply has to pay the taxes and will free to go about business as usual. That is the problem.

        Rivera avoids the issue because it is uncomfortable to state that illegal aliens are quite capable of committing, and probably commit, more crimes in numbers far greater than legal aliens, who are probably just as law-abiding as natural citizens. The metric is impossible to track because illegal alien crime victims don’t report crimes committed against because now they WILL be deported for reporting the crimes committed against them. (Some catch, that.) Immigrant advocates dance around the issue and put out the tear-jerking stories of abused immigrants simply coming here for a better life.* Sean Hannity, idiot that he is, cannot formulate this as the real question. He simply spouts nonsense until commercial break and throws footballs to his production crew. He routinely declares that all illegal aliens are once and future felons. Tucker Carlson is not much better but at Tucker’s arguments are coherent and thought out.

        jvb

        *Ed. Note: Wait. I thought they were coming to the US to avoid persecution and government oppression. Now, the author of this silly comment tells me they are coming here for economic reasons? Cash? To send money back to their home countries to help their families there? Man, this commenter is obtuse. He just doesn’t get it.

        • Agreed, Chris. I have the same questions. I always understood “sanctuary cities” to mean that illegal aliens deserters did not have to fear deportation apprehension from local police/law enforcement for reporting crimes against them. It was intended to keep local law enforcement out of the federal government’s enforcement of immigration desertion laws.

          I have no issue with the same policy being applied to outstanding deserters.

          Somewhere along the line, however, the concept flipped on its head when local communities refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement by turning accused/convicted illegal aliens over to ICE for removal. Cynical Democrat politicians, recognizing that Latinos are the new major voting bloc, have curried favor with immigration activists by supporting this new policy as well as open borders. Now, San Francisco will not tell ICE that “El Chapo” is sitting comfortably in the local jail, having been picked up for the minor offenses of not paying sales taxes from his crystal meth and heroin franchises. “El Chapo” simply has to pay the taxes and will free to go about business as usual. That is the problem.

          that is the difference between illegal aliens and deserters.

          There is no major political campaign to shield deserters from apprehension. There are sanctuary cities for deserters.

          Also, these Democratic politicians are operating on the assumption that Latinos are, on average, less loyal than the old German-American bund.

    • Technically (I don’t think it really matters but I’ve seen the argument) it’s a civil violation to be here without permission. Crossing the border illegally is a crime, but I believe a majority of illegal aliens come here legally then just don’t leave when their permission expires.

      • …I believe a majority of illegal aliens come here legally then just don’t leave when their permission expires.

        Can you cite your sources?

        As a lifelong Texan, I would dispute this by sheer observation (which, of course, I could not cite) given the number of illegals we hear caught, and the numbers we see on any given day. So I am interested in where you get your information.

        • I would bet a huge percentage of overstays are for educational visas. “Come for the education, stay for the civil liberties.”

          That, however, points out a whole other level of governmental incompetence. Here are aliens where we know their names and locations. Immigration should be seeking regular updates from schools about who is enrolled and who has dropped out. Immigration should also keep better tabs on these students for their places of residence and contact info. That would require a lot of extra work and man-power, but it is the government’s job. I do not know why we tolerate such incompetence.

          (Although, I have heard that the government got a little bit better after 9/11 because many of the hijackers entered legally as student, if I recall correctly. So, they did try to improve that area, I believe.)

          -Jut

  2. If we give him the time, he’ll deliver a fact-free screed without rebuttal…

    What, precisely, precludes them from broadcasting a rebuttal?

    • Can’t they have a little box to the side with Don Lemon saying “That’s racist” in captions every few seconds. Heck, have the president in a little box, Lemon in full screen talking about how it’s all lies and propaganda. Extra points if he does it in a very excited and loud way, like North Korean newscasters do.

      • Do that thing they did on “The Simpsons” when Mayor Quimby was running for re-election against Sideshow Bob…put devil horns and flames in the background on Trump.

  3. Anyone with any grey matter knows Stelters tweet is logically false. If they give him time they still reserve the capability to rebut, fact check or otherwise diminish the President’s message. Not only does the media get the last word, there is no ability to fact check the network.

  4. If you disregard the “Good Illegal Immigrant” stories, then you have to disregard the “Criminal Illegal Immigrant” stories too. It’s true that, were Francisco-Eduardo not present in the US, he couldn’t have been in the crash that killed a citizen. HOWEVER, by that rationale if an illegal immigrant saves a life it should be counted in favor of their presence, since if they weren’t present in the US they couldn’t have saved that life.

    I’m not in favor of open borders but I can’t get behind making broad arguments based on specific incidents that have emotional impact but little or no statistical weight.

    • I tend to agree with most of your argument. We should focus on objective measures.
      The problem with human issues is that we cannot put values on human life.

      Relevant issues should include:
      Review stats on the importation of fentynal across the southern border. What are the current interdiction costs/effectiveness?
      What medical costs do we incur with illegal immigrants?
      What social welfare costs are incurred to accomodate immigrants?
      What are we willing to spend to interdict/prevent traffiking of children for the sex trade by TCO’s?
      What are we willing to spend to interdict/prevent human smuggling by TCO’s?
      I could go on but these questions need to be answered.

    • No! That doesn’t follow at all! Being a good illegal immigrant doesn’t justify or mitigate the fact that the immigrant is a law breaker, is engaged in ongoing deception and fraud, and could still be justifiably deported. It proves nothing. An immigrant crime story proves that illegal immigrants cause harm that shouldn’t be able to be caused at all. It does prove something, and case by case, each one does. The US suffers from crimes committed by people who have no right to be here, and that is one (of many) reasons to enforce the laws. One death,one rape, one robbery, one drug deal is one too many.

      • That double standard is bordering on a jumbo.

        “An immigrant crime story proves that illegal immigrants cause harm that shouldn’t be able to be caused at all.”

        True! But it’s EQUALLY true that “An immigrant act of heroism proves that illegal immigrants do heroic deeds that wouldn’t have been done if they weren’t here.”

        I don’t think that balancing is tenable at all, which is why I firmly agree with Chris that you have to look at broad-spectrum measurements of the costs and effects of systematic measurements. To say that individual bad acts proves something but individual good acts does not is simple cherry-picking; I respect you too much to think you’re being deliberately disingenuous but I definitely think you’re letting your bias cloud your objective recognition of good vs bad arguments here.

        • If, after crossing, all good acts are negated by equivalent bad acts, the initial bad act of crossing illegally makes them undesireable. That is where I stand. My other points are simply measurable objectives.

          Something to consider. Acts of heroism are conditional based on moral luck – being in the right place at the right time. Conversely, bad acts are not conditional they are concious choices. No one accidentally kills another driving drunk, it happens when you bet you can drink and drive and lose.

          • I think we’re agreeing in different terms. I *DON’T* think that you can balance specific good acts against bad, I just don’t think you can look at specific (individual level) bad acts and get data that actually matters either- neither one works.

            I’m not sure about your moral luck point though- it may be luck that puts you in the right place and time to be a hero, but it still requires a conscious decision to do it. If I walk around a corner and interrupt a mugger who subsequently flees, it’s moral luck that I happened to show up. If I happen to walk by an alley and hear a cry for help, and then CHOOSE to rush to the rescue at a risk to myself, then you can’t say the entire act was moral luck even though the deliberate act depended on the luck of my presence.

            • I don’t understand the disconnect. Conduct A, if prevented, will prevent conduct B, which is undesirable by definition. Group X argues that conduct A shouldn’t be prevented. Each example of conduct B, therefore, rebuts the argument of Group X. Group Y argues that Conduct A is per se wrong, as it is illegal. The fact that individuals who have engaged in conduct A later engage in conduct C, which is desirable, does not alter the nature of conduct B or mitigate it.

              • I am with Jack here… I think. (I hate algebra: always mix up the letters and numbers, and then can’t find my asymptote with both hands…)

                My translation into Texan is “If a criminal saves a baby from drowning, he still gets arrested for the prior crime upon reaching shore. Saving the baby does not get the criminal off for the prior offense.” Illegal aliens are just that: illegal. They are already willful participants in crime, and a crime that greatly impacts the victims. Their behavior, good, bad, or indifferent does not change that fundamental fact.

                If such a criminal (illegal alien) commits further crimes it further denigrates the argument that they are good for society as a whole but that is NOT the case if a criminal performs a good act: they are still a criminal.

                Other countries imprison those who violate this law; indeed, some will kill offenders out of hand. Holding America to a suicide pact is asinine.

            • To further complicate the issue, I think you might be presuming an equivalence of outcome for an event in the absence of a “bad” illegal compared to the outcome of a situation without the “hero” illegal present. For example, it might be more likely that someone else present would step into the role of the missing “hero” illegal, but less likely that there would be a substitute actor to commit the “bad” illegal’s criminal act, such as drunk driving or murder.

        • Check the Ruddigore Fallacy in the Blog Terms section, the fallacy that subsequent good acts mitigate bad ones. Your argument is akin to saying that Ted Kennedy’s service in the Senate mitigates the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. It can’t, and doesn’t. But if he killed another young woman, it would be reasonable to say, “If justice had been done as it should have been, this latest victim would be alive.

  5. 1. The conservatives mentioned are no longer conservative. They advocate for fighting fire with fire, and are reacting to decades of exactly this sort of abuse from progressives. They are like the children of abusive parents turned into bullies. This is wrong, but very human.

    I have warned about this for a couple of years now: until someone stands up to progressives, the slide to the death camps continues. At least now the progressives are on notice that the ovens burn regardless of political stripe.

    RBG deserves a certain amount of derision for how she has presided, and her pitiful attempt to sit past her expiration date. She is purely political, and has used the Constitution for toilet paper. She still does not deserve this level of abuse.

    2. When will anyone address the real cause of illegal immigration? American companies who hire them. Jail time would dry up a lot of the incentives.

    3. Let me get this straight: a liberal board is looking to punish someone who mentioned the king has no clothes, so we make allegations elsewhere to discredit him. Got it.

    4. Network TV has made the bed it peed on, so to speak. They alone are responsible for their predicament, and they know they helped create Trump during the primaries. Life must be miserable for them.

    5. There is no number 5. We wish there was a number 5, but our gracious host has important work to be about (Sir Rugby has his prerogatives, after all) and we are grateful for the amazing amount of no cost- mind you, free!- effort Jack puts into educating the masses… or those who show up here, anyway.

    PS: Facebook sucks

        • “RBG deserves a certain amount of derision for how she has presided, and her pitiful attempt to sit past her expiration date. She is purely political, and has used the Constitution for toilet paper.” Yeah, verily, slick. “She still does not deserve this level of abuse.” True, but Jesus H. Christ it’s not that hard to understand. I’m fairly sure she’ll be stuffed and wheeled in by her clerks if she dies soon. Kind of like the way Soviet guys were stuffed and kept under glass. But she’ll still vote and file opinions. She’ll be kept on life support longer than Ariel Sharon or Michael Schumacher, if necessary. Maybe they’ll get Disney to build an animatronic RBG.

    • About #2…start fining them roughly the equivalent of one years profits and the shareholders will solve the problem.

  6. Jack, in re: 2
    Why was Dan Bongino identified as Fox News house African American conservative?

    The use of house in front of African American when describing a specific person can be interpreted as house n@$%%&r. Or one who is whitey’s stooge.

    There are a number of conservative pundits that might also be considered African American regularly appearing on Fox. For example Deneen Borrelli, Charles Payne, Candace Owens, Herman Caine, and a new young man named Lawerence (forgot his last name)

    • Because having a black conservative is mandatory for a network like Fox. I also use the term House liberal and house conservative, as well as house fake conservative.

      It can be interpreted as you describe, except that this isn’t how I use it or mean it. And saying one individual is the network’s house A-A conservative doesn’t mean that he or she is the ONLY one. Juan Williams has long been Fox News house liberal A-A commentator. Geraldo checks the Hispanic-American liberal box.

      Payne is a financial specialist from Fox Business; Owens is the moderator of her awful show. Yes, I’m cynical when a fixed debate with Geraldo as Hannity’s foil has a reliable black conservative to back up Hannity.

      Race and gender are factored into these staffing/casting decisions, and they shouldn’t be, but they HAVE to be, for self-preservation. They are still manipulative, and offensively so. I noted the same tactic when I found myself on an NPR panel of five as the sole white male.

      • While I may not thoroughly agree with your rationale, I do accept your explanation.

        Where we disagree is on the need to describe a racial, gender or ethnic attribute to a person’s political bent.

        Your use of the word casting when referring to staffing decisions is interesting. I often find myself wondering if we are all being manipulated by media to create us vs them situations. By fomenting outrage you can build your army of faithful consumers. You buy from people you like or think you like.

        Outrage marketing is a real thing. A former client of mine that is in the forefront of social media marketing pushed a story on it through Linked In. I told him beware of the monster they create.

    • I read “house” to mean “in-house,” as in he works for Fox rather than simply making regular appearances there. Feeling the need to define him as an “African American Conservative” is just a reflection of the media-wide (and really, nearly nation-wide) assumption that Black people are Democrats until proven otherwise.

  7. #2:
    How about this article talking about alleged people who regret voting for Trump?
    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest/fear-regrets-as-pacific-county-residents-go-missing-amid-immigration-crackdown-police-chief-neighbors-kind-of-in-shock-after-immigration-arrests-in-pacific-county-immigration-crack/

    First off, I’d point out that Trump is only doing what he said he was going to do. I guess they figured politicians always lie and didn’t count on Trump delivering. They’re doing the “good immigrant” argument to counter that Trump is deporting the wrong people. Which only points out that we have an ethical train wreck, which now gives us no good answers for an ethical resolution.

    I do give this reporter credit though. They point out that during Obama’s 1st term, the immigration rules stayed the same as they were under Bush 43. It’s only after Obama had secured his election that Obama drastically slashed deportations, and that Trump still hasn’t restored deportations to the levels they were prior to Obama slashing them. Democrats like to talk out the both sides of their mouth about this – Trump is evil for advocating deportations, and Trump is ineffective as he’s deporting far fewer than Obama did (leaving out the part that it’s only true if you count Obama’s first term).

  8. The mainstream media is doing a fantastic job, how else would the public know that Trump’s lying so often. For someone who has a bone to pick with omission, how can you continue to become fixated on AOC and ignore the fact that your commander-in-chief is endangering the financial security of thousands of people, people at the border, and floating absurd lies for no other person than to get political wins.

    I do believe that anyone who supports the Trump administration at this point should be held accountable for the damage they are inflicting upon others. You can support conservative principles all you want but to support a man who believes he is above the law, who uses his platform to bully others, who has no integrity with truth, who never takes responsibility for his own mistakes, who is uncooperative with investigations, who fired people like Seesions and Yates for doing lawful actions , who wastes taxpayer money taking unpopular policies to court ratger than consider it a mandate of the people, and actively seeks to undermine trust in public institutions for his own convenience, who has acted against the advice of every major military commander the US currently has, then you are culpable. Even Nixon was a great president who did good things for our economy but he had to go

    I find the fact that youre talking about this immigration issue but not addressing these facts to be the sin of omission you include the left of:
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/trump-border-speech-visit-lies.html

    • OK, you have to tell me if this was a tongue in cheek satirical rant or not. Come on, fess up. You had me going until you mentioned Yates, who had to be fired for cause, exceeded her power, and was insubordinate. So it was a joke, right? The part about the mainstream media doing a fantastic job kind of gave it away at the start though, don’t you think? I assume you know that Trump could say he was the Easter Bunny at the border and it wouldn’t change a thing about the correctness of enforcing the law or the idiocy/dishonesty of open borders Democrats. And all the illegals could be potential Nobel Prize winners—they still have no right to be here, or stay once they have snuck in.

      I also direct your attention to this edict, in the Commenting Rules:

      5. Political rants are not welcome. In addition, efforts to muddle genuine objective ethical analysis by pressing ideological talking points and bombarding me with links are not appreciated, and won’t be tolerated for long, if at all.

      So if this WASN’T satire of a completely Trump Deranged wacko off his meds, then the post places you on thin ice, as well as within the reach of the Ethics Alarms the Stupidity Rule, which holds that some people are just too ignorant or stupid to take part in the discussion here, and interfere with the orderly exchange of opinions and ideas.

      I could, and would have to, spend about two hours rebutting your completely unsupported assertions, but that would waste my time, and would make no dent in your ignorance and bias at all.

      So, in short, I’m being nice and will let this go. Do it again, and you’re banned.

      • Aaaaaand…bingo. Orrin’s very next post triggered a ban with attacks like,

        You masquerade as an ethics blog when you’ve transformed into an iconoclast so angry with the left’s follies that you’re literally backing a psychopath who has been given a platform dictator to do terrible things.

        Psychopath? Dictator? Terrible things?

        Bye.

        Get help, Orrin.

        I was inclined to let this kind of juvenile junk pass for a while because he had befriended Alizia, but this is like a zombie movie when someone in your group starts twitching and making funny sounds. I may have to make a rule that accusing me of “supporting” President Trump when my “support” extends only to believing elected Presidents have a right to the respect and deference that goes with the office, and shouldn’t be impeached on the grounds that the other party really, really wish they won, gets an automatic ban. That’s called supporting the Constitution and our institutions, not “supporting Trump.” I would support any elected President in these respects, against any party and mainstream media behaving as “the resistance” is. Any President, no matter how revolting. Bernie. Ben Carson. Hillary. President Kimmel.

        Orrin is the first commenter banned in the New Year! Congratulations.

    • That Slate article is ty-pi-cal. That sort of article requires not rebuttal or refutal (though those are possible), but rather interpretation.

      But then every aspect of what goes on today requires, literally, complete and thorough hermeneutics . . .

      • nah… the Slate article is progressive biased shite. One can leave it there without injury to any cause. No ‘hermeneutics’ needed, although you are free to knock yourself out reinventing the wheel. 🙂

        “blah blah white privilege blah blah intersectionality blah blah racist blah sexist blah homophobic blah virtue signalling blah blah TRUMP!”

        (I better be careful: someone could submit my quote to Slate who might publish it!)

        You see, I am psychic: I did not read the article. (Knowing the source is enough to not wish to waste my time)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.