Comment Of The Day: “How Donald Trump Could Be A Great American And Ethics Hero, But Almost Certainly Won’t”

I decided to make Null Pointer’s observation a Comment of the Day as I was replying to new commenter’s Tom’s note on yesterday’s Open Forum regarding Ethics Alarms’ “decline,” which ended with the assertion that the blog is now “left with the racist, conspiracy theory, antivax crowd, who view the left as pure evil.” I challenged him to back up that characterization (he can’t, because it is untrue), but I was struck by the appearance of Null’s comment right after Tom’s expansive insult. Is it support for his contention (as he almost certainly would claim) , or does it rebut it? I think the answer is obvious, or should be.

Here is Null Pointer’s Comment of the Day on the post, “How Donald Trump Could Be A Great American And Ethics Hero, But Almost Certainly Won’t.”

***

“I don’t know that it particularly matters who runs for the Republicans next presidential election; the country is going to reach the same point no matter who runs. Anyone Trump endorsed would be declared a Nazi worse than Hitler, and the same hysteria that would be applied to Trump would be applied to the endorsed candidate. The Left has jumped face first into the crazy pool, and they are not backing down. They actively wish anyone who opposes them dead, including those in the Democrat party who don’t tow the lunatic line. Just look at the current rhetoric aimed at Democrat “moderates” who won’t agree to $3.5 trillion dollars worth of delusional psychosis.

“In my opinion, Trump supporters are not going to vote for some milquetoast RINO candidate. I know I wouldn’t. Should one somehow take the nomination, I’d rather stay home on Election Day and let the country implode quickly, rather than elect a wishy-washy appeaser who will let it be destroyed by a radical leftist cult. I don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but I am only voting for someone I believe is going to fight the Left tooth and nail, and work to put an end to the bullshit. If the person nominated does not fit that description, I’m not helping elect them.

There is already a split in the Republican Party between people who want to go back to the status quo of controlled decline, and people who have reached their breaking point on the decline that has already occurred. Some of these issues are no longer negotiable to a large swath of the population. Open borders, leftist indoctrination in schools, communism, government control of medical decisions, inflation, destruction of property rights, destruction of the first and second amendments and increases in government spying are not issues I want to hear any compromise on. Anyone even hinting they are open to considering these ideas is openly stating they don’t want my vote, and I’m willing to oblige them.

The Left wants all those things and more, and isn’t willing to let anyone get in their way. The Left is already paying groups like Antifa to commit terrorism to achieve their goals. Political violence, political censorship and state run media propaganda are now the norm.

I don’t see any of this abating or going away. It is only going to get worse, not better. Trump or no Trump, the country is on the brink of civil war.

I agree that he will probably run, however, regardless of the potential consequences, so it is a moot point.

70 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “How Donald Trump Could Be A Great American And Ethics Hero, But Almost Certainly Won’t”

  1. So…is Null Pointer’s characterization of the Left’s current agenda as “Open borders, leftist indoctrination in schools, communism, government control of medical decisions, inflation, destruction of property rights, destruction of the first and second amendments and increases in government spying” a series of “conspiracy theories,” as Tom claimed? Did Null say the Left was “pure evil,’ or is that what Null meant?

    To take just one of Tom’s false characterizations: principled objections to “government control of medical decisions” is not being an “anti-vaxxer.”

    • I think it’s amazing you chose a comment that practically proves many of my points for me.

      How does saying “the left actively wishes anyone who opposes them dead” not prove my point that your commentators think the left is evil?

      How does saying “the Left is already paying groups like Antifa to commit terrorism to achieve their goals” not a conspiracy theory?

      I can go back and find antivax comments if you want. Or racist comments like the comment about the fat black woman (probably not racist enough for you though).

      But yes, let’s see what your commentariat thinks. I’m sure it will be level-headed, fair, and accurate.

      (Also, Chris’ comments are gone as is my comment)

      • How does saying “the left actively wishes anyone who opposes them dead” not prove my point that your commentators think the left is evil?

        Seriously? Again, even if I accepted your interpretation (I don’t) it would prove that ONE commenter believes that. But I have read plenty of tweets and statements from progressive celebrities and commentators that amount to wishing conservatives, Republicans and Trump in particular dead. The statement by Null is a general characterization of a prevalent attitude, and it is only slightly over-stated. I’d love to see that one polled. If a group regards another group as Nazis and racists, how far is that from wishing them dead?

        Oh, you CAN go back and find antivaxx and racist comments, can you? That’s proof enough for me! First of all, a single or even a couple of antivaxx sentiments don’t prove or even support your contention that that is characteristic of the commentariate. And without context, the phrase “fat black woman” isn’t racist. It’s uncivil, unkind and rude, in the same category as “old white men,” a favorite of Leftists like Joy Reid—and she won’t even get reprimanded for it. I don’t recall reading it here, but I don’t read every comment, so by all means, point me to the entire thing. You’re reaching.

        • You asked about Null Pointer’s comment…of course you don’t agree “the left wants to kill people who oppose them” is him thinking the left is evil.

          He would literally have to say “the left is evil” for you to agree. Or “I’m an antivaxxer” for you to believe any of these things.

          I am now sure (and not surprised) that no amount of proof or examples would ever convince you of what I said.

          You have what…like 10-12 steady commentators? You really think I’m going to prove these things to you for each one? I bet even if I did, you would still be in denial.

          You’re like a fish that doesn’t know it’s wet.

          • So you are saying that “They actively wish anyone who opposes them dead” — that this is not evil? I can’t say that the left is necessarily evil, but when they espouse evil statements — duck, quacks, etc.

            I see the left say that people should be judged by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character.

            I see the left in Congress imploring powerful media companies to actively censor conservative viewpoints, or indeed any viewpoints that are opposed to their ideas.

            I see the Clinton campaign knowingly bait the FBI into a massive investigation of a totally false Russian collusion narrative (and it appears to be getting worse with every development from the Durham investigation).

            I see our president do his best to shut down our homegrown oil and gas industry and then turn to other countries (including some who are our adversaries or simply dictatorships) to increase their production to compensate for the production he has forced our people to reduce.

            Afghanistan.

            One can argue whether any one of these things are ‘evil’ in and of themselves, but I do not believe any of these and many other positions are good for or even benign to the best interests of the United States.

            As a human being, one tends to look at various events and find patterns. In the extreme that is how you can get conspiracists — either on the left or right. In another instance, we look at the night sky and see patterns that we call constellations. Jenner looked at disease patterns and came up with a smallpox vaccine. It’s part and parcel of what makes us human.

            It is valid to judge a group of people by examining their patterns of behavior, and I do so with the American left, the Democratic and Republican parties, and other groups. If a group appears to me to espouse policies that produce ‘evil’ results, well again if the quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, then it’s not unreasonable to holler ‘DUCK!’

      • You’ll have to ask Null why he believes “the Left is already paying groups like Antifa to commit terrorism to achieve their goals.” Somebody is funding them. Presumably it’s not the political Right. From a 2020 report: “Little is known about who funds antifa activists, or how the groups get their resources.” It’s a theory, and that conspiracy is plausible. I wouldn’t state it as fact, but then I haven’t thought much about the antifa, other than to think it is a bunch of assholes. Again, the fact that Null made that statement doesn’t prove that the only EA commenters or even a majority consists of the racist, conspiracy theory, antivax crowd, who view the left as pure evil.”

        • Antifa is openly crowdfunded on sites like GoFundMe. Leftist politicians such as Kamala Harris have advertised their campaigns and encouraged their voters to donate to them. That is a pretty clear cut example that involves zero of what could be considered conspiracy theorizing.

          • The idea that the left is funding Antifa to push their agenda by committing domestic terrorism is a conspiracy theory.

            Obviously YOU don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory…conspiracy theorists don’t ever admit that they belive in conspiracy theories.

            Same way you don’t admit your anti-vax. You don’t get to change what words mean just because you don’t like the label.

            Refusing to take a single vaccine is literally what being anti-vaxx is.

            There’s no rule that says you need to be against all vaccines. Or only 2, or 3, or 7.

            You’re an anti vaxxer.

            • Are you saying that Kamala Harris did not advertise a crowd funding campaign with the stated purpose of bailing Antifa and BLM members out of jail after being arrested for committing arson, property damage, rioting, and looting on her Twitter? Or are you saying billions of dollars worth of theft and property damage are not domestic terrorism? Or are you saying that the political objective of defunding police is not a leftist policy goal?

              “Refusing to take a single vaccine is literally what being anti-vaxx is.”

              So what you are saying is that anyone who questions the safety and efficacy of any vaccine at any point in time for any reason is an anti-vaxxer? No one is allowed, ever, to think for themselves and decide whether or not a vaccine is safe to take, even if the vaccine has not undergone normal testing protocols, without being labeled with pejorative terms? Tell me, what is your opinion on the government mandating health decisions?

              • Yes. Someone who refuses to take a vaccine for the reason you gave is an anti-vaxxer.

                Again, you don’t get to decide these things for yourself.

                And I’ll say it again…the left funding Antifa so they commit domestic terrorism to push their political agenda is a conspiracy theory.

                I know you don’t think so. Because you believe it’s happening. But it isn’t.

                • You didn’t actually answer a single one of my questions. You are just repeating the same thing you already said earlier.

                  You wanted to know if I think the left is evil. I think many of the leftist policy positions are evil, and I think some of the people masterminding and deciding the agenda are evil, but I would not label every individual who has leftist political beliefs or opinions as evil. Many of them are simply historically illiterate, ignorant of the actual facts surrounding the policies they are voting for, and misled by the propaganda that is presented to them as news. I think many of the people on the left say some truly evil things, particularly online, but an instance of evil statements doesn’t necessarily make an individual evil on balance as a person. I think many people on the left support evil policies because they are not thinking for themselves, and have not considered the actual ramifications of the things they are supporting. I think many people on the left want to support virtuous goals, but are either not capable of recognizing when a goal when a goal is not actually virtuous, or don’t want to.

                  I would absolutely label the current left as being extremely destructive. Ignorance, good intentions or lack of understanding do not make the current destructive nature of the left acceptable, tolerable, or sustainable. The destructive policy goals and rhetoric must be stopped, not out of some metaphysical idea of good and evil, but because they are causing enormous harm to the nation and everyone in it.

                    • I literally just said that I don’t think most leftists are evil. You obviously don’t care to actually discuss the topic you raised, preferring to insult and demean when engaged, so I’m going to stop replying to you now.

            • Interesting. So because I haven’t gotten the shingles vaccine, even though I have gotten the Covid, flu, tetanus, pertussis, pneumonia, measles, smallpox, polio, and who knows how many other vaccines over the course of my lifetime — because of that I am an anti-vaxxer?

              • I’m responding to Null here since I cant reply to him:

                Null, saying this:

                You wanted to know if I think the left is evil. I think many of the leftist policy positions are evil, and I think some of the people masterminding and deciding the agenda are evil…

                Proves my point. Stop splitting hairs. Jack does that too.

                • Please stop strawmanning people by ignoring the clarifications they attempt to make. In spite of how Twitter makes it seem, positions usually have nuance. If they don’t, it’s a good sign that people haven’t thought much about them. When people are “splitting hairs,” they’re trying to explain the nuances to you.

                    • To Jack and Emily…

                      When someone says “I think many of the leftist policy positions are evil”

                      That confirms my statement that they think the left is evil.

                      Stop splitting hairs.

                      I get you’ll say anything to avoid conceding a point. But no one with a brain who reads your blog agrees with any of your assessments.

                      It obvious.

                      Again…there’s a reason why people like Charles don’t waste their time here anymore.

                      Think about why.

                    • Emily can handle herself, as can Null.

                      I have never called any Democratic position “evil” to my knowledge. I don’t even regard Communism, Marxism and totalitarianism—which is where Democrats are drifting—as “evil.” Evil requires someone deliberately wanting to do something they know is wrong because it is wrong. Sociopaths and psychopaths are seldom evil. Virtually all wrongful conduct in human existence is brought about by ignorance, stupidity, bias, mistake, rationalization, mental imbalance, or ruthless self-interest.

                      Even the NFL, which persists in allowing young me to cripple and kill themselves for the teams’ profits among other despicable conduct inconsistent with good and trustworthy organizations, isn’t evil. I have used that term to convey just how awful the NFL and its conduct is, because I don’t find any single word sufficient.

                      However, in its current state of cynical ethics rot, the Left, which is your inexact term that I have and will continue to use myself, has recently embraced a lot of positions that can’t be logically or ethically defended. Like…

                      Defunding the police.
                      Deconstructing the Constitution
                      Airbrushing history
                      Censorship, Word-banning, Opposing free speech
                      Demonizing whites and men
                      Encouraging and defending partisan journalism
                      Supporting double standards
                      Attempting to undermine crucial American institutions
                      Marxism
                      False narratives for political gain
                      Politicizing of the legal system
                      Using schools and colleges for ideological indoctrination

                      …and, of course, denying that they are. Calling these (and other trends) what they are is something any objective ethics forum must do, and there is nothing partisan about it. NOT judging those objectives unethical renders the whole concept of ethics in this culture as meaningless. Anyone who objects to an ethical approach that condemns these is, I believe, lost or deluded. Not evil. You are using the word illegitimately for its emotional value, because it suggests fanatacism and hate. Bad Tom. Bad.

                      As for your current trope of calling making important distinctions “splitting hairs,” well, that’s endorsing a meat-axe, black-and-white analytical approach that your reduction of strong and reasoned criticism to evil-bashing requires. Moral codes block nuance: something is either right or wrong. Not ethics. Ethics requires “hair-splitting,” also known as “paying attention to material details.” If you really don’t comprehend this—and about 75% of the population doesn’t, you have a lot of work to do.

                    • Replying to Tom here,

                      I was speaking up because you used the same behavior with Diego and Null, then took a shot at Jack over it.

                      If you think that someone’s clarification still falls under what you were arguing after they’ve clarified, that’s fine. But you have to continue those arguments with the clarification.

                      “There are too many birds around here.”

                      “I’m not a bird, I’m a platypus.”

                      “Okay. There are too many billed-animals around here.”

                      So something like this,

                      “Everyone here is an anti-vaxxer and thinks the left is evil.”

                      “I’m not an anti-vaxxer, I got the vaccine, I’m just against mandates.”

                      “I don’t think the left is evil, but I think many of their policies are.”

                      “Fine. People around here enable anti-vaxxers and think major aspects of the left are evil.”

                      If that makes your point, fine. If it isn’t strong enough for how you feel, how you feel is wrong, because that is accurate.

                      You don’t get to keep insisting that means they’re anti-vaxxers who think the left is evil. At least not if you want intelligent people to see you as anything but a troll. I’m allergic to strawmen.

              • Thank you. I was going to ask basically the same question. I have all my vaccines. All my children got their vaccines on time during their childhood. But if perhaps I decided against the chickenpox vaccine, and opted to expose them as a means of gaining immunity, apparently that makes me anti-vax.

                  • If you’re going to use a phrase as some sort of witty “gotcha”make sure you know what the phrase means.

                    Otherwise you just look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                  • Relying to this comment:

                    “You need to learn to split hairs. That kind of logic is rife when a critic of Barack Obama is called a racist…”

                    None of this makes any sense. Are you responding to someone else?

                    • You should have been able to figure it out. You said that objecting to one vaccination made one an antivaxxer. That is the same flawed logic that holds that criticizing a single black individual makes one a racist.

                      You’re the one hurling insults around, and you can’t even follow the thread.

                • If you refuse to take a vaccine during a global pandemic like Null, then yes, you’re an anti vaxxer.

                  I’m not sure if in your situation you would be considered an antivaxxer. But Null certainly is.

                  • But that’s not what you said.

                    You said: “Refusing to take a single vaccine is literally what being anti-vaxx is.”

                    Now you are qualifying your original statement to mean only during a pandemic. Got it.

                    • Yes, and I stand by that.

                      And I never said thats the only situation someone would be an antivaxxer.

                      Did I?

                      Wait don’t answer…I didnt.

                      You people really need to work on your reading comprehension.

                    • Yes, and I stand by that.

                      And I never said thats the only situation someone would be an antivaxxer.

                      Did I?

                      Wait don’t answer…I didnt.

                      You people really need to work on your reading comprehension.

                    • You need to learn to split hairs. That kind of logic is rife when a critic of Barack Obama is called a racist. Leaping from the particular to the general is a logical fallacy, and a juvenile one. Opposing the Vietnam War didn’t make one a pacifist, thinking “Grease” was crap doesn’t mean one hates musicals, and weighing factors to conclude that a particular vaccination isn’t desirable doesn’t make someone an “antivaxxer.”

                      You really have no business being snide when your reasoning is so faulty. That’s a warning.

                  • If refusing to be a lab rat makes me an anti-vaxxer, then I am proud to be one.

                    If believing that “aborting” infants during the ninth month of pregnancy is evil makes me biased, then I am proud to be biased.

                    If believing that border policies that encourage the sex trafficking of women and children is evil makes me biased, then I’m proud to be biased.

                    • Don’t even play that game, Null. Don’t let the other side stuff you in a box of their choosing.

        • So you think “the left is funding Antifa to commit terrorist acts” is a “theory” and that conspiracy is “plausible.”

          That’s literally a conspiracy theory. You even used the exact words in your sentence.
          There is no proof the left is funding Antifa to commit domestic terrorism to push their agenda.

          That’s what a James Bond villain group like Spectre does.

          This is why your blog has dwindled. Only conspiracy theorists who can’t think properly believe crap like that.

          • I think there’s a problem with the definition of “the left” here.

            Antifa is a self-described leftist group. Unless something weird is going on, whoever is funding it — even if it’s the participants! — it’s being funded by “the left.”

            But they probably do get donations. From the DNC? Probably not. The same leftist millionaires and billionaires who advertise their donations to BLM? Probably in some cases.

            Is that being “funded by the left”? I think people here would describe it that way, and also say that BLM is “funded by the left.”

            Do you disagree with any of those observations?

            • Good, glad we agree there’s no conspiracy that the left is funding Antifa to commit domestic terroissim to push their agenda.

              That’s what Spectre does in the James Bond universe.

              • I’m glad too. And both PennAgain and Null Pointer do as well, so it seems like most of what we have here is semantic arguments; whether something constitutes a conspiracy, whether something constitutes terrorism… Those are things reasonable people can disagree on. Language is tricky, and we have a handful of lawyers and another handful of writers here.

                But the facts of what’s happened aren’t disputed. No one here (that I’m aware of) thinks that George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, and the Cigarette Smoking Man are getting together in a dimly lit room to hand down directions to Antifa.

                Just as a general thing, I think it’s important, when you’re casting judgement or making an argument to clarify what people actually mean by the words they’re using. Sometimes they’re using a specific legal definition, or being poetic, or generalizing, or picking loaded words that are technically accurate but emphasize their position. It’s hard to put together an argument when you’ve misunderstood what the other side is arguing.

    • Oh here is a comment from Null Pointer from July:

      “Personally, I don’t care if Trump actually comes to my house and personally beseeches me to get vaccinated. I’m not taking the vaccine, and they cannot make me.”

      I mean…this took me 2 seconds to find. Why do you think we’re making this stuff up? It’s obvious to anyone who cares.

      • How do you think that supports your contention? First, that’s one comment from one individual. More importantly, an individual saying that they won’t take a Wuhan virus vaccine is not necessarily an antivaxxer, and objections to the government mandating vaccines is a principled position, as well as not equating to an antivaxx stance.

        I’m not antivaxx at all, but I won’t get a flu shot. I have my reasons, and they are sufficient for me. If the government orders me to get one, I might just because I don’t have the time to fight about it, or I might refuse just because I can, to show that I’m not the government’s meat puppet. Depends on my mood.

        • I’ll do you one better – my kids are fully up to date on shots, my wife and I both got the COVID vaccine, and we all get the flu shot every year. However, I also have issues with the way the government has tried to mandate the vaccine.

          The problem with those like Tom is a lack of grace for others. I believe the ethical thing to do is give ideological opponents the benefit of the doubt, assuming the best possible motives instead of the worst, and believing they just have a different view on how to make things better rather than they are evil and full of hate.

          • When did anyone on the left here ever do that? When did the left say Trump was anything other than a racist, xenophobe, etc.? We on the right are within our rights to hit back and hit back harder.

      • Refusing to take a single vaccine is not the same as being anti-vaxx. I have taken every single one of my vaccines other than the currently offered mRNA covid vaccines. I take flu vaccines. I take tetanus vaccines. I don’t have a problem with vaccines in general, and if some enterprising company would like to bring a traditional inactivated or attenuated covid vaccine to market, I would be happy to take that. Otherwise I will wait 5 years or so to see what the long term effects of these mRNA vaccines are before I consider taking one. My medical decisions are none of the governments business in any case. They are none of yours, either.

        I would also point out that my opinions on the subject have actually been hotly debated here, and most of the commentors here don’t agree with me. Using me as an example to tar everyone else as anti-vaxx is absurd.

  2. Charles Krauthammer, may he rest in peace once said something to the effect of conservatives think liberals are stupid, but liberals think conservatives are evil.

    Evil is defined in the dictionary as “profoundly immoral and wicked.” Generally, tyranny is thought of as being immoral, wicked, and wrong. Bullying is considered wrong. The destruction of entire groups due to disagreement or dislike is considered wrong.

    Take a look at what the left is doing now. Take a look at what the left has done over the past few years. Is sowing racial discord and then trading on that discord a good thing? Is selective enforcement of the laws in such a way as to benefit yourself or those you agree with only a good thing? Is using the apparatus of government to make life difficult for those you don’t agree with a good thing? Is looking the other way on or in some cases actively supporting violent mobs as a de facto militia to get done what you can’t get done through the process a good thing? Is putting someone in power who is clearly not up to the job and then using him as a puppet a good thing? Is turning education into political indoctrination a good thing? Is conflating unity with agreeing with everything you say a good thing?

    The answer should be obvious. If it isn’t, maybe the problem is you.

    • Take a look at what the left is doing now. Take a look at what the left has done over the past few years. Is sowing racial discord and then trading on that discord a good thing?

      The murder of Geroge Floyd. Everything Joe Arpaio ever did. This whole crusade against Critical Race Theory being used to prevent teaching about things like the civil rights movement.

      Is selective enforcement of the laws in such a way as to benefit yourself or those you agree with only a good thing?

      Pardons of Joe Arpaio, Roger Stone, Dinesh Dsouza, Mike Flynn…

      Is using the apparatus of government to make life difficult for those you don’t agree with a good thing?

      Just fuck those people dealing with California wildfires, they didn’t vote for Trump.

      Is looking the other way on or in some cases actively supporting violent mobs as a de facto militia to get done what you can’t get done through the process a good thing?

      January 6’th.

      Is putting someone in power who is clearly not up to the job and then using him as a puppet a good thing?

      Donald John Trump.

      Is turning education into political indoctrination a good thing? Is conflating unity with agreeing with everything you say a good thing?

      Did we mention all this bullshit about “Critical Race Theory” being used as a cudgel to punish the teaching of history and to ban books about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King?

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/09/24/pennsylvania-school-book-ban-diversity/

      The answer should be obvious. If it isn’t, maybe the problem is you.

      Indeed, the problem is you.

      • Missed a blockquote in there partway through but anyone who sees the parent comment should be able to work out where it should have been.

      • This all boils down to “But Truuuuuump!”

        Trump may have been a chaos manager. He may have treated women like suits to be used and eventually tossed. He may have run his mouth like an open tap. He may have had almost no sense of couth. He may have been a carnival barker at heart. He may have gone through staff like a scythe through wheat. However, there was never any question of which side he was playing for. There was never any legitimate question of whether he had all, or at least most of, his marbles. There was never any question of whether he was for keeping law and order. There is no question he was for border security. He also never talked about placing one race over the rest.

        He was NOT behind the January 6th riot, which was tiny and minor compared to the insurrection of the previous summer. He was NOT behind the murder of George Floyd. He was NOT behind the California wildfires. He was NOT behind Antifa or the other rent-a-gangs.

        He was definitely NOT behind the antifa teacher or these other teachers who say pledge allegiance to the pride flag. WTF? He was definitely NOT behind Lois Lerner and her attempts to hobble every vaguely conservative political action group. And let’s not talk about the pardons of folks like Mark Rich or Oscar Lopez Rivera.

        The problem is ME? Beware pointing the finger, there are always three pointing back.

  3. The assignment of an idea or value to an entire group based on limited data is foolish if not bigoted. We should also not lose sight of the fact that Leftists want to bring the country down but liberals want the country to reflect a more equal political social order. Power seeking Democrats want power to ensure their ability to amass wealth is maintained as do power seeking Republicans. This is where the true intersectionality of politics occurs. Each group will align with the other if if furthers their own objectives. My point is that the Left is comprised people that hate what America is because if they can destroy it they can be the masters they claim to oppose. Democrats and liberals are not all Leftists but are often used as useful idiots by the Left. Republicans and Conservatives are not racists and bigots but are often cast as such because so many fail to successfully articulate the difference between equal treatment and equal outcomes.

    First of all why should we not think the Left is Evil? I suggest Tom make a persuasive argument to advance the Left’s positions and use historical empirical evidence to demonstrate the benevolent and benign nature of Leftist. I would be interested in knowing which Leftist oriented societies have flourished that had heterogenous demographics such as the United States and what significant global advances in culture, science and medicine have they made

    It should be noted that when it was reported that Justice Kavanaugh tested positive for Covid the Twitterverse hoped that he was unvaccinated so he would die from it.

    Tom said “How does saying “the Left is already paying groups like Antifa to commit terrorism to achieve their goals” not a conspiracy theory?”

    It only takes 2 people to create a conspiracy.

    I would be interested in knowing why our VP helped bail out Antifa rioters over the summer, some of whom were involved in the 3 day attack on the White House while doing nothing for those locked up in solitary confinement for participating in the January 6 riot. It seems to me that is a form of compensation to Antifa groups. If Antifa is simply an idea how does it get the resources to move large numbers of people across the country to protest. Who paid for the pallets of prepositioned bricks in the middle of a street where Antifa groups clashed with police? Who provided the hundreds of frozen water bottles hurled at Capitol police Secret Service officers? Who provided the resources to acquire the incendiary fireworks used as weapons against police? Those Fireworks are not cheap and I doubt they all came with individuals with no preplanning involved. Someone is paying them according to the local ads in the paper for activists to show up on a given day. That is not a conspiracy theory. Sufficient hard data supports this contention.

    Tom quoted NP ““Personally, I don’t care if Trump actually comes to my house and personally beseeches me to get vaccinated. I’m not taking the vaccine, and they cannot make me.”

    That response if I recall was based on the assertion that Trump should help Biden promote getting vaccinated which was in response to the unsupported allegation that the majority of the vaccine holdouts were Trump supporters. To bolster their point they pointed to Texas and Louisiana which were having spikes in cases. The fact is that the majority of the holdouts are in the Black and Hispanic community and increasing case counts in the south can be easily attributable to unvaccinated illegal aliens being released into the country by the Biden administration.

    Tom said: “I can go back and find antivax comments if you want. Or racist comments like the comment about the fat black woman (probably not racist enough for you though)”

    I have a video clip of Kamala Harris making statements about her own vaccine hesitancy prior to her becoming VP does that statement make her an antivaxxer? Biden himself invoked memory of the Tuskegee experiments on blacks.

    Tom should also consider that many people like myself push back against mandates not because we disagree with what is being mandated but because we know that failing to push back on mandates of any sort whether we agree or not will lead to more mandates in the future. Those of us that want to make our own decisions know that one day mandates will require us to do something we vehemently oppose. I am vaccinated but strongly oppose forcing anyone to get vaccinated. Keep in mind that the burden of the mandates will fall disproportionately on the Black and Hispanic communities where employed black and Hispanic Americans will be forced to kneel to the government edict or lose their jobs. Who are the racists?

    Calling someone a fat black woman is not racist in itself. It may be an insensitive description but hardly racist. I grew up being called that fat white boy by blacks in my classes was that racist or just descriptive?

    • Dunno if I posted this before, but here’s where I take liberals and liberalism apart, from a half whiny, half self-righteous “why I’m liberal” post that made the rounds a year or two ago. The phrases in parentheses in the first paragraph are mine, and my additional comments are indented and tabbed.

      I’m a liberal, but that doesn’t mean what a lot of you apparently think it does. Let’s break it down, shall we? (OK, let’s do just that) Because quite frankly, I’m getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. (So are we.) Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines (Additional spoiler alert: we know, and we don’t think you’re all the same):

      1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.

      – That’s nice. Apparently every country in the world is uncivilized, then. Pretty much every nation, from the US on down, has some issues with taking care of those least able to take care of themselves. A lot of it starts at home with parents who shouldn’t have become parents because they’re not up to the task. It continues with elderly folks who didn’t make provision for their own retirement and whose families aren’t willing to carry them, It keeps going with those who don’t take care of their health and don’t do enough to get adequate care. The disabled have a tougher hand than most, but, except in the case of the really severely handicapped, they can do their best to do their part. The best way to not be neglected is to put yourself in a position where you don’t need to depend on someone else’s care, and the only one who can do that is you.

      2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that’s interpreted as “I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.” This is not the case. I’m fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it’s impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes “let people die because they can’t afford healthcare” a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I’m not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

      – First of all, show me where it says in the Constitution that healthcare is a right. I’ll save you the trouble. It doesn’t. Yup, Obamacare has problems, like being passed based on lies, as admitted by its own architect and a severely botched rollout, and that’s before we even talk about the bureaucratic nightmare it has become. There’s a reason that it only just avoided repeal because a now-dead senator, who didn’t vote for it the first time out, chose to make it his last big middle finger to a president who he hated. It’s not a binary system where it’s either increase this bureaucratic mess or let people die, that’s what we call a false dichotomy. If you want to live in a place with a national healthcare system, feel free to hop a plane to Europe or drive north to Canada, leave your American passport on the kitchen table on the way out. Have fun paying the much higher taxes there.

      3. I believe education should be affordable. It doesn’t necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I’m mystified as to why it can’t work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.

      – That’s just a platitude. The system here isn’t changing. There are just too many people’s interests tied up in making it necessary and easy to take out huge loans to pay for degrees from universities that have no reason to contain costs, where you’re mostly paying for the prestige and potential connections, not for appreciably better education. That said, feel free to endow a scholarship or two, or hop that plane to Europe I just talked about.

      4. I don’t believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don’t want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can’t afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.

      – Unfortunately, when the government uses taxes to finance relief for those who can’t seem to get ahead, that’s what happens. When government gives to someone it must first take from someone else. That’s just how it works. Wealth doesn’t just appear from thin air. If you say you’ve never encountered anyone like this you’ve been moving in different circles than I have. I’ve seen the people who can’t break off with alcohol or drugs and don’t really try to. I’ve seen the people whose work ethic consists of “gimme, gimme, gimme.” I’ve seen the women who live in subsidized housing that everyone else picks up the subsidy for, collecting the welfare checks because they have three children by three different fathers and really very little in the way of marketable skills because they never really tried to acquire them. Your wish list sounds nice, but how about a workable proposal to make it a reality? Who decides what anyone’s fair share is? You? Who authorized you to decide that? If you want to decide it, may I suggest you consider a run for office?

      5. I don’t throw around “I’m willing to pay higher taxes” lightly. If I’m suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it’s because I’m fine with paying my share as long as it’s actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.

      – Maybe you’re fine with paying more. That doesn’t mean everyone else is. BTW, taxes go to a lot more than stuffing corporate pockets and financing wars you consider ill-conceived, starting with entitlements.

      6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn’t have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.

      – When you are running your own company, you make those decisions. Someone else might not see it that way. It isn’t for the government to impose your views about the way things should be done on others, at least not without a vote first. Companies are only one-third about giving their employees reasonable compensation. They are two-thirds about giving their customers reasonable service and investors a reasonable profit. If people are having to work three full-time jobs just to make ends meet it doesn’t mean society isn’t fair, it means they need to adjust their lifestyles or that they made bad choices. If companies aren’t paying employees enough, then the employees need to make themselves valuable enough to get a raise, or look for another job where they’ll be better paid. Restaurant servers know how it works, and if they don’t like it, they can move on, as most servers do. It’s called free enterprise, not everyone gets some minimum that is enough that no one desires to do better.

      7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is – and should be – illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I’m not “offended by Christianity” — I’m offended that you’re trying to force me to live by your religion’s rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That’s how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don’t force it on me or mine.

      – Most of us don’t think you want to do those things. Stop being absurd. The vast majority of us don’t give a damn what you believe or if you believe. Most of those of us who have a particular belief are quite content to leave you alone. Who’s trying to legislate scripture into law? Where? What passage is he trying to legislate? No one is trying to force you to live by any religion’s rules, although some of the laws that govern good order, taxing, you know, that aid to the poor you’re so hung up about, etc. happen to comport with some religious principles. The main problem we people of faith have is when those who have no faith look down their noses at us, insult us, offend us, or hurt us. So, maybe look to your own house and stop calling people of faith “religitards” and talking about “the sky fairy.” While you’re at it, I’d suggest you clam up about imposing beliefs until people like yourself stop bringing lawsuits about crosses on war memorials that have been around for almost a century without a problem or non-sectarian invocations you are free not to say “amen” to. For people who don’t believe and who think belief is silly, you spend an awful lot of time thinking about it. I’d almost think you were obsessed with it, or hated it. Nah, that couldn’t be, could it? Liberals never hate, right? You just pour deserved contempt on those who deserve it anyway.

      8. I don’t believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.

      – And I believe that those of us who don’t want to get involved in that sort of thing shouldn’t have to. If someone doesn’t want to bake the cake, or take the pictures, or arrange the flowers, or host the event, then find someone who does. Don’t bring a lawsuit to force them, and don’t go seeking out someone you know will say no just so you can bring a lawsuit.

      9. I don’t believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN’T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they’re supposed to be abusing, and if they’re “stealing” your job it’s because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).

      – Here’s a spoiler for you: if you’re here illegally, however you got here, you don’t belong here. That’s it. It really is that simple. It doesn’t matter if you overstayed a visa, or stowed away on a ship, or came here with your three-year-old in your arms in one of those “caravans” that somehow made it all the way from Guatemala or Honduras to the Rio Grande (which is about 1,500 miles), on foot, without running into too many problems. I have zero problem with people coming here legally, following all the procedures, and actually wanting to become productive citizens. I have a huge problem with people essentially jumping the line and crying oppression when we insist they do things the right way. BTW, a lot of the practices you decry went on under Obama, and never a peep did we hear from you.

      10. I don’t believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It’s not that I want the government’s hands in everything — I just don’t trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they’re harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.

      – The bottom line IS in the equation. If it wasn’t, then the companies wouldn’t be doing anything, and they wouldn’t be generating wealth you can tax. And just who said you get to decide who can be trusted to do what? The government is supposed to protect people, which it does by enforcing standards. It is not supposed to run every aspect of their lives to make sure everything is safe. It is supposed to trust people to at least some degree. That’s why there is a certain level of privacy that people have recourse to and the government can’t just show up and look over your shoulder without saying why. Honestly, this sounds like double talk – I don’t want the government’s hands in everything, but I don’t trust people making a profit – so you DO want the government’s hands in everything, you just want to justify it.

      11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I’ve spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.

      – Wait a minute here. Full stop. If you think there are many similarities between the Trump administration and the Third Reich then you must be reading some different history than I did. The Nazis closed churches as well as synagogues, created a secret state police with sweeping powers, made Germany into a national rather than a federal state, broke multiple treaties, allowed one sector of society to be abused while the emergency services stood back and did nothing, demanded loyalty for all practical purposes at gunpoint, and, hmmm, there’s one other big thing they did, but it’s just not coming to me right now, let me think…Oh yes, that little thing called the HOLOCAUST. I haven’t seen the current administration do any of those things. If anything, it’s the liberals who are talking about trashing the Constitution (kill the electoral college, stack the Supreme Court). It’s also those liberals who call themselves antifa who go around beating up those who disagree with them. Not to mention the liberals were pretty darn close to nominating a Communist sympathizer for president. Don’t call the current administration fascist and expect us not to call you borderline Bolsheviks.

      12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege — white, straight, male, economic, etc. — need to start listening, even if you don’t like what you’re hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that’s causing people to be marginalized.

      – That’s nice. Some folks probably even agree with you. Some of us don’t though. Some of us think this society has come a lot farther than you think it has, and that these allegations of privilege are just another way of dressing up the old conflict of the have-nots vs the haves. Maybe we’ll listen to what you have to say. However, maybe we won’t, because a lot of us have heard it already, several times. Maybe we will dismiss it. Maybe we will say no. Maybe we’ll fight our corners. Despite what you might think, privilege is not a magic word that will cause anyone you aim it at to hang his head like a Victorian-era servant being scolded by his betters, “Yes mum, no mum, won’t happen again, mum…”

      13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine.

      – I’m putting it here. You want to go unchallenged, then keep to talking about your kids and the weather. You post a narcissistic rant about your thoughts on everything, you get challenged. Your assertion is nice. But it’s only partially true. You don’t want to come after guns YOURSELF. You want to send someone after guns on your behalf. There are over a thousand laws on the books regarding the regulation of firearms. There are probably just as many about recreational drugs and immigration. You can see for yourself how well those are working. What makes you think that a government that can’t stop either of those things can keep all guns out of the wrong hands? The thing is that you liberals think that almost no one’s hands are the right hands. Still, if you think you can change things, feel free to see if you can get 2/3 of Congress or 3/5 of the states to agree with you.

      14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you’re using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?

      – I don’t. I think it’s control masquerading as politeness. What makes you think that someone else knows what phrases are more accurate or less hurtful than what I choose to use? What’s more, what makes you think you have the right to correct another adult’s way of talking? Where I come from, THAT’S what’s called rude. Your own name is one thing, I’ll call you whatever you want, but if I want to say Oriental and you want me to say Asian, too bad. I grew up saying it, it was fine then, it’s not a deliberate insult, and I’m not going to stop saying it because it’s no longer the flavor of the month. I’m still going to use the generic male pronoun and not say the clunky “his or her” every damn time. I’m still going to say fireman and congressman and fisherman, although I’ll probably say cop rather than policeman because it’s shorter and quicker. If you don’t like it, I really don’t care, unless you’re signing my paycheck.

      15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

      – No, that’s not how it works. You don’t get to put a whole sector of the energy business out of business with a flip statement that you’ll teach them to code, and you don’t just get to sneer and say invest someplace else. This statement is the height of arrogance.

      16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

      – Women sometimes get treated differently because they ARE different from men. That’s just a biological fact, and aren’t you liberals supposed to be all about the science? They should be paid as much as their employer decides they are worth, same as men. They do have the same rights, unless someone shredded the Constitution while I’ve been writing here. Everyone should be free from abuse, but they won’t be, because sometimes people just treat one another badly, and that’s just a fact of human nature, so we’re stuck with enforcing the criminal laws.

      I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I’m a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn’t mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don’t believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.
      Copy & paste if you want.

      – Oh, that MORE than covers it. This last statement is Authentic Frontier Gibberish. The bottom line is that you’re a liberal because you think you have a lock on everything that’s good, and you think everyone else should do as you say because you have that lock. Well, some folks may be persuaded, but I’m not. So, you can take all these statements you’ve just spent a bunch of time writing, roll them up, and place the rolled up paper in a cardboard tube. Then guess where you can stuff that tube?

  4. “It should be noted that when it was reported that Justice Kavanaugh tested positive for Covid the Twitterverse hoped that he was unvaccinated so he would die from it.”

    And then they get all pearl-clutchy if we use the same tactics. What a bunch of hypocrites and bullies.

  5. A question for N,P.

    Would Ron DeSantis be an acceptable candidate? Would you vote for him? He’s certainly being slimed good and hard by the Dems as if he were Trump 2.0. He strikes me as being a pretty solid guy.

      • I’m with you. He’s even an Ivy Leaguer. Maybe he could get some of the D.C. elite to work for and with him? But maybe that’s pie in the sky. I suspect the anti-all-things-Trump playbook will be brought out any time a Democrat doesn’t take the presidency. I think they’re really addicted to it. As Harry Reid famously snarked, “We won, didn’t we?”

    • I’ll chip in here as well. Based on what I have seen, I would love for DeSantis to run in 2024. He espouses many policies that seem sound to me, as NP states he hasn’t caved to the radicals, and he appears not to have many of the rough/nasty edges that Trump had.

      As an aside, have you noticed that the media hasn’t been attacking DeSantis nearly as much recently on his Covid policies? Do we think that could have anything to do with the fact that cases in Florida have plummeted the last few weeks? Hmmm.

  6. In response to thecrecent critic: From what I have seen, a good 75% of the commenters here would have been center left in 2000.

    – Most people here are fine with gay people.

    – Most people here are respectful to trans people who only want to be treated as their preferred gender (at least I’ve never heard anyone misgender ZoeBrain.)

    – I think everyone here supports eliminating prejudice based on skin color or national origin, and lean towards fierce meritocracy, while wanting to focus on practical solutions to social issues that plague cultural communities.

    – From what I can tell, many or most people here have had the COVID vaccine, even when some of those people don’t support mandates, don’t think it’s as effective as advertised, or think the risk/reward balance might be different for younger people.

    The left has shifted hard over the past 10 years, and towards theoretical, intangible, and authoritarian arguments (I’m a libertarian myself, and find the common ground that I used to have with what I think of as the “George Carlin left” shrinks by the year.) The people here haven’t been convinced by those academic arguments, and given that the left hasn’t really made a good faith attempt at persuasion or debate, seem unlikely to be. This isn’t a right-wing problem, the left is dropping libertarian and moderate leftists all over the place: Bari Weiss, John McWorter, Bill Mahr, Glenn Greenwald, JK Rowling, Alan Dershowitz…

    There is a growing divide, and it shows here, but it’s not the right and center shifting away from the left. The left has run to the end of the overton window and has been pushing as hard as it can.

    • Agreed, as I might note, I generally do with your comments.

      I think of anti-vaxxers as the fringe folks who believe that vaccines regularly cause harm (such as autism) and other implausible ideas. It’s not a new phenomenon and has been a growing concern to me over the last decade or two. I worry that we’re nearing the point where we could have recurrence of things such as measles or similar deadly diseases that have been largely eradicated through vaccination. I am not in this group.

      However, it is becoming clear to me that the Covid vaccine is quite different than our traditional vaccines. When you get a smallpox vaccine or measles vaccine, quite simply you don’t worry about ever contracting those diseases. Clearly that is not the case with our current Covid vaccines, or we would be seeing vaccinating people come down with Covid at all, ever.

      That, to me, is the flip side of these new techniques for developing vaccines. The good news is that we came up with the vaccines incredibly fast. The bad news is that you can be vaccinated and still come down with the disease. The good news is that if you do get vaccinated but still come down with the disease, your outcome will tend to be much more positive than if you hadn’t been vaccinated.

      Are there long term side effects of these new vaccines? Ask me in a few years and we’ll have the answer. We have this large scale clinical trial underway right now with hundreds of millions of participants. I enrolled in this trial just as soon as I could.

      Ah, but the current question is — should the federal government mandate through a bureaucratic regulation that all adults get vaccinated? No. Just no. It is another vast overreach by the federal government, it goes beyond the powers we granted to the federal government in the Constitution and, pragmatically it is a wrong headed approach.

      I am not an anti-vaxxer. I’ve taken this vaccination. I am fixing to get a flu vaccination.

      I think the current approach to this problem is wrong headed, unconstitutional and ultimately futile. If we were a Communist dictatorship, perhaps it would work. Just ask the current General Secretary of the Soviet Union — oh wait……..

      • “When you get a smallpox vaccine or measles vaccine, quite simply you don’t worry about ever contracting those diseases. Clearly that is not the case with our current Covid vaccines, or we would be seeing vaccinating people come down with Covid at all, ever.”

        No vaccine achieves 100% protection. For example, there was an outbreak of measles in the Centre region of Cameroon in January 2020. Of the 17 individuals who contracted the disease, six (35%) were known to have been vaccinated.

        Part of the reason you don’t have to worry about contracting measles if you have had the vaccine is that, if you have had the vaccine, you are considerably less likely to contract measles if you are exposed to the disease. But the primary reason not to worry is that, because of widespread measles vaccinations, instances of the disease are rare in most parts of the world, and thus you are unlikely to be exposed to measles in the first place.

        If you could vaccinate the entire population of the United States against COVID-19, you would see a similar effect: the disease would largely die out. People wouldn’t have to worry very much about COVID-19, partly because the vaccine makes it less likely that people exposed to the virus would catch the disease, but mainly because people would be much less likely to be exposed to the virus in the first place.

    • I think this is correct. The blog commentariate like the blog itself, appears uncomfortably conservative to those who are so unalterably left-biased that their perception is warped. Most commenters are, as you say, center-right, and consistently so.

  7. Null Pointer’s main point, that the Democrats will deploy the same tactics no matter who the Republicans nominate, is key. He or she will be labelled racist, misogynistic, anti-science, deranged, fascist, a megalomaniac, corrupt, fraudulent, and a danger to democracy. I think they would have trouble turning the heat up quite as high with someone like DeSantis, but it won’t be for lack of trying.

    Regarding “the Left”, it’s interesting that during one-on-one conversations with people that I consider fairly hard-left, it’s easy to find areas of agreement: taxes are too high, we should get control of the border, CRT is outrageous (after explaining the core tenets), PC speech rules are going way too far, and men can’t get pregnant. I do detect a strong authoritarian streak in many of them, however, so I agree that support for curtailing speech/gun rights and personal medical decisions is present.

    Much of the agenda of the truly radical left only survive’s by obscuring what it actually is.

  8. Apparently Tom said “You’re left with the racist, conspiracy theory, antivax crowd, who view the left as pure evil.”
    The reason I first started reading “Ethics Alarms” was because I was becoming interested in ethics and I wanted a site that had regular postings and discussed a wide variety of ethics, not just business ethics, medical ethics, education ethics, legal ethics only and although Jack is a little right of me politically, I can generally agree with the majority of what he says. But as I am a not an American but a New Zealander, I do wish there were less political posts but then I can just skip some of it.
    So maybe it is time after all these years of reading Ethics Alarms and occasionally commenting to tell everyone a bit about my self. I am 66, retired, a runner, quiz enthusiast and for the last four years a track and field and cross-country official. I generally view myself sometimes as a liberal, sometimes as a moderate, and sometimes a little bit conservative depending on the issue. For example, I believe people should marry before having children and last year I voted against marijuana legalisation in New Zealand. But the liberal side of me says if little children want to go naked or women want go topless at the beach (even though very few do) then it has nothing to do with me.
    But as for being a racist, conspiracy theorist, antivaxxer, who views the left as pure evil, that is not me at all.
    A few days ago the new Zealand government announced it would give 168,000 people now in New Zealand permanent residency, which would presumably eventually lead on to citizenship. Now 168,000 people with New Zealand having one sixty-sixth the population of the USA, would be equivalent to 11,000,000 new permanent residents in the USA. They have to pass various requirements such as criminal checks and earning more than the average wage. Lower wage people coming to New Zealand are generally seasonal agricultural workers coming from Vanu Atu, Tonga and Samoa. Now if I was a racist I would not want these people coming here as most of them would likely to be non white, but I welcome anyone who can help make the country a better place.
    As for being antivax then that is completely not me. I am fully vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, the only vaccine in to pass through New Zealand’s Medsafe Agency so far. I think as many people as possible should get vaccinated in order to have some sort of herd immunity to prevent to spread of the disease.
    As for conspiracy theories, I believe that more than 99% are false so it is easier to disbelieve them all unless some good evidence comes along to give a theory some credence.
    As to the left being evil, I think generally rather than being evil some people on both the far left and the far right are misguided with only a small percentage of them being evil.
    Also, although I think our Prime Minister Jacinda Adern is too far to the left, she has ruled out introducing both a capital gains tax and an inheritance tax that the Green Party wanted.

  9. This is an easy one to parry. The left is not pure evil.

    They often espouse very foolish ideas, rarely consider consequences, are willing to make very large consessions if it will grant them political power, often mistake the analysis which first comes to their mind with reality, and fervently with the government had more power in individuals’ lives, and the individuals themselves had rather less. They obfuscate terms, use dishonest numbers, statistics, and arguing tactics. They have no qualms spending money and raising taxes, especially if it helps them cement some form of political gain. They are willing to paint their opponents with the worst names and motives imaginable, and are often eager to destroy, disrupt, and corrupt any and all traditions, morals, and institutions which interfere with their stated goals. I disagree with them on most issues, and would love to see a country where their ludicrous ideas are openly mocked instead of entertained. I wish them no ill will beyond befuddlement when they strive to take wrong-headed action. They, again, are not evil, only human. I do not hate them, only oppose them, and sigh in frustration when their stars are ascendant.

    Note also, that many of the traits are not exclusive to the left. When those on my side use underhanded tactics to achieve ends I approve of, I’m torn between the utilitarian impulse and the ethical one. The left does not have a monopoly on stupidity, shortsighted, or selfishness. Just a commanding market presence at the moment.

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.