Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Ken B]

About Huckabee. I don't think you are entitled to call him names unless you can answer his hypothetical. (That,s sort of a principle I think: you shouldn t preen about your imagined superiority unless you can justify it.). So a 14 year old guy announces he wants to use the girl's showers. Is anyone entitled to say no? What do you say about girls who refuse to shower with him? Are they bigots? Because unless your answers are no, yes you are conceding Huckabee has a point. He doesn't win the argument, but if he has a point your snide hectoring pose of superiority is unearned.

And the generation that first cared about marginalized people? That's both hilarious and sad. Tell that to the civil rights workers.

[Rinaldo]

That is some fine regional-class hyperbole.

Yes, it is. Because I'm tired of people ridiculing the call for common decency around issues that were previously laughed off / taboo with "so now I can't say anything without offending someone" BS. Now THAT's some hyperbole!

Because everyone's stigma and pain must be treated SUPER SERIALLY ALL THE TIME.

No. But if you treat it in a way that's so overtly insensitive and childish, you reap what you sow.

Of course, it's creepy to be someone who in high school was attracted to the opposite gender and wouldn't mind seeing them naked.

No. It's creepy to jovially express the wish to sneak up on teenage girls.

Huckabee has a point

What point? The only point in what he said was to take a cheap jab at social progress his faith can't stomach.

Sorry for the - unintended - thread derailing! Never would have guessed a "well, but.." reaction to what Huckabee said. And to imagine I used to like the guy, sort of.

[Ken B]

What's the point? I elaborated that pretty fully, and asked two questions to illustrate. But let me spell it out. There are situations where we don't just take someone's word for it in matters like these, and there are public concerns. Huckabee is actually right about that, and his joke highlights his point forcefully. Just because one point doesn't prove his case is beside the point when your reaction is not understanding or engagement but a sneer.
It's a simple matter really. You don't get to call for a double face palm and yell "Dunce!" if the guy you are ridiculing is making a point and you miss it.
When Huckabee next goes on about how "unnatural" it is, or "God's Law" then he'll merit a double face palm. Be patient, it'll happen.

[Todd]

Yes, it is. Because I'm tired of people ridiculing the call for common decency around issues that were previously laughed off / taboo with "so now I can't say anything without offending someone" BS. Now THAT's some hyperbole!

Further proof why wedge issues are always trotted out in campaigns: They work! 

[ibanezmonster]

No. It's creepy to jovially express the wish to sneak up on teenage girls.

And here you take it and twist it to imply something else, exactly what other people were doing.

No, he's not saying at his age he would like to sneak up on teenage girls (this is what let to the "closet pedophile" comments I read). He's saying when he was a teenager, he would have liked to see other teenagers naked. Like every teenager out there. But somehow this is creepy.

Now that the age issue is settled, who hasn't joked/heard someone else joking about sneaking into a locker room? When I was talking about superspeed powers, my friend was joking about sneaking into the NBA locker rooms (implying doing whatever before they could see). Nothing wrong with joking about that.

Yes, it is. Because I'm tired of people ridiculing the call for common decency around issues that were previously laughed off / taboo with "so now I can't say anything without offending someone" BS. Now THAT's some hyperbole!

Well, you pretty much can't around the overly-PC/SJW crowd, because I've heard many of them say that you cannot even get into a discussion or comment on anything if you aren't one of the "oppressed" groups (female, gay, trans, fat, disabled, minority, etc.)

[NorthNYMark]

People's reactions to this are really ridiculous.
It was a joke. Every high school guy has wished they could get into the girls' locker room and see them undress. He didn't say anything else, and people are stretching what he said to extreme meanings.

And no, I don't support him, before anyone jumps to the "OMG! You're incredibly evil!" conclusion that people on the internet jump to so quickly.

When I read this earlier today, I was thinking that maybe you had a point.  But then I saw the video.  Although yes, his comment was presented as a joke, the joke was  pretty much the sole support of his argument (about which he was dead serious, from what I could gather) that transgender women should not be able to use women's public bathrooms.  In that sense, it was not just a joke, but a rhetorical strategy for making a point about an issue that affects real peoples' lives and safety. It may be worth noting here that bathroom access really is a serious issue for most trans people, because that is where they are so often publicly humiliated and subject to violence.  Joking about it--particularly with the intent of making those experiences tougher for trans people--is obviously not going to go over well with trans people or their supporters,

[NorthNYMark]

About Huckabee. I don't think you are entitled to call him names unless you can answer his hypothetical. (That,s sort of a principle I think: you shouldn t preen about your imagined superiority unless you can justify it.). So a 14 year old guy announces he wants to use the girl's showers. Is anyone entitled to say no? What do you say about girls who refuse to shower with him? Are they bigots? Because unless your answers are no, yes you are conceding Huckabee has a point. He doesn't win the argument, but if he has a point your snide hectoring pose of superiority is unearned.

And the generation that first cared about marginalized people? That's both hilarious and sad. Tell that to the civil rights workers.

I agree with your larger point--that when engaging in debate, we should approach it by trying to understand the opposing point in the most generous way possible.  By generous, I mean assuming that they are being made for the best of intentions, perhaps even intentions with which we might possibly agree.  As far as that goes, to the extent that Huckabee is concerned about the potential for non-trans people pretending to be trans as a way of making it easier to engage in predatory behavior, I can see that as a legitimate concern that might need to be addressed in some way.  On the other hand, that doesn't quite seem to be his intention, because he doesn't in any way acknowledge the needs or experiences of actual trans people, and even seems to blur the line between actual trans people and the theoretical predators who are being dishonest (as if he doesn't believe trans people are really who or what they claim). That is where his prejudices seem to overshadow whatever concerns he has for little girls in women's rooms with adult trans women (to whom he simply refers as "men"). I find it rather remarkable that he doesn't seem to have the same fear for little boys going to the same men's rooms as adult men, which of course has been going on for as long as public bathrooms have existed (and, though I may be wrong about this, I've never heard any evidence that would suggest that most sexual abuse of boys by men has tended to occur in public restrooms, probably because they are so public).  On the other hand,  I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence that trans women forced to use men's rooms (or chased out of women's rooms) are frequently the targets of violence, but Huckabee shows no concern for that whatsoever.

To answer the hypothetical about the 14 year old boy, I would need more information.  For one thing, since you did not say "a 14 year old trans girl," I'm assuming you mean a traditionally cisgender male with no history of presenting as a female.  In that case, the answer would be no. But if she were actually showing up in girls' clothing, requesting a name change, and the other things that trans folks tend to do, my answer would be yes.  What Huckabee is presumably imagining is that a cisgender boy would actually go to the trouble to do all of that, just to get access to the girls' shower.  I imagine that if such cases actually start occurring, there are ways they could be dealt with (frankly, I'm skeptical that many--or any--cisgender males would even consider actually doing such a thing--it is hard enough for actual trans people to go through with it).  But in the meantime, it seems like a convenient, but not particularly convincing, excuse to keep trans people from living as normally and free of harassment as possible.

[Ken B]

Mark
I think we broadly agree on both trans and Huckabee. But in this case the face Palm is unearned. That your answer on the 14 year old is qualified proves Huckabee makes a point. I don't think he is or needs to imagine much beyond a boy asserting.the point is we do not automatically accede. You agree with that.
I object to wallowing in confirmation bias and misrepresenting arguments, both of which I think the other poster was guilty of.

[NorthNYMark]

Mark
I think we broadly agree on both trans and Huckabee. But in this case the face Palm is unearned. That your answer on the 14 year old is qualified proves Huckabee makes a point. I don't think he is or needs to imagine much beyond a boy asserting.the point is we do not automatically accede. You agree with that.
I object to wallowing in confirmation bias and misrepresenting arguments, both of which I think the other poster was guilty of.

Ken,
Yeah, I know we agree on the fundamentals here.  I'm just trying to make sure I fully understand your specific point, because I'm not entirely sure.  You are saying that as long as we agree that not just any teenaged boy should be able to shower with the girls, we are agreeing with Huckabee's central point, or at least suggesting that it is not worthy of a face palm--is that correct?  If so, I'm just not so sure I see that as his central point--or, if it is, I would contend that his failure (or refusal) to distinguish between a trans girl and a cis boy wanting to shower with the girls is precisely what would be worthy of the face palm.  But am I misunderstanding your reasoning here? If your objection is to the mockery of Huckabee's acknowledgment of his teen-aged desire to see nude girls (without regard to the context), I can see your point.  But in that case, I think most of the mockery comes in response to his equating that rather banal desire to the kinds of terror that trans people feel when forced to use the inappropriate bathroom--to joke like that shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of what motivates trans people (and a belittling of them) that I don't think a face palm is entirely inappropriate.  Still, mockery is usually reductive, and perhaps what you are saying is that those mocking him are falling prey to the same reductive thinking for which they would criticize him--if so, I think you may have a point there.

[Rinaldo]

But in that case, I think most of the mockery comes in response to his equating that rather banal desire to the kinds of terror that trans people feel when forced to use the inappropriate bathroom--to joke like that shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of what motivates trans people (and a belittling of them) that I don't think a face palm is entirely inappropriate.

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say and failed, because yeah, the whole thing really pissed me off.

[Florestan]

You wonder why you are matched up with Bernie Sanders when you answer yes to questions like "Do you support the total abolition of health insurance markets and the prohibition on private healthcare?" 

I did not answer yes to that question because it was not there. Had it been, I would have answered an unqualified no.

And Common Core is NOT just standardized testing. It is a particular and controversial program.

The test stated that Common Core's goal is to define what all high school graduates should know in English and Math, period. Put that way I voted yes. If it is something else then the test is crap and its authors are plain liars.

EDIT: I am not American and many issues are unfamiliar to me, including Obamacare and Common Core. On those issues I voted based on the explanations provided by the test. If they are inaccurate or misleading it's not my fault.

For instance, here is what they say about Common Core:

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an education initiative that details what K-12 students should know in English and Math at the end of each grade. The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers and seeks to establish consistent education standards across the states as well as ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter two or four year college programs or enter the workforce. (emphasis mine)

Put this way (and this way only, mind you!) I see nothing objectionable.

About Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act is a federal statute signed into law in 2010 that introduces a sweeping overhaul of the nation's healthcare system. The act grants the federal government significant regulatory powers and price controls over U.S. medical service providers and insurance companies.

Put this way (and this way only, mind you!), what is the difference between that and the Swiss system

Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance (ger: Krankenversicherungsgesetz (KVG); fre: la loi fédérale sur l'assurance-maladie (LAMal); ita: legge federale sull'assicurazione malattie (LAMal)). It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.[2]

The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.[2]

As far as the compulsory health insurance is concerned, the insurance companies cannot set any conditions relating to age, sex or state of health for coverage. Although the level of premium can vary from one company to another, they must be identical within the same company for all insured persons of the same age group and region, regardless of sex or state of health.

(all emphasis mine)

in which one sees both federal regulatory powers and price control.

[San Antone]

George Pataki, who is also seeking the 2016 Republican nomination, told CNN, "I think the more important point is we should give people their dignity and let them make their own decisions. If someone chooses a path that's different than mine, we should respect it as opposed to mocking it or in any way trying to prevent that."

[Karl Henning]

It's Primary season.  If we take away half-empty mockery, where will the fun be?!

[Gurn Blanston]

For you, Florestan, to help you understand the American Way a little better. A tweet I made quoting my favorite author (next to Mark Twain), Kurt Vonnegut:

Gurn Blanston retweeted
Kurt Vonnegut ‏@Kurt_Vonnegut May 17

Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools, or health insurance for all?

If you can just get your mind around that, your troubles will be over.

[North Star]

For you, Florestan, to help you understand the American Way a little better. A tweet I made quoting my favorite author (next to Mark Twain), Kurt Vonnegut:

If you can just get your mind around that, your troubles will be over.

I'm waiting for the time when there are road tolls with big signs reading 'You have to be this rich to enter this ride'.

[Gurn Blanston]

I'm waiting for the time when there are road tolls with big signs reading 'You have to be this rich to enter this ride'.

There probably are, we just haven't run across them yet.

[San Antone]

Socialism wishes to create a utopia where all people receive a good education (for free), fantastic health care (at no cost), a nice place to live (for next to nothing), all the food they want, a job they like; in short, the perfect society.  Trouble is, this is an unrealizable dream.  There is not enough money in our universe to create this world, and what they end up doing with the available resources is mandating mediocrity for everyone.

[ibanezmonster]

Socialism wishes to create a utopia where all people receive a good education (for free), fantastic health care (at no cost), a nice place to live (for next to nothing), all the food they want, a job they like; in short, the perfect society.  Trouble is, this is an unrealizable dream.  There is not enough money in our universe to create this world, and what they end up doing with the available resources is mandating mediocrity for everyone.

Well, based on what I've heard about Qatar, people could always move there for that. 

When I read this earlier today, I was thinking that maybe you had a point.  But then I saw the video. 

I didn't know there was a video to that. Well, if there's more to it, then maybe that reaction makes sense.

[Gurn Blanston]

Socialism wishes to create a utopia where all people receive a good education (for free), fantastic health care (at no cost), a nice place to live (for next to nothing), all the food they want, a job they like; in short, the perfect society.  Trouble is, this is an unrealizable dream.  There is not enough money in our universe to create this world, and what they end up doing with the available resources is mandating mediocrity for everyone.

Yeah yeah yeah. No one here is talking about any of that stuff. We get mediocrity because we demand it.

"Like great public schools, or health insurance for all"

That is not only realizable it should be freaking basic. Infrastructure too. If government provides us anything at all, it should be that plus 'provide for the common defense'. Other than that, who the hell needs government anyway?

[Todd]

That is not only realizable it should be freaking basic. Infrastructure too. If government provides us anything at all, it should be that plus 'provide for the common defense'. Other than that, who the hell needs government anyway?

Surely your exclusion of old age pension is accidental.  That's the biggest program of all. 

Then you have feeding the hungry.  That seems defensible.  Agricultural subsidies can help there, while also helping farmers.  So there's another defensible program.  Protecting jobs via more subsidies paired with protectionist laws, which further boost prices for end consumers, who can argue with that?  How are we going to provide fuel for all this?  Well, then some energy subsidies seem like a good idea.  Let's offer a credit here, and direct payment there.  And the Fifth Fleet, too.  And shouldn't everyone be able to own their own home?  Isn't that part of the American Dream?  Better offer up a subsidy for that.  What could go wrong?