USA Politics

[JBS]

I am very concerned about the future of the United States.

There are several irreconcilable issues that separate the conservative right and the Democrats in the United States.

The conservative right appears to think they can prevail through rhetoric and controlling the courts.  They do not seem to understand those of us on the left have strong beliefs as well.

Four irreconcilable issues are:

A woman's right to choose.
Darwin is real and the world is over 10,000 years old.
Climate change is real.
Minorities do not have the same opportunities in this country as white people.

I have yet to hear anything from the right, including rationalizations questioning my intelligence, that would change my feelings on any of these issues.

First off, a large number of conservatives accept evolution and the age of the universe. A bunch of them are atheists, in fact.  That creationists are highly vocal distorts their number.

Second, on climate change the real dispute is on the reason for it and what to do. The conservative view is generally that the scientific case for AGW is much weaker than its advocates contend.  And there are a significant number of conservatives who do believe in AGW. They just don't think massive regulation and government intervention is a very efficient means to deal with it.

Third, almost all conservatives agree with the left on systemic racism. They differ in the solutions: they believe that most government programs and regulations on the subject simply lock in the problem, don't solve it, often make it worse.
The difference is on how to solve the problem, not on what the problem is.

Abortion: conservatives think the unborn are human lives and like all human lives should not be terminated unless it's truly necessary to save another human life. [And most conservatives think that modern medical knowledge makes that rare, and any baby aborted in the last trimester could be instead delivered alive as a preemie and treated accordingly.] No one has the right to choose another human being's existence.

So perhaps the differenced are not as big as you think they are.

[Karl Henning]

Nothing says Weak like an incumbent asking for an extra debate:

Trump campaign makes pitch for fourth debate with Biden amid declining poll numbers

[Karl Henning]

What can public health matter compared to the infantile President needing to feel good?

"You can bet that Trump will be absolutely jazzed for the event, and will not hold back. [H]e has held 81 rallies since becoming president, but it has been three and a half months since his last one. He has plainly found the wait maddening, not only because he believes that each rally is a shot of political adrenaline that will inevitably boost his steadily falling standing, but also because he draws strength and reassurance from them.

His every day may be filled with bad news and crises he is ill-equipped to handle, but when he bathes in the fevered worship of the MAGA faithful, he knows that he is doing a terrific job and is on the way to a sweeping reelection victory."

[greg]

Rip GW statue. Apparently Trump predicted it a few years ago while people rolled their eyes.

[SimonNZ]

Thanks again to JBS for putting David Frum on my radar. I just heard an hour long interview with him from last year that was smart and articulate:

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-good-fight/e/63218100?autoplay=true

The thread of the conversation leads them to spend a lot of time on immigration issues.

I was reminded of him earlier today when I saw a copy of his book on W. called The Right Man, which I would previously have passed by, but will now get in the next few days. From the interview it sounds like he's revised some of his views in the book in later Atlantic articles.

[arpeggio]

First off, a large number of conservatives accept evolution and the age of the universe. A bunch of them are atheists, in fact.  That creationists are highly vocal distorts their number.

Second, on climate change the real dispute is on the reason for it and what to do. The conservative view is generally that the scientific case for AGW is much weaker than its advocates contend.  And there are a significant number of conservatives who do believe in AGW. They just don't think massive regulation and government intervention is a very efficient means to deal with it.

Third, almost all conservatives agree with the left on systemic racism. They differ in the solutions: they believe that most government programs and regulations on the subject simply lock in the problem, don't solve it, often make it worse.
The difference is on how to solve the problem, not on what the problem is.

Abortion: conservatives think the unborn are human lives and like all human lives should not be terminated unless it's truly necessary to save another human life. [And most conservatives think that modern medical knowledge makes that rare, and any baby aborted in the last trimester could be instead delivered alive as a preemie and treated accordingly.] No one has the right to choose another human being's existence.

So perhaps the differenced are not as big as you think they are.

Clarification: I know that that there are conservatives who believe in a woman's right to choose, climate change, etc.

It appears that based on the polls I have seen those who are anti-choice, anti-climate change, anti-Darwin, etc. control the Republican Party.  Please, show me any evidence that the majority of Republicans believe in climate change.  I actually know of conservatives who deny climate change because they feel it contradicts the parable of the Great Flood.

The real stickler is a woman's right to choose.  If a person thinks life begins at conception I have no idea what can be said.  I know.  I have tried and it appears hopeless.  Even when I mention that in "Numbers" in the Old Testament a husband can have a baby aborted if believes that another man is the father.  It seems that both sides have drawn a line in the sand and the other side is to blame.

[arpeggio]

Thanks again to JBS for putting David Frum on my radar. I just heard an hour long interview with him from last year that was smart and articulate:

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-good-fight/e/63218100?autoplay=true

The thread of the conversation leads them to spend a lot of time on immigration issues.

I was reminded of him earlier today when I saw a copy of his book on W. called The Right Man, which I would previously have passed by, but will now get in the next few days. From the interview it sounds like he's revised some of his views in the book in later Atlantic articles.

You should check out Frum's latest book: Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy

[JBS]

Clarification: I know that that there are conservatives who believe in a woman's right to choose, climate change, etc.

I actually know of conservatives who deny climate change because they feel it contradicts the parable of the Great Flood.

The real stickler is a woman's right to choose.  If a person thinks life begins at conception I have no idea what can be said.  I know.  I have tried and it appears hopeless.  Even when I mention that in "Numbers" in the Old Testament a husband can have a baby aborted if believes that another man is the father.  It seems that both sides have drawn a line in the sand and the other side is to blame.

I hadn't heard of the Flood being invoked to deny climate change.

The idea that the Sotah ritual involved abortion is bosh, the sort of thing devised by people who ignore the actual evidence.  If the woman was guilty of adultery, she died as a result of drinking the bitter waters. Some women schemed to take it because they were barren; the Torah says that if the woman was innocent she would have children as recompense if she was barren.  And there are accounts in Rabbinic literature which describe it;  the ordeal was administered until about 50 CE, when it was abolished. (The ordeal was abused by husbands who wanted to divorce their wives without paying the money Jewish law ordered them to pay the wife in the case of divorce. If the wife admitted guilt, she avoided the ordeal but he could divorce her without paying the money.)

You seem to think the idea that human life begins at conception to be wrong. So let me phrase it another way: the embryo or fetus will be a human being within the next nine months. The simple fact means it deserves all the protections and respect now that we will give after birth.

[arpeggio]

I hadn't heard of the Flood being invoked to deny climate change.

The idea that the Sotah ritual involved abortion is bosh, the sort of thing devised by people who ignore the actual evidence.  If the woman was guilty of adultery, she died as a result of drinking the bitter waters. Some women schemed to take it because they were barren; the Torah says that if the woman was innocent she would have children as recompense if she was barren.  And there are accounts in Rabbinic literature which describe it;  the ordeal was administered until about 50 CE, when it was abolished. (The ordeal was abused by husbands who wanted to divorce their wives without paying the money Jewish law ordered them to pay the wife in the case of divorce. If the wife admitted guilt, she avoided the ordeal but he could divorce her without paying the money.)

You seem to think the idea that human life begins at conception to be wrong. So let me phrase it another way: the embryo or fetus will be a human being within the next nine months. The simple fact means it deserves all the protections and respect now that we will give after birth.

We can go back and forth on this all day.  The bottom line is our differences concerning a woman's right to choose are irreconcilable.

[arpeggio]

JBS, you're trying to have a sincere conversation with a socialist who repeats the same left wing talking points again and again and again. His ideology won't allow him to budge, hence this:

His ideology is irreconcilable to facts and argumentation that contradicts it so he attempts to cancel the conversation. 

You finally have me.  I will not budge on this issue.  One mistake you are making is to think this a socialist issue.  I know of many non-socialists, even some conservatives, who are pro-choice.  Even Goldwater was pro-choice.

No matter what I say you will come up with all sorts of reasons on why I am an evil person because of my position on this issue.  So why bother?

If you want to accuse me of being stubborn and close minded about this my response is guilty as charged.  For once you can actually accuse me of being something that I am.  And I was pro-choice when I was a conservative. 

It is easy to be pro-life when you can not get pregnant.  Most women are pro-choice.  It is wrong for a group of men who want to use the state to impose their morality on women.  I am sure you have a plethora of arguments on why you have the right to do so.

[Que]

Can I remind you all that post here ought to on be on the topic at hand, and not about each other ?

So, no personally directed comments. No "you/he this/that"...  It's pretty simple...

Q

[arpeggio]

Can I remind you all that post here ought to on be on the topic at hand, and not about each other ?

So, no personally directed comments. No "you/he this/that"...  It's pretty simple...

Q

Ironically I agree.  I will be more careful.

[milk]

"Is Garrett Rolfe guilty of felony murder?"
That's the title of this video about the killing of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta.
I like this channel because it's by a very sober nonpartisan expert in psychology and crime. Great channel and an interesting take. Unfortunately, It's a political issue in more ways than one.
https://youtu.be/BZY_MLZiRcI

[Karl Henning]

Raise your hand, if you didn't know that Barr would be merely an unprincipled stooge:

"The Trump administration announced late Friday that Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, who has overseen a number of investigations involving the president and his political campaign, will be leaving that job, though Berman fired back that he had not resigned and intends to stay in the job to ensure the cases continue unimpeded.

The surreal Friday night standoff marks the latest battle over the Trump administration's management of the Justice Department. Democrats have decried what they charge has been the politicization of the department under President Trump and his attorney general, William P. Barr.

Barr announced the personnel change in a statement, saying the president plans to nominate the current chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Jay Clayton, for the job.

Berman's office has been conducting a criminal investigation of President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, in a campaign finance case that has already led to charges against two of Giuliani's associates."

[JBS]

We can go back and forth on this all day.  The bottom line is our differences concerning a woman's right to choose are irreconcilable.

So it would seem. But I do remain curious how they think the Flood makes climate change possible. Would you mind explaining?

[greg]

San Francisco Protesters Tear Down Union General Ulysses S. Grant's Statue

Social Justice Warriors are smart!

They are either dumb or know what they are doing- if they know what they are doing, it's obvious the intent is to destroy all of American history. Destroying the history of a country, along with excessive censorship and banning/cancelling stuff is the first step in a communist revolution. It started with taking down statues of people that probably shouldn't have had ones to begin with (confederate bozos), but then it just escalates without any brakes. But it's more of a steady acceleration, since going full speed all at once would create too much backlash (it's been a few years since they started this statue removal). Kind of like a virus that has to slowly adapt to its host and not kill it before it spreads. Or frogs boiling in water. The first step to get people on their side is to use certain terms- racism, Nazism, etc. because they are almost entirely universally hated in the US. That's how you unify people best, after all- create a common enemy, and those enemies already happened to exist. Now that you are onboard with being anti-whatever, wanna help me destroy America? 

[Jo498]

The real stickler is a woman's right to choose.  If a person thinks life begins at conception I have no idea what can be said.  I know.  I have tried and it appears hopeless. 

I didn't know anybody still doubted that life began at conception. (If not at which stage and how does the embryo or later fetus suddenly become alive?) But this does not answer the question if or under which circumstances abortion is admissible.

[drogulus]

JBS, you're trying to have a sincere conversation with a socialist who repeats the same left wing talking points again and again and again. His ideology won't allow him to budge, hence this:

His ideology is irreconcilable to facts and argumentation that contradicts it so he attempts to cancel the conversation. 

     That's not a good interpretation of his refusal to budge, which doesn't come from socialism any more than my refusal to budge on some positions is due to whatever ideology I might adopt. Ideology is more interesting than zealots want it to be. A good one is flexible enough to allow experience and reflection to keep it fresh so it doesn't become just another repository of ex-wisdom like certain well known beliefs.

     I probably wouldn't say "I won't budge" because I'm a stickler for how I describe the process. Dawkins hit it out of the park when he said a god was not disproven, but was extremely improbable. I say Hume's view on miracles would apply.

     The dispute isn't factual, it's about who decides policy, and the ability of powers-that-be to get inside a body and act there with the force of law. I see an ethical problem, too, in such an overreach to prevent an act deemed immoral by means of another immoral act. On practical and ethical grounds the interventionists have a hard case to make and a harder task of enforcement against even those in their own traditions. Certainly views inherited from times when women were subject to property rights and not the owners of them won't serve today like they once did.

     I treat my own quasi-refusals as subject to revision Dawkins-like. I'm open to further evidence and argumentation, and I predict that my opponents who are not open won't come up with much to sway me.

I didn't know anybody still doubted that life began at conception.

     No one does in the world. It's easier to argue against hypothetical ignorance.

They are either dumb or know what they are doing- if they know what they are doing, it's obvious the intent is to destroy all of American history.

     They are more interested in making history true to what happened. That's why statues are coming down.

     Tulsa race massacre

The Tulsa race massacre (also called the Tulsa race riot, the Greenwood Massacre, or the Black Wall Street Massacre) took place on May 31 and June 1, 1921, when mobs of white residents attacked black residents and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It has been called "the single worst incident of racial violence in American history." The attack, carried out on the ground and from private aircraft, destroyed more than 35 square blocks of the district—at that time the wealthiest black community in the United States, known as "Black Wall Street".

More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals and as many as 6,000 black residents were interned at large facilities, many for several days. The Oklahoma Bureau of Vital Statistics officially recorded 36 dead. A 2001 state commission examination of events was able to confirm 36 dead, 26 black and 10 white, based on contemporary autopsy reports, death certificates and other records. The commission gave overall estimates from 75–100 to 150–300 dead.

The massacre began over Memorial Day weekend after 19-year-old Dick Rowland, a black shoeshiner, was accused of assaulting Sarah Page, the 17-year-old white elevator operator of the nearby Drexel Building. He was taken into custody. After the arrest, rumors spread through the city that Dick Rowland was to be lynched. Upon hearing reports that a mob of hundreds of white men had gathered around the jail where Dick Rowland was being kept, a group of 75 black men, some of whom were armed, arrived at the jail with the intention of helping to ensure Dick Rowland would not be lynched. The sheriff persuaded the group of black men to leave the jail, assuring them that he had the situation under control. As the group of black men was leaving the premises, complying with the sheriff's request, a member of the mob of white men attempted to disarm one of the black men. A shot was fired, and then according to the reports of the sheriff, "all hell broke loose". At the end of the firefight, 12 people were killed: 10 white and 2 black. [18] As news of these deaths spread throughout the city, mob violence exploded.

White rioters rampaged through the black neighborhood that night and morning killing men and burning and looting stores and homes, and only around noon the next day Oklahoma National Guard troops managed to get control of the situation by declaring martial law. About 10,000 black people were left homeless, and property damage amounted to more than $1.5 million in real estate and $750,000 in personal property (equivalent to $32.25 million in 2019). Their property was never recovered nor were they compensated for it.

     I haven't decided on the statue thing. I'm against the mob thing even more than idolatry. In a less emotional environment we could have discussions about how to rid ourselves of these things lawfully. I admire Churchill for the usual reasons and think a statue of him should be allowed to lawfully and gracefully topple itself. When more of the public decides to put less myth and more realism in their historical view things will be different in a non-hooliganish way.

[greg]

In a less emotional environment we could have discussions about how to rid ourselves of these things lawfully.

The confederate ones should be in museums- Grant and Washington absolutely do not deserve to be toppled, they should be on full public display.

Just give it another year or two, I bet they will be going for MLK. There's already people that don't like him for the fact that he advocated peaceful protests. Seems that is the next logical step.

I think now is the time when many liberals will have to make a decision on how far they want to join the communists- either go along with them or have a schism and say enough is enough.

[Todd]

They are either dumb or know what they are doing

There are some in both categories.  Race is the oldest and most potent wedge issue.  Republicans and Democrats both use it expertly.