Perhaps it's best in general if people try not to take the results of this election so personally.
I'm sorry, but as a woman whose right to control her body may be up for grabs, I can't afford to not take it personally.
Lol. Good point.
But let's talk about this seriously, then. Trump doesn't have any plans to take away the rights of women or minorities, and never has he alluded to such, despite the media's capitalizing on that big mouth of his. Even if he did, he couldn't: our checks and balances are too stringent for something like that.
He is a rich celebrity. Tell me what rich celebrity doesn't have hundreds of foundless accusations against them in the tabloids. He may or may not be a really horny old man (he probably is), but I find it convenient that most of these women have come out against him since he announced his campaign for the presidency. You never really heard about his sexual exploits before this, even though he is the perfect comedic target, but you always hear about every other celebrity that so much as puts a toe out of line.
Tell me what head of a company isn't fighting off dozens and dozens of law-suits at a time. I work for a company that was recently voted as the most ethical company in the nation, and was on a similar list for the entire world, and they are still in dozens of lawsuits, most of which are their fault.
The people that know him, his friends and employees, have mostly praise for him and his character. But it's easy to write off all of this: simply add money and you have an instant character reference list.
So let's look at his actual policies. His proposed plans are really not what the media says: he does not plan to eliminate the rights of women and minorities; he is a proponent of women in the workforce; he does not want to refuse refugees, he only wants to crack down on illegal immigration (although that wall is stupid, I don't care what anyone says); he has no official stance on the LGBT community; and he has no plans to enact some sort of racist, fascist government. These are just echoing scare tactics of a viscous, hate-filled campaign, and both sides are responsible.
When you boil it down, his policies and plans really are just a bunch of republican bull crap. And honestly, that will probably be worse for us in the long run.
@mashedtaters: The reason few women came out against him before this is because people are afraid of publicly confronting people who are vastly more powerful than them and have armies of fans to support them. And once you do make the accusation, millions of people will know you for just that one thing. A lot of people get attacked when they make such an accusation, and the attacks can get very vicious and personal.
It's not good for somebody's reputation, or their future career, to be known solely as "that woman who accused my favorite celebrity of being a rapist."
Few people are willing to put their reputation and their lifetime career in jeopardy unless they think somebody will support them. That's why these accusations tend to come in cascades: once one person does it, the others realize they're not alone.
Perhaps it's best in general if people try not to take the results of this election so personally.
I'm sorry, but as a woman whose right to control her body may be up for grabs, I can't afford to not take it personally.
Lol. Good point.
But let's talk about this seriously, then. Trump doesn't have any plans to take away the rights of women or minorities, and never has he alluded to such, despite the media's capitalizing on that big mouth of his. Even if he did, he couldn't: our checks and balances are too stringent for something like that.
He is a rich celebrity. Tell me what rich celebrity doesn't have hundreds of foundless accusations against them in the tabloids. He may or may not be a really horny old man (he probably is), but I find it convenient that most of these women have come out against him since he announced his campaign for the presidency. You never really heard about his sexual exploits before this, even though he is the perfect comedic target, but you always hear about every other celebrity that so much as puts a toe out of line.
Tell me what head of a company isn't fighting off dozens and dozens of law-suits at a time. I work for a company that was recently voted as the most ethical company in the nation, and was on a similar list for the entire world, and they are still in dozens of lawsuits, most of which are their fault.
The people that know him, his friends and employees, have mostly praise for him and his character. But it's easy to write off all of this: simply add money and you have an instant character reference list.
So let's look at his actual policies. His proposed plans are really not what the media says: he does not plan to eliminate the rights of women and minorities; he is a proponent of women in the workforce; he does not want to refuse refugees, he only wants to crack down on illegal immigration (although that wall is stupid, I don't care what anyone says); he has no official stance on the LGBT community; and he has no plans to enact some sort of racist, fascist government. These are just echoing scare tactics of a viscous, hate-filled campaign, and both sides are responsible.
When you boil it down, his policies and plans really are just a bunch of republican bull crap. And honestly, that will probably be worse for us in the long run.
Our checks and balances will find dealing with Trump as difficult as the Republican Party, the media, and Hillary Clinton did. Which is to say, they aren't as strong as we think and will crumble under the weight of the brazen far-right policies we are about to see. I don't doubt Trump doesn't believe some of this stuff. Don't look at Trump in that regard. Look at his cabinet (which is a horror show). Beyond that, look at Mike Pence, who he is going to hand off alot of the policy too (simply because he is too lazy to involve himself on a detailed basis). There is no reason for me to continue to tell people just how bad this is going to get. Just sit back and watch, and in six months or a year, we can come back to these posts. Maybe I'll be wrong, but I doubt it very much.
The problem has never been the actual physical wall on the Mexican border (because, as I've said many times, it is logistically and geographically impossible to build, nevermind the finances). The problem is that there millions upon millions who BELIEVE that it is possible, and the stigma it puts on ALL Latinos in this country. You can't tell an illegal immigrant by eyesight. To me, Trump has never been the crux of what scares me. What scares me is the people who voted for him.
Normally I would say people are jumping to conclusions unjustly, and unless there has been at least a hearing that it is completely irresponsible to accuse someone of something as serious as sexual assault. Prominent celebrities HAVE been a target for unfounded claims over much, much more serious sexual crimes (Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, Duke Lacrosse team).
Yet in this case there is a recording of Donald Trump bragging about grabbing women by the yoohoo and kissing them out of nowhere. I think its perfectly reasonable for people to work under the assumption that he has done such things.
Normally I would say people are jumping to conclusions unjustly, and unless there has been at least a hearing that it is completely irresponsible to accuse someone of something as serious as sexual assault. Prominent celebrities HAVE been a target for unfounded claims over much, much more serious sexual crimes (Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, Duke Lacrosse team).
Yet in this case there is a recording of Donald Trump bragging about grabbing women by the yoohoo and kissing them out of nowhere. I think its perfectly reasonable for people to work under the assumption that he has done such things.
The reason almost ALL of those women gave about coming forward was this (they had no interest in initially doing so): 1.) they heard Trump on the Access Hollywood Tape, and he was describing EXACTLY what had happened to them. 2.) He then lied about actually engaging in that action during a National Presidential Debate, and they felt insulted, and 3.) Once one woman came forward, they felt an obligation to support her (and the others) as the stories came out.
If this was one woman, I could understand someone be skeptical. Maybe two, maybe three. But why does this have to be a Bill Cosby situation (where it seemed to take upwards of 30-50 women coming forward before people FINALLY turned on him, and even then, he still has pockets of support)?? The chances that all 12 of the woman who came forward during the campaign are lying about this, especially after he described the behavior HIMSELF is, in my mind, practically zero.
@mashedtaters: The reason few women came out against him before this is because people are afraid of publicly confronting people who are vastly more powerful than them and have armies of fans to support them. And once you do make the accusation, millions of people will know you for just that one thing. A lot of people get attacked when they make such an accusation, and the attacks can get very vicious and personal.
It's not good for somebody's reputation, or their future career, to be known solely as "that woman who accused my favorite celebrity of being a rapist."
Few people are willing to put their reputation and their lifetime career in jeopardy unless they think somebody will support them. That's why these accusations tend to come in cascades: once one person does it, the others realize they're not alone.
I agree that the guy is a pig. I am pretty sure I have made my stance on this clear as crystal.
My point is that there is reason for people to doubt: the left-wing media has lied about most of his plans and policies. Would it be unreasonable for some to suspect that they could be blowing these things out of proportion as well?
Normally I would say people are jumping to conclusions unjustly, and unless there has been at least a hearing that it is completely irresponsible to accuse someone of something as serious as sexual assault. Prominent celebrities HAVE been a target for unfounded claims over much, much more serious sexual crimes (Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, Duke Lacrosse team).
Yet in this case there is a recording of Donald Trump bragging about grabbing women by the yoohoo and kissing them out of nowhere. I think its perfectly reasonable for people to work under the assumption that he has done such things.
I work with men and women that say this kind of stuff all the time, with lots of people around. I may not like it myself, but I will say that I don't judge their moral character based on what they carelessly say in the privacy of their home, as long as it's not direct abuse to their children.
I personally would hate to be a celebrity who would have to worry about everything I have ever said being recorded for later scrutiny and criticism at the moment it became opportune for people to turn on a profit on it. I can't imagine a life life laid bare to the public. Seriously, think about it: every fight you've had with your partner, every off-color joke you've made at the bar, every time you've talked about your love-life with your friends, thrown out there by your opponents in a cut-throat race to power. Sounds like a pretty despicable, miserable life. Sounds like a life that the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, have led.
That is why I am trying to draw everyone's attention to the policies he has proposed. These will have a far greater affect on our lives than what he said years ago when he didn't even know he was being recorded. It is also more enlightening to discuss the effect of these policies than to continue this 12-month mud-flinging game, of which both sides share immense guilt, that I'm sure we are all pretty tired of.
whomever was saying Trump doesn't want to take away a woman's right to choose look at the third debate (I believe) where he says he will appoint a supreme court justice who he said would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade the legal basis of abortion in the USA.
That's one reason why this election mattered, no matter what you thought of clinton at least she wasn't campaigning on taking away a woman's right to choose nor in the party that wants to cut social security and taxes on the rich.
whomever was saying Trump doesn't want to take away a woman's right to choose look at the third debate (I believe) where he says he will appoint a supreme court justice who he said would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade the legal basis of abortion in the USA.
That's one reason why this election mattered, no matter what you thought of clinton at least she wasn't campaigning on taking away a woman's right to choose nor in the party that wants to cut social security and taxes on the rich.
Not everyone agrees that choosing an abortion is a right for anyone; those people believe the child's right to live supersedes the women's right to an abortion. I am pro-choice, edit: as long as it's not used as a form of birth control, but this as an argument that Trump wants to take away women's rights is weak and controversial.
whomever was saying Trump doesn't want to take away a woman's right to choose look at the third debate (I believe) where he says he will appoint a supreme court justice who he said would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade the legal basis of abortion in the USA.
That's one reason why this election mattered, no matter what you thought of clinton at least she wasn't campaigning on taking away a woman's right to choose nor in the party that wants to cut social security and taxes on the rich.
Not everyone agrees that choosing an abortion is a right for anyone; those people believe the child's right to live supersedes the women's right to an abortion. I am pro-choice, edit: as long as it's not used as a form of birth control, but this as an argument that Trump wants to take away women's rights is weak and controversial.
I support a woman's right to choose. That doesn't mean I wouldn't necessarily choose it for myself or my wife. I support family planning.
Personal story: I had a girlfriend who was from a foreign country. I would visit her while waiting on the extremely long process of getting a fiance visa to stay with me in the USA. During one of these visits I got her pregnant while we were still waiting for the visa. At that point, we considered getting an abortion for a few reasons such as because we weren't living together yet. I am not rich or anything, money was an object. I was flying internationally to visit her, paying for hotels rooms, sending her money, and paying for my place and all my bills in the USA. It wasn't the right time.
In hindsight it would have been a good idea to get an abortion and wait until we were living together. Well we didn't, and she decided to tough it out without me. I went back to the States and back to work. She ended up losing the baby. One day she got overheated or something. It was devastating. Time went on and it ended up taking about a year for the government to grant a fiance visa. We finally got together and got married but it looked like she couldn't have any more children after the miscarriage. We were lost, it was sad - we were beyond sad.
Would we have chosen to have an abortion if we'd known that things would end up that way? Probably not but I think it was a meaningful choice to have. And I don't judge the choices of others.
Clinton has been out of office for years but the DLC democrats have been in power since that time. You clearly subscribe to the Washington consensus:
Mm, nope. Please do not make assumptions about my political views. I already said I'd send Hillary and Obama both to the Hague if it were in my power, to rot alongside Bush. I'm no more immune to partisan bias than anyone else, but I don't subscribe to much of a Washington consensus on anything.
I guess more to the point, don't assume I'm politically to the right of you just because I disagree with you (though I also reject the simplistic and absurd left-right axis, and for that matter the election of Trump shows how little "right-wing" means, etc, etc).
that the decline of factory jobs was an inevitable result of natural economic trends. I'm with people like Naomi Klein and Thomas Pikety in believing that this is the result of political actions PNTR, NAFTA and the like. If this is going to happen anyway why do politicians spend so much time and energy trying to make it happen?
My general belief (based upon what statistically has proven true) is that free trade is generally good for corporations and good in the net, eventually, for the economy. But it isn't good for every sector of the economy. Back in the day the assumption was that negatively affected workers would mostly be retrained or move, recovering quickly from inevitable job losses. This assumption didn't hold true.
It is certainly true that factory jobs would decline no matter what due to natural technological trends, and probably to a lesser extent would be hurt by economic trends in the sense that a lot of manufacturing can be done outside the US for cheaper (how soon and how fact would depend on a bunch of factors, like how quickly the US pursued automation).
Yes, I am proposing returning to protectionist policies because the trend lines of decline of the working class correlates perfectly with the trend lines of the abandonment of policies that protect American workers. I'd restore the tax rates of the 1960s, pass a Markora law for the US, restore the infrastructure and implement the taxes on wall street transaction. Essentially I'd do the inverse and converse of what Clinton was proposing.
The Marcora law is pretty interesting, actually. I hadn't heard about that before.
However, the things you mentioned aren't actually related to protectionism or tariffs.
That being said, just taking what you do have, it's just not really feasible to expect to return to, say, 1960s tax rates. Returning to Reagan-era tax rates is a real struggle at this point. Unless the US makes you Emperor Killerrabbit I, it won't happen no matter who gets elected.
If you want to do that kind of sea change, Bernie Sanders is a waste of time. You need to start at the grassroots and build overwhelming public support. It's not impossible! The US did have a 90% tax rate on the richest people within living memory (when, it should be noted, the US was the most powerful economy on the planet by an extremely wide margin). But to reverse all the working against that in the past five decades is not the work of a single president, and cannot be accomplished in a four year term.
Clinton only led the polls by the margin of error. Which is / was embarrassing when she was facing an opponent who started his campaign by calling Mexican rapists and ended it by bragging about sexually assaulting women.
Even more embarrassing is that it turns out over 40% of the American voting public is willing to vote for an open racist and misogynist. Few people saw that coming.
Beyond that, Donald Trump ran on a populist/nativist platform, and populism has always had a strong appeal in the US.
Hillary had a larger lead over Trump than Obama had over Romney (she had a crappier Electoral College position, of course). Was it embarrassing that Obama barely squeaked by against Romney - a flawed candidate whose own base was noticeably unenthusiastic about him? Does it matter?
Even if you could prove that Sanders would have done better in the election - and just to be clear, you can't - neither Clinton or Sanders are likely to be running in the next primaries, so it will mean nothing. What flaws or advantages either had as candidates cannot be just slapped on to anyone else who happens to hold political views similar to theirs. This is particularly true since the election past proved just how little "coherent political views" or "views that generally accord with those of the party that nominated you" actually mean to the public.
whomever was saying Trump doesn't want to take away a woman's right to choose look at the third debate (I believe) where he says he will appoint a supreme court justice who he said would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade the legal basis of abortion in the USA.
That's one reason why this election mattered, no matter what you thought of clinton at least she wasn't campaigning on taking away a woman's right to choose nor in the party that wants to cut social security and taxes on the rich.
Not everyone agrees that choosing an abortion is a right for anyone; those people believe the child's right to live supersedes the women's right to an abortion. I am pro-choice, edit: as long as it's not used as a form of birth control, but this as an argument that Trump wants to take away women's rights is weak and controversial.
I support a woman's right to choose. That doesn't mean I wouldn't necessarily choose it for myself or my wife. I support family planning.
Personal story: I had a girlfriend who was from a foreign country. I would visit her while waiting on the extremely long process of getting a fiance visa to stay with me in the USA. During one of these visits I got her pregnant while we were still waiting for the visa. At that point, we considered getting an abortion for a few reasons such as because we weren't living together yet. I am not rich or anything, money was an object. I was flying internationally to visit her, paying for hotels rooms, sending her money, and paying for my place and all my bills in the USA. It wasn't the right time.
In hindsight it would have been a good idea to get an abortion and wait until we were living together. Well we didn't, and she decided to tough it out without me. I went back to the States and back to work. She ended up losing the baby. One day she got overheated or something. It was devastating. Time went on and it ended up taking about a year for the government to grant a fiance visa. We finally got together and got married but it looked like she couldn't have any more children after the miscarriage. We were lost, it was sad - we were beyond sad.
Would we have chosen to have an abortion if we'd known that things would end up that way? Probably not but I think it was a meaningful choice to have. And I don't judge the choices of others.
Thanks for sharing your story.
I personally have no issue or judgement against another person that has an abortion; my personal feelings on the matter is that, between me and my wife, we would never use it as a form of birth control: because this view would be impossible and foolish to try to enforce as a law, pro-choice is my opinion on the matter. She is very pro-life, so this isn't an issue for us anyway.
That abortion is actually a right, however, is pretty controversial. The Roe vs Wade argument that defines an abortion as a right is based on the woman's right to privacy between her and her doctor. The child doesn't even come into the picture.
If the court had ruled that the fetus wasn't a person, than this could be logical. But they didn't rule that the fetus is not a person, either way. This is still shaky ground.
So let's say, for a second, that the fetus is a person with rights protected by the constitution (this has still not been decided legally to this day): the argument that a person's right to privacy with a doctor supersedes a third party's right to life is silly. That's like saying a bank has no right to be protected from robbery because the thief has a right to privacy between himself and his accomplice.
Of course, the other side of the argument is that a woman has a right to decide what or who is inside her body, and that there is no such thing as a right to live inside another person. But this was not the court's ruling: the court's ruling was based on privacy between a doctor and a woman. The rights of the child are not even addressed or acknowledged, which is exactly what makes this so controversial.
If we say legally that the fetus is not a person, than the point is moot. If we legally say that the fetus is a person, than the point is imperative. We have not legally said either way whether or not the fetus is a person. This is of course implies that the fetus is not a person. That is what makes this such a legally strange scenario.
The Washington Post is a far cry from what Betty down the street is posting in her Facebook feed every morning. Aside from everything else that point to elements of his campaign being directly in contact with the Russians (namely Roger Stone and Paul Manafort), all signs are pointing to him nominating for Secretary of State the CEO of Exxon, who was awarded the Order of Friendship in 2013 by Putin himself. But, all in all, don't take my word for it. Like everything else, everything liberals are saying about Trump right now will come to pass, and then some. In spades.
Speaking as a liberal, the obsession many US liberals and the "left-wing press" have with Russia is disheartening and kind of disgusting. Trump or his appointees having business ties to Russia is no more sinister than him having business ties to China, or Japan, or any other country.
I mean, really, so what if the CEO of Exxon-Mobil got awarded a medal by Putin? He had worked closely with Russia in Exxon-Mobil related drilling projects and they had a fruitful relationship (and outcome, until the post-Crimea sanctions stopped the drilling). The medal is for foreign nationals who in some way are considered to have aided relations with Russia and its people. The Governor-General of Canada from 1999-2005 was a recipient of the medal and did not, to my knowlege, turn out to be a sinister double agent. So was the Archbishop of Canterbury until 2012, and yet no Russian Orthodox redecorating occurred.
If you want to be worried about the CEO of Exxon, my advice would be to worry that the fricking CEO of Exxon-Mobil is likely going to be secretary of state, and not give a single thought to the fact that he thinks Vladimir Putin throws a fun dinner party.
I've heard this exact same comment, except you could replace "Christian conservatives" with liberals in major cities and on campus. I can tell you from experience, this is what I've noticed from liberal groups on campus. Very nice and supportive to each other, but incredibly tolerant toward people outside of their bubble. I imagine the same is true for people in Christian conservative groups (no firsthand experience), though they would actually be exposed to other ideas through the media and popular entertainment, so the bubble effect is probably less severe.
I've heard a lot of variants on this "one of these groups is just like the other" speech, and yet I never seem to hear about liberal groups of people putting up hateful slurs everywhere, or isolating members of a vulnerable conservative group and beating them up, nor does there ever seem to be any demogogues on the American left commanding large followings through hate speech, threats to deport their conservative enemies (Mormons, let's say), et cetera.
Liberals aren't immune to intolerance, but any pretending the two sides are equivalent is silly. Abortion clinics get bombed and their workers and doctors harassed; Chick-Fil-A's do not (nor does any other conservative equivalent I can think of).
The one arguable exception would be the extreme wing of the environmentalist movement, which a) is very arguable since they rarely if ever directly seek to harm people, and b) do not enjoy the kind of numbers and support of various unpleasant right-wing groups.
Ultimately, while it does not necessarily reflect on any given person with conservative political views, nearly all movements and leaders that rally around "I hate X people and don't want them around" are thoroughly right-wing, in the US at this point in history and the recent past.
(I will note that posting a single example of a left-wing terrorist doesn't really disprove my point; statistical evidence of left-wing causes causing as much harassment, assault, death, terrorism and destruction of property as right-wing causes like anti-abortion and anti-immigration would.)
whomever was saying Trump doesn't want to take away a woman's right to choose look at the third debate (I believe) where he says he will appoint a supreme court justice who he said would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade the legal basis of abortion in the USA.
That's one reason why this election mattered, no matter what you thought of clinton at least she wasn't campaigning on taking away a woman's right to choose nor in the party that wants to cut social security and taxes on the rich.
Not everyone agrees that choosing an abortion is a right for anyone; those people believe the child's right to live supersedes the women's right to an abortion. I am pro-choice, edit: as long as it's not used as a form of birth control, but this as an argument that Trump wants to take away women's rights is weak and controversial.
-Roe vs. Wade establishes that women have the right to choose.
-Trump says he will appoint a supreme court judge who will overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Therefore
-Trump wants to take away women's rights.
I mean, people can believe whatever they want, but Roe vs. Wade was enacted because women by the thousands were dying by trying to end their pregnancies. Making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortion; it creates an extremely dangerous environment for women and girls who are in an extremely desperate situation. At some point, "those people" who believe as you describe need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether the fetus inside is really more important than the already-living person in front of them who is threatening to harm and potentially kill herself one way or another.
Can you post some bible passages that empower women and gays, then?
I don't think anyone got back to you on this one. Although these references do not directly empower anyone, they do serve to point out that someone *not* following this excellent advice is showing themselves to be a hypocrite and, truthfully, does not understand the religion they are claiming to represent.
Incidentally, one a side note that need not start its own discussion here, Christians are free to ignore the Old Testament completely because technically it does not apply to them.
re: the Supreme Court. If Trump thinks he can nominate someone whose end game is "overturn Roe v Wade" and that person is confirmed by the Senate, that doesn't mean the current sitting Justices have to welcome the new appointee--the Supreme Court has the right to refuse to seat a Justice. An obviously-political appointee with an agenda will not be welcome at the SCOTUS.
Other than that, I am glad that I took the weekend off from posting.
@Mathsorcerer I really doubt most religious people really, actually follow that in their every day lives. Or maybe they're taking it too literally, and expect everyone to think like they do.
Most people, religious or not, don't follow that advice in their everyday lives; this explains why we have some of the problems we currently have. I can explain many things but aside from obvious examples (someone who nearly drowns as a child is understandably uncomfortable around swimming pools, someone who grew up poor/impoverished hoards money or other goods, etc) in general the only explanation I have for human behavior is "humans are irrational".
*************
Election officials have concluded their hand recount in Wisconsin; Trump gained 131 votes and no one found any indication of any external tampering, hacking, or fraud. The hand recount was still underway in Pennsylvania when a Federal judge issued a stay order, resulting in that State's Election Commission to certify, officially, the results in that State.
The window for any recount is fast approaching--the Electoral College meets next Monday.
Thats the thing about perfection, it is impossible to attain. Seeking it, can only better the seeker though.
The thing about my father was he always sought perfection. It was really annoying to be around him telling me there was only one way to use the washing machine and pour a glass of orange juice.
An old professor of mine once said that Confucius would agree there was a right side of the bed to get up on, though he might not know which one it was.
I've heard this exact same comment, except you could replace "Christian conservatives" with liberals in major cities and on campus. I can tell you from experience, this is what I've noticed from liberal groups on campus. Very nice and supportive to each other, but incredibly tolerant toward people outside of their bubble. I imagine the same is true for people in Christian conservative groups (no firsthand experience), though they would actually be exposed to other ideas through the media and popular entertainment, so the bubble effect is probably less severe.
I've heard a lot of variants on this "one of these groups is just like the other" speech, and yet I never seem to hear about liberal groups of people putting up hateful slurs everywhere, or isolating members of a vulnerable conservative group and beating them up, nor does there ever seem to be any demogogues on the American left commanding large followings through hate speech, threats to deport their conservative enemies (Mormons, let's say), et cetera.
Liberals aren't immune to intolerance, but any pretending the two sides are equivalent is silly. Abortion clinics get bombed and their workers and doctors harassed; Chick-Fil-A's do not (nor does any other conservative equivalent I can think of).
The one arguable exception would be the extreme wing of the environmentalist movement, which a) is very arguable since they rarely if ever directly seek to harm people, and b) do not enjoy the kind of numbers and support of various unpleasant right-wing groups.
Ultimately, while it does not necessarily reflect on any given person with conservative political views, nearly all movements and leaders that rally around "I hate X people and don't want them around" are thoroughly right-wing, in the US at this point in history and the recent past.
(I will note that posting a single example of a left-wing terrorist doesn't really disprove my point; statistical evidence of left-wing causes causing as much harassment, assault, death, terrorism and destruction of property as right-wing causes like anti-abortion and anti-immigration would.)
Don't have much time, but a quick response. Just because there aren't any slurs for conservatives, it doesn't make the dialogue any less offensive. I don't know if you remember, but "Dumbfuckistan" was often used to describe red state America after the 2004 election. Also, it is rare for abortion clinics to get bombed, but it is common for Black Lives Matters events to see major property damage.
As far as beating people for their beliefs, there have been tons of that happening at Trump events by liberal protesters. You can find dozens of pages of this on youtube. One example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQmbn7ndvZQ
Also: the only political act of armed violence related to the election for the entire year was a firebombing of the Republican office in North Carolina
Abortion clinic attacks: there has been an average of 1 per year in the past decade. Two instances of killing (the Tiller murder and the horrible attack last year where three people were murdered). More police were slaughtered in the Dallas BLM shooting alone. If you want to count bodies, it's not even close.
However, body counts shouldn't even be a measurement, since the people who commit such crimes are so far from the average citizen that they can hardly be considered to represent any group, and thy normally do not receive sympathy even from those who may share their resentments.
It's incredibly seductive to try and say your political "tribe" has the moral high ground, but its hardly ever true in anyone's case.
whomever was saying Trump doesn't want to take away a woman's right to choose look at the third debate (I believe) where he says he will appoint a supreme court justice who he said would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade the legal basis of abortion in the USA.
That's one reason why this election mattered, no matter what you thought of clinton at least she wasn't campaigning on taking away a woman's right to choose nor in the party that wants to cut social security and taxes on the rich.
Not everyone agrees that choosing an abortion is a right for anyone; those people believe the child's right to live supersedes the women's right to an abortion. I am pro-choice, edit: as long as it's not used as a form of birth control, but this as an argument that Trump wants to take away women's rights is weak and controversial.
Roe vs. Wade was enacted
No, it wasn't. Basic tenth grade civics: Roe was not a piece of legislation. It is not a law. It is a Supreme Court decision based on reasoning that many left-wing legal scholars agree is dubious. You can agree with the result, but it was not a law and was not enacted because "people were dying".
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would still be available for the majority of the country, and within driving range for almost everyone.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would still open the door for much more restrictive legislation. A new Supreme Court ruling wouldn't change the laws by itself, but in the hands of a Republican House and Senate, it could pave the way.
Don't have much time, but a quick response. Just because there aren't any slurs for conservatives, it doesn't make the dialogue any less offensive. I don't know if you remember, but "Dumbfuckistan" was often used to describe red state America after the 2004 election. Also, it is rare for abortion clinics to get bombed, but it is common for Black Lives Matters events to see major property damage.
If it is common, please quote some statistics to prove so. If not, we'll have to agree to disagree.
As for "Dumbfuckistan", I'm sorry, but there is no comparison. It's not a known, hateful slur (if you ignore the irritating racism of the "istan" suffix). It was directed at the people in power who had just won an election, not vulnerable minorities. It was not supported directly by the just-elected President of the United States. It was not accompanied by a rash of motivated hate crimes.
It wasn't nice, and it was a bad move by the left to give into simplistic, fallacious views of what the reasons they lost the election were. But comparing it to the offensiveness of what's happened over the last month, or the public comments of the President-elect, is itself offensive. They are not on the same level.
As far as beating people for their beliefs, there have been tons of that happening at Trump events by liberal protesters. You can find dozens of pages of this on youtube. One example
I can't watch videos at the moment, and I don't really care about videos anyway. Youtube videos are routinely faked and misattributed. Please cite proper news sources (i.e., not Breitbart). Liberals attacking Trump supporters is a "man bites dog" story and the new media loves those. Such a story would no difficulty whatever getting media attention, probably too much of it (like the "Bernie bros" thing did).
Abortion clinic attacks: there has been an average of 1 per year in the past decade. Two instances of killing (the Tiller murder and the horrible attack last year where three people were murdered). More police were slaughtered in the Dallas BLM shooting alone. If you want to count bodies, it's not even close.
I knew after I posted that post that I should've pointed out "Micah Xavier Johnson wasn't actually affiliated with Black Lives Matter, and according to those who knew him, a) didn't care at all about the Trayvon Martin shooting, and b) was clearly suffering from PTSD and/or other military-related mental illness".
He also wasn't "left-wing" by any meaningful usage of the term, though he was a black nationalist (which is not a movement that really fits in the flawed left/right spectrum).
There is no rhetoric within the mainstream of BLM about harming or killing police officers. There is no comparison to "lock her up" chants (now seeping into Canadian politics, charmingly), no leaders making the equivalent comments to Mexican rapists.
It is also, not to put too fine a point on it, a movement that arose because of the repeated murder of many, many black people and lack of accountability for even the most egregious crimes committed by police officers. It is defensive in nature. LGBT people are not frequently murdering cis straight white men (or any other group) and getting away with it. Neither are Mexicans, regardless of the words of Donald Trump.
Even if I were to agree that the Dallas shooting were representative of BLM or the left (and they are not), there would still be a substantial difference between the two.
It's incredibly seductive to try and say your political "tribe" has the moral high ground, but its hardly ever true in anyone's case.
The left is not immune to being violent or racist or extremist. It has been all those things and more in the past (and occasionally in the present - Islamophobia is well-represented in both sides of the partisan divide). But at this moment, all of those things are predominantly associated with the right, for a few reasons.
Everybody always believes their political side has the moral high ground because, by necessity, everyone believes their own beliefs are closest to what is true or what is best for everyone. Thinking about it too much is thus pointless except as a philosophical exercise. I'm simply disputing that the level of violence and intolerance, at this time in history, is even close to equal between the two sides.
Comments
But let's talk about this seriously, then. Trump doesn't have any plans to take away the rights of women or minorities, and never has he alluded to such, despite the media's capitalizing on that big mouth of his. Even if he did, he couldn't: our checks and balances are too stringent for something like that.
He is a rich celebrity. Tell me what rich celebrity doesn't have hundreds of foundless accusations against them in the tabloids. He may or may not be a really horny old man (he probably is), but I find it convenient that most of these women have come out against him since he announced his campaign for the presidency. You never really heard about his sexual exploits before this, even though he is the perfect comedic target, but you always hear about every other celebrity that so much as puts a toe out of line.
Tell me what head of a company isn't fighting off dozens and dozens of law-suits at a time. I work for a company that was recently voted as the most ethical company in the nation, and was on a similar list for the entire world, and they are still in dozens of lawsuits, most of which are their fault.
The people that know him, his friends and employees, have mostly praise for him and his character. But it's easy to write off all of this: simply add money and you have an instant character reference list.
So let's look at his actual policies. His proposed plans are really not what the media says: he does not plan to eliminate the rights of women and minorities; he is a proponent of women in the workforce; he does not want to refuse refugees, he only wants to crack down on illegal immigration (although that wall is stupid, I don't care what anyone says); he has no official stance on the LGBT community; and he has no plans to enact some sort of racist, fascist government. These are just echoing scare tactics of a viscous, hate-filled campaign, and both sides are responsible.
When you boil it down, his policies and plans really are just a bunch of republican bull crap. And honestly, that will probably be worse for us in the long run.
https://www.greatagain.gov
It's not good for somebody's reputation, or their future career, to be known solely as "that woman who accused my favorite celebrity of being a rapist."
Few people are willing to put their reputation and their lifetime career in jeopardy unless they think somebody will support them. That's why these accusations tend to come in cascades: once one person does it, the others realize they're not alone.
The problem has never been the actual physical wall on the Mexican border (because, as I've said many times, it is logistically and geographically impossible to build, nevermind the finances). The problem is that there millions upon millions who BELIEVE that it is possible, and the stigma it puts on ALL Latinos in this country. You can't tell an illegal immigrant by eyesight. To me, Trump has never been the crux of what scares me. What scares me is the people who voted for him.
Yet in this case there is a recording of Donald Trump bragging about grabbing women by the yoohoo and kissing them out of nowhere. I think its perfectly reasonable for people to work under the assumption that he has done such things.
If this was one woman, I could understand someone be skeptical. Maybe two, maybe three. But why does this have to be a Bill Cosby situation (where it seemed to take upwards of 30-50 women coming forward before people FINALLY turned on him, and even then, he still has pockets of support)?? The chances that all 12 of the woman who came forward during the campaign are lying about this, especially after he described the behavior HIMSELF is, in my mind, practically zero.
My point is that there is reason for people to doubt: the left-wing media has lied about most of his plans and policies. Would it be unreasonable for some to suspect that they could be blowing these things out of proportion as well? I work with men and women that say this kind of stuff all the time, with lots of people around. I may not like it myself, but I will say that I don't judge their moral character based on what they carelessly say in the privacy of their home, as long as it's not direct abuse to their children.
I personally would hate to be a celebrity who would have to worry about everything I have ever said being recorded for later scrutiny and criticism at the moment it became opportune for people to turn on a profit on it. I can't imagine a life life laid bare to the public. Seriously, think about it: every fight you've had with your partner, every off-color joke you've made at the bar, every time you've talked about your love-life with your friends, thrown out there by your opponents in a cut-throat race to power. Sounds like a pretty despicable, miserable life. Sounds like a life that the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, have led.
That is why I am trying to draw everyone's attention to the policies he has proposed. These will have a far greater affect on our lives than what he said years ago when he didn't even know he was being recorded. It is also more enlightening to discuss the effect of these policies than to continue this 12-month mud-flinging game, of which both sides share immense guilt, that I'm sure we are all pretty tired of.
That's one reason why this election mattered, no matter what you thought of clinton at least she wasn't campaigning on taking away a woman's right to choose nor in the party that wants to cut social security and taxes on the rich.
Personal story:
I had a girlfriend who was from a foreign country. I would visit her while waiting on the extremely long process of getting a fiance visa to stay with me in the USA. During one of these visits I got her pregnant while we were still waiting for the visa. At that point, we considered getting an abortion for a few reasons such as because we weren't living together yet. I am not rich or anything, money was an object. I was flying internationally to visit her, paying for hotels rooms, sending her money, and paying for my place and all my bills in the USA. It wasn't the right time.
In hindsight it would have been a good idea to get an abortion and wait until we were living together. Well we didn't, and she decided to tough it out without me. I went back to the States and back to work. She ended up losing the baby. One day she got overheated or something. It was devastating. Time went on and it ended up taking about a year for the government to grant a fiance visa. We finally got together and got married but it looked like she couldn't have any more children after the miscarriage. We were lost, it was sad - we were beyond sad.
Would we have chosen to have an abortion if we'd known that things would end up that way? Probably not but I think it was a meaningful choice to have. And I don't judge the choices of others.
I guess more to the point, don't assume I'm politically to the right of you just because I disagree with you (though I also reject the simplistic and absurd left-right axis, and for that matter the election of Trump shows how little "right-wing" means, etc, etc). My general belief (based upon what statistically has proven true) is that free trade is generally good for corporations and good in the net, eventually, for the economy. But it isn't good for every sector of the economy. Back in the day the assumption was that negatively affected workers would mostly be retrained or move, recovering quickly from inevitable job losses. This assumption didn't hold true.
It is certainly true that factory jobs would decline no matter what due to natural technological trends, and probably to a lesser extent would be hurt by economic trends in the sense that a lot of manufacturing can be done outside the US for cheaper (how soon and how fact would depend on a bunch of factors, like how quickly the US pursued automation). The Marcora law is pretty interesting, actually. I hadn't heard about that before.
However, the things you mentioned aren't actually related to protectionism or tariffs.
That being said, just taking what you do have, it's just not really feasible to expect to return to, say, 1960s tax rates. Returning to Reagan-era tax rates is a real struggle at this point. Unless the US makes you Emperor Killerrabbit I, it won't happen no matter who gets elected.
If you want to do that kind of sea change, Bernie Sanders is a waste of time. You need to start at the grassroots and build overwhelming public support. It's not impossible! The US did have a 90% tax rate on the richest people within living memory (when, it should be noted, the US was the most powerful economy on the planet by an extremely wide margin). But to reverse all the working against that in the past five decades is not the work of a single president, and cannot be accomplished in a four year term. Even more embarrassing is that it turns out over 40% of the American voting public is willing to vote for an open racist and misogynist. Few people saw that coming.
Beyond that, Donald Trump ran on a populist/nativist platform, and populism has always had a strong appeal in the US.
Hillary had a larger lead over Trump than Obama had over Romney (she had a crappier Electoral College position, of course). Was it embarrassing that Obama barely squeaked by against Romney - a flawed candidate whose own base was noticeably unenthusiastic about him? Does it matter?
Even if you could prove that Sanders would have done better in the election - and just to be clear, you can't - neither Clinton or Sanders are likely to be running in the next primaries, so it will mean nothing. What flaws or advantages either had as candidates cannot be just slapped on to anyone else who happens to hold political views similar to theirs. This is particularly true since the election past proved just how little "coherent political views" or "views that generally accord with those of the party that nominated you" actually mean to the public.
I personally have no issue or judgement against another person that has an abortion; my personal feelings on the matter is that, between me and my wife, we would never use it as a form of birth control: because this view would be impossible and foolish to try to enforce as a law, pro-choice is my opinion on the matter. She is very pro-life, so this isn't an issue for us anyway.
That abortion is actually a right, however, is pretty controversial. The Roe vs Wade argument that defines an abortion as a right is based on the woman's right to privacy between her and her doctor. The child doesn't even come into the picture.
If the court had ruled that the fetus wasn't a person, than this could be logical. But they didn't rule that the fetus is not a person, either way. This is still shaky ground.
So let's say, for a second, that the fetus is a person with rights protected by the constitution (this has still not been decided legally to this day): the argument that a person's right to privacy with a doctor supersedes a third party's right to life is silly. That's like saying a bank has no right to be protected from robbery because the thief has a right to privacy between himself and his accomplice.
Of course, the other side of the argument is that a woman has a right to decide what or who is inside her body, and that there is no such thing as a right to live inside another person. But this was not the court's ruling: the court's ruling was based on privacy between a doctor and a woman. The rights of the child are not even addressed or acknowledged, which is exactly what makes this so controversial.
If we say legally that the fetus is not a person, than the point is moot. If we legally say that the fetus is a person, than the point is imperative. We have not legally said either way whether or not the fetus is a person. This is of course implies that the fetus is not a person. That is what makes this such a legally strange scenario.
I mean, really, so what if the CEO of Exxon-Mobil got awarded a medal by Putin? He had worked closely with Russia in Exxon-Mobil related drilling projects and they had a fruitful relationship (and outcome, until the post-Crimea sanctions stopped the drilling). The medal is for foreign nationals who in some way are considered to have aided relations with Russia and its people. The Governor-General of Canada from 1999-2005 was a recipient of the medal and did not, to my knowlege, turn out to be a sinister double agent. So was the Archbishop of Canterbury until 2012, and yet no Russian Orthodox redecorating occurred.
If you want to be worried about the CEO of Exxon, my advice would be to worry that the fricking CEO of Exxon-Mobil is likely going to be secretary of state, and not give a single thought to the fact that he thinks Vladimir Putin throws a fun dinner party.
Liberals aren't immune to intolerance, but any pretending the two sides are equivalent is silly. Abortion clinics get bombed and their workers and doctors harassed; Chick-Fil-A's do not (nor does any other conservative equivalent I can think of).
The one arguable exception would be the extreme wing of the environmentalist movement, which a) is very arguable since they rarely if ever directly seek to harm people, and b) do not enjoy the kind of numbers and support of various unpleasant right-wing groups.
Ultimately, while it does not necessarily reflect on any given person with conservative political views, nearly all movements and leaders that rally around "I hate X people and don't want them around" are thoroughly right-wing, in the US at this point in history and the recent past.
(I will note that posting a single example of a left-wing terrorist doesn't really disprove my point; statistical evidence of left-wing causes causing as much harassment, assault, death, terrorism and destruction of property as right-wing causes like anti-abortion and anti-immigration would.)
-Trump says he will appoint a supreme court judge who will overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Therefore
-Trump wants to take away women's rights.
I mean, people can believe whatever they want, but Roe vs. Wade was enacted because women by the thousands were dying by trying to end their pregnancies. Making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortion; it creates an extremely dangerous environment for women and girls who are in an extremely desperate situation. At some point, "those people" who believe as you describe need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether the fetus inside is really more important than the already-living person in front of them who is threatening to harm and potentially kill herself one way or another.
Incidentally, one a side note that need not start its own discussion here, Christians are free to ignore the Old Testament completely because technically it does not apply to them.
re: the Supreme Court. If Trump thinks he can nominate someone whose end game is "overturn Roe v Wade" and that person is confirmed by the Senate, that doesn't mean the current sitting Justices have to welcome the new appointee--the Supreme Court has the right to refuse to seat a Justice. An obviously-political appointee with an agenda will not be welcome at the SCOTUS.
Other than that, I am glad that I took the weekend off from posting.
*************
Election officials have concluded their hand recount in Wisconsin; Trump gained 131 votes and no one found any indication of any external tampering, hacking, or fraud. The hand recount was still underway in Pennsylvania when a Federal judge issued a stay order, resulting in that State's Election Commission to certify, officially, the results in that State.
The window for any recount is fast approaching--the Electoral College meets next Monday.
As far as beating people for their beliefs, there have been tons of that happening at Trump events by liberal protesters. You can find dozens of pages of this on youtube. One example
Also: the only political act of armed violence related to the election for the entire year was a firebombing of the Republican office in North Carolina
Abortion clinic attacks: there has been an average of 1 per year in the past decade. Two instances of killing (the Tiller murder and the horrible attack last year where three people were murdered). More police were slaughtered in the Dallas BLM shooting alone. If you want to count bodies, it's not even close.
However, body counts shouldn't even be a measurement, since the people who commit such crimes are so far from the average citizen that they can hardly be considered to represent any group, and thy normally do not receive sympathy even from those who may share their resentments.
It's incredibly seductive to try and say your political "tribe" has the moral high ground, but its hardly ever true in anyone's case.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would still be available for the majority of the country, and within driving range for almost everyone.
As for "Dumbfuckistan", I'm sorry, but there is no comparison. It's not a known, hateful slur (if you ignore the irritating racism of the "istan" suffix). It was directed at the people in power who had just won an election, not vulnerable minorities. It was not supported directly by the just-elected President of the United States. It was not accompanied by a rash of motivated hate crimes.
It wasn't nice, and it was a bad move by the left to give into simplistic, fallacious views of what the reasons they lost the election were. But comparing it to the offensiveness of what's happened over the last month, or the public comments of the President-elect, is itself offensive. They are not on the same level. I can't watch videos at the moment, and I don't really care about videos anyway. Youtube videos are routinely faked and misattributed. Please cite proper news sources (i.e., not Breitbart). Liberals attacking Trump supporters is a "man bites dog" story and the new media loves those. Such a story would no difficulty whatever getting media attention, probably too much of it (like the "Bernie bros" thing did). I knew after I posted that post that I should've pointed out "Micah Xavier Johnson wasn't actually affiliated with Black Lives Matter, and according to those who knew him, a) didn't care at all about the Trayvon Martin shooting, and b) was clearly suffering from PTSD and/or other military-related mental illness".
He also wasn't "left-wing" by any meaningful usage of the term, though he was a black nationalist (which is not a movement that really fits in the flawed left/right spectrum).
There is no rhetoric within the mainstream of BLM about harming or killing police officers. There is no comparison to "lock her up" chants (now seeping into Canadian politics, charmingly), no leaders making the equivalent comments to Mexican rapists.
It is also, not to put too fine a point on it, a movement that arose because of the repeated murder of many, many black people and lack of accountability for even the most egregious crimes committed by police officers. It is defensive in nature. LGBT people are not frequently murdering cis straight white men (or any other group) and getting away with it. Neither are Mexicans, regardless of the words of Donald Trump.
Even if I were to agree that the Dallas shooting were representative of BLM or the left (and they are not), there would still be a substantial difference between the two. The left is not immune to being violent or racist or extremist. It has been all those things and more in the past (and occasionally in the present - Islamophobia is well-represented in both sides of the partisan divide). But at this moment, all of those things are predominantly associated with the right, for a few reasons.
Everybody always believes their political side has the moral high ground because, by necessity, everyone believes their own beliefs are closest to what is true or what is best for everyone. Thinking about it too much is thus pointless except as a philosophical exercise. I'm simply disputing that the level of violence and intolerance, at this time in history, is even close to equal between the two sides.