A Call to Trumpers/MAGA/Conservatives

[carpedm9587]

The fact you have gone on record as being okay with bestiality and your support of concepts like Gender Identity.

Yeah, on social issues, I do tend much further to the left. "Ok with bestiality" is a bit of an oversimplification. I believe what I said was that I personally find it repugnant, but unless it is causing harm to the animal, I don't see a moral component. I absolutely do distinguish between gender and sex, and support people's right to make personal choices about those issues. I hope, someday, the technology exists to make that choice simpler and the resolution more complete.

[Diogenes]

What I said, I believe, was that no one has yet articulated a rational, reasoned explanation for supporting Trump, and rationally/reasonably engaged in a dialogue about it. The usual pattern is that I ask why, I get a list of reasons, but as I begin to ask questions about that list and probe its basis - they disappear, usually after lobbing a few ad homs. cussion.

Or you just refuse to engage in good faith dialogue. The courts will handle the worse of Trump as Republican judges, especially SCOTUS ones, tend to be willing to buck the party whereas Dem ones are less likely to do so. Denying Biden two more SCOTUS picks is reason enough to support Trump. Preventing the continuation of Biden's disastrous de facto open border a "rational, reasoned explanation". You don't want dialogue, you just want to bash people.

[carpedm9587]

Or you just refuse to engage in good faith dialogue.

You are free to make that assumption, Dio. I would be interested in knowing your basis for it.

The courts will handle the worse of Trump as Republican judges, especially SCOTUS ones, tend to be willing to buck the party whereas Dem ones are less likely to do so. Denying Biden two more SCOTUS picks is reason enough to support Trump. Preventing the continuation of Biden's disastrous de facto open border a "rational, reasoned explanation".

What is your basis for this first statement?

As for the second, everything in politics is about tradeoffs. Yes, with Trump you get (potentially) two picks. What is the cost for those two picks, and how do you justify it becomes the question. It's like your earlier observation about car regulations and car prices: we cannot assess the wisdom of the choice without knowing the whole picture.

As for the last statement, how do you justify blaming the border on Biden when it is Congress that controls the purse strings and passess legislation, and it was the Republicans at the behest of Trump that tanked an immigration bill that would have addressed some of the issues for the sole reason that they did not Biden to have "a win" in an election year? This is as reported by members of the Republican party - not the press.

You don't want dialogue, you just want to bash people.

Again, you are free to make that assumption. I would be interested in knowing your basis for it.

[Cerebrum123]

Yeah, on social issues, I do tend much further to the left. "Ok with bestiality" is a bit of an oversimplification. I believe what I said was that I personally find it repugnant, but unless it is causing harm to the animal, I don't see a moral component. I absolutely do distinguish between gender and sex, and support people's right to make personal choices about those issues. I hope, someday, the technology exists to make that choice simpler and the resolution more complete.

Even most people on the fringes of the left are going to find the former insane and the latter is proving disastrous to Western society. Gender Identity is a dangerous ideology that is hurting everyone, especially those with GD.

[carpedm9587]

Even most people on the fringes of the left are going to find the former insane and the latter is proving disastrous to Western society. Gender Identity is a dangerous ideology that is hurting everyone, especially those with GD.

I don't come to my conclusions on the basis of popular consensus, Cerebrum. I am not a "follow the crowd" kind of guy. If you disagree with a position, putting forward a rational argument would be the better choice. Simply dismissing it is an argument from outrage and incredulity. It doesn't convince.

And warnings of "disastrous to Western Society" have been made over pretty much everything from the printing press to homosexuality. I don't usually pay a lot of attention to that kind of hyperbole.

But I AM curious - why is "western society" singled out? Is there something wrong with eastern society? Why not just "society?"

[Cerebrum123]

I don't come to my conclusions on the basis of popular consensus, Cerebrum. I am not a "follow the crowd" kind of guy. If you disagree with a position, putting forward a rational argument would be the better choice. Simply dismissing it is an argument from outrage and incredulity. It doesn't convince.

You haven't been the type to follow reason and rational arguments lately either.

And warnings of "disastrous to Western Society" have been made over pretty much everything from the printing press to homosexuality. I don't usually pay a lot of attention to that kind of hyperbole.

Given you just redefine things to suit what you want to believe, I don't really buy this defensive argumentation.

But I AM curious - why is "western society" singled out? Is there something wrong with eastern society? Why not just "society?"

I specify Western society because those are the only ones being infected with this antihuman ideology. Given the current collapse of Western society, this ideology is unlikely to spread before all societies are ruined.

[NorrinRadd]

Significantly more so than Mr. Trump. He still says things I wish he didn't, but he is far more a "president for everyone" than Mr. Trump ever was.

The very fact that you apparently actually believe this shows the impossibility of having the kind of dialogue your OP pleads for. Our views of reality itself are poles apart.

[Diogenes]

You are free to make that assumption, Dio. I would be interested in knowing your basis for it.

It's evidenced by your behavior.

What is your basis for this first statement?

If want a breakdown:

Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times, while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times.

As for the second, everything in politics is about tradeoffs. Yes, with Trump you get (potentially) two picks. What is the cost for those two picks, and how do you justify it becomes the question. It's like your earlier observation about car regulations and car prices: we cannot assess the wisdom of the choice without knowing the whole picture.

I don't recall talking about car regulation and car prices, but Govt mandates will necessarily increase the cost of cars. Obama mandated rear view cameras and then the prices rose not just to the added complexity, but then due to the chip shortage. Biden mandating breathalyzers will only increase car prices.

As for the last statement, how do you justify blaming the border on Biden when it is Congress that controls the purse strings and passess legislation, and it was the Republicans at the behest of Trump that tanked an immigration bill that would have addressed some of the issues for the sole reason that they did not Biden to have "a win" in an election year? This is as reported by members of the Republican party - not the press

Looking at what as the major concerns, it seems the bill gave the President the ability to suspend the emergency mandates and the mandates had caps of on how long it could be active. Also, the caps diminished each year. It also seems the bill would have given easier access to work permits and claims. Also, aliens from "noncontiguous countries" aren't counted in determining activating the emergency mandate. It also allocated funds for military personnel for "to respond to the situation in Ukraine and for related expenses".

The bill also extended IMF Loans to Fund to 2030 before the relevant section expired in 2025.

Congress holding the purse strings doesn't stop from Mayoraks from securing the border with the funds he has now. Biden also stopped construction on the wall and sued states stepping up to secure the border in the absence of his acting to enforce current laws. It does seem that Biden found the funds to have midnight of migrants and to fly migrants into the US.

Also the bill only allocated some $20B for the border. $60b was slated to go to Ukraine.

Again, you are free to make that assumption. I would be interested in knowing your basis for it.

Past behavior.

[carpedm9587]

It's evidenced by your behavior.

Curious. What behavior?

If want a breakdown:

Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times, while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times.

The numbers here are interesting, despite this being an opinion piece. I've gone back and looked into some of them and they hold up. Frankly, the distinction between 51 and 37 is not a particularly large one to me, and five members gives more opportunity for "breaking ranks" than four. The same is now true of six vs. three. I am more concerned that a) the numbers are that high for either side in non-united decisions, and b) that the break down in rulings is regularly and consistently politically divided. It essentially eliminates any claim that the court is "not political." IMO, judicial decisions ought to be made on the basis of rule of law - not political whims.

I don't recall talking about car regulation and car prices, but Govt mandates will necessarily increase the cost of cars. Obama mandated rear view cameras and then the prices rose not just to the added complexity, but then due to the chip shortage. Biden mandating breathalyzers will only increase car prices.

Yes - they will. So did catalytic converters, seat belts, air bags, and the list goes on. The question is not "did it increase the price." The question is, "is the cost increase justified by the benefits gained." That was the point I had made earlier, and why I reminded you of this discussion.

Looking at what as the major concerns, it seems the bill gave the President the ability to suspend the emergency mandates and the mandates had caps of on how long it could be active. Also, the caps diminished each year. It also seems the bill would have given easier access to work permits and claims. Also, aliens from "noncontiguous countries" aren't counted in determining activating the emergency mandate. It also allocated funds for military personnel for "to respond to the situation in Ukraine and for related expenses".

The bill also extended IMF Loans to Fund to 2030 before the relevant section expired in 2025.

No one claimed the bill was perfect, Dio. It was a compromise hammered out by both sides and widely supported by both sides - making it bipartisan. In such a bill, both sides get some of what they want, and give up some things. It was not defeated because of what the bill contained. It was Republicans who decried the fact that the bill was being defeated because Mr. Trump did not want to hand Mr. Biden a win in an election year.

IMO, with that act, any objection to how the border is being run is essentially moot. It could have been made better - Trump and Republicans prevented it.

Congress holding the purse strings doesn't stop from Mayoraks from securing the border with the funds he has now. Biden also stopped construction on the wall and sued states stepping up to secure the border in the absence of his acting to enforce current laws. It does seem that Biden found the funds to have midnight of migrants and to fly migrants into the US.

Also the bill only allocated some $20B for the border. $60b was slated to go to Ukraine.

Again - same observations. And no, the border cannot be secured as things are. The problem is a complex one. We have laws on the books requiring the U.S. to honor any asylum claim and give the claimant due process to be evaluated. That's the law. However, there are nowhere near adequate resources to do that, resulting in multi-year waits. The courts have ruled that these people cannot be incarcerated for that period of time without due process - creating the "catch and release" situation. The bill would have funded adequate resources, additional housing, and given the president the power to shut the border in the event of surges. What do you think the effect would be on caravans if they knew in advance that arrival at the border would result in local incarceration, swift processing, and deportation within days, weeks, or a few months of arrival, without the chance to be "released" for ten years and create more "anchor babies" or "DACA" candidates?

None of this can be done without congressional action, and they chose politics and "don't give Biden the win" over securing our border. The objections from Republican and conservative leadership, at this point, are disingenuous at best, flat out hypocrisy at worst.

Out of curiosity - have you ever BEEN to the border?

Past behavior.

Again, what behavior?

[NorrinRadd]

So, in your opinion, Mr. Trump's policies are somehow more "Christian" than Mr. Biden's?

At least less anti-Christian.

Biden (speaking of him personally because Constitutionally, POTUS "is" the Executive Branch) is forcing employers to pay for abortions, jailing peaceful protestors, possibly denying them necessary medical care, and is on the same side as those trying to shut down Pro-Life pregnancy centers.

[Roy]

At issue is the fact that the National Archives has no legal standing to demand a former president return documents, and since former presidents retain their security clearance after leaving office, ...

(my emphasis)

This looks like total bollocks, is agreed to be total bollocks by almost everything I can find, and is confirmed to be total bollocks by the Cornell Law School:

§ 2.2 Access to classified information by historical researchers, former Treasury Presidential and Vice Presidential appointees, and former Presidents and Vice Presidents.
...
(a) Access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information. This requirement may be waived, however, for individuals who:
...
(3) Served as President or Vice President.
...
(C) A former President or Vice President is only authorized access to classified information that was prepared by Treasury while that individual was serving as President or Vice President.

So Trump, as an ex-President, may be allowed access to documents that existed during his presidency. He does not retain the security clearance he had while in office.

I'll probably now be called 'ignorant' by some-one who's uncritically swallowing and posting total bollocks.

[carpedm9587]

At least less anti-Christian.

Biden (speaking of him personally because Constitutionally, POTUS "is" the Executive Branch) is forcing employers to pay for abortions, jailing peaceful protestors, possibly denying them necessary medical care, and is on the same side as those trying to shut down Pro-Life pregnancy centers.

OK, let's just take a breath here. Some of your articles are to single-instance situations. They are tragic - they should not happen. But surely you are not under the impression that the President of the United States has personal responsibility for each and every outcome? POTUS is responsible for policy. Under ANY policy, some things are going to go amiss. If you want to make a case that POTUS is involved, you need to show that the POLICY is resulting in the outcomes. The only article you have provided that rises to that bar is the first one, suggesting that there is enough evidence of Biden requiring funding for abortion that there is a lawsuit underway.

Now I note two other things. First, the article you cite comes from a strongly "pro-life" source. That does not make it wrong per se (genetic fallacy) but it does raise questions as to its accuracy and possible spin. Second, the article does not, anywhere in its body, actually provide the language of the rule-making, leaving the reader completely dependent on the article and unable to make an assessment for themselves. Until I see that actual language, I am withholding judgment. I suggest you do as well. It is possible the story is accurate. It is also possible that this is fear mongering and another attempt by Republican AGs to sue the administration and tie up its resources in court. Which is true? We simply do not know.

[seer]

I think you should read what I wrote again. Your conclusion cannot be derived from my statement.

What you have done here is similar to this:

Statement: I wish I could find one, comfortable, affordable, blue car.
Response: So, you believe every blue car out there is uncomfortable and too expensive?

Umm.... no.

Just stop Carp! You said: I would dearly love to find one good person who insists on supporting Mr. Trump who can explain to me how they can justify that position.

So of the 100 Trump supporters that you know you can't find one good person in that group who can justify his support for Trump? Are they all either not good or irrational?

[Mountain Man]

(my emphasis)

This looks like total bollocks, is agreed to be total bollocks by almost everything I can find, and is confirmed to be total bollocks by the Cornell Law School:

§ 2.2 Access to classified information by historical researchers, former Treasury Presidential and Vice Presidential appointees, and former Presidents and Vice Presidents.
...
(a) Access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information. This requirement may be waived, however, for individuals who:
...
(3) Served as President or Vice President.
...
(C) A former President or Vice President is only authorized access to classified information that was prepared by Treasury while that individual was serving as President or Vice President.

So Trump, as an ex-President, may be allowed access to documents that existed during his presidency. He does not retain the security clearance he had while in office.

I'll probably now be called 'ignorant' by some-one who's uncritically swallowing and posting total bollocks.

All the documents President Trump took with him after leaving office were documents that were prepared while he was in office, and so, he retains his security clearance to view and access those documents.

And that's why I call you ignorant.

[Mountain Man]

I am not experiencing a need to be "saved" from anything. Meanwhile, show me where, MM, I have said something disparaging about a person or to a person. I'll be happy to examine it. I don't believe I have done that anywhere. It is why you will see me pointing out an inconsistency in a post or between posts, but not accuse someone of hypocrisy. The former is a logical discussion about an argument being made. The latter impugns people's character and requires me to make assumptions about their intent, which I cannot know.

So you think that a broad insult taking a slap at anybody who doesn't share your opinion of President Trump somehow doesn't violate your call for civility and understanding?

Please, I'm not buying that nonsense for a second.