# The Chronicles of Narcissist



## Dannyalcatraz

The Donald is running for POTUS, and to nobody's surprise, he's made some...inflammatory...statements.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/0...icle_organicsidebar_expansion&iref=obnetwork#

Now, a lot of people thought he'd be running for the same reason as last time: publicity.  IOW, he ran to improve the profile of his business ventures.

However, if this is true, it doesn't seem to be working the way you'd expect.  Instead of re-assessing and reframing, he's doubling down- again, not surprising.  But the easily is he's losing business partners, and is even launching lawsuits.  The optics on this are not very presidential.

...and yet he's second among all GOP candidates in all of the most recent polls.

I think this is just a phase.  Prospective GOP voters are attracted to their new shiny thing.  But I suspect he'll flame out as the electorate realizes how profoundly unelectable he is.  I'm guessing...1-2 months.

How do YOU see this tale spinning out?


----------



## Joker

With his deportation as the sole crew member of the first manned mission to Mars.  With a slingshot.

That is my professional opinion.


----------



## Ryujin

Money or not, I doubt that the party is crazy enough to make him their candidate for President.


----------



## Kramodlog

The character Trump is playing in front of the cameras is a reflection of the Republican base. This is why is he second in polls. It also means that if is in the first 10 in polls, he will be invited to the Fox News debate. A great stage for him to get visibality, say disgustig things and get huge applauds from the crowd.

Like Erik Erikson from Red State points out, Trump will matter in the primaries because his hyperboles will force other candidates to make the same toxic statements than him or try to surpass him. Statements that are helpful in a Republican primary, but harmful in a genereal presidential election. And close enough, we have Ted Cruz who refuses to critic Trump, and media in the conservative bubble praises them both. 

The Republican primaries of 2012 were named a circus, and they were quite entertaining, but this one, it is gonna even better with 15 and still counting candidates.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The one GOP candidate that surprised me most in his reaction- or lack thereof- to Trump's statement was Jeb Bush.  Y'know, what with his wife being a Mexican and all.  I can understand the others making statements that are politically calculated & measured, but Trump essentially made a personal attack on Bush the candidate's WIFE.  There should have been the political equivalent of the events of Lynyrd Skynard's "Gimme Three Steps" going on.

Does Jeb have a backbone?


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Does Jeb have a backbone?




You will note that the GOP candidates are *not* going after each other, in general.  Each of them is, for the moment, trying to campaign on the basis of how much they hate the President and his policies, and not how they are better than the other Republican candidates.

Calling Trump on his racist comments would 1) break that truce, and 2) cheese off a good chunk of the GOP base.  While Jeb's spouse is likely an asset in his home state, he probably doesn't want to point her out to the folks who like what Trump is saying right now.

Jeb has a backbone, yes - and that means not letting slights get to him.  He'll stay quiet, and allow the media and his commercially-visible business ties rip Trump up for him.  Jeb is still in the lead, so getting dirty probably isn't in his best interests.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The one GOP candidate that surprised me most in his reaction- or lack thereof- to Trump's statement was Jeb Bush.  Y'know, what with his wife being a Mexican and all.  I can understand the others making statements that are politically calculated & measured, but Trump essentially made a personal attack on Bush the candidate's WIFE.  There should have been the political equivalent of the events of Lynyrd Skynard's "Gimme Three Steps" going on.
> 
> Does Jeb have a backbone?



Jeb? A backbone? Not a chance.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> You will note that the GOP candidates are *not* going after each other, in general.



Some are warming to the task in h Rick Perry said the comments were not representative of the GOP.  Rubio went farther, and called them offensive, inaccurate, and divisive.

And honestly, I'm sure a stronger response from Bush- citing Columba's rather impressive track record in the public eye- would have been a big rhetorical slap in Trump's face.  It would have virtually sewn up the Latin GOP vote for him as far as non-Latino GOP candidates were concerned.  Only Rubio or Cruz would have a chance.  (And Cruz really doesn't have one.)  Who else could touch him on this?

And he needs a win like this.  Conservative commentators have been pointing out his weak, stumbling responses to various issues of the day.  This would have given him a political identity beyond "the next Bush in line."

He should have spiked this one.  Instead, he gave it a weak lob return.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Jeb? A backbone? Not a chance.



Yeah, you've seen him up close for many years, haven't you?

That lack of a spine is going to cost him.  If he can't stand up for family, how can he stand up for his country?  At least, that's the thoughts will go.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yeah, you've seen him up close for many years, haven't you?
> 
> That lack of a spine is going to cost him.  If he can't stand up for family, how can he stand up for his country?  At least, that's the thoughts will go.



Unfortunately, yes. He was our governor here in Florida, so we know just how spineless he is. I've also had the chance to run into Marco Rubio several times since he "teaches" at my former university.The horror that are Florida politicians.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And honestly, I'm sure a stronger response from Bush- citing Columba's rather impressive track record in the public eye- would have been a big rhetorical slap in Trump's face.  It would have virtually sewn up the Latin GOP vote for him as far as non-Latino GOP candidates were concerned.  Only Rubio or Cruz would have a chance.  (And Cruz really doesn't have one.)  Who else could touch him on this?




But, I'm guessing he doesn't feel a need to give Trump that slap.  It is too early to bother.  While Trump is high in the polls now, being high in the polls early on means *NOTHING*.  If we accept that 1) Trump is apt to self-destruct on his own, and 2) Trump is likely not acceptable to the GOP party power structure, and 3) there's solid question whether Trump actually *wants* to be president, he's likely to be sunk by other means.

It is *early*.  No candidate really needs to make decisive moves at this time.  Jeb doesn't need to solidify the Latin vote now - if Rubio or Cruz isn't in the running after the debates, he'll have them anyway.  And, by not engaging, he avoids any potshots Trump might choose to toss at him.

In terms of risk-benefit analysis, I don't think slapping Trump down right now is really worth it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

The problem isn't whether or not Trump will self destruct. He will. The problem is that he will take a huge swath of the GOP with him. At this point, Hilary is guaranteed two terms, and by the time Temp gets through, ISIS will be able to run an a candidate with the slogan "Sharia law for all! Death to white Christians!" and that candidate will beat out any republican candidate.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

What do you think are Rubio's fatal flaws?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> But, I'm guessing he doesn't feel a need to give Trump that slap.  It is too early to bother.




That's a failing in his part.

He and the other candidates have to be able to think and make tactical & strategic decisions on 2 fronts- the primary and the subsequent presidential election processes- simultaneously, or the GOP is as sunk as it was in 2012.  It is early yet, but *right now*, the general Hispanic electorate is looking at the reactions of others in the GOP race regarding Trump and making decisions based on seeing a whole lot of nothing.   *Right now*, the intellectuals & activists within the GOP are looking for signs of weakness, and calling the candidates out on what their eyes observe, and they're not impressed, either.



> While Trump is high in the polls now, being high in the polls early on means *NOTHING*.  If we accept that 1) Trump is apt to self-destruct on his own, and 2) Trump is likely not acceptable to the GOP party power structure, and 3) there's solid question whether Trump actually *wants* to be president, he's likely to be sunk by other means.




Already, guys like George Will are calling out their fellow conservatives on whackadoo theories, failing at the Latino outreach they said they needed in 2012, and the insanity of moving further to the right.  Trump is pulling the entire field in that direction.



> It is *early*.  No candidate really needs to make decisive moves at this time.  Jeb doesn't need to solidify the Latin vote now - if Rubio or Cruz isn't in the running after the debates, he'll have them anyway.



I guarantee you that if Jeb is the last man standing and doesn't have Rubio or Cruz as a running mate, Jeb's weak response to Trump so far will haunt him in commercials and presidential debates.  The Dems see those 3 candidates as the only ones who can weaken THEIR hold on the Hispanic vote, and will gleefully chum those waters.


----------



## MechaPilot

Trump running for president is a win for me.  Comedy is one of the few things that consistently helps sustain me when I'm feeling low, and I love watching John Stewart tear into Trump.

Also, while I'm not overly fond of Hillary I do want to see what Bill would be up to as our country's first "First Gentleman" (or whatever he will be called).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Apparently, Jeb took some calcium pills today- from CBS:



> The GOP's current establishment front-runner, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has also weighed in on what he called Trump's "extraordinarily ugly types of comments."
> 
> "He's not a stupid guy, so I don't assume that he thinks every Mexican crossing the border is a rapist," Bush told reporters Saturday in New Hampshire. "So he's doing this to inflame and to incite and to draw attention to his campaign, which seems to be his organizing principle of his campaign, and it doesn't represent the Republican Party or its values."


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What do you think are Rubio's fatal flaws?



Besides being republican? 
But seriously, I think it's more of a republican fatal flaw regarding Rubio. There is this idea that Rubio is somehow going to attract "hispanics" or "Latinos." Truth is, Rubio is far more divisive for "hispanics" and "Latinos" than republicans have blamed Obama for being. Rubio is of Cuban decent. The Cuban story is completely different than any other group of people lumped in to the "hispanic" or "Latino" categories. Cubans have a different experience in the U.S. I'm sure you've heard of the wet Feet - Dry feet policy. Any Cuban that makes it onto U.S. soil gets to stay and a year later they get to apply, and receive permanent resident status. They can then go ahead and become citizens some time later. No other group of "hispanics" or "Latinos" gets to do that. Everyone else remains an illegal immigrant. To others, the treatment that Cubans get is unfair. It appears to be preferential treatment for one particular group. It's also one of the smaller groups of people that fit into the "Hispanic" and "Latino" categories.
So the republican idea is that this guy who is young1 and relatable to "hispanics" and "Latinos." Except, he isn't actually relatable. He is a sign of republican hypocrisy. Republicans rant against illegal immigration, but here is a group of people who is not only encouraged, but rewarded for illegally coming into the U.S. And not a single republican has spoken out against this policy. Worst of all, now that the Obama administration is trying to normalize relations with Cuba, you get people like Rubio saying how evil an idea that is. To other "Hispanics/Latinos" it seems more as if Rubio is trying to keep the status quo with Cuba because normalizing relations with Cuba might lead to Cubans losing their preferred immigration status.
The republican party might be looking at Rubio as their great "Hispanic" hope, but he isn't. He will just remind others how their family and friends are seen as Trump put it, being rapist, while Cubans are given everything. Not rally the image republicans think Rubio is putting out. 

Then there is the whole Braman funding thing. Norman Braman is one of the local billionaires who has supported Rubio over the years. By supported I don't only mean given to his political campaigns. The guy has given fake jobs and paid Rubio and his wife. He pretty much owns Rubio. You may not have seen much about that yet, but let Rubio get a bit more traction, and you'll see it all over the news.

On a personal note, I can't stand Rubio because of his amazing hypocrisy. He is the guy that when he was in the Florida legislature, pushed to cut higher education funding. I remember at my university a lot of programs were cut. They were completely eliminated. Lots of universities had to cut funding. Then, as soon as he left the Florida legislature, he took a "job" at my university "co-teaching" a class. He got paid something like $70,000.00 to co-teach a class. If he was going to teach the class, great, but co-teach? Really? We could have probably hired a good professor for the kind of money Rubio is getting. One that would at least teach his own class. 


[sblock=1]I was standing in line at the Starbucks at my university, and the guy is going bald. He also wears mom jeans, and his pants appear to be making a run for his chest, as do the pants of old men.[/sblock]


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Apparently, Jeb took some calcium pills today- from CBS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP's current establishment front-runner, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has also weighed in on what he called Trump's "extraordinarily ugly types of comments."
> 
> "He's not a stupid guy, so* I don't assume that he thinks every Mexican crossing the border is a rapist*," Bush told reporters Saturday in New Hampshire. "So he's doing this to inflame and to incite and to draw attention to his campaign, which seems to be his organizing principle of his campaign, and it doesn't represent the Republican Party or its values."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be some really weak calcium.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

1) yeah, I understand the Cuban thing.

2) didn't know about the Braman thing- that's the kind of thing I'm curious about

3) I expected the idiocy about higher education.  It seems to be a thing in the GOP.  See Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Kansas- and their relevant GOP candidates- right now.

4) yeah, Jeb really needs some megadoses.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) yeah, I understand the Cuban thing.



See, you and I understand it, but I get the feeling that the GOP doesn't. To his credit, I think Rubio understands it, but is going along with the flow because it benefits him to rise in the ranks of his party. Rise to the Presidency? Nah. But I'm sure he can put himself in a comfy place where he can influence some people and some of the laws that will benefit him and his friends. 



> 2) didn't know about the Braman thing- that's the kind of thing I'm curious about



Well, in that case, here is a New York Times article about it, and here is a Tampa Bay Times article about his wife and the great work she did for a "charitable" foundation run by Braman. 



> 3) I expected the idiocy about higher education.  It seems to be a thing in the GOP.  See Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Kansas- and their relevant GOP candidates- right now.



Yup, it's a republican thing. One of the first things I remember when Jeb became governor was Jeb cutting about 320 million dollars from higher education funding. He didn't stop there. 



> 4) yeah, Jeb really needs some megadoses.



Part of the problem is something the GOP created themselves. They worked their constituents into such a fear fueled frenzy about topics such as immigration, that if a republican even dares to criticize another republican for some extremist view, the criticizing republican is automatically suspected of being a traitor and hell bent on destroying freedom. These rabid constituents turn on that republican and leave him a bloody mess who may not recover in time for the election.


----------



## Joker

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What do you think are Rubio's fatal flaws?




He's always thirsty.  You can't have a president who can't go without water for 30 minutes.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1
> 3) I expected the idiocy about higher education.  It seems to be a thing in the GOP.  See Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Kansas- and their relevant GOP candidates- right now.




Well, over the past decade and a half or so, how much of the GOP position is apt to seem reasonable to someone who is educated, and capable of critical thinking?  And, how many of their base voters don't have higher education, and are generally spiteful of it?  Cutting education would seem a good idea for them, would it not?

Never mind that this is undercutting the development of intellectual capital for the future.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Joker said:


> He's always thirsty.  You can't have a president who can't go without water for 30 minutes.




No, no, no- that's Arthur Curry.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> Never mind that this is undercutting the development of intellectual capital for the future.



I wonder if it is short-sightedness on their part, or if they're using it as a way to reinforce having a permanent underclass, fit only to work part time jobs in their factories?


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I wonder if it is short-sightedness on their part, or if they're using it as a way to reinforce having a permanent underclass, fit only to work part time jobs in their factories?




Given that, long-term, their factories won't be there without the intellectual capital to keep them on the front of the markets?  I classify it as shortsightedness.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ah, yes, but they also know they can hire brainpower from other countries to keep those businesses competitive, possibly more cheaply than supporting an education system to grow it at home.  Meanwhile that is simultaneously keeping a large pool of undereducated workers fit only for the low-pay jobs...for which there will be a buyer's market for labor, further suppressing wages.

Too Machiavellian?


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Too Machiavellian?




No.  Just not practical or economical.  There are still underdeveloped portions of the world that don't have, say, OSHA regulations, or minimum wages over $5, that they could use for factory jobs, if they wanted.  Working to de-educate the USA so it can be a source of cheap labor is kind of tin-foil-hat time.  Especially when so much of the manufacturing isn't done here any more anyway.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> No.  Just not practical or economical.  There are still underdeveloped portions of the world that don't have, say, OSHA regulations, or minimum wages over $5, that they could use for factory jobs, if they wanted.  Working to de-educate the USA so it can be a source of cheap labor is kind of tin-foil-hat time.  Especially when so much of the manufacturing isn't done here any more anyway.




Not to mention counter productive. You need a place to market what you make and if you reduce your primary market to a bunch of Epsilons, you have very few people to which you can sell.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

So you are doubtful of the rise of the plutocratical brave new world?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I may have been too generous with my 1-2 month estimate- Trump continues to shoot himself in the foot...while he's got it in his mouth.  He first retweeted, then deleted a nice bit of race baiting the other day:

http://www.businessinsider.com/dona...fortunate-retweet-about-jeb-bushs-wife-2015-7

Wonder if any of the other GOP candidates will say something more forceful than they have to date.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Wonder if any of the other GOP candidates will say something more forceful than they have to date.



Not going to happen.


----------



## Enkhidu

Umbran said:


> Well, over the past decade and a half or so, *how much of the GOP position is apt to seem reasonable to someone who is educated, and capable of critical thinking?*  And, how many of their base voters don't have higher education, and are generally spiteful of it?  Cutting education would seem a good idea for them, would it not?
> 
> Never mind that this is undercutting the development of intellectual capital for the future.




I see this a lot - the idea that the GOP has a monopoly on ideas which can't stand scrutiny is a slap in the face to people that [-]vote republican[/-] don't vote democrat.

Please keep that in mind.


----------



## Kramodlog

It is not a monopoly, it is just profuse.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Enkhidu said:


> I see this a lot - the idea that the GOP has a monopoly on ideas which can't stand scrutiny is a slap in the face to people that [-]vote republican[/-] don't vote democrat.
> 
> Please keep that in mind.




It's not that the radical left doesn't have crackpot ideas- they most certainly do.  But it is rarer for someone on that end of the political spectrum to hold high public office in the USA and get mass media attention for their ideas.

Right now, we have several GOP candidates & governors who have either simply decried and discounted the value higher education- like Santorum- or who have actively slashed their states' funding of public schools and universities by hundreds of millions (per state)- Jindal, Walker and Brownback- in order to pay for Laffer Curve-inspired tax cuts for the upper 1-2%...

Alfred Laffer's theory- as applied to real-world state and federal level economic systems has 30+ years of statistically demonstrable debunking, for a variety of reasons.  And yet the GOP continues to preach it as gospel truth.


----------



## Ryujin

An unfortunate by-product of this heavy political polarization in North America is a Left that is quick to criticize a lack of education on the Right, and a Right that demonizes the educated as "The Leftist Elite."


----------



## Umbran

Enkhidu said:


> I see this a lot - the idea that the GOP has a monopoly on ideas which can't stand scrutiny is a slap in the face to people that [-]vote republican[/-] don't vote democrat.




Please tell us who said they had such a monopoly.  I readily admit that every party out there has some buffoonery.  

What I did do, was question how many policies of the GOP stand up to critical thinking - literally, in that I phrased it as a question.  You are free to question how many of the policies of any other party would stand up to that thinking.  We can have comparison discussions, if you like.  I am not a loyalist to any party, so I have nothing to lose in that discussion.  You can criticize Democrats seven ways from Sunday, and I won't blink (if you are factually correct in your analysis). I just happen to think the GOP scorecard on this in the 21st century is particularly bad, but if you think they really hold up, then, we can see what we can see.  

But, before you do that, also remember that it is entirely valid to think that the _number of policies_ isn't an issue.  If a party gets one issue that is very important to you very right, or wrong, that may be the determiner for you.  And that's fine.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Trump's campaign slogan ought to be "I don't learn from my mistakes!"

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/donald-trump-issues-statement-mexican-224759825.html


----------



## Kramodlog

Lots of free publicity for Trump.


----------



## MechaPilot

Enkhidu said:


> I see this a lot - the idea that the GOP has a monopoly on ideas which can't stand scrutiny is a slap in the face to people that [-]vote republican[/-] don't vote democrat.
> 
> Please keep that in mind.




They don't have a monopoly on such ideas, but such ideas from them are frequent and often offensive on their face.  Every time I see that little "R" next to someone's name the first thing that pops into my head is the phrase "legitimate rape."


----------



## Enkhidu

Thank you all for the recognition that rotten planks are not solely an aspect of the GOP platform. The echo chamber in this thread was getting a little much.

Very seriously, all I am hoping for this thread (and the experiment) is that people remember the mote and beam (because say what you want about Christianity, but I dare someone to find fault with the hippie carpenter's words on being judgemental).


----------



## Kramodlog

Challenge accepted!

I judge all the time. We all do. It is a natural thing to do. It helps keep us alive. Is that street safe to cross? Let me judge that. Is that green meat in the fridge safe to eat? Let me judge that. Should I try to stop that hobo who is doing is business in my driveway? Let me judge that...

Do not judge unless you wanna be judged? People judge me all the time. Its three in the morning and a woman is walking towards me, she'll judge if I am a threat or not. Silver's boss will judge him to see if he is fit for a promotion (and he isn't cause of the drunkeness). Heck, we judge ourselves all the time. "Why did I take the red pill!? Stupid stupid stupid!"

We also judge politicians all the time. It is the normal thing to do when we decide for whom to vote, or vote at all. If a politician starts talking about real rape and how a woman's body prevents pregnancy in the case of real rapes, well, I'll judge him or her severely. I am ready to be judged by that politician. Why not judge the political base that made them candidates in the first place? I am also ready to be judged by that base.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> Lots of free publicity for Trump.



That's not working out too well for him...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/donald-trump-pga-split-after-mexican-comments/index.html


----------



## Ryujin

Now Ann Coulter is chiming in. Someone must have said her name in front of a mirror three times.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's not working out too well for him...
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/donald-trump-pga-split-after-mexican-comments/index.html




Unless, you know, he actually is trying to win the primaries.

[video=youtube;bW7Op86ox9g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g[/video]


----------



## Rune

goldomark said:


> Do not judge unless you wanna be judged?




That's not really what the passage says. Phrasing changes with the translation, but Mathew 7:5 says, "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

In other words, "recognize that your judgement of others is biased by your own faults and/or limitations of perspective and account for that if you judge others." Or, more bluntly, "don't be a judgemental jerk." Which is practical advice, when you get down to it. 

Note that the above is not the same thing as, "judge not, lest ye be judged." It does not, in fact, imply any causal relationship between two people, at all.


----------



## I'm A Banana

There is a certain political strategy that is entirely happy with Trump running for president and running his campaign into the ground.

It's natural to compare things to what they're placed next to. Trump as a candidate will be compared with all the other candidates. He'll make people who are less completely insane than he is - but still pretty off-kilter - seem saner by comparison. 

You know, as a hypothetical, a candidate promising "tough enforcement of immigration laws" now sounds reasonable next to Donald. Whereas before, that position might've been more to the extreme of the spectrum that might run from "open door policy" to "careful immigration reform" (or whatever). 

In a two-party system, the wingnut candidates can help a party's goals more broadly by shifting the conversation and re-defining "centrist." The party with the wingnutties wingnuts gets to pull the middle in their direction and thereby ultimately win bigger. 

So there's a strategic dimension to letting dinkuses like Trump in the race - it makes the "centrist" folks on the other side seem dangerously left-of-center. Republican candidates have more breathing room with him in the race - they don't have to be not crazy, just _less crazy than Donald,_ and they'll seem pretty reasonable, even if they're still saying kind of crazy stuff. 

It also serves as a useful distraction. With Donald yelling and screaming and telling everyone to pay attention to him (something he's got some practice doing!), you have your rodeo clown, the person your enemies can target so they won't be ready when you actually start to fight back for real. He's your pawn, your tank, the one you predict _will_ get hit, but who will stop your enemies from getting a more coherent attack against your actually-vulnerable forces (or that your enemies try to ignore and thus suffer the penalties for ignoring). 

It's something the progressives in the US haven't been doing a great job of since about the time of the Red Scare and the strong Labor movements, though the conservatives seem to have it down pretty well (there's been someone from the Conservative Loony Bin on display in most major elections of the last ~20  years or so, but it seems like it's harder to find someone willing to espouse liberal-crazy in a way that can be put on stage). 

I am perhaps giving political wonks more credit than they deserve on that though.


----------



## tomBitonti

Kamikaze Midget said:


> There is a certain political strategy that is entirely happy with Trump running for president and running his campaign into the ground.




This.

I'm also noticing that the large number of republican candidates rather uses up bandwidth.  They may seem to be as a pile of clowns emerging endlessly from their car, but they are stealing the show.  They seem well on their way to defining what conversation will be had months from now.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kramodlog

Kamikaze Midget said:


> There is a certain political strategy that is entirely happy with Trump running for president and running his campaign into the ground.
> 
> It's natural to compare things to what they're placed next to. Trump as a candidate will be compared with all the other candidates. He'll make people who are less completely insane than he is - but still pretty off-kilter - seem saner by comparison.
> 
> You know, as a hypothetical, a candidate promising "tough enforcement of immigration laws" now sounds reasonable next to Donald. Whereas before, that position might've been more to the extreme of the spectrum that might run from "open door policy" to "careful immigration reform" (or whatever).
> 
> In a two-party system, the wingnut candidates can help a party's goals more broadly by shifting the conversation and re-defining "centrist." The party with the wingnutties wingnuts gets to pull the middle in their direction and thereby ultimately win bigger.
> 
> So there's a strategic dimension to letting dinkuses like Trump in the race - it makes the "centrist" folks on the other side seem dangerously left-of-center. Republican candidates have more breathing room with him in the race - they don't have to be not crazy, just _less crazy than Donald,_ and they'll seem pretty reasonable, even if they're still saying kind of crazy stuff.
> 
> It also serves as a useful distraction. With Donald yelling and screaming and telling everyone to pay attention to him (something he's got some practice doing!), you have your rodeo clown, the person your enemies can target so they won't be ready when you actually start to fight back for real. He's your pawn, your tank, the one you predict _will_ get hit, but who will stop your enemies from getting a more coherent attack against your actually-vulnerable forces (or that your enemies try to ignore and thus suffer the penalties for ignoring).
> 
> It's something the progressives in the US haven't been doing a great job of since about the time of the Red Scare and the strong Labor movements, though the conservatives seem to have it down pretty well (there's been someone from the Conservative Loony Bin on display in most major elections of the last ~20  years or so, but it seems like it's harder to find someone willing to espouse liberal-crazy in a way that can be put on stage).
> 
> I am perhaps giving political wonks more credit than they deserve on that though.




But can it work in the Republican context? Rep candidates have a tendacy to out perform each other rather than try to look moderate and rally everyone under their umbrella. Romney during the last primaries was a good example. He became more severe on immigration, not less, among other policies. He even became more "severely conservative". Now it is about immigration, but there will be taxes, abortion, war in the Middle-East, gay marriage, etc. It isn't like the base is actually moderate.


----------



## Umbran

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So there's a strategic dimension to letting dinkuses like Trump in the race...




Someone correct me if I am incorrect, but I don't think anyone "let" Trump run.  There are some technical requirements/bureaucratic steps he has to take, but if he meets them, he's allowed, and that's it.  The party leaders don't get to say, "No, you can't," just because they don't like him.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Umbran said:


> Someone correct me if I am incorrect, but I don't think anyone "let" Trump run.  There are some technical requirements/bureaucratic steps he has to take, but if he meets them, he's allowed, and that's it.  The party leaders don't get to say, "No, you can't," just because they don't like him.




Nobody has to "let" him run.

But I think if you are imagining he isn't connected to a greater political party machine by a series of advisors and handlers, then I think you might not be seeing a bigger picture. It's not too hard for the guy running, I dunno, Jeb's campaign to call up the guy who is Donald's advisor and say, "Yeah, if he runs, we win, too, so let him run! In fact, want some help setting up a Super PAC?"



			
				goldomark said:
			
		

> But can it work in the Republican context? Rep candidates have a tendacy to out perform each other rather than try to look moderate and rally everyone under their umbrella. Romney during the last primaries was a good example. He became more severe on immigration, not less, among other policies. He even became more "severely conservative". Now it is about immigration, but there will be taxes, abortion, war in the Middle-East, gay marriage, etc. It isn't like the base is actually moderate.




I think pulling Romney harder to the right may have been a strategic miscalculation - they under-estimated Obama or the nation's enthusiasm for him at the time, they over-estimated their ability to distance themselves from the primaries, they under-estimated the turnout of groups that tend not to vote in the last two elections, etc., etc. Romeny had to work hard to get the conservative base on board (being a Mormon from New England who promoted Health Care after all), which made him lean out from his center. 

Against Hillary - who definitely does not have that enthusiasm - and with a candidate with more conservative cred (which Jeb, forex, has in spades!), they might be able to NOT pull their guy farther right, and just make his already-right-wing stuff seem more centrist. 

Their calculation this year seems to be more: "Let the idiots run and make our draft picks look more reasonable." I think that in seeing candidates like Rubio basically say "Trump's a dink," you're seeing that in action: "I'm not as extreme as THIS guy!" and "Hillary/Bernie is clearly more extreme the OTHER way!" walk pretty nicely hand-in-hand. It's not like the Left can trot out a candidate who would espouse single-payer healthcare, nationwide decirminalization of marajuana, laws empowering labor unions, de-funding the military and pouring the money into education, establishing a tax on stock investments, stricter financial controls on markets, or any of the more progressive wish-list items that Hillary or Bernie can point to and be like "at least I'm not THAT extreme!"


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> Someone correct me if I am incorrect, but I don't think anyone "let" Trump run.  There are some technical requirements/bureaucratic steps he has to take, but if he meets them, he's allowed, and that's it.  The party leaders don't get to say, "No, you can't," just because they don't like him.




No, no one has to let him run, but not having the support of the organization itself also has consequences. Think of the dust-up over how Ron Paul was perceived (quite likely did) to get a raw deal when running for the leadership.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

It seems calling Mexicans "rapists" wasn't enough. Let's now make fun of the handicapped:

After slamming his other critics, Trump appeared to invoke Krauthammer's use of a wheelchair.

"And then I get called by a guy that can't buy a pair of pants, I get called names? Give me a break," he said.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Classy, tRUMP.

I don't need a president who is like me.  I don't need to like my president.  I don't need the world to like my president.  

But I need a president who is likable enough to be able to get things done.  One who won't be stuck in the White House because he is so profoundly undiplomatic and out of control that he can't stop insulting people, faiths, and/or nations.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Classy, tRUMP.
> 
> I don't need a president who is like me.  I don't need to like my president.  I don't need the world to like my president.
> 
> But I need a president who is likable enough to be able to get things done.  One who won't be stuck in the White House because he is so profoundly undiplomatic and out of control that he can't stop insulting people, faiths, and/or nations.




So many people seem to put a premium on the leader "you could see yourself having a beer with." I don't want a buddy as my political leader. I want someone who I can admire and look up to, thinking how great it would be to have things that together.

.... but I still haven't found what I'm looking foooooooor.


----------



## billd91

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The one GOP candidate that surprised me most in his reaction- or lack thereof- to Trump's statement was Jeb Bush.  Y'know, what with his wife being a Mexican and all.  I can understand the others making statements that are politically calculated & measured, but Trump essentially made a personal attack on Bush the candidate's WIFE.  There should have been the political equivalent of the events of Lynyrd Skynard's "Gimme Three Steps" going on.
> 
> Does Jeb have a backbone?




Aside from his tepid criticism, I assume Jeb is laying low. Why put himself out there too far when he can just let the crazies be themselves, alienate supporters, and then he can just mop up as the sane looking candidate.

I'm not sure that'll work too well though. The Citizen's United decision may enable these crazies to stay in the race with sufficient funding as long as they have a financial backer. It's about the only chance Scott Walker has given his constant weaseling around here. As long as they have sugar daddies out there, a surprisingly large number of them may make it to the convention.


----------



## billd91

Ryujin said:


> So many people seem to put a premium on the leader "you could see yourself having a beer with." I don't want a buddy as my political leader. I want someone who I can admire and look up to, thinking how great it would be to have things that together.
> 
> .... but I still haven't found what I'm looking foooooooor.




I'm not sure all voters see things that way. There's a reason Tip O'Neill said "All politics is local."


----------



## Ryujin

billd91 said:


> I'm not sure all voters see things that way. There's a reason Tip O'Neill said "All politics is local."




That may be the case in the US, where the President has little real power. In Canada the Prime Minister is also the leader of the party and if you don't tow the line, you're out. Unless my local Member of Parliament is going to be a Cabinet Minister, it's meaningless to vote based on anything but the party leader.


----------



## Kramodlog

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think pulling Romney harder to the right may have been a strategic miscalculation - they under-estimated Obama or the nation's enthusiasm for him at the time, they over-estimated their ability to distance themselves from the primaries, they under-estimated the turnout of groups that tend not to vote in the last two elections, etc., etc. Romeny had to work hard to get the conservative base on board (being a Mormon from New England who promoted Health Care after all), which made him lean out from his center.



They have to pull to the right. If you do not, you do not get pass the primaries. Santorum, with little money and credibility won more states than he should have had. It is the conundrum Reps face nowadays. Go to the far right to get pass the primaries or be electable to the general public. This is one of the reasons why the Republicans only won the popular vote once in the last six presidential elections.



> Against Hillary - who definitely does not have that enthusiasm - and with a candidate with more conservative cred (which Jeb, forex, has in spades!), they might be able to NOT pull their guy farther right, and just make his already-right-wing stuff seem more centrist.
> 
> Their calculation this year seems to be more: "Let the idiots run and make our draft picks look more reasonable." I think that in seeing candidates like Rubio basically say "Trump's a dink," you're seeing that in action: "I'm not as extreme as THIS guy!" and "Hillary/Bernie is clearly more extreme the OTHER way!" walk pretty nicely hand-in-hand. It's not like the Left can trot out a candidate who would espouse single-payer healthcare, nationwide decirminalization of marajuana, laws empowering labor unions, de-funding the military and pouring the money into education, establishing a tax on stock investments, stricter financial controls on markets, or any of the more progressive wish-list items that Hillary or Bernie can point to and be like "at least I'm not THAT extreme!"



I do not buy this calculation. The establishment and other candidates do not want Trump in the race. There is nothing beneficial with him there. Reps need the "Hispanic" vote and their brand isn't great with that demographics. Trump didn't help one bit and other candidates barely distance themselves from when they didn't just agree with him. And this is just the start. He will only pull them further to the right to win the primaries and hurt their electability in the presidential elections. http://www.redstate.com/2015/06/16/why-donald-trump-matters/

If they distance themselves from his positions, it is the Republican base that will not support them. There is an ugly fact here: what Trump said about Mexicans is what a lot of Republicans think to various degrees. Primaries are low turn out high enthousiasm elections, to paraphrase David Frum. If candidates distance themselve too much from the concept of "evil immigrants" that need to be stopped, they lose the enthousiasm they need to get people out to vote for them.


----------



## Umbran

Ryujin said:


> That may be the case in the US, where the President has little real power.




Depends on what you call "real power".  The veto winds up being a *major* point - that which the President does not like, does not become law unless you have serious support in the legislature.  This forces the system to have a whole lot of negotiation, and puts the President in a solid position to lead that negotiation - thus, a lot of effective power.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Classy, tRUMP.




Yeah.  I'd like to see him say that in the face of a disabled Veteran.  



> I don't need a president who is like me.  I don't need to like my president.  I don't need the world to like my president.




We probably need a President we and others can, on some level, respect.  Trump is not showing signs that he deserves much respect.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> Depends on what you call "real power".  The veto winds up being a *major* point - that which the President does not like, does not become law unless you have serious support in the legislature.  This forces the system to have a whole lot of negotiation, and puts the President in a solid position to lead that negotiation - thus, a lot of effective power.




The President can send a bill back for re-vote, if I understand the process correctly. Given the adversarial nature of your government that will almost certainly kill it, in practice, but the theory is to force a re-think. 

The Prime Minister of Canada is in charge of the process from inception, to signing into law. He leads the party in power. When comparing the levels of power in their respective governments, the Prime Minister has far more power. Note that I'm not saying that's a good thing.


----------



## Umbran

Ryujin said:


> The President can send a bill back for re-vote, if I understand the process correctly. Given the adversarial nature of your government that will almost certainly kill it, in practice, but the theory is to force a re-think.
> 
> The Prime Minister of Canada is in charge of the process from inception, to signing into law. He leads the party in power. When comparing the levels of power in their respective governments, the Prime Minister has far more power. Note that I'm not saying that's a good thing.




The effect is not as different as you may think - the US president isn't technically in charge of legislation through the whole process, but you know that you have to pass muster at the end - so usually nobody starts things without knowing that either the president will allow it, or that they have very broad support to overcome the veto.

Unless they want to waste time.  There's a whole lot of that.


----------



## tomBitonti

So ... given the low view folks here have of Trump ... how does that square with his apparent popularity?  And he is doing something well enough that he is a billionaire. I detest the man, but he has a high level of function in his usual domain.

Of course, he may have overdone himself.  His run seems to be costing him a lot of business.  He just lost the top chef for his new hotel: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cks-out-of-restaurant-in-donald-trumps-hotel/

Thx,

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

tomBitonti said:


> So ... given the low view folks here have of Trump ... how does that square with his apparent popularity?  And he is doing something well enough that he is a billionaire. I detest the man, but he has a high level of function in his usual domain.
> 
> Of course, he may have overdone himself.  His run seems to be costing him a lot of business.  He just lost the top chef for his new hotel: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cks-out-of-restaurant-in-donald-trumps-hotel/
> 
> Thx,
> 
> TomB



He's near the top of the polls in a field with a large number of choices.  He's probably getting a lot of support from people that the architects of the Southern Strategy and similarly divisive political schemes have been courting...and not many others besides. IOW, he's probably very popular with the right-wing fringe, and not nearly so much with the more mainstream membership of the party.

As for his status as a billionaire, don't read too much into that.  He got a big boost from having inherited much of his wealth.  He also got some sweetheart deals from creditors when he messed up- the kind most business owners simply would not get if they asked.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15623..._government's_protection_mostly_did_the_trick

In addition, being a billionaire real-estate developer doesn't require a political/diplomatic skillset.  One has to be good at evaluating property and economic trends (at least on the local scale), but interpersonal skills, empathy, and the like are surplus to requirements.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> He's near the top of the polls in a field with a large number of choices.




Yes.  In recent CNN polls, he's running at 12%.  That's not exactly a stunning mandate.  It isn't like he's approaching a majority of the GOP wanting him to run, or something.



> As for his status as a billionaire, don't read too much into that.  He got a big boost from having inherited much of his wealth.  He also got some sweetheart deals from creditors when he messed up- the kind most business owners simply would not get if they asked.




Yes.  Let's put an example on this.  From Wikipedia:

"One of Trump's first projects, while he was still in college, was the revitalization of the foreclosed Swifton Village apartment complex in Cincinnati, Ohio, which his father had purchased for $5.7 million in 1962."  

So, Trump's family had the wherewithal to buy an apartment complex for what, in today's money, is about $45 million dollars.  The project to revitalize it cost, in today's dollars, about $4 million - so, this family could manage $50 million dollar investments.  We are not talking about a guy who has built himself up from nothing.

He's clearly a capable financier and real estate developer, but I am not sure that, at his level, his personal diplomatic abilities (or lack thereof) impact his business.  They would certainly impact his ability to function as President.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

In his first (note that word) bankruptcy, among other kid-glove measures, he was allowed to take out 2nd and even 3rd mortgages on certain properties.

Joe Businessman doesn't get that kind of treatment.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

tomBitonti said:


> And he is doing something well enough that he is a billionaire.



Eh... that's questionable. That he is wealthy is not in question. His worth, though, tends to be debated, most of all by him. If I remember correctly, he said he was worth about 9 billion dollars during his Presidential suicide announcement. There was a reporter that said trump was worth around 250 million, and Trump sued him for defamation or something like that. In any case, it seems that it depends on whom you ask. Trump's estimate of his own wealth tend to be far off from what others have estimated. Some still have him in the billions. Forbes, for example, put him somewhere around 4 billion. However, they have valued various elements of his wealth at a far lower value than trump does. Others value Trump in the millions. 

The thing with Trump is, he is a smart guy. He gets others to invest, put in a bunch of money, and sign off on ridiculously stupid deals. Then when Trump fails, which he does often, the investors get the shaft, and Trump gets to keep their money. I don't know if that's the kind of guy you want running the economy. I mean, he'll run it... right into the ground. Regardless what what you think of any other republican or democrat running, none of them would wreck it as bad as Trump. Although I'l admit this: It would be fun to watch.


----------



## tomBitonti

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Eh... that's questionable. That he is wealthy is not in question. His worth, though, tends to be debated, most of all by him. If I remember correctly, he said he was worth about 9 billion dollars during his Presidential suicide announcement. There was a reporter that said trump was worth around 250 million, and Trump sued him for defamation or something like that. In any case, it seems that it depends on whom you ask. Trump's estimate of his own wealth tend to be far off from what others have estimated. Some still have him in the billions. Forbes, for example, put him somewhere around 4 billion. However, they have valued various elements of his wealth at a far lower value than trump does. Others value Trump in the millions.
> 
> The thing with Trump is, he is a smart guy. He gets others to invest, put in a bunch of money, and sign off on ridiculously stupid deals. Then when Trump fails, which he does often, the investors get the shaft, and Trump gets to keep their money. I don't know if that's the kind of guy you want running the economy. I mean, he'll run it... right into the ground. Regardless what what you think of any other republican or democrat running, none of them would wreck it as bad as Trump. Although I'l admit this: It would be fun to watch.




Well, the point isn't whether he is a nice guy, or whether you or I want him as president or as a business partner.  The point is the number of people who do.  That goes to say that I'm not getting something, as an analysis of candidacy and politics has to provide a sufficient perspective to explain, and I for one am perplexed.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

P.T. Barnum* might as well have been talking about The Donald when he said, "There's a sucker born every minute."




* or David Hannum, depending on your sources.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

tomBitonti said:


> Well, the point isn't whether he is a nice guy, or whether you or I want him as president or as a business partner.



Oh, I know. I just wanted to add a bit of information regarding his wealth. 







> The point is the number of people who do.  That goes to say that I'm not getting something, as an analysis of candidacy and politics has to provide a sufficient perspective to explain, and I for one am perplexed.
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB



You shouldn't be perplexed. The answer is simple: There are a lot of stupid people. Being rich does not exempt these people from stupidity. Some of them are wiling to take a risk on trump to make a profit. It's a gamble. It's part of the business of investing. There is no guarantee that you'll actually make a profit. They just assume that Trump knows how to make money, and he does. Unfortunately for his investors, Trump's interest are in making money for himself, not them.


----------



## Kramodlog

The Republican's trump card... To keep Trump out of the Fox News debate. Have him disclose his finances. 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._republican_national_committee_just_find.html



> "As we have said from the beginning, part of that criteria involves filing 'all necessary paperwork with the [Federal Election Commission],'" Fox News vice president Michael Clemente said in a statement. "The FEC, as is well known, requires that presidential candidates file a financial disclosure statement as part of that paperwork." Under federal law, presidential candidates have 30 days from when they officially launch their campaigns to file. But candidates can, and often do, request and receive as many as two 45-day extensions—something most Trump watchers believed he would do as way to prolong his campaign without giving the world a closer look at his finances. While Clemente’s statement didn’t explicitly say candidates couldn’t use those extensions, the Post’s sources say that will indeed be the case. "They must fill out the form, putting the dollars and cents on the table, before they step on the debate stage," one source told the paper.


----------



## Ryujin

Umbran said:


> The effect is not as different as you may think - the US president isn't technically in charge of legislation through the whole process, but you know that you have to pass muster at the end - so usually nobody starts things without knowing that either the president will allow it, or that they have very broad support to overcome the veto.
> 
> Unless they want to waste time.  There's a whole lot of that.




Contrast that with a situation like the one we have now, in Canada, in which the Prime Minister has a majority government. In theory anyone can start a bill. In both theory and practice a bill will go nowhere without the leave of the Prime Minister. It's known, from the inception of a motion, whether or not a law will be passed as a result. Anything in between is nothing but Kabuki.


----------



## Umbran

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> If I remember correctly, he said he was worth about 9 billion dollars during his Presidential suicide announcement. There was a reporter that said trump was worth around 250 million, and Trump sued him for defamation or something like that.




I believe that's about a book, I think from back in 2009.  Trump lost the lawsuit.



> In any case, it seems that it depends on whom you ask. Trump's estimate of his own wealth tend to be far off from what others have estimated. Some still have him in the billions. Forbes, for example, put him somewhere around 4 billion. However, they have valued various elements of his wealth at a far lower value than trump does. Others value Trump in the millions.




To quote Wikipedia:

_In 2015, Forbes estimated his net worth at $4.1 billion. In June 2015, Business Insider published a June 30, 2014, financial statement supplied by Trump. The statement reflects his net worth as $8.7 billion. Of that amount, $3.3 billion is represented by "Real Estate Licensing Deals, Brand and Branded Developments", described by Business Insider as "basically [implying] that Trump values his character at $3.3 billion".
...
In 2011, Forbes' financial experts estimated the value of the Trump brand at $200 million._

Note that while Trump may be worth several billion dollars, all told, most of that is in non-liquid assets.  His liquid cash is probably on the order of $200 -$300 million, which isn't small by most measures, but even his immediate means do have limits


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Umbran said:


> I believe that's about a book, I think from back in 2009.  Trump lost the lawsuit.
> 
> 
> 
> To quote Wikipedia:
> 
> _In 2015, Forbes estimated his net worth at $4.1 billion. In June 2015, Business Insider published a June 30, 2014, financial statement supplied by Trump. The statement reflects his net worth as $8.7 billion. Of that amount, $3.3 billion is represented by "Real Estate Licensing Deals, Brand and Branded Developments", described by Business Insider as "basically [implying] that Trump values his character at $3.3 billion".
> ...
> In 2011, Forbes' financial experts estimated the value of the Trump brand at $200 million._
> 
> Note that while Trump may be worth several billion dollars, all told, most of that is in non-liquid assets.  His liquid cash is probably on the order of $200 -$300 million, which isn't small by most measures, but even his immediate means do have limits




Sorry, but I'm not sure what your point is. Could you clarify?


----------



## Kramodlog

Trump for President! Trump number 1 in new poll! https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/07/09/gop-frontrunner-donald-trump/




Not that surprising. He got a lot of mediatic exposure recently and it was about opinions that have support in the Republican party. Will it last? Seems unlikely if we look at the 2012 primaries. Lots of candidates exchanged first place in polls until the voting started. But the ride will be sweet.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

"Meteoric" is the word I was thinking of.  As in, finishing with a fiery crash & big crater.


----------



## Kramodlog

When he'll realize he isn't relevent anymore, he is gonna have a tentrum, say all sort of horrible things to get attention and the racist comments against Mexicans will sound less disgusting in comparison.


----------



## Umbran

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Sorry, but I'm not sure what your point is. Could you clarify?




I am merely providing some demonstrative information for someone else's point.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Trump might find it extremely difficult complying with the rules of appearing in the debate...and if he does, the rules of debate won't suit him well, either.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Umbran said:


> I am merely providing some demonstrative information for someone else's point.



It would probably have been really helpful if you had quoted their post instead of, or in addition to, my post. It would make clearer. I'm still not really understanding what your point was, but it doesn't really matter, carry on. Forget I mentioned it.


----------



## tomBitonti

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It would probably have been really helpful if you had quoted their post instead of, or in addition to, my post. It would make clearer. I'm still not really understanding what your point was, but it doesn't really matter, carry on. Forget I mentioned it.




I'm pretty sure that was to rebut a point that I made, the rebuttal being that Trump's wealth is rather, trumped up, by Trump.  His actual wealth, once you cast aside exaggerations and such, may be a couple of hundred of million dollars, not a few billion.

That assertion (of Trump being a billionaire) was made by me, when I was asking how to square Trump's detestability with the number of folks who would vote for him and his apparent business acumen.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

This is going to be fun.


----------



## WayneLigon

Ryujin said:


> Money or not, I doubt that the party is crazy enough to make him their candidate for President.




This is the same party that ran Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

You may not like him- I certainly don't- but Newt isn't a flake.  He actually has some good ideas.  I've seen him get asked tough policy questions on fringe issues and watched him come up with answers that made RW, implementable sense.  

Newt's main drawback isn't his brains or his policies, but the way he plays the game of politics.  He's too willing to be a classic Machiavellian to get his way.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Plant, or just a fool?

I'm going with just a fool, but you never know.


----------



## Cor Azer

WayneLigon said:


> This is the same party that ran Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum.




To be fair, they wanted to run for president. The party didn't pick them to actually do so.


----------



## billd91

Cor Azer said:


> To be fair, they wanted to run for president. The party didn't pick them to actually do so.




They do, or did for those retired from Congress, get picked by their parties to run in their congressional elections. So at least some branches of the GOP have problems making good choices.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

"We need real leadership. We need real results." Ummm... maybe not those results.


----------



## Cor Azer

billd91 said:


> They do, or did for those retired from Congress, get picked by their parties to run in their congressional elections. So at least some branches of the GOP have problems making good choices.




Admittedly, I'm not an American, but I was under the impression (given my own province's political results), that the more local you get on the political ladder, the more likely single-issue voting happens. Further, the farther apart two areas are, the more likely those single-issues are different. Combined, this means that while in small areas, folks can get picked to run because they align with the local single-issue, they may not be suitable in a larger election because fewer of their ideas align with the broader party platform.


----------



## Ryujin

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> "We need real leadership. We need real results." Ummm... maybe not those results.




It's actually rather surprising how often mistakes like that one are made. As in very. It's the day of mining the internet for pictures to steal and re-purpose, by people who don't understand what they're looking at.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> "We need real leadership. We need real results." Ummm... maybe not those results.



Ya gotta love the unforced errors.  One of my favorite aspects of politics...for all politicians, whether I like them or not.  Makes them more relatable & human.


----------



## Enkhidu

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> "We need real leadership. We need real results." Ummm... maybe not those results.




There's gotta be a silver lining in there for Trump. He gets to say his catchphrase!


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

So let's see, he has gone after Mexicans and the handicapped. Might as well go after prisoners of war.

This guy... you gotta love him.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Enkhidu said:


> There's gotta be a silver lining in there for Trump. He gets to say his catchphrase!



Silver lining? Bro, Trump only does gold linings. Silver linings are for stupid peasants.


----------



## Kaodi

I just wish people would stop describing him as "the" . He is a <long string of expletives and insults> and I feel it is an insult to every other Donald the way people treat him as "the one" .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Kaodi said:


> I just wish people would stop describing him as "the" . He is a <long string of expletives and insults> and I feel it is an insult to every other Donald the way people treat him as "the one" .




Who has 2 thumbs and is as frustrated as you are about that?

This guy:

[sblock]
[/sblock]


----------



## Kramodlog

Predictably, Trump's post-debate poll numbers are up. He is at 30% while Bush, the runner up, is at 11%.  http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/


----------



## was

The flamboyant, and deliberately antagonistic, things he is doing and saying makes me wonder if his run is really serious.  Given his well-known intelligence and business acumen, his current behavior seems to be completely senseless and self-damaging to his business interests.  It has, however, sucessfully pulled media attention away from numerous other candidates and issues, on both sides of the aisles.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Predictably, Trump's post-debate poll numbers are up. He is at 30% while Bush, the runner up, is at 11%.  http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/




"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" - P.T. Barnum

(... though it really applies to any group of the 'general public')


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

was said:


> The flamboyant, and deliberately antagonistic, things he is doing and saying makes me wonder if his run is really serious.  Given his well-known intelligence and business acumen, his current behavior seems to be completely senseless and self-damaging to his business interests.  It has, however, sucessfully pulled media attention away from numerous other candidates and issues, on both sides of the aisles.




His business acumen has more in common with a con man's than a true captain of industry. His biggest strengths are selling "Trump, Inc.", hiring smarter employees than most and having a good grasp on bankruptcy laws.


----------



## Kramodlog

was said:


> The flamboyant, and deliberately antagonistic [...] his current behavior seems to be completely senseless and self-damaging [...]



Perfect Republican candidate for the Republican base.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" - P.T. Barnum
> 
> (... though it really applies to any group of the 'general public')




On the contrary. Marco Rubio knows that humans can't become cats or donkeys. Very smart. http://gawker.com/marco-rubio-explains-science-a-human-cannot-become-a-c-1723225182


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

goldomark said:


> On the contrary. Marco Rubio knows that humans can't become cats or donkeys. Very smart. http://gawker.com/marco-rubio-explains-science-a-human-cannot-become-a-c-1723225182



I still can't believe my university is wasting money by paying this moron to teach a class.


----------



## Kramodlog

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I still can't believe my university is wasting money by paying this moron to teach a class.




He is still "teaching"!? I bet it is one of those universities that thinks evolution needs to be banned.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

goldomark said:


> He is still "teaching"!?



I wouldn't really call it "teaching." It's more like"co-teaching," or "making someone else teach while you get paid for having a slightly more recognizable name." 







> I bet it is one of those universities that thinks evolution needs to be banned.



I feel that his association with the school is diminishing the value of my degree. I wonder if I can sue him for that?


----------



## Kramodlog

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I wouldn't really call it "teaching." It's more like"co-teaching," or "making someone else teach while you get paid for having a slightly more recognizable name." I feel that his association with the school is diminishing the value of my degree. I wonder if I can sue him for that?



You can, but that doesn't mean you'll win.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

goldomark said:


> You can, but that doesn't mean you'll win.



I don't know about that. I think over the years Florida has proven countless times that laws are just things we laugh at. I'm pretty sure I could get him deported to North Korea.


----------



## tuxgeo

Ryujin said:


> "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" - P.T. Barnum . . .




Is that related to "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public" - H.L. Menken?


----------



## MechaPilot

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I don't know about that. I think over the years Florida has proven countless times that laws are just things we laugh at. I'm pretty sure I could get him deported to North Korea.




I'm sure people would donate to a Kickstarter to send Rubio & Trump to N. Korea.

It also might be interesting to start a Kickstarter to force Huckabee to receive gender reassignment surgery so he can grow some freaking empathy.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

MechaPilot said:


> I'm sure people would donate to a Kickstarter to send Rubio & Trump to N. Korea.



Rubio, certainly. Trump? No way, homie. That guy rocks. He is single handedly destroying the republican party. If anything a Kickstarter campaign to help fund his continued participation in this election.



> It also might be interesting to start a Kickstarter to force Huckabee to receive gender reassignment surgery so he can grow some freaking empathy.



No, he needs to get deported to North Korea, and his kids should get to vacation with ISIS.


----------



## Ryujin

tuxgeo said:


> Is that related to "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public" - H.L. Menken?




Yes, he likely "rebooted" it from Barnum


----------



## Janx

goldomark said:


> Perfect Republican candidate for the Republican base.




I read an interesting article on that point today about Trump...

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/17/9164241/donald-trump-issues

In theory, Trump is saying what a chunk of the population wants to hear.

He wants the illegals out.  So do the Republican base.
He wants to keep Medicare/Medicaid.  So does the Republic base.

This apparently is counter to what the Republican Elite want to say or do (they want to kill Medicare.  They don't want to say kick the illegals out).

I'm not a Trump fan, but he is an interesting divisive force in the Republican camp.

I almost figured he was a Democrat trojan, meant to state Republican goals in the worst way (like his anti-immigrant stuff sounding racist as heck).

Per this article, what Trump is doing is homing in on what the people who vote Republican want, rather than what the Republican party itself touts as its goals.  This means he could shave off a good chunk of voters, just because the Republican leaders don't stand for what the people in their party actually want.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Many conservative intellectuals and journalists- like George Will- are basically saying explicitly that Trump espouses little or no true GOP ideals.  They're predicting he's going to wreck the party.

Add to that the growing rift between religious Republicans who are generally social conservatives and corporate Republicans who are not, and things are looking "interesting" for the GOP.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Many conservative intellectuals and journalists- like George Will- are basically saying explicitly that Trump espouses little or no true GOP ideals.  They're predicting he's going to wreck the party.
> 
> Add to that the growing rift between religious Republicans who are generally social conservatives and corporate Republicans who are not, and things are looking "interesting" for the GOP.




Sometimes you have to tear something completely down, before it can be rebuilt. Lately they've become a rather silly party.


----------



## Kramodlog

It isn't just Trump. Huckabee recently said he wouldn't allow for the abortion of a 10 years old girl who was raped by her stepdad. Rubio is on the same page. http://jezebel.com/mike-huckabee-denying-abortion-to-ten-year-old-rape-vi-1724398646


----------



## Umbran

Janx said:


> Per this article, what Trump is doing is homing in on what the people who vote Republican want, rather than what the Republican party itself touts as its goals.  This means he could shave off a good chunk of voters, just because the Republican leaders don't stand for what the people in their party actually want.




It is important to note that the GOP today is not one "the people".  It is an association of a few different peoples, who have been more or less working together recently, but whose desires have been diverging.  

It has occurred to the part of my brain that likes conspiracy theories that Trump's candidacy is his personal ploy to make sure the GOP does not win this election cycle.  One possible logic goes like this:  

1) Assume that Trump isn't an idiot.  I know this takes some effort, but do it - the guy runs a billion-dollar empire, he must have some gears up there working.
2) Assume that he knows the value of his real estate.  
3) Consider what happens to the value of that real estate as sea levels rise - no, you don't have to wait until NYC is under water for him to have an issue.  Increased storm surge alone may damage a great deal of his property during his lifetime.  And overall global economic collapse does not serve Donald at all.
4) Now consider that the GOP has been staunchly against taking any action about climate change.

It would seem in his own best interests for Trump to make sure the GOP does not stand in the way of mitigation efforts.  And, he realizes he's in an excellent spot to split off part of the part of the GOP base that is most rabidly against actually discussing things, thus ensuring that the Presidency lands in the hands of people who want to act.

I did say it was conspiracy-theory level stuff, so don't yell at me for it.


----------



## Kramodlog

Wow.


----------



## Janx

Umbran said:


> It is important to note that the GOP today is not one "the people".  It is an association of a few different peoples, who have been more or less working together recently, but whose desires have been diverging.
> 
> It has occurred to the part of my brain that likes conspiracy theories that Trump's candidacy is his personal ploy to make sure the GOP does not win this election cycle.  One possible logic goes like this:
> 
> 1) Assume that Trump isn't an idiot.  I know this takes some effort, but do it - the guy runs a billion-dollar empire, he must have some gears up there working.
> 2) Assume that he knows the value of his real estate.
> 3) Consider what happens to the value of that real estate as sea levels rise - no, you don't have to wait until NYC is under water for him to have an issue.  Increased storm surge alone may damage a great deal of his property during his lifetime.  And overall global economic collapse does not serve Donald at all.
> 4) Now consider that the GOP has been staunchly against taking any action about climate change.
> 
> It would seem in his own best interests for Trump to make sure the GOP does not stand in the way of mitigation efforts.  And, he realizes he's in an excellent spot to split off part of the part of the GOP base that is most rabidly against actually discussing things, thus ensuring that the Presidency lands in the hands of people who want to act.
> 
> I did say it was conspiracy-theory level stuff, so don't yell at me for it.




Sounds plausible.  I've had this niggling thought that Trump's plan was somehow to jack with the Republican side of the election.  This could be a reason why he might do so.


----------



## Umbran

Janx said:


> Sounds plausible.  I've had this niggling thought that Trump's plan was somehow to jack with the Republican side of the election.  This could be a reason why he might do so.




Another reason might be that he just really hates the Koch brothers, and wants to screw with them.


----------



## Kramodlog

Or that he just wants the publicity for some show or that he *gasp* actually thinks he can win.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

If there is any truth to what Umbran has suggested in his last 2 posts, I will have to tip my hat to the man with the preternatural combover.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Or that he just wants the publicity for some show or that he *gasp* actually thinks he can win.




The publicity angle is entirely likely.  he can screw with the campaign for a while, and then find a reason to drop out before he's actually committed to the general election.

I wonder at thinking he can win.  I mean, he can certainly be that egotistical, no problem there.  But it is more... why does he *want* to win?  As President, he'd have to largely set aside management of his billion-dollar empire during his term(s) - he has a whole lot to lose if he wins.  Other than running his mouth off on various topics, his history is *not* one of trying to make the country a better place.  He hasn't really tried to influence public policy except as it has directly applied to his own holdings.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If there is any truth to what Umbran has suggested in his last 2 posts, I will have to tip my hat to the man with the preternatural combover.




It's not a comb-over. It's a fin. He's a descendant of an ancient saurian race and the GOP is standing in the way of them retaking the planet for themselves.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> But it is more... why does he *want* to win?  As President, he'd have to largely set aside management of his billion-dollar empire during his term(s) - he has a whole lot to lose if he wins.



Are there laws against it or are you counting on his moral compass?



> Other than running his mouth off on various topics, his history is *not* one of trying to make the country a better place.  He hasn't really tried to influence public policy except as it has directly applied to his own holdings.



It could be that he just thinks he can do a better job than others. As much as I think this is for publicity, I'm not disarding the possibility that he is serious. An old bored egotistical billionaire could think this the election is a challenge and that he would do a better job than those non-billionaire presidents that came before him. 

I have many doubts on the conspiracy angle even if Bill Clinton did encourage Trump to run. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ryujin said:


> It's not a comb-over. It's a fin. He's a descendant of an ancient saurian race and the GOP is standing in the way of them retaking the planet for themselves.



"The Sleestack resurgence will be YUGE!  America will be great again, and all the other countries will respect us, because we'll be making them look like losers."


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Are there laws against it or are you counting on his moral compass?




There are no laws against it.  I am in no way "counting on" his moral compass.  I am more pointing out that actually taking the office does not, at least to casual inspection, really seem to be in his best interests.  And the majority of his history speak to him generally wanting to serve his own best interests first.

Basically, while running for office is entirely in-character for him, actually taking office seems out of character.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "The Sleestack resurgence will be YUGE!  America will be great again, and all the other countries will respect us, because we'll be making them look like losers."




"America can be great again, through the application of Altrusian technology!"


----------



## JRRNeiklot

goldomark said:


> It isn't just Trump. Huckabee recently said he wouldn't allow for the abortion of a 10 years old girl who was raped by her stepdad. Rubio is on the same page. http://jezebel.com/mike-huckabee-denying-abortion-to-ten-year-old-rape-vi-1724398646




Well, either abortion is murder or it isn't.  The circumstances don't matter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

JRRNeiklot said:


> Well, either abortion is murder or it isn't.  The circumstances don't matter.




While I am pro life, I can't agree with this particular rhetoric.  Even in standard homicide, we distinguish between whether the killing was accidental or intentional; whether there was a purpose other than homicide (self defense, reckless in attention, etc.).  Murder is a specific kind of homicide, requiring specific kinds of intent- every other kind of homicide is defined as "not murder."

IOW, circumstances DO matter, always.

As to the specific case, I confess to being undecided as to what should happen.  Even if I don't agree that abortion is appropriate in this case, I also believe that the child in question should be protected and assisted as much as possible post delivery.  If that means giving up the newborn for adoption, so be it. If that means a metric crapload of state benefits until that baby reaches 18, so be it.

Because 2 wrongs not make a right: neither the raped child or the child she carries should be punished for the act of the rapist.  This one is on society's tab, if nobody else is willing.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Yes, there is a difference between homicide and murder, but unless the mother's life is in danger, the abortion is murder (assuming you agree the fetus is a human being).  Abortion is not self defense, nor is it accidental.  Therefore, the circumstances do not matter.  Either abortion is murder or it isn't a homicide.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I also believe that the child in question should be protected and assisted as much as possible post delivery. If that means giving up the newborn for adoption, so be it.




I agree.


----------



## billd91

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While I am pro life, I can't agree with this particular rhetoric.  Even in standard homicide, we distinguish between whether the killing was accidental or intentional; whether there was a purpose other than homicide (self defense, reckless in attention, etc.).  Murder is a specific kind of homicide, requiring specific kinds of intent- every other kind of homicide is defined as "not murder."
> 
> IOW, circumstances DO matter, always.




Indeed they do. Moreover, I just can't see any positive morality to the idea of requiring a rape victim, of any age, to carry a rape-caused pregnancy to term. That's just compounding the crime, forcing her to serve a 40 week sentence because of something someone else did to her. If she chooses to bring the baby to term, she's welcome to do so. But deny her an abortion? Unconscionable. 

Ultimately, I support abortion rights because I think circumstances matter well beyond whether or not a crime was committed when the woman was impregnated. And the only person sufficiently qualified to judge any set of particular circumstances is the pregnant woman herself - not some politician, not some pope or priest, not even some voters promoting their own conscience.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

The Great Wall of China has competition. The Trump Wall.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

JRRNeiklot said:


> Well, either abortion is murder or it isn't.  The circumstances don't matter.



Would you also say that the death penalty is murder and circumstances don't matter?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

JRRNeiklot said:


> Yes, there is a difference between homicide and murder, but unless the mother's life is in danger, the abortion is murder (assuming you agree the fetus is a human being).  Abortion is not self defense, nor is it accidental.  Therefore, the circumstances do not matter.  Either abortion is murder or it isn't a homicide.




As you say, "unless the mother's life is in danger": that IS a circumstance, a form of self-defense.  In fact, that was my Mom's circumstance.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

[







Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Would you also say that the death penalty is murder and circumstances don't matter?




Nope.  Execution by the state is not murder.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Dannyalcatraz;6684527

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz said:


> As you say, "unless the mother's life is in danger": that IS a circumstance, a form of self-defense.  In fact, that was my Mom's circumstance.




I agree, that is a form of self defense.  I should amend my original statement to read "most circumstances don't matter."


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

JRRNeiklot said:


> Nope.  Execution by the state is not murder.



Why Not? What's the difference between the state executing a person and a woman having an abortion?


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Why Not? What's the difference between the state executing a person and a woman having an abortion?




Well, first of all the state has the perceived authority to execute criminals.  If you don't believe the  state has any authority over people - and thus no right to exist - then you might have a point.  Second, are you seriously comparing an innocent child to a murderer?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

JRRNeiklot said:


> Well, first of all the state has the perceived authority to execute criminals.  If you don't believe the  state has any authority over people - and thus no right to exist - then you might have a point.



Okay, so the state has a perceived authority to execute criminals. The State lends that authority to those that perform the actual execution, right? The guy that pulls the lever for the electric chair, or hits the buttons for the lethal injection; that guy was given the authority to do so by the state, correct?



> Second, are you seriously comparing an innocent child to a murderer?



Of course not. I'm comparing aborting a fetus to executing a person.


----------



## Deathstrike

goldomark said:


> On the contrary. Marco Rubio knows that humans can't become cats or donkeys. Very smart. http://gawker.com/marco-rubio-explains-science-a-human-cannot-become-a-c-1723225182


----------



## billd91

JRRNeiklot said:


> Well, first of all the state has the perceived authority to execute criminals.  If you don't believe the  state has any authority over people - and thus no right to exist - then you might have a point.  Second, are you seriously comparing an innocent child to a murderer?




If this is going to be a question of authority, who has authority over a woman's body? The state or the woman? If the woman has the authority over what she does with her body, then she has the authority to terminate any pregnancy for any reason. If she doesn't have authority over her own body, who has it? And how did they get it?


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As you say, "unless the mother's life is in danger": that IS a circumstance, a form of self-defense.  In fact, that was my Mom's circumstance.




The pregnancy and giving birth did put her in danger. A 10 years old body isn't suited for it. 

According to a 2013 report from the UN, 70,000 girls under 14 die each year in developping countries from complications related to pregnancy and childbrith. It doesn't mention the health problems that girls who survive will might endure afterwards. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46373#.VdXqvPl_Okr

But it isn't just developping countries or just under age girls. A woman was left to die in 2012 in Ireland because doctors refused to give her an abortion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar


----------



## Kramodlog

Trump is an inspirational figure! He inspired two brothers to beat up an homeless "Hispanic" man... https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/19/homeless/iTagewS4bnvBKWxxPvFcAJ/story.html


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> The pregnancy and giving birth did put her in danger. A 10 years old body isn't suited for it.
> 
> According to a 2013 report from the UN, 70,000 girls under 14 die each year in developping countries from complications related to pregnancy and childbrith. It doesn't mention the health problems that girls who survive will might endure afterwards. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46373#.VdXqvPl_Okr



I agree that under a certain age, pregnancy could be defined as an intrinsic health hazard to the mother. But any pregnancy is hazardous- and a juvenile pregnancy much moreso- it isn't necessarily a life or death hazard.  All kinds of factors go into that.

The question becomes whether an abortion is the only/best treatment.  For some juveniles, the answer is an unequivocal yes.  But in others, carrying the child for some time (short of to full term) and having a c-section may be feasible.

IOW, there isn't a single medically sound answer that can be solved by a simplistic age limit law.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I agree that under a certain age, pregnancy could be defined as an intrinsic health hazard to the mother. But any pregnancy is hazardous- and a juvenile pregnancy much moreso- it isn't necessarily a life or death hazard.  All kinds of factors go into that.
> 
> The question becomes whether an abortion is the only/best treatment.  For some juveniles, the answer is an unequivocal yes.  But in others, carrying the child for some time (short of to full term) and having a c-section may be feasible.
> 
> IOW, there isn't a single medically sound answer that can be solved by a simplistic age limit law.




Why not let women decide if they want to take the risk to their life and health?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Because her life & rights aren't the only ones at stake.  

At least 38 states have fetal homicide laws, and you can't have a homicide without a human victim.  If a fetus is human, it has rights.  It then becomes a balancing act of rights.


----------



## tomBitonti

The questions get difficult very quickly:

Should a 10 yr old have the right to _not_ have an abortion?  What about a 14 yr old?  (Or consider: A doctor determines that carrying to term will very probably cause great harm to a 10 yr old, but the parents are firmly against an abortion?)

What about women who are determined to be mentally incompetent?  Or a known habitual alcohol or drug abuser?

I can propose answers to these, but, I am thinking, there will be cases which firmly fall across lines for many folks.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

tomBitonti said:


> The questions get difficult very quickly:
> 
> Should a 10 yr old have the right to _not_ have an abortion?  What about a 14 yr old?  (Or consider: A doctor determines that carring to term will very probably cause great harm to a 10 yr old, but the parents are firmly against an abortion?)
> 
> What about women who are determined to be mentally incompetent?  Or a known habitual alcohol or drug abuser?




I believe under current law, un-emancipated juveniles and the legally incompetent will generally have those decisions made for them because they lack the legal capacity to consent to medical procedures.

Those with substance abuse problems- assuming no other legal impediment- are fully capable legal actors.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At least 38 states have fetal homicide laws, and you can't have a homicide without a human victim.  If a fetus is human, it has rights.  It then becomes a balancing act of rights.




As presented, there's a begging of the question there.

"It is called fetal homicide, and you can't have homicide without a human victim.  Therefore, the fetus is human, and has rights," is circular.  It has rights, so therefore it has rights.  You cannot use a statute asserting that it has rights as support for whether it should have rights. 

Doing this on the statutory level (using a homicide law to establish it is a human) leads to some ugliness, because there are legal structures *above* statutes.  Like, 14th Amendment, that very clearly states - those *born* in the US are citizens.  That fetus is not yet born, and so is not a citizen.  Your fetus may now, technically, be deported as an illegal alien.  Fun!

I think, in general, defining the fetus as a legal entity separate from the mother causes more problems in unintended consequences than it fixes. I don't want to live in the Republic of Gilead, thank you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

All enforceable laws of society are human constructs: who should or shouldn't have rights- and what they should be- is always going to involve some kind of circularity.  

Now, as I'm sure you'd realize from my past postings, I agree with the statement that doing this at the state as opposed to federal level is problematic.  But, AFAIK, the Feds have absolutely not waded into this discussion by passing any meaningful statutes; just SCOTUS decisions and failed bills.



> That fetus is not yet born, and so is not a citizen. Your fetus may now, technically, be deported as an illegal alien. Fun!



The ultimate "wet foot/dry foot" immigration doctrine.


----------



## MechaPilot

I'm probably going to catch some flak for this, but I don't care.  "Fetus" is sort of a pleasant euphemism for a parasite.  It causes all manner of problems for the mother, and (so far as I know) does not contribute to the well-being of the mother such that it could be classified as a symbiotic relationship.  Now, most times that parasite is probably wanted and loved.  However, in cases where it is not wanted the government truly has no more right to interfere with its removal than they do with the removal of a tapeworm.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

billd91 said:


> If this is going to be a question of authority, who has authority over a woman's body? The state or the woman? If the woman has the authority over what she does with her body, then she has the authority to terminate any pregnancy for any reason. If she doesn't have authority over her own body, who has it? And how did they get it?




The woman of course, but if the fetus is a human being, her exercising that authority and aborting the child is no different than someone exercising their same authority to shoot someone in the head.  My rights end at the tip of your nose.  The question is not who has authority, but whether or not the unborn child is a human being.  If the answer is yes, abortion is murder, absent extreme circumstances such as Dannyalcatraz' example.  If not, it's no different than extracting a tick.

I'll also note that if a man murders a pregnant woman, he'll likely be brought up on two counts of murder.  Such laws are nonsensical in the same society that allows abortion.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## MechaPilot

JRRNeiklot said:


> The woman of course, but if the fetus is a human being, her exercising that authority and aborting the child is no different than someone exercising their same authority to shoot someone in the head.  My rights end at the tip of your nose.




If "my rights end at the tip of your nose" then a fetus' rights end where the mother begins and she has the right to evict the unwanted trespassing squatter from her womb.  If someone else wants to harbor it, they can have it implanted in their body instead.


----------



## Umbran

JRRNeiklot said:


> I'll also note that if a man murders a pregnant woman, he'll likely be brought up on two counts of murder.  Such laws are nonsensical in the same society that allows abortion.  You can't have it both ways.




Actually, you can.  Aside from how humans can hold mutually conflicting opinions, there is no requirement that laws be entirely consistent.  Sometimes, justice isn't based on an entirely consistent logical requirements.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> All enforceable laws of society are human constructs: who should or shouldn't have rights- and what they should be- is always going to involve some kind of circularity.




I don't believe so.  The issue at hand is *implied* rights, as opposed to explicitly stated rights.

You infer from "killing a fetus is homicide" that a fetus is a human being, and therefore also gets *all* other rights pertaining to humans.

If you instead have a law that says, "killing a fetus confers {penalty exactly the same as homicide}" but never actually uses the *word* homicide, then you cannot infer any further rights.

The first can lead you to circular logic, the second cannot.

Edit: Oops!  Lost a phrase to the wrong kind of brackets!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I'm probably going to catch some flak for this, but I don't care. "Fetus" is sort of a pleasant euphemism for a parasite.



Biologically, there is a significant difference between a "parasite" and "offspring", not the least of which being the fact that one is of a different species and the other is not.



> If not, it's no different than extracting a tick.




Regardless of your stance on the abortion issue, I think this really minimizes the gravity of the decision.  For most (not all) women, choosing whether or not to have an abortion is extremely difficult, and as I recall, post-abortion mental/emotional health concerns closely mirror those of women carrying to term.

IOW, a bit more weighty decision than you posit.


----------



## MechaPilot

JRRNeiklot said:


> I'll also note that if a man murders a pregnant woman, he'll likely be brought up on two counts of murder.  Such laws are nonsensical in the same society that allows abortion.  You can't have it both ways.




You sort of can have it both ways.  All you have to do is replace the law that killing the fetus is murder with a sentencing kicker.  There are a lot of sentencing kickers in the law.  Robbing a store will yield a certain sentence, robbing a store with a firearm will give you that initial sentence plus added time for the kicker of using a firearm, and that kicker increases further if you actually discharge that firearm.  Therefore, there are ways to create law that severely punishes the murder of pregnant women without infringing on the right of women to make their own health/body decisions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> I don't believe so.  The issue at hand is *implied* rights, as opposed to explicitly stated rights.
> 
> You infer from "killing a fetus is homicide" that a fetus is a human being, and therefore also gets *all* other rights pertaining to humans.
> 
> If you instead have a law that says, "killing a fetus confers <penalty exactly the same as homicide>" but never actually uses the *word* homicide, then you cannot infer any further rights.
> 
> The first can lead you to circular logic, the second cannot.




When analyzing laws, we often look at legislative notes and drafters' intent. 


Homicide- the term used in those laws- has a pretty tightly defined legal definition: the killing of a human being.

The legislatures that passed those laws were perfectly capable of drafting a law as you posit, but chose not to.  Indeed, corporate laws have often been drafted in such a way as to do so, distinguishing them from natural persons- pretty effective up until _Citizens United_- just as civil union laws were drafted to distinguish them from marriages.

That they chose not to draft fetal homicide laws the way you proposed is a strong implication that they knew exactly what they were doing.  That in 22 of those 30+ states, you will also find relatively restrictive rules on certain aspects of abortion is no coincidence.

But even if you DID draft the law as you stated, the logic is still circular: someone has drafted a law stating the fetus doesn't have rights because they said it doesn't have rights.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Biologically, there is a significant difference between a "parasite" and "offspring", not the least of which being the fact that one is of a different species and the other is not.




I'm sorry, but discovering that an unwanted creature was growing inside me against my will would only be marginally lessened if it were a potential human being.  Either way my response is "get it out of me right freaking now!"

It truly is the wanted/unwanted part that plays a massive role.  If wanted, pregnancy is a difficult time endured for sake of your child, who you will love and nurture for many years to come (ideally).  If unwanted, pregnancy is a fully immersive nine month body horror experience straight out of a Cronenberg film.


----------



## billd91

JRRNeiklot said:


> The woman of course, but if the fetus is a human being, her exercising that authority and aborting the child is no different than someone exercising their same authority to shoot someone in the head.  My rights end at the tip of your nose.  The question is not who has authority, but whether or not the unborn child is a human being.  If the answer is yes, abortion is murder, absent extreme circumstances such as Dannyalcatraz' example.  If not, it's no different than extracting a tick.
> 
> I'll also note that if a man murders a pregnant woman, he'll likely be brought up on two counts of murder.  Such laws are nonsensical in the same society that allows abortion.  You can't have it both ways.




You can have it both ways. If the pregnancy is wanted, then it makes perfect sense to prosecute someone who interferes with it. However, if it is not, the woman's authority over her body should be the dominant one. It doesn't make much sense to hold her to the standard of her rights extending to the baby's nose since that is already well inside the mother's territory. It doesn't necessarily make sense to separate the baby's rights from hers.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> I'm sorry, but discovering that an unwanted creature was growing inside me against my will would only be marginally lessened if it were a potential human being.  Either way my response is "get it out of me right freaking now!"




Your personal squick factor doesn't make a fetus into a parasite.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Your personal squick factor doesn't make a fetus into a parasite.




No, my personal squick factor is a personal consideration.

However, a parasite is defined as "an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."

Note that no mention is made of having to be of a different species.

Now, Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand was certainly correct when he cautioned against "making a fortress of a dictionary."  However, taking it simply as one single piece of evidence in making the case that a fetus is a type of parasite, it is certainly on point in that a fetus 

1) is an organism that

2) lives in a host, and

3) derives nutrients at the host's expense.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

This article:
http://www.cephalopodiatrist.com/2012/10/why-babies-arent-actually-parasites.html

Referencing this work:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0897.2010.00836.x/full

Points out that a parasite thrives at the cost of its host, but that offspring- at least those carried by a mother internally (as opposed to externally deposited eggs)- have a _positive_ effect on the immune system of the mother, at least for certain pathogens.

IOW, there is a symbiotic, not parasitic, relationship between fetus and mother.


----------



## Umbran

MechaPilot said:


> However, a parasite is defined as "an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."
> 
> Note that no mention is made of having to be of a different species.




That's because you are (perhaps unintentionally) cherry-picking.  If you speak with a parasitologist, or even check another dictionary, you'll find a slightly different definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite or 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite

"1. an organism that lives on or in an organism _of another species_, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."

We shouldn't go to general dictionaries to discuss the minutiae of scientific (or legal) accuracy.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This article:
> http://www.cephalopodiatrist.com/2012/10/why-babies-arent-actually-parasites.html
> 
> Referencing this work:
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0897.2010.00836.x/full
> 
> Points out that a parasite thrives at the cost of its host, but that offspring- at least those carried by a mother internally (as opposed to externally deposited eggs)- have a _positive_ effect on the immune system of the mother, at least for certain pathogens.
> 
> IOW, there is a symbiotic, not parasitic, relationship between fetus and mother.




Those are interesting articles.  However, I would argue that the net effect is what matters, and not each individual aspect of the transaction between the two organisms.  After all, if a parasite depends on the survival of the host for its own survival, it would not be inherently evolutionarily disadvantageous to the parasite to contribute marginally to the survival of the host.

Now, we can certainly ask the question of whether an organism is a parasite if it provides a benefit that doesn't outweigh or fully compensate for what it takes from the host.


----------



## MechaPilot

Umbran said:


> That's because you are (perhaps unintentionally) cherry-picking.




If I am cherry-picking, I assure you it is unintentional.  I do not believe in taking a position based on intellectual dishonesty.




Umbran said:


> If you speak with a parasitologist, or even check another dictionary, you'll find a slightly different definition:
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite or
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite
> 
> "1. an organism that lives on or in an organism _of another species_, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."
> 
> We shouldn't go to general dictionaries to discuss the minutiae of scientific (or legal) accuracy.




That's very true, that's why I posted what I did about not making a fortress of a dictionary.  However, the first step in approaching anything is the general step.  As a tax accountant, when interpreting the U.S. tax code (which is statutory law) one should evaluate the language according to its common meaning and usage unless directed by the code to use other (perhaps more technical) definitions.

It's also true that science often has different definitions for things that common language does.  A prime example of this is Pluto.  Is it a planet?  Scientists have said no, it is not.  However, it is still mentioned (along with the question of what its status should be) when discussing the solar system.  This is true even in academic settings.  My college astronomy professor paused his discussion of the planets to inform us that in his classroom "Pluto is a planet."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> After all, if a parasite depends on the survival of the host for its own survival, it would not be inherently evolutionarily disadvantageous to the parasite to contribute marginally to the survival of the host.




By definition, a parasite does not.

There are other hosting paradigms in which the hosting creature does receive a benefit from the hosted 
creature, but parasites don't.



> *Mutalism*: both partners benefit. An example of mutualism is the relationship between the Egyptian plover and the crocodile. In the tropical regions of Africa, the crocodile lies with its mouth open. The plover flies into its mouth and feeds on bits of decaying meat stuck in the crocodile’s teeth. The crocodile does not eat the plover. Instead, he appreciates the dental work. The plover eats a meal and the crocodile gets his teeth cleaned. Coincidentally, the Egyptian plover is also known as the crocodile bird.
> *Commensalism*: only one species benefits while the other is neither helped nor harmed. For example, remora fish are very bony and have a dorsal fin (the fin on the back of fish) that acts like a suction cup. Remora fish use this fin to attach themselves to whales, sharks, or rays and eat the scraps their hosts leave behind. The remora fish gets a meal, while its host gets nothing. Selfish, sure, but neither gets hurt.
> *Parasitism*: One organism (the parasite) gains, while the other (the host) suffers. The deer tick is a parasite. It attaches to a warmblooded animal and feeds on its blood. Ticks need blood at every stage of their life cycle. They also carry Lyme disease, an illness that can cause joint damage, heart complications, and kidney problems. The tick benefits from eating the animal's blood. Unfortunately, the animal suffers from the loss of blood and nutrients and may get sick.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> By definition, a parasite does not.
> 
> There are other hosting paradigms in which the hosting creature does receive a benefit from the hosted
> creature, but parasites don't.




If the net result of the benefit and the harm is more harm than benefit, which model does it fit into?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

That doesn't happen, AFAIK.

In the case of offspring, you may choose to value it differently, but from a biologists perspective, the chance to pass along one's genes to another generation is a HUGE benefit.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That doesn't happen, AFAIK.
> 
> In the case of offspring, you may choose to value it differently, but from a biologists perspective, the chance to pass along one's genes to another generation is a HUGE benefit.




If you mean that a fetus doesn't do more harm than good to the mother, I would say that the physical toll is significant.  I would also say that the only benefit to the mother thus far illustrated is in the increase in immune response to certain specific illnesses mentioned in your article.  How much does this increase actually affect the mother's chance of contracting one of those illnesses?  That's just one of the questions that bear answering when determining if there is a net harm or net gain, and the article itself mentioned that our understanding is incomplete.

And, when talking about an unwanted fetus, you also have to contend with the psychological harm of being forced to carry an unwanted fetus.  Psychological harm very well can result in physical harm as stress hormones lower your immune system.  Plus, psychological harm can be very significant even where it doesn't create physical harm.  And that's without getting into any kind of discussion of the social and economic harm done.


----------



## MechaPilot

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In the case of offspring, you may choose to value it differently, but from a biologists perspective, the chance to pass along one's genes to another generation is a HUGE benefit.




The biologists' perspective is rather skewed if taken in a vacuum like that.  After all, the reprehensible act of rape offers a chance to pass along one's genes to another generation.  I, and I'm sure you as well, would not consider rape to be a HUGE benefit to the mother, the child (who may well face abandonment or abuse at home because of its parentage), to society, or to the species.  I also don't think it would count as a huge benefit to the perpetrator of the act, who could very well be ruining his own life by giving in to a deplorable impulse and potentially subjecting himself to prosecution and incarceration.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> When analyzing laws, we often look at legislative notes and drafters' intent.




How far into drafter's intent, Danny?

Because, how far do you think you have to go on that, or almost any other abortion-control law, to find the intent to inject religion into law, or the intent of misogynistic control of women?  I suggest to you it is only so far as the nearest fundraising campaign speech.



> That they chose not to draft fetal homicide laws the way you proposed is a strong implication that they knew exactly what they were doing.




So, do we take the actions of some sneaky, cowardly misogynists as the way things are rightly done?



> But even if you DID draft the law as you stated, the logic is still circular: someone has drafted a law stating the fetus doesn't have rights because they said it doesn't have rights.




I am obviously not being clear.   But, I don't think the particular bit of logic important enough to argue, as I can address this on other grounds.

Let us consider this implication of human status.  First is to note that the Constitution does not speak of "humans", but of "persons".  The words are only interchangeable because so far, we have never had a case where a person was not also a human.  As soon as some animal rights activist gets a chimpanzee declared a "person", you will find all those definitions of homicide as killing a "human" to be inaccurate.  Murder is killing a person, human or otherwise.

Having gotten past that little tidbit....

The SCOTUS, in Roe v. Wade explicitly rejected the fetal right to life argument. 

"_The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: ....

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn._"

-Roe v. Wade, Section IX A.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

Which is to say, the Founding Fathers and later framers *already* knew about this, and it is already covered.   Thus, the "fetal homicide" law is junk.  The State implication that a fetus is a person is trumped by the Federal direct statement that it is not.  The Governor's office in question should be chastised for allowing a law onto the books that is already so clearly made unconstitutional by precedent.


----------



## MechaPilot

Umbran said:


> Which is to say, the Founding Fathers and later framers *already* knew about this, and it is already covered.   Thus, the "fetal homicide" law is junk.  The State implication that a fetus is a person is trumped by the Federal direct statement that it is not.  The Governor's office in question should be chastised for allowing a law onto the books that is already so clearly made unconstitutional by precedent.




Especially when there is another way of accomplishing the same thing.  Adding a sentencing kicker for instances where the victim of a homicide is pregnant, or adding a sentencing kicker to instances where a victim of assault is pregnant but loses the pregnancy due to the damage inflicted by the assault, punishes criminals who murder or abort a child against the mother's will without creating a constitutional conundrum.


----------



## Umbran

MechaPilot said:


> That's very true, that's why I posted what I did about not making a fortress of a dictionary.  However, the first step in approaching anything is the general step.




That's fine, if you want to refer to it that way metaphorically, or poetically, to express your personal feelings about it.  

But, the first step in a scientific question is *not* the general, but the specific.  You cannot claim that it isn't just your feelings, because technically it is a parasite, as the technicians say it isn't.


----------



## MechaPilot

Umbran said:


> That's fine, if you want to refer to it that way metaphorically, or poetically, to express your personal feelings about it.
> 
> But, the first step in a scientific question is *not* the general, but the specific.  You cannot claim that it isn't just your feelings, because technically it is a parasite, as the technicians say it isn't.




To be fair, I don't believe that I ever said a fetus is a parasite according the definition used by biologists.  Science often uses definitions that the general public does not, as I mentioned earlier with my Pluto anecdote (and the meaning and usage of theory is another good example of that difference).

Under common parlance however, at least using a few different sources of definitions, a fetus can be rationally said to possibly be a kind of parasite.  This may not hold scientific muster, but common parlance is not beholden to a scientific standard.  And science, thankfully, holds itself to a different standard than that of common parlance.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> How far into drafter's intent, Danny?
> 
> Because, how far do you think you have to go on that, or almost any other abortion-control law, to find the intent to inject religion into law, or the intent of misogynistic control of women?  I suggest to you it is only so far as the nearest fundraising campaign speech.
> 
> 
> 
> So, do we take the actions of some sneaky, cowardly misogynists as the way things are rightly done?
> 
> 
> 
> I am obviously not being clear.   But, I don't think the particular bit of logic important enough to argue, as I can address this on other grounds.
> 
> Let us consider this implication of human status.  First is to note that the Constitution does not speak of "humans", but of "persons".  The words are only interchangeable because so far, we have never had a case where a person was not also a human.  As soon as some animal rights activist gets a chimpanzee declared a "person", you will find all those definitions of homicide as killing a "human" to be inaccurate.  Murder is killing a person, human or otherwise.
> 
> Having gotten past that little tidbit....
> 
> The SCOTUS, in Roe v. Wade explicitly rejected the fetal right to life argument.
> 
> "_The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: ....
> 
> But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
> 
> All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn._"
> 
> -Roe v. Wade, Section IX A.
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
> 
> Which is to say, the Founding Fathers and later framers *already* knew about this, and it is already covered.   Thus, the "fetal homicide" law is junk.  The State implication that a fetus is a person is trumped by the Federal direct statement that it is not.  The Governor's office in question should be chastised for allowing a law onto the books that is already so clearly made unconstitutional by precedent.




Last things first: in law, "human" and "person" are 2 similar but non-identical things.  And even within those categories, the law makes distinctions.

For example, corporations have legal "personhood", but- majority SCOTUS opinion in Citizens United notwithstanding- they do not have all of the right of "humans".  And even though the aforementioned case expands the rights of cooperate "persons" they don't have all of those rights either.  Not yet, anyway.  You still can't marry Microsoft.

"Human", in the legal sense, refers _mainly_ to the biological definition. But it also incorporates vague philosophical and religious concepts that are damn difficult, if not impossible, to quantify.  In addition, _you almost never see "human" used drafting laws outside of a criminal code_.  Because of this, I think that- even as pro-choice advocates fear the fetal homicide laws as an attempted end-around to grant full rights to the unborn, I don't think efforts along those lines would pass a Constitutional test. 

As to the first, one does not have to be misogynistic and/or religious to believe that abortion should be limited*; that a fetus has rights.

There is an old maxim: "the power to destroy lies within a single word".  It means that once you find a word to distinguish "this" from" that", "that" becomes easier to hate or devalue, and thus, discard.  You see this most obviously in hate speech: once you stop thinking of other human beings as human beings, but as your kind and __________ (fill in the blank with a racial epithet), the ____________ become dehumanized and easier to victimize.

IMHO, that is what has happened as the medical terminology for a gestating human, "fetus", in the modern abortion debate.  To be clear, I am not saying that the pro choice side has intentionally dehumanized babies as "fetuses" in order to further their goals.  I am saying that the use of the term has causes a disconnect and distancing from what we're discussing, living but unborn humans.









* the retort "but it sure helps" springs to mind. Regardless, I don't think most people, looking at my politics as a whole, would call ME a misogynist, and I personally came to be opposed to abortion years before receiving any formal religious teachings on the matter- in the 1970s-80s, at least, discussion of such subjects in Catholic religious classes was limited to the teens and older.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As to the first, one does not have to be misogynistic and/or religious to believe that abortion should be limited*; that a fetus has rights.




That's dodging the question, Danny.  I wasn't asking about "one", a theoretical person.  You said that we look into the author's intent when interpretting at the law - so I am asking about the author's intent! In these pieces of legislation, how far do you have to go into the legislator's intent - which you have already stated is relevant in interpreting the law - to find intended misogyny or intended religious law?  My understanding is that the answer is "not far at all".  

That, sir, is a problem.  It says very clearly that, even if we are talking about the rights to two people (mother and child), then the intent of the law is to suborn the rights of one of them!  That's not acceptable.

By the way, I recognize the difference between a person who is religious, and one who actively pushes to have religion in law.  There are people of good faith who recognize the need for separation.



> IMHO, that is what has happened as the medical terminology for a gestating human, "fetus", in the modern abortion debate.  To be clear, I am not saying that the pro choice side has intentionally dehumanized babies as "fetuses" in order to further their goals.  I am saying that the use of the term has causes a disconnect and distancing from what we're discussing, living but unborn humans.




"Living, unborn human," carries the preconceived notion that we are talking about a human that should already have rights.  "Fetus," rejects that notion.  We have no neutral language that does not contain one or the other of these assumptions.  You say we are distancing ourselves from the thing, but others would say you are trying to presuppose something that isn't true!  Culturally, we do not have consensus on this, which probably means that we should not be legislating it.

Moreover and more importantly, there's a significant ironic point to what you say - if *anyone* has a disconnect and distancing from what we are discussing, from the fact that we are talking about a human life, it is the party that generally puts forth abortion control legislation, and also routinely attempts to eliminate support for children *after* they are born.  

I have mentioned this before - the state has no business mucking in on abortion until *after* it has proven that it gives a darn about what happens to the kid afterwards.  The State is currently an unfit parent, and should not be allowed to decide whether a child comes into the world.


----------



## Enkhidu

MechaPilot said:


> I'm probably going to catch some flak for this, but I don't care.  "Fetus" is sort of a pleasant euphemism for a parasite.  It causes all manner of problems for the mother, and (so far as I know) does not contribute to the well-being of the mother such that it could be classified as a symbiotic relationship.  Now, most times that parasite is probably wanted and loved.  However, in cases where it is not wanted the government truly has no more right to interfere with its removal than they do with the removal of a tapeworm.




Are you a capitalist? Some strategic word replacement and this tirade is positively Randian.


----------



## tomBitonti

Considering that a woman can be implanted with a fertilized egg not of her own, and considering the range of meanings of parasite, I don't think the discussion is addressing the primary issue raised by Mechapilot: A pregnancy may be unwanted, and while conferring a benefit in some cases, does not always confer a benefit, and has considerable cost, leaving the balance of value uncertain.

Also, the discussion of personhood seems to miss important points: A woman who is close to labor with a viable fetus would be considered by most folks to be carrying an unborn person, with murder an appropriate charge if the woman and fetus are killed.  And at the same time, most would not consider this to be a dual murder if the woman was just implanted with eggs at a fertility clinic.  I don't know how this works out legally, I'm looking at what seems to be folks most likely views.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> That's dodging the question, Danny. I wasn't asking about "one", a theoretical person. You said that we look into the author's intent when interpretting at the law - so I am asking about the author's intent! In these pieces of legislation, how far do you have to go into the legislator's intent - which you have already stated is relevant in interpreting the law - to find intended misogyny or intended religious law? My understanding is that the answer is "not far at all".




Sorry I wasn't clear: when I said "one", I meant as in "a person".  Which is to say that legislators come to be anti abortion for as many different reasons as the rest of the population.  While misogyny and religion are certainly prominently in the mix, people can come to that position without either, as I did.

And when we look at a legislative intent, you don't look at the words of just one legislator.  What you see are notes and abstracts of the bodies's debates as a whole...usually unattributed, though some key phases or speeches may get individual breakouts/footnotes. IOW, it's kind of a Cliff's Notes to a law in question.

So while you will probably be able to see some of what you decry, you will also see concurrence by those who agree with the position, if not the rationale.  

And let's be honest: those who concur but are not misogynists or religious are both unlikely to speak up on the matter (for fear of misunderstanding), nor are they likely to be covered by the press if they do.



> We have no neutral language that does not contain one or the other of these assumptions.




Hmm..."potential offspring"?



> Moreover and more importantly, there's a significant ironic point to what you say - if *anyone* has a disconnect and distancing from what we are discussing, from the fact that we are talking about a human life, it is the party that generally puts forth abortion control legislation, and also routinely attempts to eliminate support for children *after* they are born.



I have mentioned this myself somewhere, I don't recall if it was in this thread or not: there are an increasingly vocal group of religious types in both major US political parties who are calling politicians to task over this exact point, myself among them.  Put succinctly: if the state is going to make safe abortion difficult to obtain in non-.life or death cases, it must follow through with a decent support structure once the child has been brought into the world.

Not only is it- to us- a moral and ethical thing, it shares a certain formulations with established legal precedent.  

Generally speaking, no person is obligated to render aid or save the life of another unless it is their job, or _they caused the person to need aid or endangered._  IOW, a duty to save a life can arise by job description or by action.

Similarly, the position goes, the state is not obligated to render aid to children except when they set up programs to do so (there is a fiduciary duty to ensure the programs are properly run) or (here's the new part) _if the state has demanded that child be born._


----------



## tomBitonti

Not disagreeing with the conclusion, but re:



> Generally speaking, no person is obligated to render aid or save the life of another unless it is their job, or they caused the person to need aid or endangered. IOW, a duty to save a life can arise by job description or by action.




The people who block the abortion may not be the same as those who caused the pregnancy.

In the context of tax dollars spent, the folks blocking the use of tax dollars are often not the same folks whose abortions are blocked.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And let's be honest: those who concur but are not misogynists or religious are both unlikely to speak up on the matter (for fear of misunderstanding)




That's a problem.  If you cannot properly elucidate why you feel a law should be enacted, you have little business making laws.  

So, we are up to:  a) Legislators cannot tell us why they want the law in place, b) the law is polluted with religious and misogynist design, c) the kids in question are not taken care of, and d) we are not of consensus that this is a question of fetal rights, such that the State has any role in this in the first place (and, at the moment, the "we" that says the government isn't involved includes the SCOTUS).

Why, exactly, are we even discussing putting such laws on the books?



> I have mentioned this myself somewhere, I don't recall if it was in this thread or not: there are an increasingly vocal group of religious types in both major US political parties who are calling politicians to task over this exact point, myself among them.




That's nice.  Once you've screwed up, Child Protective Services doesn't let you have your kid back until you've proven you've shaped up.  Same philosophy here - no government *demands* that a child be born until *AFTER* you can prove they'll be properly cared for.

So, when that increasingly vocal group has actually had sufficient impact, then perhaps we can talk.


----------



## MechaPilot

Enkhidu said:


> Are you a capitalist? Some strategic word replacement and this tirade is positively Randian.




I won't say that I am a capitalist because I do not think I am entirely capitalist (I may not even be mostly capitalist, I'm not sure).  The pure capitalist system results in deregulation of various products, including medicine.  In the deregulated days of medicine, heroin was actually sold as children's cough medicine in the Sears catalog.

Plus, the deregulation of banks led to the packaging of toxic loans into toxic securities that were speculated in by banks who would have previously been forbidden to do so.

Also, I do believe in a single-payer health-care system, and in anti-trust laws.


----------



## MechaPilot

tomBitonti said:


> Considering that a woman can be implanted with a fertilized egg not of her own, and considering the range of meanings of parasite, I don't think the discussion is addressing the primary issue raised by Mechapilot: A pregnancy may be unwanted, and while conferring a benefit in some cases, does not always confer a benefit, and has considerable cost, leaving the balance of value uncertain.




Thank you.  I know it doesn't fit the scientific definition, but by at at least some of the more common parlance definitions having to bear an unwanted fetus is similar to being forced to bear a parasite.  And even if the fetus does provide a benefit to the mother, the question of net benefit or net harm remains an open one, especially if you consider all the kinds of harm done (physical, psychological, social, and economic).

And, from what I've seen, the real obstacle to a fetus being a kind of parasite under the scientific definition is that it is the same species as the host (since the net benefit/harm question remains open).  Now, a fetus could be said to fit a fairly significant part of the scientific definition, but it doesn't fit all of it.  However, the question (at least colloquially) remains open.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it may be a duck; or at least it may be viewed as such by those not using scientific definitions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> That's a problem.  If you cannot properly elucidate why you feel a law should be enacted, you have little business making laws.
> 
> So, we are up to:  a) Legislators cannot tell us why they want the law in place,




It isn't inability, it is unwillingness.  You know as well as anyone that the abortion issue is as much a political litmus test to the political left as taxation is to the political right.  It almost doesn't matter what your voting/legislative record is on other issues, or how well thought out or well considered your position is, if you oppose abortion in any way, you are going to be painted as a misogynist or a religious extremist by the hardline left. Trying to rehabilitate your image will be Sisyphean.



> b) the law is polluted with religious and misogynist design,




Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.  Why do conservative homosexual vote for GOP Candidates?*  In the end, they feel their goals as citizens of the USA are best served by the GOP, even as the majority of politicians in that party try to keep them as second-class citizens.

Is it an uncomfortable situation?  Certainly.  But politics, as has often been noted, makes for strange bedfellows.



> c) the kids in question are not taken care of, and d) we are not of consensus that this is a question of fetal rights, such that the State has any role in this in the first place (and, at the moment, the "we" that says the government isn't involved includes the SCOTUS).




Careful- SCOTUS's ruling was _only_ covering the language of 14th Amendment.  It is unclear- since no case has challenged it- whether such language in other statutes is affected at all.  The SCOTUS (especially one dominated by conservatives) could conceivably distinguish between the language of the 14th and of fetal homicide statutes.

IOW, just like corporations are considered "persons" under the law in a limited sense, if a case came before them, SCOTUS could rule the laws unconstitutional, but could also consider them constitutional, defining fetuses as humans for the limited purposes of those statutes.



> Why, exactly, are we even discussing putting such laws on the books?




They're on the books now; their existence is a complication in the issue.



> Same philosophy here - no government *demands* that a child be born until *AFTER* you can prove they'll be properly cared for.




By that point, a life may have been extinguished.











* I could also point at violent biker gangs that do major toy drives, KKK groups that participate in environmental cleanup operations, and so forth.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

The start of the end. How unfortunate. I rather liked watching him wreck the GOP.


----------



## Ryujin

I'm having trouble figuring out if Trump is from the Arthur Carlson or Les Nessman school of politics.

[video=youtube;GISoeNnsmcs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GISoeNnsmcs[/video]

[video=youtube;SU8gHJySPLY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU8gHJySPLY&t=7m8s[/video]


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Couldn't he be a bit of both?


----------



## Ryujin

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Couldn't he be a bit of both?




Peeeerhaps.


----------



## tuxgeo

You would have to slap a toupee upon either one of those gentlement to have your selected target have the same appearance as _The Donald_. 

Of course, the cost of a toupee is _chump-change_ compared to the perks and benefits of being President, so have at it!


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Trump is in need of some more attention.


----------



## Ryujin

People tend to forget that Trump was (and is) one of the Obama deniers. Apparently, from the debate, he's also an anti-vaccer who, as with most, will put a single personal experience above statistical data. 

Oh, but he's just saying what other (qualifier: xenophobic, homophobic, science-phobic) Americans want to say!


----------



## Kramodlog

Reminds me of the 2012 primaries. At the end, you had Romney, Santorum and Paul. Pundits were saying they represented the three pillars of the Republican base. Fiscal conservatives, religious social conservatives and libertarians. I always thought a fourth pillar was missing: white supremecists. Seems Trump as becamed their representative.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Reminds me of the 2012 primaries. At the end, you had Romney, Santorum and Paul. Pundits were saying they represented the three pillars of the Republican base. Fiscal conservatives, religious social conservatives and libertarians. I always thought a fourth pillar was missing: white supremecists. Seems Trump as becamed their representative.




I've never seen a three legged table that was unstable but add a fourth leg.....


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> I've never seen a three legged table that was unstable but add a fourth leg.....




You know what else had four legs? Elephants.


----------



## tuxgeo

goldomark said:


> You know what else had four legs? Elephants.




And cats and dogs and lions and donkeys and oryxes and goats and llamas and wildebeestes and . . . . 

Did you have a point? (I didn't find one there.)


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Pundits were saying they represented the three pillars of the Republican base. Fiscal conservatives, religious social conservatives and libertarians. I always thought a fourth pillar was missing: white supremecists.




The white supremacists are typically seen as a subset of the social conservatives.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Besides, they're rallying around Ann Coulter right now.


----------



## Kramodlog

tuxgeo said:


> And cats and dogs and lions and donkeys and oryxes and goats and llamas and wildebeestes and . . . .
> 
> Did you have a point? (I didn't find one there.)




Just humor.


----------



## Kramodlog

Trump to seal marriage with Republican base with a gun and ammo dowry. http://gawker.com/trump-announces-his-second-official-position-support-f-1731708691


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

goldomark said:


> Trump to seal marriage with Republican base with a gun and ammo dowry. http://gawker.com/trump-announces-his-second-official-position-support-f-1731708691


----------



## Kramodlog

Plot twist: Carson just went in front of Trump in the last poll. 26% for Carson and 22% for Trump. Trump will go out in a bang during the next debate. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...-ahead-nationally-in-timescbs-news-poll/?_r=0

Nice to see that the two racist candidates get support from 48% of Republicans.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I don't know that Carson is racist, per se, but he does hold anti-Muslim views, and is rather find of oddball conspiracy style theories & inflammatory rhetoric.  He is also an accomplished surgeon who (unusually) rejects the theory of evolution.

I can tell you there are a LOT of black MDs opining his presidential bid.  He's lost a lot of lustre in their eyes.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't know that Carson is racist, per se, but he does hold anti-Muslim views, and is rather find of oddball conspiracy style theories & inflammatory rhetoric.  He is also an accomplished surgeon who (unusually) rejects the theory of evolution.
> 
> I can tell you there are a LOT of black MDs opining his presidential bid.  He's lost a lot of lustre in their eyes.




How much of what your saying do you actually believe? It is a question I would love to get the answer from Republican candidates. Some of them are just too smart to not know what some of the base was told to believe.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard

goldomark said:


> Plot twist: Carson just went in front of Trump in the last poll. 26% for Carson and 22% for Trump. Trump will go out in a bang during the next debate.




A thing I read (in Scott Adam's - of Dilbert fame - blog, Scott Adams does a great job explaining why he thinks Trump will win the nomination and the election) is that 80% of the people pining for Carson in that poll are not set on a candidate while 55% of the people who selected Trump say they've made their definitive choice. We're not done with Trump yet. To me, Carson's popularity is 1000x more of a mystery than Trump's...

AR


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> How much of what your saying do you actually believe? It is a question I would love to get the answer from Republican candidates. Some of them are just too smart to not know what some of the base was told to believe.




I think Bobby Jindahl is merely pandering a lot of the time.  Carson, I think, is relatively straightforward & honest about his beliefs.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think Bobby Jindahl is merely pandering a lot of the time.  Carson, I think, is relatively straightforward & honest about his beliefs.




Maybe, but its too on the mark for my taste. It is very easy to say what the base wants to ear. Look at Romney and how he campaigned against the AHCA in 2012. Now he is saying this: 







> “Without Tom pushing it, I don’t think we would have had Romneycare,” Romney said. “Without Romneycare, I don’t think we would have Obamacare. So without Tom, a lot of people wouldn’t have health insurance.”



http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...4GgQA1zIxieMYAeZFmkJ/story.html?event=event25


----------



## Kramodlog

Altamont Ravenard said:


> A thing I read (in Scott Adam's - of Dilbert fame - blog, Scott Adams does a great job explaining why he thinks Trump will win the nomination and the election) is that 80% of the people pining for Carson in that poll are not set on a candidate while 55% of the people who selected Trump say they've made their definitive choice. We're not done with Trump yet. To me, Carson's popularity is 1000x more of a mystery than Trump's...
> 
> AR




I saw those numbers. Trumps does seem more solide than Carson. But Trump and Carson do not have organisation in these states to get votes out the day of the primary. Just counting on a surge of voters who get out on their own to vote for you isn't a winning strategy. It could happen, but it makes their nomination less likely.


----------



## Kramodlog

Mystery solved! The Pyramids weren't built by Aliens! They were built to hold grain, says neurosurgeon(!) Ben Carson. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/politics/ben-carson-pyramids-grain/index.html


----------



## billd91

goldomark said:


> Mystery solved! The Pyramids weren't built by Aliens! They were built to hold grain, says neurosurgeon(!) Ben Carson. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/politics/ben-carson-pyramids-grain/index.html




Me may be a respected brain surgeon, but polymath he ain't.


----------



## Umbran

goldomark said:


> Maybe, but its too on the mark for my taste. It is very easy to say what the base wants to ear. Look at Romney and how he campaigned against the AHCA in 2012.




Well, that's the thing - when a politician is just saying what people want to hear, they change their tune on a regular basis. Romney *set up* Romneycare, on which the AHCA was based.  Then he argues against it in 2012.  And now he argues for it again - opinion changing to fit need.  Romney is, as they say, a "flip-flopper".

Hillary Clinton has much the same problem - she's frequently accused of taking positions based on expedience of power, not on principle.

As I understand it, Carson's stayed pretty much the same.  Not that he's been in the national public eye all that long to have established long-term views on things.


----------



## Kramodlog

Umbran said:


> As I understand it, Carson's stayed pretty much the same.  Not that he's been in the national public eye all that long to have established long-term views on things.



He is self-aware and adjust according to the Rep base. He flipped and flopped on vaccines and abortion. He isn't entirely anti-gun control from an Glenn Beck interview he had. He's adjusted his tax plan too. 

He's shown himself to be someone who has no shame in taking advantages of rubes with his association with that snake oil compagny. Why can't he be someone who decided to take advantage of the Rep base? Ann Coulter and so many others do it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

billd91 said:


> Me may be a respected brain surgeon, but polymath he ain't.




Black professionals all around me are flinching & cringing every time he's on the news, these days.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> Why can't he be someone who decided to take advantage of the Rep base?




Mike Huckabee has already beaten him to the punch.
http://prospect.org/waldman/mike-huckabee-literally-con-artist


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Black professionals all around me are flinching & cringing every time he's on the news, these days.




Do they think he reflects badly on black people? He seems like the black man Republican always wanted. 

The irony is that he lacks the experience Republicans say Obama lacked.


----------



## billd91

goldomark said:


> The irony is that he lacks the experience Republicans say Obama lacked.




Playing politics, as usual. If it's a Democrat or a Democrat plan, they'll die to oppose it. If it's on or from their side, they'll die to defend it. The post-Gingrich theory of opposition isn't particularly sophisticated or nuanced in today's GOP.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> Do they think he reflects badly on black people?




Yes, very much so.  Especially those who- like him- have worked hard to educate & improve themselves.  Some- including those he inspired to become MDs like himself- have even gone so far as to post blogs & editorials expressing their disappointment. 


> He seems like the black man Republican always wanted.




For some, he is.



> The irony is that he lacks the experience Republicans say Obama lacked.




Political outsiders are the flavor of the day...in part because the hardcore right feel the establishment GOPers haven't delivered what they promised.  And in many ways, they're right because several of them have been pandering to that demographic while fully aware they could not deliver what they promised.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes, very much so.  Especially those who- like him- have worked hard to educate & improve themselves.  Some- including those he inspired to become MDs like himself- have even gone so far as to post blogs & editorials expressing their disappointment.




Granted I'm not all familiar with all the stereotypes, but how does he reflect badly on black people? He seems to be a bigger embarassment to religious people. That pyramid things is way out there.


----------



## Kramodlog

billd91 said:


> Playing politics, as usual. If it's a Democrat or a Democrat plan, they'll die to oppose it. If it's on or from their side, they'll die to defend it. The post-Gingrich theory of opposition isn't particularly sophisticated or nuanced in today's GOP.




The lack of self-awareness fascinates me.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Do they think he reflects badly on black people? He seems like the black man Republican always wanted.
> 
> The irony is that he lacks the experience Republicans say Obama lacked.




I would have thought that would be Colin Powell but, unfortunately, the Bush Government sent his credibility like a renewable resource over the Iraq business.


----------



## billd91

Ryujin said:


> I would have thought that would be Colin Powell but, unfortunately, the Bush Government sent his credibility like a renewable resource over the Iraq business.




Powell's too liberal for the GOP activists these days - which basically means he holds values common in the GOP back in the 1960s-1970s.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> I would have thought that would be Colin Powell but, unfortunately, the Bush Government sent his credibility like a renewable resource over the Iraq business.




For one he is pro-choice so that disqualifies him pretty much off the bat. He also said that to reduce the federal deficit cuts in military spending were needed, which goes against party orthodoxy.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/24/colin-powell-cut-military-spending-to-reduce-deficit He also said good things about Obama.


----------



## Ryujin

billd91 said:


> Powell's too liberal for the GOP activists these days - which basically means he holds values common in the GOP back in the 1960s-1970s.






goldomark said:


> For one he is pro-choice so that disqualifies him pretty much off the bat. He also said that to reduce the federal deficit cuts in military spending were needed, which goes against party orthodoxy.
> http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/24/colin-powell-cut-military-spending-to-reduce-deficit He also said good things about Obama.




Which is where we have the problem of political parties moving more to the fringes, which alienates and disenfranchises more and more voters rather than altering their views to match more of the electorate, which would both motivate voters and obtain a greater share of those votes. The Republican party is nowhere near its original roots. It's a completely different organism now, with the heavy adoption of social conservatism.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> Which is where we have the problem of political parties moving more to the fringes, which alienates and disenfranchises more and more voters rather than altering their views to match more of the electorate, which would both motivate voters and obtain a greater share of those votes. The Republican party is nowhere near its original roots. It's a completely different organism now, with the heavy adoption of social conservatism.




Not all parties go to the fringe, but those who got there do it because it can be beneficial for them. They might appeal to less people, but the people they appeal to might be more motivated to go vote. It is in part the Rep strategy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> Granted I'm not all familiar with all the stereotypes, but how does he reflect badly on black people? He seems to be a bigger embarassment to religious people. That pyramid things is way out there.



He's actually less of an embarrassment to the religious right- many of his espoused religious beliefs (Creationism good/Evolution bad, for instance)- are in accord, not only with HIS particular faith (7th Day Adventists), but with a large swath of other conservative faith traditions.  To be sure, he's not alone in some of that.  One of my mentors has a similar career arc as Carson's': from poor black kid in the Southern USA to dual PHD/ from Oxford...and he, too, doesn't believe in Evolution*.  But add to that the other stuff- assertions about Jews being able to fend off Naziism with small arms, comparing Obamacare to slavery, claims about the pyramids being granaries, etc...

In contrast, the black intelligencia in general- while fairly conservative- is NOT anti-science.  ESPECIALLY those with STEM degrees. Black doctors are praising the ACA for getting their patients out of ER rooms (reactionary medicine) into doctors's offices (proactive medicine), and the like.  You don't find black archaeologists positing the granary theory.  Most black MDs accept Evolution as "the fundamental theorem" of biology which makes their work possible.

In a sense, he is such a departure from our norm that he plays into the stereotype of being uneducable.  He seems impervious to that which does not conform to his worldview.

And that disturbs those he inspired or who consider(ed?) him a peer.   Here's an example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...f-black-doctors-now-were-disappointed-in-him/

My Dad is a little older than Carson.  He came from a lower-middle class household in the South, and became the first black admitted to and to graduate from Tulane medical school.  He's one of the best there is at what he does.  But he's low profile- no political aspirations, no drive to write a blog or letter to the editor.  Mention Ben Carson's beliefs & political platform to him, though, and you'll eventually see the steam coming from his ears...





* puzzling, since he's Catholic, and the church has said that Evolution and divine creation are not in conflict in Catholic theology.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> He's actually less of an embarrassment to the religious right- many of his espoused religious beliefs (Creationism good/Evolution bad, for instance)- are in accord, not only with HIS particular faith (7th Day Adventists), but with a large swath of other conservative faith traditions.



But the religious right is not the only religous people in the US. Shouldn't religious people outside of the right be facepalming right now as he's perpetuating a stereotype about religious people being coocoo and anti-science?



> To be sure, he's not alone in some of that.  One of my mentors has a similar career arc as Carson's': from poor black kid in the Southern USA to dual PHD/ from Oxford...and he, too, doesn't believe in Evolution*.  But add to that the other stuff- assertions about Jews being able to fend off Naziism with small arms, comparing Obamacare to slavery, claims about the pyramids being granaries, etc...
> 
> In contrast, the black intelligencia in general- while fairly conservative- is NOT anti-science.  ESPECIALLY those with STEM degrees. Black doctors are praising the ACA for getting their patients out of ER rooms (reactionary medicine) into doctors's offices (proactive medicine), and the like.  You don't find black archaeologists positing the granary theory.  Most black MDs accept Evolution as "the fundamental theorem" of biology which makes their work possible.
> 
> In a sense, *he is such a departure from our norm that he plays into the stereotype of being uneducable*.  He seems impervious to that which does not conform to his worldview.
> 
> And that disturbs those he inspired or who consider(ed?) him a peer.   Here's an example:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...f-black-doctors-now-were-disappointed-in-him/



But who believes the bolded part? I'm gonna say that the majority of the people who believe black people are "uneducable" also do not believe in evolution, think gun control lead to the Holocost and won't spit on pyramids holding Joseph's grain. 

What I'm saying is that he isn't causing damage to the perception racists have of black people since he is talking to them in their own language and looking good to their eyes. But he might be damaging the perception people outside of the right have of very religious people. 



> My Dad is a little older than Carson.  He came from a lower-middle class household in the South, and became the first black admitted to and to graduate from Tulane medical school.  *He's one of the best there is at what he does.*  But he's low profile- no political aspirations, no drive to write a blog or letter to the editor.  Mention Ben Carson's beliefs & political platform to him, though, and you'll eventually see the steam coming from his ears...
> 
> * puzzling, since he's Catholic, and the church has said that Evolution and divine creation are not in conflict in Catholic theology.



Is your dad Wolverine!?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

goldomark said:


> But the religious right is not the only religous people in the US. Shouldn't religious people outside of the right be facepalming right now as he's perpetuating a stereotype about religious people being coocoo and anti-science?




Not as much, because we can say "he's one of THOSE guys- our faith recognized the validity of science," yada, yada, yada.



> But who believes the bolded part? I'm gonna say that the majority of the people who believe black people are "uneducable" also do not believe in evolution, think gun control lead to the Holocost and won't spit on pyramids holding Joseph's grain.




The bigots we won't convince, regardless.  The undecided- and yes, there are some- are the ones who worry us.  That, and it still makes it harder for us even among those who don't believe it all, because they still harbor doubts about us in general (or particular).  I went to a small private HS.  When I was a junior, the only other black guy in the school was a freshman.  When his ass got booted for stealing money from other students' lockers- along with an Italian American kid- I had to weather a lot of funny stares.  All of a sudden, I was seen as a possible thief.

(Not so the other Italian Americans, it should be noted.)

His sins were projected on me until I graduated.  (The first black in the school's history, FWIW.)




> Is your dad Wolverine!?



Nah...but Mom might be.

OTOH, he _is_ amazingly healthy for his age.  Hmmmmmm...."Highlander?"


----------



## Kramodlog

Ben Carson says he was named most honest student... In a class that never existed. http://gawker.com/ultimate-trickste...m_referrer=http://gawker.com/?trending_test_d

I bet his numbers in polls rise cause he is a "victim of the media".


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ben Carson’s pyramid theory is from Sid Meier’s Civilization.


----------



## MechaPilot

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Ben Carson’s pyramid theory is from Sid Meier’s Civilization.




Too bad Carson didn't keep up.  In Civ V, pyramids grant you two workers and speeds up tile improvement by 25%.  Clearly the pyramids were built to house people who work fast.


----------



## Kramodlog

> “Nobody has been able to sit down with him and have him get one iota of intelligent information about the Middle East,” Duane R. Clarridge, a top adviser to Mr. Carson on terrorism and national security, said in an interview.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/u...o-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=0


----------



## Ovinomancer

goldomark said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/u...o-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=0




YAY!  Unofficial "mentor" for candidate used in hit piece against candidate.    News at eleven.

Seriously, Carson makes enough mistakes that papers shouldn't be needing to go out and find crackpots to fill in the hit pieces.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

The circus keeps getting smaller. Honestly though, I thought he had quit weeks ago.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The issue...errr...one issue with Carson is that his followers don't give a damn what mistakes he makes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> The circus keeps getting smaller. Honestly though, I thought he had quit weeks ago.




Nah.  But I think he finally figured out the election campaign wasn't working after he didn't get a boost in the polls after he, Huckabee & Cruz went to that "death sentence for gays" conference.

http://politicalpunditnews.com/blog...-by-gops-ted-cruz-mike-huckabee-bobby-jindal/


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nah.  But I think he finally figured out the election campaign wasn't working after he didn't get a boost in the polls after he, Huckabee & Cruz went to that "death sentence for gays" conference.
> 
> http://politicalpunditnews.com/blog...-by-gops-ted-cruz-mike-huckabee-bobby-jindal/




Well, in there defense, Christian texts do mention a lot of killings and say that all sort of people should be killed in the name of their divinity. They also feature their divinity doing a lot of killing, cause it rolls that way. We shouldn't be surprised that at a Christian rally people call for the killing of people. What is surprising is that it doesn't happen more often.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Well, in there defense, Christian texts do mention a lot of killings and say that all sort of people should be killed in the name of their divinity. They also feature their divinity doing a lot of killing, cause it rolls that way. We shouldn't be surprised that at a Christian rally people call for the killing of people. What is surprising is that it doesn't happen more often.




Well there exists a certain sort of Christian who is all Old Testament when it comes to the things that they don't agree with but when it comes to the things that they might do (adultery, sex outside of wedlock, eating shellfish, improper treatment of their slaves) it's all the sweetness and light of the New Testament.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> Well there exists a certain sort of Christian who is all Old Testament when it comes to the things that they don't agree with but when it comes to the things that they might do (adultery, sex outside of wedlock, eating shellfish, improper treatment of their slaves) it's all the sweetness and light of the New Testament.




And even then they select what they want from the new testament. Romans 1:18-32 is all about death worthy behaviors like sleeping with men, whispering and disobeying you parents.


----------



## Istbor

The whole book is outmoded concepts from a time long since past. While I think there are parts yet in the Bible that should be held onto, there is a great deal that need to be looked at with a more modern eye.  A reason I have furthered myself from my Church is that tendency to place the book on an unassailable pedestal.  

Christianity is hardly the only organized religion which has followers and sects cherry-picking beliefs and interpretations from holy texts.  It seems to be more human nature than anything.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nah.  But I think he finally figured out the election campaign wasn't working after he didn't get a boost in the polls after he, Huckabee & Cruz went to that "death sentence for gays" conference.
> 
> http://politicalpunditnews.com/blog...-by-gops-ted-cruz-mike-huckabee-bobby-jindal/




They needed more guns at that hate rally to really get GOP voter attention. If they'd had a PowerPoint presentation going over the best guns to kill gays with, Jindal, Cruz, and Huckabee would be trending at 200% each.


----------



## Kramodlog

Well one poll made in New Hamshire after the Paris attacks place Strongman Trump way at the top again. 

Donald Trump 22%
Ben Carson 11%
Marco Rubio 11%
Ted Cruz 8%
Jeb Bush 7%
Rand Paul 5%
Chris Christie 5%
Lindsey Graham 2%

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/18/456398265/wbur-poll-trump-leads-with-nh-republicans


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Donald Trump's campaign: Where the truth goes to die a horrible public death.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-false-statistics-to-make-a-racist-point.html


----------



## MechaPilot

It makes me very sad that my mother considers Trump a viable candidate.  Then again, she is a high-school dropout, and at one point I had to tell her that the U.S. president doesn't actually have the authority to spend money on his own, and that funding has to be approved by congress first.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Introducing the new Jedi Master: Donald Trump. He has the feels.


----------



## Kramodlog

The dude has too much rage to be anything else than a Sith.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> The dude has too much rage to be anything else than a Sith.




Reptilian. No doubt in my mind. You can only hide the sail fin for so long.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> Reptilian. No doubt in my mind. You can only hide the sail fin for so long.




No need for speciecism, dude. Reptilians can be Sith Lords too.


----------



## billd91

Looks like Kasich is throwing down a gauntlet at Trump:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kasich-donald-trump-nazis_5655b553e4b072e9d1c139fa


----------



## Kramodlog

billd91 said:


> Looks like Kasich is throwing down a gauntlet at Trump:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kasich-donald-trump-nazis_5655b553e4b072e9d1c139fa




It won't affect his support. The people who support Trump support that sort of view. Like this ex-CIA guy who says that it isn't morally reprehensible to kill non-Americans. Because they aren't Americans! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cnn-bombing-innocent-civilians_5653279ce4b0879a5b0b8df4

[video=youtube;tKIkrQWtqaU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKIkrQWtqaU[/video]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bad news: Trump's presidential bid has exposed some of the darker aspects of American culture and our societal psyche.

Good news: Trump's presidential bid has exposed some of the darker aspects of American culture and our societal psyche.


----------



## Ryujin

Now Trump is denying that he was making fun of a Times reporter's disability, despite being shown on camera clearly doing so.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34940861


----------



## Kramodlog

Finally! A controversy and a lie that will make his poll numbers go down!

I almost didn't laugh writing it.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Finally! A controversy and a lie that will make his poll numbers go down!
> 
> I almost didn't laugh writing it.




< Trump Supporter >

He's just telling it like it is! Screw political correctness!!

< / Trump Supporter >


----------



## Kramodlog

[trumper]

If he won't surrender to the lamestream media, he won't surrender to Putin! 

[/trumper]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

What does it mean when Dick Cheney thinks a GOPer is putting forth un-American, unconstitutional positions?

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trumps-muslim-ban-proposal-draws-extraordinary-035621771.html


----------



## Kramodlog

It means Trump is winning. 

His tweet started today, right at the start of a news cycle. Now every media is talking about it propagading his message. A message that could be popular among the Republican base who poll after poll shows they distrust Muslims. His hateful strategy is well planned. 

What I find the most disturbing about Trump's run is his legacy. He's shown the way to future Republican candidates which is troubling to say the leat.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

...unless the GOP candidate loses the 2016 election, of course.*

And if he/she does, I wonder if the post-election autopsy will have them claiming they lost because the candidate STILL wasn't conservative enough.  You know, like the last 2 times.

If the GOP loses a third presidential election in a row, the schism that some in GOP leadership have been talking about this year may well become reality.




* I'm thinking they will, and if the nominee is one of the current front four, the word "spectacularly" will be part of the phrase.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...unless the GOP candidate loses the 2016 election, of course.*



The republican candidate will lose. At this point, democrats could put up a turnip for President, and it would beat any of the GOP candidates. 



> And if he/she does, I wonder if the post-election autopsy will have them claiming they lost because the candidate STILL wasn't conservative enough.  You know, like the last 2 times.
> 
> If the GOP loses a third presidential election in a row, the schism that some in GOP leadership have been talking about this year may well become reality.



As you pointed out, the GOP has lost the last two times. Each time they've done their post-election autopsy, they've admitted that they need to do a better job reaching out to minorities. Instead, however, they become more "conservative." I don't see the GOP changing it's patter when they lose this election.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

IDK- that they're even publically talking schism means things are BAD in there.

I would not be surprised to find John McCain spearheading a break, either.  Remember, back in the 1980-90s, he was the one warning about what could happen to the GOP if they got too chummy with the religious right.*  Add to that the contempt he has for the Tea Party republicans and he may well decide it is his legacy to be the "savior" of the GOP by returning it to its pre-Southern Strategy roots.








* and was pretty consistently vocal about that until he decided he REALLY wanted to be the GOP nominee in 2008.


----------



## Ryujin

I'll post this, at the risk of Godwinning the thread. It has been pointed out that Trump is ticking an alarming number of boxes on Dr. Lawrence Britt's Fascist checklist:

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> I'll post this, at the risk of Godwinning the thread. It has been pointed out that Trump is ticking an alarming number of boxes on Dr. Lawrence Britt's Fascist checklist:
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm




Fascism is plastic, syncretic and opportunistic. Very hard to have definite list. 

Here is how Umberto Eco defines it in 14 points too. http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf

I think the defining trait is radical nationalism and then you see if other points match.


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...unless the GOP candidate loses the 2016 election, of course.*
> 
> And if he/she does, I wonder if the post-election autopsy will have them claiming they lost because the candidate STILL wasn't conservative enough.  You know, like the last 2 times.
> 
> If the GOP loses a third presidential election in a row, the schism that some in GOP leadership have been talking about this year may well become reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * I'm thinking they will, and if the nominee is one of the current front four, the word "spectacularly" will be part of the phrase.




It remains to be seen is Trump does have a legay, but if he wins many primaries, a more gifted politicians could follow in his foot steps. Heck, Cruz is doing that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sort of.  Cruz's political skill seems to be more in evidence with the general public than with those closer to him.

The thing is, he generates nearly universal dislike among those he works with- not just fellow congressmen, but other former Supreme Court clerks and his colleagues from the Bush admin.

He already finds it very difficult to get things done his way in the legislature; it might be even moreso if he gets elected to a higher position.


----------



## Mallus

I just want to give a quick shout-out to the Philadelphia Daily News going full-Godwin on their front page. If you haven't seen the coverage of it, it's a photo of Trump with his arm coincidentally extended Nazi salute-style with the caption "The New Furor". Makes me sad we get the Inquirer at the office. 

Also props to Mayor Mike Nutter, for calling The Donald a name I can't print here, while at an press event with interfaith religious leaders (he immediately apologized to them for his language -- which is a totally not-Philadelphia thing to do).

edit: I'm still (mostly) amused by this travesty. Trump can't win. Probably not even the nomination (if the GOP is lucky). Definitely not the Presidency (a job I'm certain he *does not want*). In the end, his success this campaign season is providing the Republicans a valuable service: identifying the %15 to %20 of their base that they need to jettison/alienate/send to the cornfield if they want to survive as a national party.


----------



## Ryujin

Mallus said:


> I just want to give a quick shout-out to the Philadelphia Daily News going full-Godwin on their front page. If you haven't seen the coverage of it, it's a photo of Trump with his arm coincidentally extended Nazi salute-style with the caption "The New Furor". Makes me sad we get the Inquirer at the office.
> 
> Also props to Mayor Mike Nutter, for calling The Donald a name I can't print here, while at an press event with interfaith religious leaders (he immediately apologized to them for his language -- which is a totally not-Philadelphia thing to do).
> 
> edit: I'm still (mostly) amused by this travesty. Trump can't win. Probably not even the nomination (if the GOP is lucky). Definitely not the Presidency (a job I'm certain he *does not want*). In the end, his success this campaign season is providing the Republicans a valuable service: identifying the %15 to %20 of their base that they need to jettison/alienate/send to the cornfield if they want to survive as a national party.




When the popular vote seems to go a few points either way of 50/50 every American election no party is going to walk away from any percentage of their base, no matter how abhorrent.


----------



## Istbor

I would not use such an absolute.  While I agree that I doubt they will willingly part with any of their member base as a result of this campaign, there are likely limits, that if reached, they would have no other choice.

_Edited for grammatical corrections. _


----------



## Kramodlog

The Trump bakers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ble-main_trumpsupporters-135pm:homepage/story


----------



## Istbor

Pretty disheartening stuff right there.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Astounding disconnect from actual reality...but not a surprise.

I've noted time and time again how many on the Right talk about a lack of anti-extremist demonstrations by Muslims, how progressives and moderate imams aren't speaking out more or issuing fatwas against extremists, or how Muslim countries don't prosecute terrorists.

Thing is, I have a file on my computer with links showing such demonstrations around the world, a list of fatwas against extremists, and articles about how countries like Indonesia (biggest Muslim country on the planet) are convicting terrorist all the time.

The problem?  News coverage of such things is spotty and rarely "front page."  Or, in the case of Trump supporters like those in that last link- an invincible ignorance that makes them discount the source to deny the reality of the reports.


----------



## Ryujin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Astounding disconnect from actual reality...but not a surprise.
> 
> I've noted time and time again how many on the Right talk about a lack of anti-extremist demonstrations by Muslims, how progressives and moderate imams aren't speaking out more or issuing fatwas against extremists, or how Muslim countries don't prosecute terrorists.
> 
> Thing is, I have a file on my computer with links showing such demonstrations around the world, a list of fatwas against extremists, and articles about how countries like Indonesia (biggest Muslim country on the planet) are convicting terrorist all the time.
> 
> The problem?  News coverage of such things is spotty and rarely "front page."  Or, in the case of Trump supporters like those in that last link- an invincible ignorance that makes them discount the source to deny the reality of the reports.




And it certainly doesn't help when "media outlets" like Fox News spout patent falsehoods as Gospel, get called on it, and that either admit to it and go right back to repeating the same lies, or double-down and say that it's truth a la Trump.

"Is this the right room for an argument?"

"I've told you once."


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Seems Carson is threatening to leave the republican party along with Trump. The republican party may be trying to figure out ho yo get rid of Trump, and it seems Carson doesn't like it. Maybe he believes the republican party will do the same to him since he is just as crazy as Trump? In any case, the republican party would be better off if the jettisoned these two along with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Speaking jettisoning Trump from the republican party...
It seems that may not be enough. There is now a change.org petition to jettison Trump into space. One way ticket. No return trip.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The brokered convention could be a double-edged sword.  It might be the final catalyst to create that schism in the GOP, which would undoubtedly guarantee a Democrat victory.  But it may be what they need in the long run to return to their better ideals.

Membership in the party that coalesces around Trump, etc. might also be as useful as the confederate flag in IDing people that people like me don't want to associate with...


----------



## Kramodlog

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Astounding disconnect from actual reality...but not a surprise.
> 
> I've noted time and time again how many on the Right talk about a lack of anti-extremist demonstrations by Muslims, how progressives and moderate imams aren't speaking out more or issuing fatwas against extremists, or how Muslim countries don't prosecute terrorists.
> 
> Thing is, I have a file on my computer with links showing such demonstrations around the world, a list of fatwas against extremists, and articles about how countries like Indonesia (biggest Muslim country on the planet) are convicting terrorist all the time.
> 
> The problem?  News coverage of such things is spotty and rarely "front page."  Or, in the case of Trump supporters like those in that last link- an invincible ignorance that makes them discount the source to deny the reality of the reports.




A potential explaination for why people believe Trump. http://www.vox.com/2015/12/10/9886222/conspiracy-theories-right-wing


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The brokered convention could be a double-edged sword.  It might be the final catalyst to create that schism in the GOP, which would undoubtedly guarantee a Democrat victory.  But it may be what they need in the long run to return to their better ideals.
> 
> Membership in the party that coalesces around Trump, etc. might also be as useful as the confederate flag in IDing people that people like me don't want to associate with...




Well, I don't like Trump and won't vote for him, but if that's your litmus test for people, you can go ahead and add me to your list.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The brokered convention could be a double-edged sword.




That's okay.  A "brokered convention" in the classic meaning of the term, is unlikely to happen, for one simple reason - lack of leverage.

What we think of as "primaries" started in 1972.  Before that time, all conventions were brokered.  State delegations to the convention were chosen by the state political parties.  So, the people who went to the convention were, in some way, beholden to the state party, and usually to the 'machine' politician that ran the party (think Mayor Daly, and Tammany Hall).  The people who were sent had a connection to a person who had power to give favors to them afterwards, and so there was a path of influence from the main party bigwigs, to the local bigwigs, to the delegates - a kind of web of patronage, and brokering could happen.  So long as the delegate followed orders, they could expect nice things when they went home, because whatever happened in the national election, the *local* party apparatus at home lived on.

Today, instead, the party decides how many delegates each state can send to the convention.  A few of these delegates are "unpledged", can vote for who they want, and are usually current or former elected officials or high ranking party members.  Most of them are chosen in the primary election - when you vote in a primary, you are, in essence, voting to send a delegate from your candidate's *campaign* apparatus.  For these, there is no solid chain of loyalty to the party apparatus as a whole.  These pledged delegates must vote for their candidate in the first round.   If nobody wins that first round, they can vote for whoever they want.

And, of course, if the delegate's candidate doesn't win... well, that candidate is by no means guaranteed to be in a position to be a patron, or fulfill favors in the future.  The apparatus they are connected to will not live past the election.  There's no clear path of influence to the delegate at that point - the delegates are almost all free agents, and in order to influence them, the party apparatus would have to negotiate with them individually, which isn't tractable.


----------



## tuxgeo

Wikipedia says this about the history of primaries: "In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary, which requires delegates to the National Convention to support the winner of the primary at the convention."

Of course, it took a few decades for the idea to be adopted on a massive scale.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

We need to elect Lindsay Graham. That guy can change reality.
“The first thing I would do would be make adjustments to reality,” Senator Lindsey Graham said in response to a question about whether he would support immigration reform again."

Seriously awesome power for a U.S. President to have. 

On the other hand, Edward Snowden, I mean Carly Fiorina, seems like a good candidate. She helped the NSA after 9/11.


----------



## tuxgeo

No longer likely, as Lindsey Graham has now dropped out of the race. (link to Christian Science Monitor)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

While I don't particularly care for any of them, Graham's withdrawal now leaves just 2 GOP candidates in the field (of those who actually register on the national radar) I could vote for if Clinton doesn't get the Democrat's nod.

And neither of them are polling above 5%.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

tuxgeo said:


> No longer likely, as Lindsey Graham has now dropped out of the race. (link to Christian Science Monitor)




Pffftt... Shows what you know. Lindsey Graham is just waiting until after the election, so he can alter reality and become President like God intended.


----------



## tuxgeo

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While I don't particularly care for any of them, Graham's withdrawal now leaves just 2 GOP candidates in the field (of those who actually register on the national radar) I could vote for if Clinton doesn't get the Democrat's nod. . . .




None of the current candidates are very interesting to me. I consider Clinton to be inept and mendacious as a leader, Sanders to be out of touch with reality, and O'Malley to be "to whom morons rally, down here in the valley, before the first tally"; and on the Republican side, Cruz in conniving; J.E.B. is living on past glories and momentum; Kasich is more of a "Whodat?" candidate; and Fiorina is incisive but drowned out in the monotony of interrogation-style "debate"-after-"debate." 

Fools suggest we should draft the candidate we would like. I'm about ready to be such a fool. 

_Draft J.J. Abrams_ -- everybody likes him! Of course, he might re-use the old line, "If nominated I will not run and if elected I will not serve." 

I would suggest drafting Jimmy Buffet, 'cause he's popular; but Hemisphere Dancer has been retired and put into an amusement park. Besides, Jimmy's more musical than political.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Well, if I were to try to get a musician drafted to run for office, I can't think of a better one than Kinky Friedman.


----------



## MechaPilot

Well, if we're going with musicians, my vote would be for Ninja Brian from Ninja Sex Party, with Danny Sexbang as his VP.


----------



## Ryujin

What. no one would call up the ghost of Frank Zappa?


----------



## Rune

Nothing says "presidential musician" to me more than Bootsy Collins. He has years of experience in the Parliament, after all...


----------



## tuxgeo

New think-piece about the Republican primary as of today on CNBC. 

The upshot is the GOP now consists of three factions. Second paragraph: "_Contrary to media stereotyping, the GOP is indeed a big tent. It draws together three distinct views of America, public policy, and the role of government: 1) nationalist, 2) globalist, and 3) moralist. Each of these factions is conducting its own primary, with an aggregate effect that is confounding pundits and frustrating the establishment._"


----------



## Kramodlog

So, translated it means 1) white nationalists and nativists, 2) neocons and 3) Christian fundamentalists.


----------



## tuxgeo

I'm not sure _translating from English into English_ gains any clarity, or any additional credibility. . . .


----------



## Umbran

tuxgeo said:


> I'm not sure _translating from English into English_ gains any clarity, or any additional credibility. . . .




It is, however, a way to inject connotations the original author may not have meant!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

A nice piece exploring and expanding upon Pat Buchanan's analysis of Trump's success:
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/23/don...and_pat_buchanan_just_explained_how_it_works/


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

How Donald Trump destroyed the Republican Party in 2015
Okay, maybe not "destroyed," but at least helped push it over the edge. And he had help, so...


----------



## tuxgeo

According to USA Today, George Pataki has dropped out of the Republican presidential race.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

tuxgeo said:


> According to USA Today, George Pataki has dropped out of the Republican presidential race.




Only 3,999 more GOP candidates to go before Trump can be nominated as the republican Presidential candidate.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Ben Carson's campaign is imploding. His campaign manager and 20 staff members have fled the sinking ship that is the Carson campaign. Seems there's some in-fighting with some of the guys trying to run the campaign, and a lot of disagreement. I say he has less than a month before he calls it quits.


----------



## tuxgeo

If "less than a month" truly applies here, that means Carson will be gone before the New Hampshire Primary. 

Is Dr. Carson truly that cognizant of the futility of running for Politician when he has been a Physician for so long?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

tuxgeo said:


> Is Dr. Carson truly that cognizant of the futility of running for Politician when he has been a Physician for so long



I think his entire campaign has been based on not being cognizant of many things.


----------



## Kramodlog

Trump being the best at anything, he is now the best recruitment argument for Al Qaeda. http://gawker.com/donald-trump-featured-in-new-al-qaeda-afilliate-recruit-1750647895


----------



## Kramodlog

Trump's first TV ad. 







> That’s why he’s calling for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, until we can figure out what’s going on. He’ll quickly cut the head off ISIS and take their oil. And he’ll stop illegal immigration by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...3cceb8-b243-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html

Simple, clear, unrealistic, and what a lot of people want.


----------



## Istbor

I think we need a wall on the Canadian - American Border as well.  Once he makes the US of A great again, there is no telling how many will flock to the country.


----------



## Ryujin

Istbor said:


> I think we need a wall on the Canadian - American Border as well.  Once he makes the US of A great again, there is no telling how many will flock to the country.




As a Canadian, I agree with this sentiment


----------



## Ovinomancer

Istbor said:


> I think we need a wall on the Canadian - American Border as well.  Once he makes the US of A great again, there is no telling how many will flock to the country.



Duh, Canadians aren't brown.


----------



## Kramodlog

Correct. Molson Canadian turns you green.


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> Correct. Molson Canadian turns you green.




Well, past a certain point.........


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Looks as if Trump may not be welcomed into the U.K later this month. Too bad we can deport him from the U.S.


----------



## Istbor

He is going to do so well in foreign relations once he is elected!  Let us ALL get banned from the U.K. if it should happen.  Solidarity!


----------



## Kramodlog

[stereotype] A nice way to dodge the cooking. [/stereotype]


----------



## Kramodlog

I'll miss you thread. You had so much potential, like Trump.

*hugs and licks thread*


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Looks as if Trump may not be welcomed into the U.K later this month. Too bad we can deport him from the U.S.




The U.K. apparently hates free speech.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The UK has no problem with free speech.  They have a problem with any political personages whose speech they deem detrimental to international relations between their country and ____________.  That's one way diplomats get ejected.

Trump, as a candidate for the highest political office in the UKs most important ally, has proven himself to be someone they don't feel comfortable talking to in a political dialog.  So they're keeping him out.

A subtle message from them to us.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The UK has no problem with free speech.  They have a problem with any political personages whose speech they deem detrimental to international relations between their country and ____________.  That's one way diplomats get ejected.
> 
> Trump, as a candidate for the highest political office in the UKs most important ally, has proven himself to be someone they don't feel comfortable talking to in a political dialog.  So they're keeping him out.
> 
> A subtle message from them to us.




And it's a message that they'd eat with some tea if he got elected.  I doubt they would alienate the U.S. over it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Don't count out the resolve behind diplomatic resolutions.  See the cycle of hot & cold US-Israeli relations.

And politically, I don't think the UK would be alone if they did bar him.  Prominent, powerful people in Australia, Canada, France, South Africa, Korea, Germany, Thailand, etc., are reacting with a range of emotions from concern to horror regarding Trump as POTUS.  I don't blame them.

One of the functions of the POTUS is "Diplomat in Chief", and Trump is about as incapable of diplomacy as any would-be politician I've seen.  And I live in Texas, where we occasionally have politicians advise women to "lie back and enjoy" rape.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Don't count out the resolve behind diplomatic resolutions.  See the cycle of hot & cold US-Israeli relations.




US-Israel is a different dynamic than US-England.  England won't alienate the US over Trump.



> And politically, I don't think the UK would be alone if they did bar him.  Prominent, powerful people in Australia, Canada, France, South Africa, Korea, Germany, Thailand, etc., are reacting with a range of emotions from concern to horror regarding Trump as POTUS.  I don't blame them.
> 
> One of the functions of the POTUS is "Diplomat in Chief", and Trump is about as incapable of diplomacy as any would-be politician I've seen.  And I live in Texas, where we occasionally have politicians advise women to "lie back and enjoy" rape.




For sure.  Trump would make us the laughing stock of the world, but that's about all the damage he can do.  He'd be impotent as President because Congress wouldn't work with him.

I'd vote for him before I'd vote for Hillary, though.  I'd rather have a impotent laughing stock President than one that can and will do true damage to the country.  Personally, I rather like O'Malley.  He's the only one on either side of the isle that I'd even consider voting for.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> US-Israel is a different dynamic than US-England.  England won't alienate the US over Trump.




Don't bet on it. They'd be OK with letting things cool down a term because relations would probably bounce back with any responsible president.


----------



## tuxgeo

. . . and I think any responsible president should, at some point, humbly request that the UK re-donate to us that sculpture of Winston Churchill that Obama sent back across the pond. (Winnie was a true statesman.) 

Would _The Donald_ think to do that? I have my doubts.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> Personally, I rather like O'Malley.  He's the only one on either side of the isle that I'd even consider voting for.



Yeah, good luck with that guy even being on the ballot.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yeah, good luck with that guy even being on the ballot.




I agree.  It's a shame that we get only people who would be horrible Presidents to choose from.  16 years of the worst Presidents in US history and it looks like we're going to have 4-8 more with Hillary.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> US-Israel is a different dynamic than US-England.  England won't alienate the US over Trump.




The US president typically only goes to the UK a couple times each term anyway.  We might question whether they'd actually be losing anything by keeping him out.

Moreover, would Trump push his luck?  What if he tried, and they *did* stick by their guns?  How *embarassing* would that be?


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> The US president typically only goes to the UK a couple times each term anyway.  We might question whether they'd actually be losing anything by keeping him out.




Of course they would.  They would anger the US.  I don't often go to Victoria Secret, but if I was told never to come back I would be upset with them.  



> Moreover, would Trump push his luck?  What if he tried, and they *did* stick by their guns?  How *embarassing* would that be?



He never has to try.  Just them saying that the President of the US is not welcome there is enough.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Of course they would.  They would anger the US.  I don't often go to Victoria Secret, but if I was told never to come back I would be upset with them.




Yes, but would the rest of your extended family really care?

Cheesing off Trump, himself, is just cheesing off Trump.  They wouldn't be cheesing off Democrats at all.  They wouldn't be cheesing off establishment GOP, who don't like Trump.  Some significant number of folks are going to be voting for him just because they don't like Hillary (or Bernie, whoever of them gets the nomination) - and even those people aren't likely cheesed off, as they view Trump as the lesser of evils.  

So, I don't know how much real alienation would occur.



> He never has to try.  Just them saying that the President of the US is not welcome there is enough.




They probably don't say so until he tries, though.  It isn't like, just after our election day, the Prime Minister will have a press conference saying, "By the way, he's not welcome here!"


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> I agree.  It's a shame that we get only people who would be horrible Presidents to choose from.  16 years of the worst Presidents in US history and it looks like we're going to have 4-8 more with Hillary.



Regardless of what you think of Presidents Bush and Obama, and Hillary Clinton, at least they were competent enough to get on the ballot. O'Malley on the other hand? Yeah, not even that.


----------



## Istbor

It is a shame that what we may have to look forward to with the coming election is the 'lesser' of two evils. Whether or not you believe Hillary and Trump are terrible choices, the mere fact that it is on many American's minds is disheartening. 

Up shot, if Trump wins, can we change our National bird to that abomination that is called Trump's hair?  The little boy inside me would like that very much.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The UK has no problem with free speech.  They have a problem with any political personages whose speech they deem detrimental to international relations between their country and ____________.  That's one way diplomats get ejected.
> 
> Trump, as a candidate for the highest political office in the UKs most important ally, has proven himself to be someone they don't feel comfortable talking to in a political dialog.  So they're keeping him out.
> 
> A subtle message from them to us.




No, that's still a problem with free speech.  It's clearly saying 'we don't like what you say, so we, as the government, are going to take action to prevent you from saying it here.'  That's textbook censorship.

Now, you may think it's justified, and that's fine, doesn't change it.  Also, the UK really doesn't have very strong free speech protections (they have protections, just not strong ones like the US), so this isn't a legal issue for them at all.  Given the scope of denying foreigners admission, the US doesn't have much of a problem legally with similar actions either (we forbid people from entering on much flimsier rationals than just what they've said).  But it's still not in the spirit of free speech to censor someone based on what they say.


----------



## delericho

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Looks as if Trump may not be welcomed into the U.K later this month. Too bad we can deport him from the U.S.




There is no chance whatsoever of the UK government deciding to ban him. They'll discuss it, because the sheer number of signatures on that petition pretty much requires that they do so, and then they'll decide not to take any action.

Because, quite simply, the UK cannot have a ban in place that prevents a visit from the head of state of our most powerful ally. Which means that if we _did_ ban DT and he did become President, our government would then enjoy the high-profile humiliation of rescinding that high-profile ban.

So as long as there remains any chance of DT becoming Pres, he's not getting banned.

Though it will be fun seeing which of our politicians says the stupidest thing in the debate.


----------



## delericho

Ovinomancer said:


> No, that's still a problem with free speech.




Eh, nobody allows completely free speech.

It's just somewhat ironic that laws intended to block extremist hate-preachers have been phrased in such a way as to apply (technically) to DT also.

Though as I said, while our government are going to debate banning him, there's no chance of them _actually_ doing so. And I presume you don't have a problem with them talking about it?


----------



## Istbor

You have this voting American's permission to ban him, should the need arise. You can even stick to your guns and keep the ban if he is President.  We'll likely be too embarrassed to take extra insult.


----------



## Ovinomancer

delericho said:


> Eh, nobody allows completely free speech.
> 
> It's just somewhat ironic that laws intended to block extremist hate-preachers have been phrased in such a way as to apply (technically) to DT also.
> 
> Though as I said, while our government are going to debate banning him, there's no chance of them _actually_ doing so. And I presume you don't have a problem with them talking about it?



Have I said anything that would imply otherwise?  I thought I was talking about it myself.  Now I have questions!


----------



## delericho

Ovinomancer said:


> Have I said anything that would imply otherwise?  I thought I was talking about it myself.




Well, you did say, "No, that's still a problem with free speech." Does it count as a problem with free speech if we're _talking about, but haven't yet_ chosen to censor him?

Now, if they're mad enough to actually ban him, that's another thing. But we're not there yet.


----------



## Ovinomancer

delericho said:


> Well, you did say, "No, that's still a problem with free speech." Does it count as a problem with free speech if we're _talking about, but haven't yet_ chosen to censor him?
> 
> Now, if they're mad enough to actually ban him, that's another thing. But we're not there yet.




I dunno, does talking about killing someone count as a a discussion of murder?  I didn't think what I said was overly contentious, but apparently it is?

Look, if there can be a legit legal discussion about censoring someone, then there's a free speech issue -- it's legal to censor.  That doesn't mean it's wrong, or that you should still talk about it.  Free speech is an ideal state, one not ideally met anywhere (sometimes even for good reasons).  Noting that a discussion of censoring still involves the concepts of free speech does not, in any way, restrict or condemn the discussion.  It just says, 'no, it does involve free speech, because it's specifically about censoring people.'  I don't get how that implies that you can't still talk about censoring people (for or against).  Maybe I'm missing something?


----------



## Mallus

I'm an old (well, sort of), card-carrying East Coast liberal, and I don't like the talk of banning Trump from the UK. Then again, I don't have a problem with Trump saying what he says. Free speech means very little if it only applies to speech I like.  

My issue is with the people listening to him and _agreeing_. That's an embarrassment to the nation.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Mallus said:


> I'm an old (well, sort of), card-carrying East Coast liberal, and I don't like the talk of banning Trump from the UK. Then again, I don't have a problem with Trump saying that he says. Free speech means very little if it only applies to speech I agree with.
> 
> My issue is with the people listening to him and _agreeing_. That's an embarrassment to the nation.




I'm not an old, card-carrying East Cost liberal, but I still agree with you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

delericho said:


> Eh, nobody allows completely free speech.




Exactly.  Even in the USA, no right- even that of free speech- is absolute.  They all have limitations.

Hate speech, incitement to cause a breach of the peace, libel, and several other forms of speech can land you in jail or cost you tons in civil penalties.  In some cases, how free you are to speak depends on who you or where you are, or when you are speaking.

And here's the thing: "free speech" does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.

To put it in the context of the UK's prospective ban on Trump: they are not contemplating banning him for what he might say, they are considering banning him because what he already has.


----------



## Kramodlog

Trump supporters aren't uniformed, they are misinformed and thus behave differently. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...o-be-misinformed-not-uninformed/?ex_cid=538fb


----------



## delericho

Ovinomancer said:


> I dunno, does talking about killing someone count as a a discussion of murder?  I didn't think what I said was overly contentious, but apparently it is?




I don't think it's hugely contentious, but the sub-thread about the UK maybe having a problem with freedom of speech (which, it's true, was started by Maxperson, but which was continued by you) jumped the gun a little - since we're still only at the "talking about a ban" stage, it's too soon to declare that we have a problem.


----------



## delericho

Mallus said:


> I'm an old (well, sort of), card-carrying East Coast liberal, and I don't like the talk of banning Trump from the UK.




I agree. I'm generally of the position that I may not like what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it. And also the position that the correct response to someone saying something stupid is mockery, not censorship.


----------



## Ryujin

Any nation has an absolute right to ban entry from a non citizen, for any reason or none at all. If a person gives ample reason for such a denial by, say, engaging in what that country considers to be hate speech, it's hardly a surprise that they might FORMALLY address the concept of denying entry to that person. Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who was involved in well publicized burning of the Quran, was barred from entering Canada. Roosh V, a self proclaimed "pick up artist" who had planned to hold 'classes' in Canada and has made statements like 'rape shouldn't be illegal on private property' was barred entry. 

But, as I also said, you can be barred entry for no reason at all. A foreign national has no explicit nor implied right to enter another sovereign nation. Trump could be denied entry to the UK because border services agents are afraid of his hair.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

delericho said:


> There is no chance whatsoever of the UK government deciding to ban him. They'll discuss it, because the sheer number of signatures on that petition pretty much requires that they do so, and then they'll decide not to take any action.
> 
> Because, quite simply, the UK cannot have a ban in place that prevents a visit from the head of state of our most powerful ally. Which means that if we _did_ ban DT and he did become President, our government would then enjoy the high-profile humiliation of rescinding that high-profile ban.
> 
> So as long as there remains any chance of DT becoming Pres, he's not getting banned.
> 
> Though it will be fun seeing which of our politicians says the stupidest thing in the debate.



Are they planning on permanently banning him? I thought it was just to prevent his January 18 visit. He wouldn't be the President by then, so it shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Ovinomancer

delericho said:


> I don't think it's hugely contentious, but the sub-thread about the UK maybe having a problem with freedom of speech (which, it's true, was started by Maxperson, but which was continued by you) jumped the gun a little - since we're still only at the "talking about a ban" stage, it's too soon to declare that we have a problem.




I think considering censoring someone clearly touches on free speech.  And, since it's an issue that needs to be resolves (whether or not to censor Trump), and that's what problem means, then it's pretty clearly a free speech problem.  That was the entire intent and extent of my post.  And yet I've spent, what, three more posts in clarifying that I wasn't telling anyone they couldn't or shouldn't talk about it (which does have some amusingly ironic undertones in and of itself). 

 How many times do I have to clearly state that my post wasn't intended to restrict or constrain discussion in any way, but to merely counter the statement that consideration of censoring isn't a free speech problem (it clearly is, after all, it's talking about whether or not censoring is a good thing in context)?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ryujin said:


> Any nation has an absolute right to ban entry from a non citizen, for any reason or none at all. If a person gives ample reason for such a denial by, say, engaging in what that country considers to be hate speech, it's hardly a surprise that they might FORMALLY address the concept of denying entry to that person. Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who was involved in well publicized burning of the Quran, was barred from entering Canada. Roosh V, a self proclaimed "pick up artist" who had planned to hold 'classes' in Canada and has made statements like 'rape shouldn't be illegal on private property' was barred entry.
> 
> But, as I also said, you can be barred entry for no reason at all. A foreign national has no explicit nor implied right to enter another sovereign nation. Trump could be denied entry to the UK because border services agents are afraid of his hair.




Yup.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ovinomancer said:


> I think considering censoring someone clearly touches on free speech.




He's not being censored- his words are still out there to be heard by one and all...even in the UK.  He is potentially being punished for saying those words.

Those are not the same thing.  Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of freedom from the consequences from speaking freely.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> He's not being censored- his words are still out there to be heard by one and all...even in the UK.  He is potentially being punished for saying those words.



Yes, it is censorship.  They would refuse to allow him to enter the country and speak based on what he has said and intends to say.  That's pretty clearly censorship.  You yourself admit it in that last sentence:  he's potentially being punished _by government_ for saying those words.  That's censorship.  "You can't say that or we'll punish you."  Actually, that's censorship regardless of if the government's the actor or not, it's just not legally censorship unless it's the government.

Now, that said, that may be no big thing.  I happen to think it is, mainly because I'm vehemently against hate speech laws, but you can disagree.  And the UK is free to interpret it's laws however it wants to, up to and including censoring people.



> Those are not the same thing.  Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of freedom from the consequences from speaking freely.



Oh, good grief.  Of course it's not a guarantee of freedom from the consequences of speaking freely.  No one said it was.  It is, however, a guarantee of freedom from government caused consequences of speaking freely.  If the people of the UK want to show up and shout down Trump wherever he goes, or say mean things about him, or call their American friends and ask them to not vote for the blowhard, they can do that and those would be Trump receiving the consequences of his free speech.  If the government acts to prevent or punish his speech, even and including prohibiting him entry based on his speech, that's censorship and free speech is supposed to protect you from that.


----------



## Istbor

Dannyalcatraz said:


> He's not being censored- his words are still out there to be heard by one and all...even in the UK.  He is potentially being punished for saying those words.
> 
> Those are not the same thing.  Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of freedom from the consequences from speaking freely.




I have to agree. It isn't like they are bringing him in with the intention of cutting out anything they don't like hearing. He is free to speak as much as he likes, about whatever he likes, just not allowed to go to the UK.

Plus, it's their country, US notions of free speech don't necessarily have the same meaning outside of the US.


----------



## Morlock

> No, that's still a problem with free speech. It's clearly saying 'we don't like what you say, so we, as the government, are going to take action to prevent you from saying it here.' That's textbook censorship.
> 
> Now, you may think it's justified, and that's fine, doesn't change it. Also, the UK really doesn't have very strong free speech protections (they have protections, just not strong ones like the US), so this isn't a legal issue for them at all. Given the scope of denying foreigners admission, the US doesn't have much of a problem legally with similar actions either (we forbid people from entering on much flimsier rationals than just what they've said). But it's still not in the spirit of free speech to censor someone based on what they say.




UK's not really big on freedom. They do have us beat in the aggressive free press department, though. They put our leftist corporate media to shame.



> Eh, nobody allows completely free speech.




Don't worry, nobody would ever mistake the UK for a country that does.


----------



## delericho

Ovinomancer said:


> How many times do I have to clearly state that my post wasn't intended to restrict or constrain discussion in any way, but to merely counter the statement that consideration of censoring isn't a free speech problem (it clearly is, after all, it's talking about whether or not censoring is a good thing in context)?




Once more?

Nah, I kid - I think we're in a circle of constantly clarifying positions that we each understand.


----------



## Umbran

Istbor said:


> Plus, it's their country, US notions of free speech don't necessarily have the same meaning outside of the US.




More accurately, our notions of free speech don't have the same applicability outside the US.  Our First Amendment simply does not apply to the action of another government within its own borders.

But, I'll disagree with Danny - it is a form of censorship.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Yes, it is censorship.




No, it most certainly isn't.

He is free to have his message broadcast into the UK.  He can buy space in the local press or time on the television or radio.  His Internet presence is not being curtailed in the UK, so all his words may be freely disseminated via his website, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

His message can be spread by proxies.

His message is free to enter the UK.  His physical presence may not be.



> It is, however, a guarantee of freedom from government caused consequences of speaking freely...




No it isn't.  There are all kinds of government caused consequences to speech- being arrested and doing time for incitement to violence/breach of peace is but one.

Being barred from entry or being deported is also a potential consequence.  German Ernst Zündel was deported from the USA- and later, from Canada- at least in part due to his Neo-Nazi hate speech.  (Some of what he said was deemed to be incitement.)


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, it most certainly isn't.
> 
> He is free to have his message broadcast into the UK.  He can buy space in the local press or time on the television or radio.  His Internet presence is not being curtailed in the UK, so all his words may be freely disseminated via his website, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
> 
> His message can be spread by proxies.
> 
> His message is free to enter the UK.  His physical presence may not be.



Restricting a venue is still censorship.

For instance, banning content from broadcast TV while saying that you can still get it on DVD is censorship.  It removes your access to venues.



> No it isn't.  There are all kinds of government caused consequences to speech- being arrested and doing time for incitement to violence/breach of peace is but one.



Generally it's actions coupled with speech, but, yes, you're right, the government goes punish that.  It's still censorship, though, even if it's legalized censorship.  I've never claimed that any censorship is always bad -- in fact I've pointed out that there's no such thing as absolute free speech anywhere.


> Being barred from entry or being deported is also a potential consequence.  German Ernst Zündel was deported from the USA- and later, from Canada- at least in part due to his Neo-Nazi hate speech.  (Some of what he said was deemed to be incitement.)



Yep, and that was censorship.  This isn't a value call, it's naming something what it is.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, it most certainly isn't.




I have to disagree, Danny. I'll give a somewhat extreme (but *not* hypothetical) example to illustrate the point...

My family has friends (who have since passed away) who, back in the days of the Soviet Union, were sent to gulags for speaking out.  By their accounts, out in Siberia, the guards really couldn't care what they said anymore... so, their actual speech wasn't restricted, was it?  They could speak all they want!  This, of course, is nonsense - sending them to a gulag for speaking out was assuredly censorship.

In terms of raw logic, the only real difference is the area.  Trump is banned from England, and can move about and speak wherever he wants otherwise.  The area my family friends were banned form was... everything not in the gulag.  How large does the area need to be before we figure it isn't censorship?

Note, "Trump can be broadcast" is an effect of his privileged position.  It doesn't apply to most people.  Are you going to argue that what counts as censorship be defined relative to what the subject can manage to work around by dint of his or her personal power?


----------



## Janx

Umbran said:


> I have to disagree, Danny. I'll give a somewhat extreme (but *not* hypothetical) example to illustrate the point...
> 
> My family has friends (who have since passed away) who, back in the days of the Soviet Union, were sent to gulags for speaking out.  By their accounts, out in Siberia, the guards really couldn't care what they said anymore... so, their actual speech wasn't restricted, was it?  They could speak all they want!  This, of course, is nonsense - sending them to a gulag for speaking out was assuredly censorship.
> 
> In terms of raw logic, the only real difference is the area.  Trump is banned from England, and can move about and speak wherever he wants otherwise.  The area my family friends were banned form was... everything not in the gulag.  How large does the area need to be before we figure it isn't censorship?
> 
> Note, "Trump can be broadcast" is an effect of his privileged position.  It doesn't apply to most people.  Are you going to argue that what counts as censorship be defined relative to what the subject can manage to work around by dint of his or her personal power?




I dunno.  What happened to your family is terrible.  It's censorship and more wrongity wrongness.

That does not mean Trump's new blacklisting is anywhere near the same thing.  That'd be like using a Holocaust example on something far less than 6 million people being killed.

Umbran's family lost the right to speak in their own country and were imprisoned in their own country for what they said.  This was done to them by their own leaders.

Trump has lost the right to visit a country he is not from.  He still has freedom of movement and speech in his own country.

Another country has the right to choose not to listen or accept a non-citizen.  That right trumps his "freedom of speech" because it is their country, not his.  As they say, your rights end where mine begin.  At the Nation level, that's the border.

The decision to block a foreigner like that might not be a good one, but it's not the same as a country blocking its own people.  It's a different sin.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ovinomancer said:


> No, that's still a problem with free speech.  It's clearly saying 'we don't like what you say, so we, as the government, are going to take action to prevent you from saying it here.'  That's textbook censorship.




I'm not sure why you condamn censorship as you're ok with it when it hurts people's feelings, like on EW. Trump was a steamroller that hurt many feelings.


----------



## Umbran

Janx said:


> I dunno.  What happened to your family is terrible.




I was not related to anyone in the gulags, thank goodness.  My grandfather that was at risk took flight to America before the Soviets got him...

To imagine that a man could be thrown in jail for being a Boy Scout leader.  Sheesh.



> That does not mean Trump's new blacklisting is anywhere near the same thing.  That'd be like using a Holocaust example on something far less than 6 million people being killed.




Well, I'm not saying that the two are equivalent.  I'm just noting the *logic*.  Government restriction due to what you say is censorship.  What my family friends went through was *worse* censorship (and more), but they're both still censorship.



> Umbran's family lost the right to speak in their own country and were imprisoned in their own country for what they said.  This was done to them by their own leaders.




Well, actually, if you asked them they'd have said they what was done to them was by a foreign power - they did not recognize the authority of the Soviet government (which didn't give the country much choice when it decided a mutual protection treaty meant, "we move in and never leave").  That lack of recognition is what was getting them thrown in the gulag


----------



## Ryujin

On a similar note, because of my age I went to school with a fair number of Czechoslovakian kids whose families had fled ahead of the tanks and eventually found homes in the Toronto area. A former employer did the same and a now deceased friend went back to the Czech Republic, perhaps 10 years ago, to try and reacquire his family's former factories, and homes.


----------



## amerigoV

Figure I would get this in before the axe


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Censorship is the government exercising control over the _content_ of speech- either by modifying or eliminating said content.  There are currently a small set of offenses that one could loosely call censorship that are criminally and/or civilly actionable, or are otherwise not protected: incitement, obscenity, child pornography, false statements of fact, "fighting words", unauthorized use of speech owned by others, speech under certain special circumstances (gov't as employer, regulator, educator, jailer, controller of military) and a few others.  Fall into one of those categories, and you'll find your liberty limited.

But again, Trump's messages- his speech- are not being prevented from being disseminated.  The only thing that may happen is that he may be denied personal entry into the UK.  It may seem a fine distinction, but it is perfectly legal.  To be perfectly clear: denying his entry into the country _does not meet the legal definition of censorship._  (FWIW, we could do likewise to an immigrant under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and others.)

The situation faced by the people in gulags is distinguishable: by controlling the persons, the Soviet government also controlled dissemination of their ability to communicate.  Where they were jailed effectively silenced & deafened them.  That is identical to what happens to prisoners in the USA- their mail is searched and edited, their access to the outside world is curtailed to monitored phone calls and- for some- Internet access.  None are allowed cell phones, which are contraband in EVERY jail in the US.    The government controls every inmate's ability to speak and to hear speech, by time, place, content and method.  Settled law: 100% legal.

Trump, in contrast, is not being threatened with anything beyond being divested of personal entry to the UK.  The interference with his speech is de minimis- the only thing he won't be able to do is tell people what he thinks in person.  His Twitter account, his Facebook page, his campaign's website- every outlet available EXCEPT in-person communication is open to him, and no one has suggested (AFAIK) that those outlets be edited or blocked within the UK.  And most of the outlets in question are unconnected to his wealth- any of us may have a Facebook or Twitter account, and websites can be erected by anyone for pocket change.  

His wealth DOES mean he might have outlets most wouldn't- like TV/radio spots, targeted mailing of flyers, postcards and letters, ads in papers & magazines.  And if the government edited THOSE, then the might be a case for cries of censorship.  But, again AFAIK, nobody has proposed restricting his access to paid outlets for disseminating his message.


----------



## Cor Azer

Is not a common refrain: you may say what you like, but I don't have to give you the soapbox


----------



## Ovinomancer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Censorship is the government exercising control over the _content_ of speech- either by modifying or eliminating said content.  There are currently a small set of offenses that one could loosely call censorship that are criminally and/or civilly actionable, or are otherwise not protected: incitement, obscenity, child pornography, false statements of fact, "fighting words", unauthorized use of speech owned by others, speech under certain special circumstances (gov't as employer, regulator, educator, jailer, controller of military) and a few others.  Fall into one of those categories, and you'll find your liberty limited.
> 
> But again, Trump's messages- his speech- are not being prevented from being disseminated.  The only thing that may happen is that he may be denied personal entry into the UK.  It may seem a fine distinction, but it is perfectly legal.  To be perfectly clear: denying his entry into the country _does not meet the legal definition of censorship._  (FWIW, we could do likewise to an immigrant under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and others.)
> 
> The situation faced by the people in gulags is distinguishable: by controlling the persons, the Soviet government also controlled dissemination of their ability to communicate.  Where they were jailed effectively silenced & deafened them.  That is identical to what happens to prisoners in the USA- their mail is searched and edited, their access to the outside world is curtailed to monitored phone calls and- for some- Internet access.  None are allowed cell phones, which are contraband in EVERY jail in the US.    The government controls every inmate's ability to speak and to hear speech, by time, place, content and method.  Settled law: 100% legal.
> 
> Trump, in contrast, is not being threatened with anything beyond being divested of personal entry to the UK.  The interference with his speech is de minimis- the only thing he won't be able to do is tell people what he thinks in person.  His Twitter account, his Facebook page, his campaign's website- every outlet available EXCEPT in-person communication is open to him, and no one has suggested (AFAIK) that those outlets be edited or blocked within the UK.  And most of the outlets in question are unconnected to his wealth- any of us may have a Facebook or Twitter account, and websites can be erected by anyone for pocket change.
> 
> His wealth DOES mean he might have outlets most wouldn't- like TV/radio spots, targeted mailing of flyers, postcards and letters, ads in papers & magazines.  And if the government edited THOSE, then the might be a case for cries of censorship.  But, again AFAIK, nobody has proposed restricting his access to paid outlets for disseminating his message.



No one's claimed it's not legal.  I've said it's perfectly legal a number of times.  It is, however, censorship.  If you forbid a venue based on the content of the speech, it's censorship.  It doesn't matter a lick if there are other venues.  This is like saying that you can ban Coke because there's milk, and they're both drinks so it's not like you're having anything taken from you -- you can still drink, right?

You're making a few of the classic censor's arguments -- it's not that bad, it's only one venue, it doesn't really hurt him.  The thing is, it's still censorship.



Cor Azer said:


> Is not a common refrain: you may say what you like, but I don't have to give you the soapbox



Darn tootin'.  But you can't take the soapbox away, either.

E2A:  What I mean is that no one is required to assist you in getting out your speech.  No one has to offer to print you, for instance.  You have no right to make others listen or spread your message.  That's not censorship.  

However, if you take action to prevent the message or restrict the venue for that message, that's censorship.  There are cases where it's deemed appropriate, and cases where it's not, and, sometimes, cases where it's unclear.  But it's all still censorship.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Trump, in contrast, is not being threatened with anything beyond being divested of personal entry to the UK.  The interference with his speech is de minimis- the only thing he won't be able to do is tell people what he thinks in person.  His Twitter account, his Facebook page, his campaign's website- every outlet available EXCEPT in-person communication is open to him, and no one has suggested (AFAIK) that those outlets be edited or blocked within the UK.  And most of the outlets in question are unconnected to his wealth- any of us may have a Facebook or Twitter account, and websites can be erected by anyone for pocket change.




Oh, please Danny, don't pretend that Trump is not a special case in his ability to get his message heard.  It may be "de minimis" for Trump, but wouldn't be for most people.  So, I ask again, is the question of whether a thing effectively censorship to be determined by one's personal ability to work around the measure?

(Just in case any of you ever thougth that Danny and I didn't disagree on things)


----------



## Ovinomancer

Umbran said:


> Oh, please Danny, don't pretend that Trump is not a special case in his ability to get his message heard.  It may be "de minimis" for Trump, but wouldn't be for most people.  So, I ask again, is the question of whether a thing effectively censorship to be determined by one's personal ability to work around the measure?
> 
> (Just in case any of you ever thougth that Danny and I didn't disagree on things)




It's probably less actual disagreeing with you rather than resistance to agreeing with me.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> I agree.  It's a shame that we get only people who would be horrible Presidents to choose from.  16 years of the worst Presidents in US history and it looks like we're going to have 4-8 more with Hillary.




Meh, it's hard to do worse than Buchanan.  When several states actually secede from the union under your watch, that's pretty bad.

Also, it might help us have better presidential governance if we didn't arbitrarily declare that the people who are good at the job can't keep doing it simply because they've already done it twice.  I mean, you don't need the two term limit to get rid of bad presidents: an election should do that (provided his/her opponent isn't worse) and we have those every four years.  The two term limit really just prevents good presidents from being able to continue to serve.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ovinomancer said:


> No one's claimed it's not legal.  I've said it's perfectly legal a number of times.  It is, however, censorship.



Nope, not in the eyes of the law.



Ovinomancer said:


> If you forbid a venue based on the content of the speech, it's censorship.  It doesn't matter a lick if there are other venues.  This is like saying that you can ban Coke because there's milk, and they're both drinks so it's not like you're having anything taken from you -- you can still drink, right?



And 



Umbran said:


> Oh, please Danny, don't pretend that Trump is not a special case in his ability to get his message heard.  It may be "de minimis" for Trump, but wouldn't be for most people.  So, I ask again, is the question of whether a thing effectively censorship to be determined by one's personal ability to work around the measure?




It is well established law that reasonable time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions are legal, but they have boundaries.  The oft cited illegality of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is one obvious example.

Several SCOTUS cases have held that no one may "insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech" (Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453, 13 L. Ed. 2d 471 [1965])

Outside of situations like that, the standard usually applied is that the government may impose reasonable TPM restrictions on speech only by showing "significant" or "important" reasons.

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions


> All TPM restrictions must provide speakers with alternative channels for communicating ideas or disseminating information. Unlike millionaire moguls and corporate giants, the average person on the street does not commonly communicate through the mass media. Most people do not hold press conferences, and if they did, few members of the media would attend. Instead, the great bulk of communication takes place through the circulation of leaflets, hand-bills, and pamphlets, which most people can distribute and read in a cheap and efficient manner. As a result, courts are generally sensitive to protecting these modes of communication, and TPM restrictions limiting their distribution usually founder.
> 
> The Internet, however, has fast become an easy alternative for mass distributing information. As such, it is often difficult to apply TPM restrictions. For example, politicians use bulk E-Mail as a quick way to reach thousands, even millions, of their constituents. Called "political spam," this method of campaigning has both advocates and detractors. Opponents claim that unsolicited political e-mails are an invasion of privacy. As precedence, they point to the Eighth Circuit ruling in Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541 (1995), which upheld a Minnesota state law prohibiting candidates from using a device that automatically dialed residential telephone numbers and played a prerecorded political campaign message. According to the court, "the telephone system is a private channel of communication," and the Minnesota law rightfully placed restrictions on time, manner, and place of speech.




As you rightly point out- and I expressly stated- Trump has more means to get his message out than Joe Citizen.  But as the above quoted section illustrates,

1) the existence of alternative channels for the speaker's message is part of the legal test for whether a restriction will be upheld, and

2) the rise of low-cost Internet communications has made TPM restrictions de minimis for most speakers.  Trump and those like him may indeed have access to paid media that 99.99% of people can't touch, but- like the leaflets, hand-bills, and pamphlets- Facebook, Twitter, etc. provide a worldwide audience, and will likewise be protected in the same manner by the courts.  (As noted, there have been ZERO discussions about restricting Britons' access to Trump's online resources, merely restricting their ability to bask in his presence.)

Despite our lack of financial resources (compared to a billionaire), if you or I were scheduled to give a talk in the UK, but, Trumpishly, were barred physical entry (and nothing else) to the country, odds are good that the talk's potential addressees could still receive my message via online postings (Facebook and other social media), or even via the relatively ancient method of giving my email address to the disappointed attendees...or vice versa for a mass mailing.  The talk could be posted entirely on YouTube.  The hosts could set up a Skype appearance, which would even allow for audience Q & A.

You haven't been censored: your message is still intact, it still reaches its intended audience- depending on method used- on time or even earlier.

The only difference is you aren't in the country.





(FWIW, Umbran, you know that I'm really sticking to the legal definitions of censorship.  What I'm experiencing in pushback is, I think, akin to what happens when you tell someone what they're calling a star is actually a galaxy...and they say, "No, it's a star.")


----------

