Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8072
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:02 pm UTC

Not at all unique for immigrants except now these people who tried to find a legal way to stay here and have pledged an oath to a foreign military are asked to return to their authoritarian regimes with this information available on them.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10842
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:05 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Not at all unique for immigrants except now these people who tried to find a legal way to stay here and have pledged an oath to a foreign military are asked to return to their authoritarian regimes with this information available on them.


This isn't the kind of discharge that gets you deported. It doesn't really matter from a deportation status.

The military ought not be responsible for fixing the immigration system.

gd1
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:27 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gd1 wrote:So, if China pulls all treasury stock, and the us decides not to pay, will all countries decide never to invest with the us again? Or just while Trump is in office? Or until we pay it back? What would the economic effects of that be?


If China sells US bonds, then someone will buy them. It should be noted that it does not actually have to be the US government. So, it doesn't really matter if "the US decides not to pay", because the US government doesn't control the whole bond market. It'd affect the market some, sure, any big transactions would...but China doesn't really own that much of the debt. Less than half of the debt is owned by foreigners at all, and China only has about 12% of the total. Japan holds almost as much as China, but for some reason, people seem a lot less concerned about Japan. There was a recent wave of large treasury offerings that barely caused a ripple in the market, so even fairly large sales from China might be surprisingly easy to weather.

So, then China gets to consider where to park it's funds. The US is pretty much tops in terms of reliability, liquidity, etc. Even the "no longer triple A" thing didn't actually matter much in practice, and was ultimately little more than a protest. People still wanted US bonds.

It's not nearly as scary a threat as people are crediting it.


I mean if the US says all those bonds are invalid. What would happen then?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10842
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:36 pm UTC

Those particular bonds?

I'm not sure that's even possible. You would need to know every(or at least a lot) of the specific bonds that China owns right now. Given that the market is liquid, that's an extremely difficult task.

It'd be akin to declaring every dollar held by a Texan to be worthless. How on earth would you track that, or enforce it, while treating all other dollars as valid?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6175
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:38 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Zohar wrote:Not at all unique for immigrants except now these people who tried to find a legal way to stay here and have pledged an oath to a foreign military are asked to return to their authoritarian regimes with this information available on them.


This isn't the kind of discharge that gets you deported. It doesn't really matter from a deportation status.

The military ought not be responsible for fixing the immigration system.
In a statement, the Defense Department said: "All service members (i.e. contracted recruits, active duty, Guard and Reserve) and those with an honorable discharge are protected from deportation."

However, immigration attorneys told the AP that many immigrants let go in recent weeks were an "uncharacterized discharge," neither dishonorable nor honorable.

Wrong. You should know better than that. the government is really exacting about what counts as a good discharge.
You're hurting your libertarian cred here if you think the army, much less a hypothetical anti immigrant administration, is going to do these people right.

Tldr do you trust the government's story? If yes, it'll be fine. If not, lots of these people are fucked.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10842
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:44 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Zohar wrote:Not at all unique for immigrants except now these people who tried to find a legal way to stay here and have pledged an oath to a foreign military are asked to return to their authoritarian regimes with this information available on them.


This isn't the kind of discharge that gets you deported. It doesn't really matter from a deportation status.

The military ought not be responsible for fixing the immigration system.
In a statement, the Defense Department said: "All service members (i.e. contracted recruits, active duty, Guard and Reserve) and those with an honorable discharge are protected from deportation."

However, immigration attorneys told the AP that many immigrants let go in recent weeks were an "uncharacterized discharge," neither dishonorable nor honorable.

Wrong. You should know better than that. the government is really exacting about what counts as a good discharge.


You're looking at the converse of it.

It is true that an administrative seperation doesn't grant you much in the way of benefits. This is also true of simply not being allowed into the military. But neither is it penalizing you. You don't get deported for having your recruitment denied.

You also don't gain an immunity to deportation, but why would that be an expectation?

sardia wrote:You're hurting your libertarian cred here if you think the army, much less a hypothetical anti immigrant administration, is going to do these people right.

Tldr do you trust the government's story? If yes, it'll be fine. If not, lots of these people are fucked.


I am pointing out that, so far, absolutely nothing has been reported to indicate that there is any sort of policy change. What these folks are alleging is literally business as normal. It is entirely standard to get, say, pulled to the side in basic training to resolve a question that came up due to a background check. And if you can't resolve it(or the government doesn't think it's worth trying to resolve), well, so much for your military career. This isn't a special thing for immigrants.

Edit: It occurs to me that non-military folks may not realize the extremely low level of job security afforded new military recruits. To put it in perspective, about 76% of new male army recruits make it to the six month mark, and time prior to arriving at basic is not counted as active service. For women, only 63% make it to the six month mark. Making it to the end of the first term of enlistment successfully is only accomplished by 59% of men, and 40% of women. Getting kicked out is extremely common.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3281
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The military ought not be responsible for fixing the immigration system.

You know the process is being changed from "we'll try to establish that you can stay" to "let's add loads more checks that nobody can reasonably expect everyone to accumulating positive answers for in any reasonable timespan, then when someone who has passed every check so far made upon them is sitting there waiting for more the remaining checks to be made, tell them they've timed out and chuck them overboard", right?

The military isn't failing to fix the system, the system is being made too Kafkaesque for even the military to handle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10842
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:59 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The military ought not be responsible for fixing the immigration system.

You know the process is being changed from "we'll try to establish that you can stay" to "let's add loads more checks that nobody can reasonably expect everyone to accumulating positive answers for in any reasonable timespan, then when someone who has passed every check so far made upon them is sitting there waiting for more the remaining checks to be made, tell them they've timed out and chuck them overboard", right?

The military isn't failing to fix the system, the system is being made too Kafkaesque for even the military to handle.


Background checks are pretty common for the military, and are not unique to immigrants. Literally every recruit gets 'em.

They have always been backed up. It's always been a bureaucratic nightmare for everyone.

An immigrant may face difficulty if they cannot verify portions of their past, thanks to wherever they come from, but the background checking definitely isn't a unique hurdle. The cited rate of "40 failures or potential future failures" out of the 5k to 10k serving is not odd.

gd1
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Those particular bonds?

I'm not sure that's even possible. You would need to know every(or at least a lot) of the specific bonds that China owns right now. Given that the market is liquid, that's an extremely difficult task.

It'd be akin to declaring every dollar held by a Texan to be worthless. How on earth would you track that, or enforce it, while treating all other dollars as valid?


What if the us declared all treasury bonds invalid?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10842
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:07 pm UTC

That'd go extremely poorly.

It seems very unlikely, because of just how obviously bad the result would be. Even if Trump suggested it, basically everyone around him would flip their shit over it.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3281
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:39 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The military ought not be responsible for fixing the immigration system.

You know the process is being changed from "we'll try to establish that you can stay" to "let's add loads more checks that nobody can reasonably expect everyone to accumulating positive answers for in any reasonable timespan, then when someone who has passed every check so far made upon them is sitting there waiting for more the remaining checks to be made, tell them they've timed out and chuck them overboard", right?

The military isn't failing to fix the system, the system is being made too Kafkaesque for even the military to handle.


Background checks are pretty common for the military, and are not unique to immigrants. Literally every recruit gets 'em.

They have always been backed up. It's always been a bureaucratic nightmare for everyone.

An immigrant may face difficulty if they cannot verify portions of their past, thanks to wherever they come from, but the background checking definitely isn't a unique hurdle. The cited rate of "40 failures or potential future failures" out of the 5k to 10k serving is not odd.

Your reply doesn't seem to match what you're replying to.

Maybe you could at least address the various similar insistences upon greatly increasing the demands upon the system whilst flat out refusing to service those extra demands. (Then blaming others for not accepting the "my way or the highway" mess he created, as he probably originally designed it if he had the wit.)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6175
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:17 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The military ought not be responsible for fixing the immigration system.

You know the process is being changed from "we'll try to establish that you can stay" to "let's add loads more checks that nobody can reasonably expect everyone to accumulating positive answers for in any reasonable timespan, then when someone who has passed every check so far made upon them is sitting there waiting for more the remaining checks to be made, tell them they've timed out and chuck them overboard", right?
The military isn't failing to fix the system, the system is being made too Kafkaesque for even the military to handle.

Background checks are pretty common for the military, and are not unique to immigrants. Literally every recruit gets 'em.
They have always been backed up. It's always been a bureaucratic nightmare for everyone.
An immigrant may face difficulty if they cannot verify portions of their past, thanks to wherever they come from, but the background checking definitely isn't a unique hurdle. The cited rate of "40 failures or potential future failures" out of the 5k to 10k serving is not odd.

The answer would be demonstrated if there was a marked delta in the acceptance rates of immigrants over the years. Like we will be able to compare Q2 and Q3 of 2018 vs the same quarters across the decade. Or a smoking gun/memo in the army recruitment saying "Trump's underling ordered us to stop those immigrants".

gd1
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:09 am UTC

Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?

If I don't make the bad jokes, who will after all?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:51 am UTC

gd1 wrote:Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?

If I don't make the bad jokes, who will after all?

Sableagle will, probably.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

gd1
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:57 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
gd1 wrote:Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?

If I don't make the bad jokes, who will after all?

Sableagle will, probably.


Ninja'd ... by a whole lot.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8072
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:06 pm UTC

The government advertises this strategy for citizenship in high immigrant areas and media. They're specifically asking immigrants to come in, trust them, disclose their status, and that they'll get a better life. They are then discharged with no explanation or reasoning and are expected to go back to countries that are likely to punish them for this, possibly kill them, because of the actions the US military has encouraged them to do. The military literally turns them in refugees (if they were not before) and you don't find this horrifying?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

DavidSh
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:09 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby DavidSh » Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:01 pm UTC

gd1 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Those particular bonds?

I'm not sure that's even possible. You would need to know every(or at least a lot) of the specific bonds that China owns right now. Given that the market is liquid, that's an extremely difficult task.

It'd be akin to declaring every dollar held by a Texan to be worthless. How on earth would you track that, or enforce it, while treating all other dollars as valid?


What if the us declared all treasury bonds invalid?

That would be in violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
US Constitution Amendment 14, section 4 wrote:The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


On the other question, I'll note that the US Government has to track bond owners to some extent in order to pay periodic interest. Paper coupons are a thing of the past.

gd1
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:11 pm UTC

DavidSh wrote:
gd1 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Those particular bonds?

I'm not sure that's even possible. You would need to know every(or at least a lot) of the specific bonds that China owns right now. Given that the market is liquid, that's an extremely difficult task.

It'd be akin to declaring every dollar held by a Texan to be worthless. How on earth would you track that, or enforce it, while treating all other dollars as valid?


What if the us declared all treasury bonds invalid?

That would be in violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
US Constitution Amendment 14, section 4 wrote:The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


On the other question, I'll note that the US Government has to track bond owners to some extent in order to pay periodic interest. Paper coupons are a thing of the past.


But they couldn't do it anyways is what it looks like.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:15 pm UTC

To Posters that link Twitter;
Thank you.

I don't do the FaceBook and Twitter-verse.
I am grateful for a peek in from Time-to-Time.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26353
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:06 pm UTC

Well here's a Twitter thread giving some examples of people who would now be put into removal proceedings thanks to the USCIS change I linked to earlier:

https://twitter.com/HMAesq/status/1015173657398796290
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:42 pm UTC

Maybe, the Icy Heart of Russia is warmed by our despair.
Our senators lounge in opulence in the Heart of Russia.

Those men need cold hard cash to stay in business.
Trump has been staying in business that way for years.

(sniff-sniff...)
The people cry out in confusion and despair.
Who walks the Halls of Power?

(click-click-click...)
I hear the sharp echo of high heels in empty space.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
thunk
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:29 am UTC
Location: Arguably Exiled

Re: Trump presidency

Postby thunk » Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:31 am UTC

Government lawyer: I can't send you the list of separated children in the camps....I have to take care of some dogs this weekend!

And I guess, be careful what you wish for if you're an undocumented Trump supporter...
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6175
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:15 pm UTC

thunk wrote:Government lawyer: I can't send you the list of separated children in the camps....I have to take care of some dogs this weekend!

And I guess, be careful what you wish for if you're an undocumented Trump supporter...

Depends on how fervently, he believes in fiscal and social conservativism.
Or he's trying to reconcile how he's getting deported with support for deporting bad people. There's a lot of good will built up with Trump supporters. Like you'll see farmers and small businesses hit by tariffs, all saying "I hope Trump solves this soon". I'm just wondering if it'll take 2 more years, or 2 months. Obviously, it's a spectrum response, and Democrats need a few percentage points more across the board, or a lot of support in key swing states to send a message.
Still hard to say.

PS it's sad to see the bad old days of internments camps come back so soon after the gop debacle that was the bush administration. It's only been 8 years, and the public already forgot.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26353
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:20 pm UTC

But now Bush paints goofy pictures and was on Ellen. How bad could he *really* have been?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:47 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:But now Bush paints goofy pictures and was on Ellen. How bad could he *really* have been?
ech...I can't blame W.
I knew his dad.

It was Cheney!
I knew him, too.

He was and is, fucking, Evil.

As Time goes on, we will find,
Trump is more of a puppet than W.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10842
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:31 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The answer would be demonstrated if there was a marked delta in the acceptance rates of immigrants over the years. Like we will be able to compare Q2 and Q3 of 2018 vs the same quarters across the decade. Or a smoking gun/memo in the army recruitment saying "Trump's underling ordered us to stop those immigrants".


That'd be pretty persuasive, yeah. I don't see anything like that yet, but either of those, particularly the latter, would be significant.

Zohar wrote:The government advertises this strategy for citizenship in high immigrant areas and media. They're specifically asking immigrants to come in, trust them, disclose their status, and that they'll get a better life. They are then discharged with no explanation or reasoning and are expected to go back to countries that are likely to punish them for this, possibly kill them, because of the actions the US military has encouraged them to do. The military literally turns them in refugees (if they were not before) and you don't find this horrifying?


I mean, if successful, the military does offer a better life for many. It's just that the success rates(and the reasons you can be unsuccessful) are often not made clear. I think there's a case to be made that government recruiting is deeply unethical. I mean, there's a reason that "my recruiter lied to me" is a stereotypical joke in the military.

I'm objecting to treating this as news when it's been the status quo for some time, is all. It's neither new, nor particular to immigrants. It's fair to note that they could do a lot better in terms of advertising fairly.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8072
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:20 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm objecting to

Well that's nice for you I guess.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tobias
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:01 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tobias » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Naw, they're moral. They just have a different morality than you. If you honestly believe abortion is murder, then lining up "endless murders" against almost anything else, and they're picking the lesser of the two evils, as they see it. Nothing has really changed.

Very few anti-abortion folks give a shit about "murdering" babies. It's not particularly important to their actual motivation, it's just a convenient rhetorical tool. It doesn't take much interaction with anti-abortion over the topic people to recognize this. The root of the anti-abortion movement is about controlling women's sexuality, and it always has been. There are genuine pro-life people who think baby-murder is wrong. They are not a particularly large contingent of the anti-abortion movement.

Beyond that, morality requires integrity. Consistency. It is possible to act without any real sense of morality, and many "conservative" (not really, but R-voting) ideologies actively promote amorality or active immorality (in that they encourage their followers to act in ways opposed to the values they claim to represent to said followers, not in how they are compared to alternate realities). This is true of most authoritarian ideologies, where the only core value is subservience to those who hold more power - they frequently and unrepentantly break their own supposed moral precepts and these transgressions are immediately forgive. For a trivial example, see Rush Limbaugh in regards to drugs and addicts, or single-issue abortion. For anti-abortion activists, see Tim Murphy, who was still fairly popular even after his resignation and for whom said resignation largely happened because of pressure from the party for strategic reasons - among them, his inability to retain competent staff because he repeatedly abused them, and also his tendency to let his scandals go public. Not over the actual immorality of his actions in regards to literally forcing someone to get an abortion. This pattern of personality over morality is repeated elsewhere in a great many conservative circles.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10842
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:26 pm UTC

Tobias wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Naw, they're moral. They just have a different morality than you. If you honestly believe abortion is murder, then lining up "endless murders" against almost anything else, and they're picking the lesser of the two evils, as they see it. Nothing has really changed.

Very few anti-abortion folks give a shit about "murdering" babies. It's not particularly important to their actual motivation, it's just a convenient rhetorical tool. It doesn't take much interaction with anti-abortion over the topic people to recognize this. The root of the anti-abortion movement is about controlling women's sexuality, and it always has been. There are genuine pro-life people who think baby-murder is wrong. They are not a particularly large contingent of the anti-abortion movement.


I grew up among such people, and I disagree.

Don't get me wrong, the right has all kinds of weird hangups about sex, but abortion is a fight they don't give up on no matter how little sense it makes, and which they prioritize over many other, more reasonable and achievable goals. How they act is congruent with viewing it as murder.

Beyond that, morality requires integrity. Consistency. It is possible to act without any real sense of morality, and many "conservative" (not really, but R-voting) ideologies actively promote amorality or active immorality (in that they encourage their followers to act in ways opposed to the values they claim to represent to said followers, not in how they are compared to alternate realities).


Their ideals are generally self consistent, though, obviously, people fail to live up to them. This is true of pretty much all ideals and people, though. And of course, all sides manage to see hypocrisy in the other side. They harp on it endlessly, even though getting to it usually requires mangling the opposing viewpoint into something that isn't generally held.

The right really doesn't view abortion as a "war on women" at all. In fact, they think such a viewpoint is sufficiently ludicrous that they characterize pro-abortion advocates as murder-hungry psychos. Both sides are utterly failing to understand the ideology of the opposition.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26353
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:37 pm UTC

How are their ideas self consistent if they care about fetuses but not born children?

If the primary problem they had with abortion is that they believe it's the death of a child, why are they generally so silent and inactive on every other issue that results in dead children?

And we're all well aware that they don't themselves think of it as a war on women, but that doesn't stop it from being one.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby dg61 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:40 pm UTC

Non-shithead answer that they could and may give: "It's the difference between directly willing and a foreseeable consequence", real answer: because they want to punish women for sex out of wedlock and Having Lives.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10842
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:51 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:How are their ideas self consistent if they care about fetuses but not born children?


They do, generally, care about born children. That's a leftist-imputed motive that isn't part of their ideology. Now, some of their policies may be fairly dumb and ineffective at actually caring for children, but their ideology isn't hypocritical on this score.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26353
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:03 pm UTC

They claim to care about born children, but their actions suggest differently.

It's telling that you're perfectly willing to call leftists hypocrites on the basis of your incomplete understanding of how people responded to Obama's sometimes vaguely similar immigration policies, while going to some lengths to defend anti-choice activists from accusations of hypocrisy going the other direction.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10842
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:07 pm UTC

Those who stoop to things like bombing or advocating violence while claiming to value life are guilty of hypocrisy, sure. Direct conflict there.

However, Republicans at large appear to care about children. For starters, they have a lot more of them*. Where is the proposed hypocrisy?

*https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2344929&page=1

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9873
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:10 pm UTC

Honestly, I think the anti-choice crowd has a lot of schadenfreude amongst its adherents. Eh, not quite schadenfreude, but something similar. "I didn't have the option of abortion, and you think you shouldn't have to suffer what I had to suffer?! Screw you, feel the pain I've felt!" or "Ugh, these girls are screwing everyone except me so it serves them right to suffer with a child they didn't want, because if all women are forced to bear children, they might think twice about sleeping with some asshole that's going to leave them and instead sleep with my worthless ass".

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby dg61 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:12 pm UTC

That sounds like a driving force in politics, not just in that area.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10842
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:14 pm UTC

Yeah, selfish motivations are everywhere, to some degree.

Not as policy, just as some proportion of humans being consistently self-interested. That's mostly aside from issues and ideology, though.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26353
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Those who stoop to things like bombing or advocating violence while claiming to value life are guilty of hypocrisy, sure. Direct conflict there.

However, Republicans at large appear to care about children. For starters, they have a lot more of them*. Where is the proposed hypocrisy?

*https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2344929&page=1
Even if pumping out a lot of kids did actually imply caring more about their offspring, enlarging and caring about your own family isn't the same as caring about children generally.

And this being a political discussion, I was obviously referring to political stances and actions, not personal family planning.

CorruptUser wrote:
"I didn't have the option of abortion, and you think you shouldn't have to suffer what I had to suffer?! Screw you, feel the pain I've felt!"
I think there's definitely some of that when it comes to things like higher minimum wage ("I worked a shitty job for shitty pay, so you should have to do the same."), but I think with abortion it more often comes down to correspondence bias. Pro-life women, including those who spend their other free time protesting in front of abortion clinics, still get abortions. They just see their own as being a product of complex individual circumstances, unlike all those other sluts who just couldn't keep their legs closed.

"Ugh, these girls are screwing everyone except me so it serves them right to suffer with a child they didn't want, because if all women are forced to bear children, they might think twice about sleeping with some asshole that's going to leave them and instead sleep with my worthless ass".
Yeah, that's the "controlling women's bodies" part.

---

And yes, there undoubtedly are some people who are genuinely pro-life (rather than anti-choice) out of a real concern or love for human life.

They don't tend to vote Republican, though, because that real concern also leads to such radical leftist views as "Kids should be able to eat and get medical care regardless of how rich their parents are" and "We shouldn't spend trillions of dollars killing people in other countries".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10842
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:17 pm UTC

How are Republicans anti-child as a matter of political stances and actions, then?

gmalivuk wrote:They don't tend to vote Republican, though, because that real concern also leads to such radical leftist views as "Kids should be able to eat and get medical care regardless of how rich their parents are" and "We shouldn't spend trillions of dollars killing people in other countries".


(added after seeing postscript). Republicans don't oppose government health care because they hate children. They oppose it because they believe government managed healthcare to be ineffective.

Likewise, advocating defense spending is a far cry from hating children.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26353
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:22 pm UTC

Yes, contrary to all the actual evidence, they think national healthcare and programs like CHIP and SNAP and subsidized school lunches are somehow ineffective.

Or else they know what the evidence says and just don't care.

So fine, maybe some of them don't hate (poor and nonwhite) kids, they're just idiots.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests