Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

[Blagher]

The thing is that it doesn't matter what his personal views are. If someone goes before the SCOTUS and makes a convincing case that limits or overturns Roe v. Wade, then it should be done; if not, then not. So if he's unwilling to change it, then he's a poor candidate. We do not need more blind ideologues on the Court.

That's not how the game is played though. Obama probably did t give a shit about his nominees view and Trump doesn't either. You push through whoever is more aligned to your policy beliefs whenever possible and only push a moderate when you have no choice. It sucks but that's just how it's done.[/QUOTE]

 

[HarblMcDavid]

What should they consider? Kavanaugh is essentially going to vote like Kennedy except on a few issues where Kennedy sided with the liberal side on. There's no point in probing him on most of the other stuff since he won't change the voting breakdown there.

You says it's a privilege but honestly, I don't get why the right makes such a big deal about of abortion. From a pragmatic standpoint, their just setting themselves up for failure later down the line when those babies can vote.

It's very simple actually, and this is a huge OT, so I'll spoiler it.

Spoiler: Abortion

So remember how the meme of Right wingers is "bible thumpers"? Well it actually matters in this case.

The issue is that one of the strongest arguments against abortion is so simple a 5 year old can probably grasp it, and for those who are religious, it's not fallacious, in fact it is logically valid and true.

The basic argument isn't difficult and isn't even really a religiously based argument:

1) Killing innocent human beings is wrong.
2) Fetuses are innocent human beings.
3) Killing fetuses is wrong.
C) Abortion is wrong.

Now, this is simple but there's a problem. 1 and 2 both use "innocent human being" but they use it in different senses. In 1, "innocent human being" means a walking talking moral agent capable of decisions innocent of crimes against others. Without this definition, 1 is not true all the time.

In 2, the meaning of "innocent" hasn't changed (it's hard to argue that clump of cells is anything but innocent), but "human being" now means "human" in a genetic sense as at conception, it's just dividing cells. This is equivocation and makes the argument fallacious as it's impossible to make the argument that little clump of cells is a moral agent.

Well, impossible in a moral context devoid of Souls.

And this is the crux of why the Right makes a big deal out of it.

For the "bible thumpers", Souls dictate that even that clump of cells is strictly speaking a moral agent as that Soul is what makes that clump of cells human. This is what "life starts at conception" means in a practical sense, and why the abortion debate won't ever die.

So what does that mean? Well it means that the argument they are typically making is logically valid and true...because they believe in souls. For those of us that don't and those who deal in strictly logically derived morals, it's fallacious, but that doesn't change that not everyone believes that, and that's why there's so much passion from the pro-life elements, after all, from their perspective pro choice is literally killing children whenever you do it.

If you want to see a pro-life argument not mentioned here which is far stronger in a non-religious context, look up "future like ours".

Hopefully that clears up the why a little. Sorry for the sperg, I find the ethics of abortion fascinating.

 

[BR55]

There are 2 reasons why the Dems are harping on Kavanaugh's Roe v.Wade opinions so hard. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Those two are the squishiest Senate Republicans on abortion. If anyone can derail Kavanaugh it'll be those two.
So far the "worst" we've gotten from Kavanaugh is "Roe v. Wade could be repealed in theory".
And unless we get Kavanaugh on tape laughing maniacally while declaring he wants to make abortion 100% illegal forever this effort will fail like all the rest of the Dems attempts to stop Kavanaugh.

 

[frozenrunner]

It's very simple actually, and this is a huge OT, so I'll spoiler it.

Spoiler: Abortion

So remember how the meme of Right wingers is "bible thumpers"? Well it actually matters in this case.

The issue is that one of the strongest arguments against abortion is so simple a 5 year old can probably grasp it, and for those who are religious, it's not fallacious, in fact it is logically valid and true.

The basic argument isn't difficult and isn't even really a religiously based argument:

1) Killing innocent human beings is wrong.
2) Fetuses are innocent human beings.
3) Killing fetuses is wrong.
C) Abortion is wrong.

Now, this is simple but there's a problem. 1 and 2 both use "innocent human being" but they use it in different senses. In 1, "innocent human being" means a walking talking moral agent capable of decisions innocent of crimes against others. Without this definition, 1 is not true all the time.

In 2, the meaning of "innocent" hasn't changed (it's hard to argue that clump of cells is anything but innocent), but "human being" now means "human" in a genetic sense as at conception, it's just dividing cells. This is equivocation and makes the argument fallacious as it's impossible to make the argument that little clump of cells is a moral agent.

Well, impossible in a moral context devoid of Souls.

And this is the crux of why the Right makes a big deal out of it.

For the "bible thumpers", Souls dictate that even that clump of cells is strictly speaking a moral agent as that Soul is what makes that clump of cells human. This is what "life starts at conception" means in a practical sense, and why the abortion debate won't ever die.

So what does that mean? Well it means that the argument they are typically making is logically valid and true...because they believe in souls. For those of us that don't and those who deal in strictly logically derived morals, it's fallacious, but that doesn't change that not everyone believes that, and that's why there's so much passion from the pro-life elements, after all, from their perspective pro choice is literally killing children whenever you do it.

If you want to see a pro-life argument not mentioned here which is far stronger in a non-religious context, look up "future like ours".

Hopefully that clears up the why a little. Sorry for the sperg, I find the ethics of abortion fascinating.

It's not just about beliefs in the metaphysical.

You skimmed right over a big issue. People are not entirely rational creatures, and not everyone will agree that a human life only begins once those cells multiply into a complex enough body and/or comprises a brain complete enough for a human consciousness. And not everyone would agree that that's enough either, because is a human without higher brain function even a "person?" And even if everyone did agree that a potential human being isn't a "person," what is the exact point they become one in their development?

And even if you accepted that position about personhood requiring complexity, you have another insurmountable problem. Because newborns don't have complex higher brains, but everything in our biology tells us they're little, helpless people who need to be protected. Try explaining to parents that their newborn kid isn't a real person yet and see how they react. See how anyone reacts.

The debate over abortion will exist forever because it's enormously complicated. I'm frankly surprised anyone could not understand how complicated it is unless they just never think deeply about anything.

You says it's a privilege but honestly, I don't get why the right makes such a big deal about of abortion. From a pragmatic standpoint, their just setting themselves up for failure later down the line when those babies can vote.

The Right used to make a big deal out of abortion. (And probably will again if their politicians think it will help them get elected.) But the Left is making virtually all the noise about it these days. And it's because they're trying really hard to convince their most hysterical potential voters that the current American Right is the same group of insane fundies the Republicans were (ill-advisedly) courting in the 80s and 90s.

But that time is over. Right-leaning American voters these days don't give a fuck about gay marriage, and they aren't frothing at the mouth to take away abortion "rights" either. Abortion will always be a contentious issue, but it's not the single issue motivating people to go out and vote these days. On the Right anyway.

 

[Blagher]

It's not just about beliefs in the metaphysical.

You skimmed right over a big issue. People are not entirely rational creatures, and not everyone will agree that a human life only begins once those cells multiply into a complex enough body and/or comprises a brain compete enough for a human consciousness. And not everyone would agree that that's enough either, because it's a human without higher brain function even a "person?" And even if everyone did agree that a potential human being isn't a "person," what is the exact point they become one in their development?

And even if you accepted that position about personhood requiring complexity, you have another insurmountable problem. Because newborns don't have complex higher brains, but everything in our biology tells us they're little, helpless people who need to be protected. Try explaining to parents that their newborn kid isn't a real person yet and see how they react. See how anyone reacts.

The debate over abortion will exist forever because it's enormously complicated. I'm frankly surprised anyone could not understand how complicated it is unless they just never think deeply about anything.

Spoiler

the other guys isn't wrong about it being largely religiously driven. A lot of laws come from religious beliefs.

To me its twofold. On a pragmatic basis, making women who can't afford or don't want kids to have kids is a recipe for disaster and an unnecessary strain on the social network. It's also self defeating to force a new generation of kids that will vote liberal on you too.

Besides, it seems quaint that we're living in an age where furries have won the culture war and weeb are making inroads into pedophilia and social conservatives are still handwringing over unborn kids and the gays

 

[frozenrunner]

Spoiler

the other guys isn't wrong about it being largely religiously driven. A lot of laws come from religious beliefs.

To me its twofold. On a pragmatic basis, making women who can't afford or don't want kids to have kids is a recipe for disaster and an unnecessary strain on the social network. It's also self defeating to force a new generation of kids that will vote liberal on you too.

Besides, it seems quaint that we're living in an age where furries have won the culture war and weeb are making inroads into pedophilia and social conservatives are still handwringing over unborn kids and the gays

The issue is oversimplified by people who just don't get why abortion is an issue.

Someone offers a still too simplified explanation.

I point out it's not anywhere near that simple which helps to explains why the issue is still contentious.

Your response is, "it actually is that simple, and by the way why does anyone care about this really simple issue???"

If you are determined to oversimplify the issue, you are free to remain pointlessly, willfully baffled. That America is a more religious Western country than others is a fact, but you're mistaken to assume abortion wouldn't be a contentious topic here (or anywhere, really) without the religion. Especially in a country that so highly values individuality.

And besides, this is a false political issue anyway because Republican voters these days are not making mass voting decisions based on the existence of abortion. This is only a single-issue voting thing for the modern Left, and it's only that for them because the Democrat party is lying, telling them that the evil fundie Right from the 90s is trying to force them to have children they don't want, to motivate them to go out and vote. Because apparently the Democrats still don't have any real, compelling platform to run on.

 

[Adamska]

So in other news I went to vote in the primaries for my state; it was empty, but I reckon it may be due to it being the morning when I went. Either way, a couple of funny moments:

• I was confused for a Republican when I first went in; they then realized I'm registered Dem and then gave me the right sheet of paper.
• The Dems are super bloodthirsty among their own this cycle; every incumbent or aspiring member had a primary opponent of primarily grassroots and/or loony persuasion. The GOP had no primary challenges besides the senator spot.
• My folks were robocalled to oblivion all morning, as was I to vote for some person who stole Bernie's cribnotes. I probably did this horrible thing, but that's mainly because fuck the Incumbent she's running against; he chose to make his campaign "REEEE DRUMPF!" rather than talk about his current platform.

So yeah, go out and vote in the primaries; you pick who gets thrown into the big time. Also you might laugh at who's running given that I've not seen such an insurgency for a good while.

 

[HarblMcDavid]

There are 2 reasons why the Dems are harping on Kavanaugh's Roe v.Wade opinions so hard. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Those two are the squishiest Senate Republicans on abortion. If anyone can derail Kavanaugh it'll be those two.
So far the "worst" we've gotten from Kavanaugh is "Roe v. Wade could be repealed in theory".
And unless we get Kavanaugh on tape laughing maniacally while declaring he wants to make abortion 100% illegal forever this effort will fail like all the rest of the Dems attempts to stop Kavanaugh.

And the "in theory" is really important. Roe v Wade has a target on its back because there's real problems with it, and he sounds like enough of a sperg to have read the decision and all the analysis of it. Of course he believes it could happen "in theory". If it's weak and you amass enough evidence to suggest overturning a precedent, of course it could get overturned. Any other position is either not a strictly legal analysis (practicality objections, fair) or is ignoring serious analysis of the decision and how it was arrived at legally and logically.

Spoiler: Response

It's not just about beliefs in the metaphysical.

You skimmed right over a big issue. People are not entirely rational creatures, and not everyone will agree that a human life only begins once those cells multiply into a complex enough body and/or comprises a brain compete enough for a human consciousness. And not everyone would agree that that's enough either, because it's a human without higher brain function even a "person?" And even if everyone did agree that a potential human being isn't a "person," what is the exact point they become one in their development?

And even if you accepted that position about personhood requiring complexity, you have another insurmountable problem. Because newborns don't have complex higher brains, but everything in our biology tells us they're little, helpless people who need to be protected. Try explaining to parents that their newborn kid isn't a real person yet and see how they react. See how anyone reacts.

The debate over abortion will exist forever because it's enormously complicated. I'm frankly surprised anyone could not understand how complicated it is unless they just never think deeply about anything.

I'm not disagreeing, in fact I generally agree, with your larger point that given any honest look at the ethics of abortion should yield a "whoa nelly let's think about this", but the reasons I stated are a majority of the reason the US right specifically won't "let go" of it to answer that specific question (a somewhat more narrow topic than abortion generally), though I will give you that the GOP have cooled somewhat on pursuing pro-life policies as a priority with the waning political power of the religious right.

But "Cooled" and "Letting Go" are somewhat different things. The GOP would still be shooting themselves in the foot to openly abandon pro-life positions (letting go) as just because the religious right is waning doesn't mean that they don't vote at all and I'm pretty sure their position on the topic isn't changing easily, whereas not aggressively pursuing pro-life policies is a bit of an attempt to have their cake and eat it too. It's not like the religious right are likely to vote D, so just largely leave it alone and see if you can bring in fence sitters or refugees from bike locks who definitely don't tend as strongly towards a hard pro-life position.

 

[BR55]

So in other news I went to vote in the primaries for my state; it was empty, but I reckon it may be due to it being the morning when I went. Either way, a couple of funny moments:

• I was confused for a Republican when I first went in; they then realized I'm registered Dem and then gave me the right sheet of paper.
• The Dems are super bloodthirsty among their own this cycle; every incumbent or aspiring member had a primary opponent of primarily grassroots and/or loony persuasion. The GOP had no primary challenges besides the senator spot.
• My folks were robocalled to oblivion all morning, as was I to vote for some person who stole Bernie's cribnotes. I probably did this horrible thing, but that's mainly because fuck the Incumbent she's running against; he chose to make his campaign "REEEE DRUMPF!" rather than talk about his current platform.

So yeah, go out and vote in the primaries; you pick who gets thrown into the big time. Also you might laugh at who's running given that I've not seen such an insurgency for a good while.

My State, Wisconsin, had it's primaries a couple weeks ago.
We chose who we wanted to run against Tammy Baldwin. The person I voted for won.
But the real treat was the Dem Governor primary. It was an absolute clown car. Off the top of my head about eight different people wanted to run against Scott Walker.
I'm not too worried about Governor Walker but I really hope we can beat Tammy Baldwin.
Also I'm guessing your from Massachusetts right?

 

[Adamska]

My State, Wisconsin, had it's primaries a couple weeks ago.
We chose who we wanted to run against Tammy Baldwin. The person I voted for won.
But the real treat was the Dem Governor primary. It was an absolute clown car. Off the top of my head about eight different people wanted to run against Scott Walker.
I'm not too worried about Governor Walker but I really hope we can beat Tammy Baldwin.
Also I'm guessing your from Massachusetts right?

Oh God no; I'm from a far more lame state: Delaware.

The incumbent I was bitching about was Tom Carper, whose only political ad I ever see is just "REEE DRUMPF! REEE ENVIRONMENT!". A more solid reason is he along with a couple other people (Mike Castle mainly) essentially played merry-go-round with the Governor, Senators, and Representative chairs for years on end. I voted against him essentially out of spite.

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

 

[Vorhtbame]

View attachment 535703

I know I'm fixating on the wrong point, but...Why did they have a Trump flag at a stage performance of Disney's Tumblr?

 

[Adamska]

So since I decided to reference glorious Delaware, let me show you guys something to laugh at: Carper might get Ocasio'd.

You read that right; he might get primary'd out by a woke LGBTZIW+% PoC veteran WoC. And this would not be the first time this sort of fuck up has happened by the way in the state; Mike Castle got similarly primaried out by Christine O'Donnell. She then lost hard to a legit "who" Dem apparatchik named Chris Coons since she basically believed in insane shit like witchcraft and r/nofap.

This just made my day more amusing... though given how New Castle county votes also pretty hideous given that she has a much better chance at winning than O'Donnell did just from her party tag. DE is sadly like New York and Pennsylvania in that respect.

 

[frozenrunner]

I know I'm fixating on the wrong point, but...Why did they have a Trump flag at a stage performance of Disney's Tumblr?

To provoke this kind of chimp-out.

 

[Piga Dgrifm]

Let it REEEEE
Let it REEEEE
Drumpf is evil, can't you see?
Let it REEEEE
Let it REEEEE
What are you, a Nazi?

 

[It's HK-47]

Six months. A grand jury has been empaneled for the McCabe case for at least six months now, and no one heard a peep about it until just today. “Nothing’s happening!” they said. “All the plotters are going to walk!” they said, and yet despite some of the most-frenzied media attention and most-paranoid, political pundits keeping their ears to the ground for this kind of news for nearly two years, nobody heard about this until today.

This was not leaked to the Washington Post, the prosecutors were just ready to take the case public. That means the grand jury’s work is pretty much finished, and not a single one of these people had heard so much as a whisper about it. Do you still think that the Leak Hunters haven't been doing their jobs, or that what the media thinks that they know is what is actually happening?

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Six months. A grand jury has been empaneled for the McCabe case for at least six months now, and no one heard a peep about it until just today. “Nothing’s happening!” they said. “All the plotters are going to walk!” they said, and yet despite some of the most-frenzied media attention and most-paranoid, political pundits keeping their ears to the ground for this kind of news for nearly two years, nobody heard about this until today.

This was not leaked to the Washington Post, the prosecutors were just ready to take the case public. That means the grand jury’s work is pretty much finished, and not a single one of these people had heard so much as a whisper about it. Do you still think that the Leak Hunters haven't been doing their jobs, or that what the media thinks that they know is what is actually happening?

Holy shit.

Trump's administration has actually weaponized false and selective leaks.

Fucking beautiful.

 

[not william stenchever]

That is beyond my wildest dreams. Fuck yes. The fact that this is coming after the NYT fucked up bigly makes this even better. "We've got a source at the TOP (says some other guy who claims to know this source)" followed up by something that they would be shouting from the mountaintops if they weren't full of shit. It's incredible

 

[Godzilla@1989]

Booker doubling down on his stunt.

Has anyone put Lawrence O’Donnell in the LolCow farm yet? Or at the least, has his own thread?

Sure, America is going to listen to a piece of shit like you John Kerry.

 

[1Tonka_Truck]

Sure, America is going to listen to a piece of shit like you John Kerry.

The world would be a better place if they had put horseface down when he broke his leg. Maybe they couldn't talk the renderer into taking the body.