Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[CP87]

Vance was on the Rogan podcast the other day. I haven't heard it all yet but he's very impressive to listen to.

I think he is interesting...I generally like his populism, he has supported Kahn's anti-monopoly efforts, and I agree in principle with his idea of promoting virtue. I do not agree with his ideas of state-imposed virtue, nor do I think any libertarian leaning individual would. I think he will personify the new right, and if we can somehow find ourselves in a less hostile political environment, I think that right would be a good counterpoint to the current left.

As an aside, I have been an ass to you over the last day...sorry about that. Never my intention going in, but sometimes the ego takes over. I will try to do better

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

I think he is interesting...I generally like his populism, he has supported Kahn's anti-monopoly efforts, and I agree in principle with his idea of promoting virtue. I do not agree with his ideas of state-imposed virtue, nor do I think any libertarian leaning individual would. I think he will personify the new right, and if we can somehow find ourselves in a less hostile political environment, I think that right would be a good counterpoint to the current left.

As an aside, I have been an ass to you over the last day...sorry about that. Never my intention going in, but sometimes the ego takes over. I will try to do better

The concept of "state-imposed virtue" is quite possibly the best example of the driving force behind the extreme polarization we are seeing in our country right now.

As a rallying cry, the left has always done an effective job of fear-mongering with the abortion issue, and, if Harris wins next week, IMO that will end up being by far the primary reason.

But, that's where the irony begins. For the past several decades, the left has motivated voters to show up to defend the people from the state imposing its "Christian conservatism," rooted in and driven by an inherently racist oppressive system that was established by colonialism.

The problem is, the ultimate goal of the left is to impose its own set of what it deems as "proper" virtues, such as wealth redistribution, expansion of entitlements, socialized medicine, elimination of fossil fuels, etc., etc. What's so fascinating is that the far left elitists are so caught up in their own sanctimony and arrogance, that they have blinded themselves to the obvious hypocrisy, and they immediately and categorically reject any attempt to analyze the potential consequences of imposing said virtues (inflation, interest rates, recession, crime, decrease in discretionary spending, etc.).

The right stubbornly tries to adhere to tradition with an almost casual-like confidence in its ideals, and ends up looking astonished when things go haywire. There's a price to pay for complacency and being out-of-touch.

 

[PCHawk]

I think he is interesting...I generally like his populism, he has supported Kahn's anti-monopoly efforts, and I agree in principle with his idea of promoting virtue. I do not agree with his ideas of state-imposed virtue, nor do I think any libertarian leaning individual would. I think he will personify the new right, and if we can somehow find ourselves in a less hostile political environment, I think that right would be a good counterpoint to the current left.

As an aside, I have been an ass to you over the last day...sorry about that. Never my intention going in, but sometimes the ego takes over. I will try to do better

Can you elaborate on state imposed virtues? I'm not sure what you mean there, and I'd definitely call myself a libertarian so I'm interested.

Hey thanks for that! If it makes you feel better, if I were you I would be an ass to me too.

 

[Gibsonian]

He was found guilty for libel for spreading lies about individuals that had no basis in fact. That is much different from making a claim of election interference. Those lies led to death threats and harassment. If I spread heinous lies about you related to child sex trafficking, and then you received death threats, but I claimed I wasn't lying, but just fighting against sex-trafficking...would you be cool with that?

Other Trump surrogates were sanctioned by courts for bringing cases that had no merit. You can't just make shit up in court.

Throughout this dicussion, I have been providing direct quotes, videos, news reports from primarily centrist or non-partisan sources, and DOJ filings...and you just say stuff. You are going entirely on your gut feelings and your ignorance of the involved systems. How can you not see that these things are not equal?

Any direct evidence I present you counter with conspiracy or by bringing up an unrelated matter. In order to believe stuff such as "J6 was an inside job" or "the 2020 election was fraudulent", you need to either not understand how the world works, or you need to weave a conspiracy so grand it involves almost all of the free press, the judiciary (evenly split between R and D, and Trump's cases were thrown out by both, including by Trump appointees), the DOJ (headed by Trump officials), disconnected election officials from across the country (election administration is completely decentralized), CEOs from major social media platforms, and a large portion of Trump's cabinet and political appointees. All of this was occuring while Trump was in charge of the executive branch and Republicans were in control of the Senate. Republicans were also in charge of election administration in many of the disputed states/precincts.

Man, you are in super deep. Obviously I am not making any progress on convincing you that evidence matters, and your arguments are sorely lacking in this department. I hope someday you figure it out, and I sincerely mean that. If you don't, I am sure you will still continue to be a good friend, husband, father, neighbor, etc. But as it currently stands, people are manipulating you to act in ways that are probably not consistent with your values.

Yep he’s in so deep there will be no extraction. You’re wasting time for sure

 

[CP87]

Can you elaborate on state imposed virtues? I'm not sure what you mean there, and I'd definitely call myself a libertarian so I'm interested.

Hey thanks for that! If it makes you feel better, if I were you I would be an ass to me too.

Not sure how serious he is about it, but he has tossed out lots of comments on podcasts about it. It is often characterized as Christian Nationalism, that is, using the government to try to impose Christian ideals on the populace. Banning abortion fits with this, along with anti-LGBT stance. They would generally be anti-marijuana, and in some of the very extreme forms, even advocate women playing a more subjugated role to men. On the positive side, lots of support for families and kids. A lot of the ideas aren't necessarily Christian, more Old Testamenty, with a strong fondness for classical western ideas (think Greek and Roman).

There also tends to be a strong current of White Supremacy in this movement, and Trump has certainly played to that crowd. Vance has kind of gone along with it, but I don't think that is his vibe.

If we get over the anti-compromise stance that has plagued Washington for several decades, I could see agreement being reached on things like Child Tax Credit and other pro-family ideas. I also think there is agreement on things like Tech regulation and anti-monopoly regulation. And with so much of the populace now being in favor of immigration resriction (a really shocking move in this direction over the past 4 years), I think bi-partisan border security deal will be passed quickly no matter who wins next week.

This podcast (Ezra Klein, very progressive) episode discussed POLICITAL ORDERS, general agreements on ideas that last decades. By his telling, the 20th century was dominated by the New Deal order from the 30's through Carter, and then Neoliberalism from Reagan through Great Recession. He thinks we are in the process of building a new policital order, and I think the ideas of people like Vance will help shape that. Interesting ideas if you like podcasts and have some time.

edit: another one I thought of...banning porn.

 

[PCHawk]

Not sure how serious he is about it, but he has tossed out lots of comments on podcasts about it. It is often characterized as Christian Nationalism, that is, using the government to try to impose Christian ideals on the populace. Banning abortion fits with this, along with anti-LGBT stance. They would generally be anti-marijuana, and in some of the very extreme forms, even advocate women playing a more subjugated role to men. On the positive side, lots of support for families and kids. A lot of the ideas aren't necessarily Christian, more Old Testamenty, with a strong fondness for classical western ideas (think Greek and Roman).

There also tends to be a strong current of White Supremacy in this movement, and Trump has certainly played to that crowd. Vance has kind of gone along with it, but I don't think that is his vibe.

If we get over the anti-compromise stance that has plagued Washington for several decades, I could see agreement being reached on things like Child Tax Credit and other pro-family ideas. I also think there is agreement on things like Tech regulation and anti-monopoly regulation. And with so much of the populace now being in favor of immigration resriction (a really shocking move in this direction over the past 4 years), I think bi-partisan border security deal will be passed quickly no matter who wins next week.

This podcast (Ezra Klein, very progressive) episode discussed POLICITAL ORDERS, general agreements on ideas that last decades. By his telling, the 20th century was dominated by the New Deal order from the 30's through Carter, and then Neoliberalism from Reagan through Great Recession. He thinks we are in the process of building a new policital order, and I think the ideas of people like Vance will help shape that. Interesting ideas if you like podcasts and have some time.

I'm a firm believer in government having nothing to do with religion. I almost said i dont see abortion being a religious issue. But then I remembered the people who think that abortion should be illegal at the beginning stages are almost always due to religious reasons, so I see why you added that in there. To me, those people are almost as quacky as the people who think late term abortion is fine. I'll try to remember to give that a listen.

 

[CP87]

I'm a firm believer in government having nothing to do with religion. I almost said i dont see abortion being a religious issue. But then I remembered the people who think that abortion should be illegal at the beginning stages are almost always due to religious reasons, so I see why you added that in there. To me, those people are almost as quacky as the people who think late term abortion is fine. I'll try to remember to give that a listen.

The thing about late term abortion, it is pretty much exclusively for medical emergencies or non-viable pregnancies. For example, my sister found out just short of 30 weeks that the fetus had anencephaly (essentially, developed without a brain or skull). That is a non-viable condition, and hence she had an abortion. Anyone who has carried the fetus for that long is intending to deliver a healthy baby, and the abortion at that point is necessary medical care in response to a tragedy, not a form of irresponsible birth control.

 

[PCHawk]

The thing about late term abortion, it is pretty much exclusively for medical emergencies or non-viable pregnancies. For example, my sister found out just short of 30 weeks that the fetus had anencephaly (essentially, developed without a brain or skull). That is a non-viable condition, and hence she had an abortion. Anyone who has carried the fetus for that long is intending to deliver a healthy baby, and the abortion at that point is necessary medical care in response to a tragedy, not a form of irresponsible birth control.

The only thing wrong with your post is it needs to say "pretty much". I think we have to get rid of the "pretty much".

The crazy thing about abortion is it's one of the most divisive topics, yet 99% of people actually agree with each other. Everyone spends all their time outraged over the 1% instead of focusing on what's important. People really need to stop screaming whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal and recognize the fact that most everyone agrees that abortion should be legal at first, then slowly become illegal as the pregnancy progresses. Again, pretty much everyone agrees with that, so focus the conversation on the minor disagreements, which is time-frame for when it becomes illegal.

Ironically, when Trump talks about abortion it's very accurate in the eyes of the 99%. He wants a time-line that makes sense and thinks the 1% extremes on both sides are wrong. Very few politicians are willing to admit that.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

The thing about late term abortion, it is pretty much exclusively for medical emergencies or non-viable pregnancies. For example, my sister found out just short of 30 weeks that the fetus had anencephaly (essentially, developed without a brain or skull). That is a non-viable condition, and hence she had an abortion. Anyone who has carried the fetus for that long is intending to deliver a healthy baby, and the abortion at that point is necessary medical care in response to a tragedy, not a form of irresponsible birth control.

Are you implying that late term abortions should be "restricted" to situations such as a non-viable fetus?

Because if you are, then you are an extremist right-wing radical that doesn't support a woman's right to choose and exercise her reproductive rights.....

 

[PCHawk]

So the newest Rogan guest is John Fetterman. A guy who had a really bad stroke and has trouble communicating (he's gotten better which is really good) can go on Rogan and talk freely for over two hours. There's no doubt the Harris campaign is fully aware how huge of an audience Rogan has, and how important it would be for any candidate to go on and talk for hours about your vision for America, yet she can't do it. The person who is going to be put in charge of talking to world leaders can't even do a two or three hour conversation.

If she wins, our country will be guaranteed eight consecutive years of hiding our president from the world. The last four years the world got us wars everywhere, to the point where WW3 looks likely. Can we survive four more years with a president who we have to hide? All these women who prioritize the ability to kill their unborn babies are going to end up losing their fighting age sons.

 

[Hay Man]

So the newest Rogan guest is John Fetterman. A guy who had a really bad stroke and has trouble communicating (he's gotten better which is really good) can go on Rogan and talk freely for over two hours. There's no doubt the Harris campaign is fully aware how huge of an audience Rogan has, and how important it would be for any candidate to go on and talk for hours about your vision for America, yet she can't do it. The person who is going to be put in charge of talking to world leaders can't even do a two or three hour conversation.

If she wins, our country will be guaranteed eight consecutive years of hiding our president from the world. The last four years the world got us wars everywhere, to the point where WW3 looks likely. Can we survive four more years with a president who we have to hide? All these women who prioritize the ability to kill their unborn babies are going to end up losing their fighting age sons.

Didn't Trump chicken out on a 2nd debate against her and backed out of 60 Minutes???

 

[PCHawk]

Didn't Trump chicken out on a 2nd debate against her and backed out of 60 Minutes???

I assume you already know the reasons why he did and either don't care or don't believe them. I personally think he should have gone on them anyway but that's just me. Do you think Trump didn't do those things because he has no ability to do them? Or do you think he was being petty?

 

[Hay Man]

I'll assume you'll explain everything

 

[PCHawk]

I will explain one more thing before tomorrow. It's pretty clear that the mainstream media has basically made everything that's pro Trump a conspiracy theory, so I assume this one will fall into that category in the eyes of Trump haters too. But what the hell, I'll try.

So has anyone seen all the videos going around talking about dyes in American food? Where they show things like fruit loops and Sunkist pop in different countries? Well the conspiracy is that other countries have outlawed those dyes because they are basically poison. The foods are still there. They just have duller, less appealing colors. Other than that, they're exactly the same.

Maybe all of that is just more flat earth conspiracy. Maybe those videos are AI from Russia, or acted out in people's basements. But if they're true, then what does that say? The FDA allows poison into our foods to appeal to children more, even tho other countries don't. If that's the case, there's only two reasons for it. They would have to be either bought and paid for by the food industry, or they would have to be grossly incompetent at their job. Are either of those answers acceptable? If they're that incompetent, then how can we trust them to get anything right. If they're that corrupt, then how can anyone trust them with medicine? Are you really ok saying "well yea they might let them poison our kids with fruit loops, but no way would they poison them with vaccines". But my guess is it won't even go that far. People will just say "dyes aren't really poisonous. Other countries just fall for the conspiracy".

 

[Hay Man]

There are absolutely parts of the US government that we should question, like how deeply are the corporations involved in the decisions being made by Senators, Representatives and government agencies?? I would agree that there are areas that are extremely sketchy. What are they allowing in our food, water and air?

But, what's right in the eyes of one nation isn't always the same in another. Laws are different no matter where you go, so that ain't changing anytime soon. GET BIG MONEY AS FAR AWAY FOR DC AS POSSIBLE. That is the first major step in repairing a lot of the things that everyone considers being broke in our nation.

It just seems like everything is a conspiracy to Trump supporters. How is it that Mike Lindell hasn't proven anything regarding the 2020 election? They're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats... Pizzagate.... JFK Jr is still alive and will run with Trump.... Jeffrey Epstein's death was actually a murder by the Clintons... Obama's birth certificate... windmills... there are sooooo many, it's exhausting

 

[PCHawk]

There are absolutely parts of the US government that we should question, like how deeply are the corporations involved in the decisions being made by Senators, Representatives and government agencies?? I would agree that there are areas that are extremely sketchy. What are they allowing in our food, water and air?

But, what's right in the eyes of one nation isn't always the same in another. Laws are different no matter where you go, so that ain't changing anytime soon. GET BIG MONEY AS FAR AWAY FOR DC AS POSSIBLE. That is the first major step in repairing a lot of the things that everyone considers being broke in our nation.

It just seems like everything is a conspiracy to Trump supporters. How is it that Mike Lindell hasn't proven anything regarding the 2020 election? They're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats... Pizzagate.... JFK Jr is still alive and will run with Trump.... Jeffrey Epstein's death was actually a murder by the Clintons... Obama's birth certificate... windmills... there are sooooo many, it's exhausting

The statement "what's right in the eyes of one nation isn't always the same in another" is true on a majority of topics. But on the topic of whether it's ok to poison your food, I don't think it should apply. And if it ends up established that the FDA is corrupted enough to allow that to happen with food (that's still an if at this point) then there is absolutely no doubt it's being allowed with Big Pharma too.

Couldn't agree more on getting money out. One thing that needs to be done is to audit the finances of every politician,l. If there is any large sums of money that can't be explained, they're out. If they did any insider trading, they're out. A rich politician is a corrupt politician.


That's an interesting list of conspiracies. In regards to not proving the election was stolen. I'd just say if someone was ballsy and powerful enough to steal an election, they probably have everything in place to get away with it. I think everyone agrees that in other countries, they hold fake elections where it's obvious to everyone that something shady happened. I wonder if people in those countries say "they're obviously legit, otherwise people would take it to court and win". And I'm not saying it was for sure rigged. But I am saying if the day comes where someone does rig it, I'm pretty sure they will plan ahead enough to deal with the aftermath.


The eating the dogs one is actually hilarious. That story came out perfect timing right before the debate. A couple videos spread across social media that made it look like the story was legit. Since then the stories have been explained and it's pretty clear it never happened. But the timing of the story is funny. It's pretty clear the story was an effort to trick Trump into looking like an idiot at the debate, which he of course took the bate on. But the Harris reaction unfortunately kinda gave it away. She acted like she had no idea what he was even talking about, when clearly she had to have. Even the moderator knew enough about the story to fact check it before the debate. If it was the Harris campaign that came up with that, I applaud them because it was genius.

I'm not sure what to think of pizzagate. Have you ever seen the list of different celebrity tweets that mentioned pizza but clearly have nothing to do with pizza? I'd say it's pretty obvious it's code for something. Whether or not it's code for pedophilia is another thing.

I've never even heard the one about JFK Jr. Did you just make that one up or it that real?

It's very likely Epstein was killed by someone. Who did it will always remain a mystery.

I don’t know much about Obama's birth certificate but I can definitely see how that could become a conspiracy.

Are you talking about windmills killing whales? I've heard a bit about that one. Something to do with the vibrations I think?

You forgot the one about Michelle Obama having a dick. I first heard that one probably 10 years ago and thought it was the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Never even heard a single thing about it again until maybe a year or two ago. The person who mentioned it that long ago was definitely ahead of the game on conspiracies.

 

[CP87]

Are you implying that late term abortions should be "restricted" to situations such as a non-viable fetus?

Because if you are, then you are an extremist right-wing radical that doesn't support a woman's right to choose and exercise her reproductive rights.....

No...I used to think along those lines. Now I just don't think the government needs to be involved. A woman or couple facing that sort of tragedy doesn't need for lawyers to get involved as her situation is compared to whatever legal definition of viability is established tp try tp determine the next step. Let's just leave that to the physician and the patient to figure out.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

No...I used to think along those lines. Now I just don't think the government needs to be involved. A woman or couple facing that sort of tragedy doesn't need for lawyers to get involved as her situation is compared to whatever legal definition of viability is established tp try tp determine the next step. Let's just leave that to the physician and the patient to figure out.

Not to derail the thread, but I think the crux of the issue with abortion boils down to, when does "control of my body" become "control of two bodies?"

I've struggled with the issue myself for several years. For some, it's easy - completely pro-choice without restrictions or completely pro-life because life begins at conception. Black and white issue. For me, it's agonizing when I do a deep dive into my mind.

I completely understand the passionate reaction from women who feel that the government has no place legislating what they can do with their bodies. I get it. The problem is, at some point that fetus becomes a baby, a distinct person.

Even for people that are vehemently pro-choice, there has to be recognition that at some point a second human being is present. When is that? Is it after 20 weeks, which (give or take several days), represents the earliest that a fetus has developed enough pulmonary functional maturity to exist outside the womb? Is it third trimester, is it at time of labor, or is it when the entire body has been delivered?

That's the fundamental question that no one in the political arena that loves to leverage abortion as a campaign issue will answer. Why? Because they know that if there is concession that the transition from fetus to baby occurs prior to delivery, the logical implication is that restrictions (major trigger word) should be imposed.

At the same time, if they fail to concede that, the implication is that they are in favor of late-term partial abortions, up to and including the time of labor. For that very vocal passionate group, it's simple - answer the question. Take a stand and defend it. When discussing abortion in a serious fashion, the the luxury of a non-answer shouldn't be an option.

 

[Fryowa]

Not to derail the thread, but I think the crux of the issue with abortion boils down to, when does "control of my body" become "control of two bodies?"

I've struggled with the issue myself for several years. For some, it's easy - completely pro-choice without restrictions or completely pro-life because life begins at conception. Black and white issue. For me, it's agonizing when I do a deep dive into my mind.

I completely understand the passionate reaction from women who feel that the government has no place legislating what they can do with their bodies. I get it. The problem is, at some point that fetus becomes a baby, a distinct person.

Even for people that are vehemently pro-choice, there has to be recognition that at some point a second human being is present. When is that? Is it after 20 weeks, which (give or take several days), represents the earliest that a fetus has developed enough pulmonary functional maturity to exist outside the womb? Is it third trimester, is it at time of labor, or is it when the entire body has been delivered?

That's the fundamental question that no one in the political arena that loves to leverage abortion as a campaign issue will answer. Why? Because they know that if there is concession that the transition from fetus to baby occurs prior to delivery, the logical implication is that restrictions (major trigger word) should be imposed.

At the same time, if they fail to concede that, the implication is that they are in favor of late-term partial abortions, up to and including the time of labor. For that very vocal passionate group, it's simple - answer the question. Take a stand and defend it. When discussing abortion in a serious fashion, the the luxury of a non-answer shouldn't be an option.

Science fiction political Fryowa thinks that we should some day have and use the tech to have a reproductive on/off switch that's remotely set by default at birth to the off position. You can have as many kids as you like at any time you want once you reach 21 years old, but you should have to pass a year's worth of monthly random drug/alcohol tests first at $50 each, be employed or have monthly income, and no prior history of child abuse or neglect.

If you want to have a child you go to the courthouse, fill out a very simple application, and do your first drug test right there to get the ball rolling. The theoretical on/off switch gets turned on as soon as you reach the 12 month time frame meeting the requirements. The switch stays on as long as you keep testing clean and have monthly income. Fail a drug test or fail to have income for more than 2 months and it gets shut off. If you and your spouse want the surprise aspect of letting whatever happens happens in life and not plan for kids...totally fine...meet the requirements and leave the "switch" turned on as long as you want. Just stay clean and have income.

Yes, I know that's crazy and will never happen. But if it were possible it should. Only people who want to have kids would have kids. The only abortions we'd be discussing would be the ones debated as medically necessary. Wouldn't need to argue and fight and kill people over the rest of them.

 

[SCHawkeye2]

Democracy by Sortition

The Case for Sortition in America - Harvard Political Review

An ideal American democracy is not beholden to moneyed interests before the people it serves. It dismantles unjust and undemocratic systems. Sortition is not perfect, but it is far closer to this ideal than what we have.

harvardpolitics.com