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]

Excuse....Excuse...Excuse...

You seem to know a lot about everything and don't like it when someone fact checks your bullshit