Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Skylark1

Donald Trump

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

If 30 million people present inside of our borders against our laws is not an invasion by Objectivist standards, then what is?

Germany's invasion of Poland, for instance.

....and, outside alt-right conspiracy land, it's 12 million, not 30.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

I don't understand the reply. Your penchant for snark and ad-hominem has extinguished any rational argument on your behalf.

Sorry, I misread your question. For some reason, I read "violation" instead of "invasion". My bad. So my original reply (before I edited it) was meant to convey that "your laws are a violation of Oist standards".

Btw., had I realized that you were asking for the definition of the word "invasion", I wouldn't have replied at all, since you can just google it.

You should Google "ad hominem" too. Both you and Skylark are using it wrong.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nicky said:

Sorry, I misread your question. For some reason, I read "violation" instead of "invasion". My bad. So my reply was "your laws are a violation of Oist standards". Which they are.

Had I realized that you were asking for the definitions of the word "invasion", I wouldn't have replied at all, since you can just google it.

The definition of invasion by Objectivist standards might be necessarily different than the definition of the concept as put forth by others. Just like the Objectivist definition of free will is different from the definition as put forth by others, such as hard determinists or libertarians. I'm looking for how you define it, not how anybody else would define it.

Your concrete example of Germany's invasion of Poland does not give me a definition. It gives me one concrete. You must give me the definition of your concept of invasion for us to discuss this on any rational, agreed-upon definition.

Quote

You should Google "ad hominem" too.

By attempting to link me to being a racist, you are attempting to discredit my argument on those grounds, despite my never having said a racist thing in this, or any other, discussion on immigration. You are not responding to my arguments as I have stated them, but rather to a perceived racism inherent in my character. That is the definition of ad hominem... an attack against the man, rather than a response to his argument that he puts forth.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Craig24 said:

Give me an example of how to mainstream Objectivism.  What would you do?

It already is mainstream in many ways.

Stop psychologizing others, it is just a form of ad hominem. Stop looking preppy, take on a casual look instead. Don't imitate famous Objectivists, just be yourself. Engage in pop culture for its own sake, don't analyze and criticize it. Don't use the word "Man," as in "man's rights," all the time. Talk about human rights instead. Refer to Objectivist principles in the context of today's culture, not the culture of 50 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nicky said:

I'm not sure what that sentence means. I hope it's not an attempt to speak for Ayn Rand. If it is, all I can say is, read the quote again. She was against initiation of force to keep economic migrants out of the country. Makes absolutely no difference how "strict" or "loose" the initiation of force is.

That's not true. On the surface, immigration laws introduced in the 1920s were racist, giving preferential treatment to Western Europeans, sure. ON THE SURFACE, they banned all Asians, and severely limited Eastern Europeans like Ayn Rand. That is why Rand herself emigrated to the US illegally (using the same method most illegal immigrants use today: she came in on a visitor/tourist visa, and never left).

However, that's not the full story. That was only the 100% legal immigration side of things. However, unlike today, illegal immigrants like Miss Rand weren't rounded up, imprisoned, and eventually shipped back to the misery they left behind.  Instead, they had a path to citizenship. That's why, by 1932, she was a US citizen.

More importantly, they weren't prevented from gaining lawful employment, like they are today. That's why Miss Rand was able to build a life for herself, after she arrived in the US, instead of being reduced to a serf in the black market economy, the way many immigrants are today.


The question Ayn Rand responded to was about "open immigration".  She responded with a reply against "closed borders", so this is hardly a complete response to the topic.   Note that she did not make a claim that there should be no borders.  A country that exerts no effort to control its borders effectively has no borders and will soon not be a country.  Ayn Rand's political philosophy does not envision a utopian end-game where the state will finally wither away, so if states will always be with us then so will borders and border controls.

Ayn Rand was never an illegal immigrant because she got a visa, extended it, then got married to a U.S. citizen before her visa expired.  

The reason why I am in favor of immigration controls is because I am such a wild-eyed ideologue about individual rights, and the illegal immigrants don't give a damn about rights or assimilating into a culture that does but are being organized into fraudulent vote farms for socialist candidates or work for MS-13.  

https://i.redd.it/iojp7yk30zgz.jpg

Hint: the above meme is about immigration and accusations of racism

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Skylark1 said:

Don't use the word "Man," as in "man's rights," all the time. Talk about human rights instead.

Personally, I prefer the individualistic terminology over the collectivist jargon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2017 at 9:43 PM, softwareNerd said:

A surprise attack on Mosul is pure spin. Pop lore says that  D-day was a surprise attack, but the Germans pretty much knew an attack was coming. The only surprise is the Army-level tactical one. Nobody was telegraphing that about the Mosul attack. Only someone like Trump -- who is ignorant about such things and seems to live in a make-believe world -- would think that a surprise attack on Mosul was possible: i.e. in the sense his followers lapped up his spiel. 

Fact is the military campaign against Mosul and Raqqa would have proceeded just the same under almost any President. A John McCain type may have stepped up U.S. efforts, but middle-roaders like Trump, Hillary, Bush and Obama would have let it unfold as it has. Also,  the Iranians, the Iraqi government and the Kurds all have a role in giving it momentum -- the U.S. is a major player, but does not set the agenda.

And, the pragmatist in the White House could not foresee that victory would see two allies -- the Kurds and the Iraqi core -- turn against each other and start a fresh war over who controls territory won from ISIS (and other territory in the north). Trump is such a pragmatist that even after the two sides start to fight, he says he won't take sides!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Grames said:


The question Ayn Rand responded to was about "open immigration".  She responded with a reply against "closed borders", so this is hardly a complete response to the topic.   Note that she did not make a claim that there should be no borders.  A country that exerts no effort to control its borders effectively has no borders and will soon not be a country.  Ayn Rand's political philosophy does not envision a utopian end-game where the state will finally wither away, so if states will always be with us then so will borders and border controls.

................

The reason why I am in favor of immigration controls...

The subject at hand isn't why you favor immigration controls. You responded to a post of mine, in which I was quoting Ayn Rand to prove that she disagreed with you.

I have done that. Your first paragraph, in which you stay on topic (Ayn Rand's views on immigration) doesn't address immigration controls. Instead, it addresses something Objectivism is in agreement with: having a functional border that keeps out criminals, but allows in economic migrants.

So, do you have an argument supporting the notion that Ayn Rand was in favor of immigration controls, or do you concede the point, and admit that immigration controls are a violation of individual rights as per Objectivism?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Grames said:

The reason why I am in favor of immigration controls is because I am such a wild-eyed ideologue about individual rights, and the illegal immigrants don't give a damn about rights or assimilating into a culture that does but are being organized into fraudulent vote farms for socialist candidates or work for MS-13. 

Like I told the new guy: you're welcome to be a racist, and vilify immigrants with generalized statements that are obviously false. It doesn't really affect anyone. People who think this way are a dime a dozen, but that ideology has no future...because it has no basis in reality, and too many Americans know enough economic migrants from Latin America to know that they're mostly good people...far from the criminals people like you make them out to be.

What I would like you to stop doing is cloak yourself in the mantle of Objectivism. Objectivism is 100% antithetical to this ideology, as well as the silly idea of attempting to build a capitalist society by only letting in people who will vote Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nicky said:

The subject at hand isn't why you favor immigration controls. You responded to a post of mine, in which I was quoting Ayn Rand to prove that she disagreed with you.

I have done that. Your first paragraph, in which you stay on topic (Ayn Rand's views on immigration) doesn't address immigration controls. Instead, it addresses something Objectivism is in agreement with: having a functional border that keeps out criminals, but allows in economic migrants.

So, do you have an argument supporting the notion that Ayn Rand was in favor of immigration controls, or do you concede the point, and admit that immigration controls are a violation of individual rights as per Objectivism?

You have not proved anything.  Ayn Rand  concluded with: "How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?"  But she was alive that day, so the borders weren't closed to her, so the immigration controls active when she immigrated did not amount to closed borders.

I skipped a step.  Having a functional border requires immigration control of some degree. 

An "economic migrant"  is an anti-concept.  What comes across the border are whole human beings, not interchangeable labor units.   Once someone has immigrated they have the freedom to be as economically active or inactive as anyone else.   "Economic migrant" tries to distract us away from considering the politics of the immigrant, but immigration policy is crafted with an eye to importing more voters for particular political parties.  "Economic migrant" and "criminal" are not mutually exclusive categories, as most criminals commit crimes to obtain money, i.e. economic motivation.  

If you buy the notion that the U.S. is a nation of ideas,  then the chief qualification for immigration is that the immigrant accept those same ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

Meanwhile, in healthcare, Trump basically echoes Bernie Sanders' position by painting insurance companies as the villains of the system.

Well, since Obamacare with its mandate that everyone must buy health insurance or be fined via the tax system is a pure example of rent-seeking, and it was authored by health insurance companies who then lobbied for its passage, they are villains.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2017 at 8:10 PM, dream_weaver said:

I'd have to say you have

I'd have to say you address why your premises are problematic in the opening of the following response.

As to a philosophy coming across as wrong to people, then it would behoove such people not to become practitioners.

Objectivism doesn't advocate Hedonism.

Do you have an issue with those who dismiss seeking an "eternal bliss in the after-life" for finding happiness or bliss on the Earth, or can you stay focused on enjoying the fruits of your labors whilst still here on Earth?

I found that posting the following on my Facebook account

Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man—for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life.

Since life requires a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it. A being who does not hold his own life as the motive and goal of his actions, is [not] acting on the motive and standard of [life].

—Atlas Shrugged

garnished the response

What is the standard of life and where does it come from? Moral standards have to come from without, some one has to set the standards or there are no standards. In my mind, the lady who wrote the book 'Atlas Shrugged', is denying the existence of God and making each man his own god.

This is going far afield of your initial inquiry regarding Donald Trump. I suspect it is a blind alley, and not merely a cul-de-sac.

"Do you have an issue with those who dismiss seeking an "eternal bliss in the after-life" for finding happiness or bliss on the Earth, or can you stay focused on enjoying the fruits of your labors whilst still here on Earth?"

I'm not promoting any ideas beyond the idea that our moral stance defines for us who the enemy is. Christianity was just an example. As for practicing a philosophy, I've seen that it depends on personality traits and values. People choose whatever philosophy defines them better than they can define themselves. Or they invent a philosophy for the same reason, to better define themselves and their values and oftentimes to defend themselves from those who claim to have better values. 

You say that Objectivism doesn't advocate Hedonism. On the other hand, it doesn't directly oppose it either. Christians do that. 

"What is the standard of life and where does it come from? Moral standards have to come from without..." That's the view of a follower, someone who is waiting to have their moral standards come to them pre-digested like worms from a robin's stomach. Anybody who claims such is merely practicing commonness. He or she lives not in accordance with superlatives but revels in mediocrity. Any superlatives that happen to come their way must be knocked down to a level of mediocrity approaching if not equalling that of James Taggart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Grames said:

Well, since Obamacare with its mandate that everyone must buy health insurance or be fined via the tax system is a pure example of rent-seeking, and it was authored by health insurance companies who then lobbied for its passage, they are villains.  

Trump's main point isn't to villify the insurance companies anyway. They certainly deserve heaps of opprobrium for their role in passing Obamacare, but Trump has not gone as far as Bernie Sanders. His response is to ensure that they have to compete with each other by allowing insurance to be sold across state lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2017 at 11:19 AM, Nicky said:

Like I told the new guy: you're welcome to be a racist, and vilify immigrants with generalized statements that are obviously false.

How is what Grames said racist? You don't have an answer. All you can do is spew the word "racist" at people, just like the Left does, and pretend that it is a legitimate argument for open borders just because the majority of people coming in happen to be brown. But it has nothing to do with their "race"--which is an arbitrary concept to begin with. It has to do with the fact that their cultures have produced nothing of value for hundreds of years except savagery and tribalism. As a result, their economies suck, but it would be an act of cultural suicide for America to admit one billion Third Worlders... which is exactly how many would come if we just threw open the borders.

What, are we going to turn all of them into objectivist, rational thinkers? We can't even turn our fellow countrymen into objectivists or rational thinkers when they've been raised in a culture of capitalism and selfishness. You can only dilute our philosophy so much until the message is lost in all the other noise that exists. One tablespoon of salt might be enough to salt a meal for one family. It's not enough to salt a meal for five families.

Again, I wouldn't want 30 million, or 15 million, or even 1 million Canadians coming to the United States either, even though their country is white... because their culture is garbage.

Quote

 

It doesn't really affect anyone. People who think this way are a dime a dozen, but that ideology has no future...because it has no basis in reality, and too many Americans know enough economic migrants from Latin America to know that they're mostly good people...far from the criminals people like you make them out to be.

1. Technically they're all "criminals" since it is a crime to be in the United States illegally.
2. If they were mostly "good people" as you call them, then why does Mexico suck as a place to live? The absolute poorest Mexicans are usually the ones who come here, and if they're good people, imagine how good their middle class is... wait, Mexico has no middle class, because they all vote for socialism.
3. Most of these people pay no taxes since they are paid under the table. However they utilize hospitals, roads, the DMV, and schools that other taxpayers, usually legal citizens, must shoulder the burden for. Oh, and by the way, most of the middle class happens to be white. I guess that this racially-imbalanced transfer of wealth doesn't bother you, though.

 

Quote

What I would like you to stop doing is cloak yourself in the mantle of Objectivism. Objectivism is 100% antithetical to this ideology, as well as the silly idea of attempting to build a capitalist society by only letting in people who will vote Republican.

If Ayn Rand was such a proponent of open immigration, why didn't she write a single paper advocating for it? You push a single misguided Q&A session as "evidence" for her views which are "100% antithetical" to what Grames and I are saying, but that is the only piece of evidence that you have that Ayn Rand would've supported your views. It's sparse, though, because Ayn Rand never once advocated for unlimited Third World immigration into America. She advocated against the sort of restrictions which would have stopped her from coming, but those restrictions were never in place to begin with because she was allowed in.

Besides, even if Ayn Rand had been a proponent of unlimited Third World immigration, she would have still been wrong. She is not a prophet, and Objectivism is not a religion. She discovered many fundamental philosophical truths, but those truths would've still been true even if she hadn't been the one to posit them. And on a few things, she was flat-out wrong... do most Objectivists agree with her that there shouldn't be a woman president, are dismissive of rock music, or believe that people should smoke cigarettes? Do most objectivists take her negative view of homosexuality? The answer to those questions is no. Our philosophy adjusted itself to truths that Ayn Rand herself did not acknowledge.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Skylark1 said:

You say that Objectivism doesn't advocate Hedonism. On the other hand, it doesn't directly oppose it either. Christians do that. 

From The Objectivist Ethics, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 32-33

This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism — in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. “Happiness” can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man’s proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that “the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure” is to declare that “the proper value is whatever you happen to value” — which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild.

I don't know what you expect of "opposition", but this certainly is not an advocation of hedonism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2017 at 4:39 PM, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Many, many illegal immigrants are on welfare and they commit crimes at a higher rate than non-citizens.

This is unsubstantiated. Since this is a disagreement, you'd need to go a step further and cite a source. I can't find evidence to say you are wrong unless I know how you got information that's different than mine. I don't think there is any evidence that assimilation is as pervasive an issue as you suggest.

But then there is a racist claim as part of your reasoning. You say Third World culture is based on reason. That's fair. But how does that mean the immigrants who leave are a cause of that. They're -leaving- that country. The only way I see to suggest that immigrants from those countries worsen the US due to being from there. In other words, this reasoning is tribalistic (and such tribalism isn't tolerated for long 'round these parts). Your line on the Chinese is probably most racist of all.

On 10/16/2017 at 4:39 PM, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Mexico produces pamphlets and hands them out to their citizens, which contain advice on how to cross the desert or the rivers, and how to keep a low profile in the US.

Ok, pamphlets. This is a far cry from an attempt to invade.

On 10/16/2017 at 4:39 PM, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Frankly, why not invade Mexico and force their narco-terrorist government to respect the rights of its citizens?

Jurisdiction. It's a practical extent to which rights-protection is feasible. As long as the people in the jurisidiction respect rights (invading armies and rights-violating criminals aren't those) their rights out to be protected and defended. But my issue is that here you are saying Mexico is a narco-terrorist state based on apparently fears of how those Mexicans, will -of course- be parasites, criminals, or savages.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eiuol this post is for you

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But then there is a racist claim as part of your reasoning. You say Third World culture is based on reason. That's fair. But how does that mean the immigrants who leave are a cause of that. They're -leaving- that country. The only way I see to suggest that immigrants from those countries worsen the US due to being from there. In other words, this reasoning is tribalistic (and such tribalism isn't tolerated for long 'round these parts). Your line on the Chinese is probably most racist of all.

Researching back to find a mention of China anywhere i found this ...

Quote

There is no distinction between the moral and the practical. Most Third World immigrants, even legal ones, vote socialist at about 70% Democrat. While the Republicans are far from perfect, their economic policy is superior, as is their stance on individual rights such as gun ownership and freedom of speech. How is it practical that we have to let in 200 million Chinese if they want to come here, and we have to let them vote for socialism as is practiced in China?

If a person is transplanted from location to another is that person really the same person or an entirely new person who's behavior will be unlike any previous behavior exhibited?  I think it will be the same person with similar behavior based on their habits and memories.  Having family members and other of the same language group around them will further mitigate any need to learn new behaviors. Nothing is left unexplained about why they would prefer to stay the same, no additional theories or assumptions are needed including any racist ones.    

Now tell me how I am racist anyway, despite my attempt to avoid being racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

This is unsubstantiated. Since this is a disagreement, you'd need to go a step further and cite a source. I can't find evidence to say you are wrong unless I know how you got information that's different than mine. I don't think there is any evidence that assimilation is as pervasive an issue as you suggest.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/03/la-made-1-3b-in-illegal-immigrant-welfare-payouts-in-just-2-years.html

"Illegal immigrant families received nearly $1.3 billion in Los Angeles County welfare money during 2015 and 2016, nearly one-quarter of the amount spent on the county’s entire needy population, according to data obtained by Fox News. The data was obtained from the county Department of Public Social Services -- which is responsible for doling out the benefits -- and gives a snapshot of the financial costs associated with sanctuary and related policies."

Considering that illegal immigrants are only supposed to be around 5% of the population, for them to take up a quarter of welfare benefits indicates that they engage in parasitism on a massive scale. Would Ayn Rand have supported this?

*****

And would she have supported letting people in who commit 30% of crimes in some states?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/08/illegal-alien-crime-accounts-for-over-30-of-murders-in-some-states/

  • "Between 2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. In New York it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%.
  • During those years, criminal aliens accounted for 38% of all murder convictions in the five states of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York, while illegal aliens constitute only 5.6% of the total population in those states.
  • That 38% represents 7,085 murders out of the total of 18,643.

That 5.6% figure for the average illegal alien population in those five states comes from US Census estimates. We know the real number is double that official estimate. Yet, even if it is 11%, it is still shameful that the percentage of murders by criminal aliens is more than triple the illegal population in those states.

Those astounding numbers were compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) using official Department of Justice data on criminal aliens in the nation’s correctional system."

*****

This next one is the most damning, because you can look at all of the illegal immigrants, almost none of these people are native citizens of America. Who are you going to believe, the Left or your own lying eyes?

http://www.lapdonline.org/all_most_wanted
https://www.elpasotexas.gov/police-department/most-wanted

If people like you had your way, we'd let in 10x more people like this. Thank god we have a president like Trump in the White House.

Quote

But then there is a racist claim as part of your reasoning. You say Third World culture is based on reason. That's fair. But how does that mean the immigrants who leave are a cause of that. They're -leaving- that country. The only way I see to suggest that immigrants from those countries worsen the US due to being from there. In other words, this reasoning is tribalistic (and such tribalism isn't tolerated for long 'round these parts). Your line on the Chinese is probably most racist of all.

Once again somebody adopts a leftist talking point, that of crying "racism" like a special snowflake to try to shame me into shutting up. Well I refuse. As even leftist Jonathan Pie admits, "Calling people a racist doesn't work anymore!"

Let's actually see how Asian people vote once they are here in America. They vote Democrat because they agree with Democratic socialism.

"Asian-Americans tend to have progressive positions on things like taxes, on things like preserving social safety net, supporting the Affordable Care Act," said Ramakrishnan. Asian-Americans, he added, "including wealthy Asian-Americans, support policies that tend to be more in line with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party."

I guess reality is racist now, too?

But no, I'm sure that Ayn Rand would've supported allowing in these people and allowing them to vote. Hell, why not give them ten votes apiece, because they haven't gotten to vote in past elections and they need to catch up. It's only fair, right?

Quote

Ok, pamphlets. This is a far cry from an attempt to invade.

They're telling people to come here against our laws. How is that not a government-sanctioned invasion of Mexican people into the United States? Do they have to wear uniforms and carry guns before you're convinced?

Oh wait, many of them do wear uniforms and do carry guns. They're called MS-13, and Mexico makes every attempt to protect them in the United States. They even go so far as to refuse to extradite MS-13 members to the US if their actions in the US could carry the death penalty.

Quote

Jurisdiction. It's a practical extent to which rights-protection is feasible. As long as the people in the jurisidiction respect rights (invading armies and rights-violating criminals aren't those) their rights out to be protected and defended.

That's a Kantian duty that you're forcing on me. Most of these people do not pay income taxes. So all of a sudden it's my duty to have my taxes go to defend them while they're illegally here and paying no income tax themselves?

Quote

But my issue is that here you are saying Mexico is a narco-terrorist state based on apparently fears of how those Mexicans, will -of course- be parasites, criminals, or savages.

No, I'm saying that Mexico is a narco-terrorist state because it is.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

Now Donald Trump is preventing a 17 year old held in custody (for the crime of being an immigrant) from getting an abortion! 
Onward Christian soldiers!  

That baby needs to be born, and we need to question it about its politics. We should only get rid of it if we don't like what it has to say for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Nicky said:

That baby needs to be born, and we need to question it about its politics. We should only get rid of it if we don't like what it has to say for itself.

Not really. Since it's an immigrant's baby, it's gotta be a socialist :D 

Seriously though, too many people refuse to acknowledge that the average American bears all the responsibility for what the country is today. For instance, people will tell us how FDR made the country so much more statist. Firstly, they don't come much more White-and-Waspy than FDR. And, yes, he might have been the worst President in American history. 

Nevertheless, the underlying feeling in popular American thought pre-dated him: as evidenced by the success of the Progressive party. Think Donald Trump leading average, good, working-class (white) Americans and promising to get them their dues. Americans have always been suspicious of big-business, often for good reason, and the average American has only a vague idea about the role of individual rights. So, when he feels oppressed, he reacts by wanting his own "dear leader" to form a group or union that can then be a player in the politics where each group fights for a slice of the pie. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

Now Donald Trump is preventing a 17 year old held in custody (for the crime of being an immigrant) from getting an abortion! 
Onward Christian soldiers!  

How it is my responsibility to pay for her abortion through tax dollars? If she wants to pay for her own, then fine, but it's not the duty of immigration enforcement officers to provide her with one, or with a doctor who will give her one. We're not Kantians last time I checked.

1 hour ago, Nicky said:

That baby needs to be born, and we need to question it about its politics. We should only get rid of it if we don't like what it has to say for itself.

No, actually we need to give it full voting rights from age 12. That's Mexico's age of consent; they're clearly a better country than we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

How it is my responsibility to pay for her abortion through tax dollars? If she wants to pay for her own, then fine, but it's not the duty of immigration enforcement officers to provide her with one, or with a doctor who will give her one. We're not Kantians last time I checked.

Are you seriously claiming that this is an issue of money? 

Even if it were, she's in custody: her legitimate healthcare is the responsibility of her jailer -- i.e. you. But, you obviously know that money and tax-dollars are not the issue at all. Trump is trying to keep his hardcore-Christian voters happy by appointing some of their team to federal positions. And, being hardcore-Christian they are anti-abortion. So, one of them is trying to impose his hardcore religion by force of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×