What you appear to be saying is that in a milieu in which scientists and other academics and thinkers tend to predominate, you are outnumbered.
I guess that’s too bad for you, but what I was opposing was the notion that there’s any institutionalized prejudice here against conservatism or any other political philosophy.
Fewer deaths of the unborn is the primary way in which we would improve, though there might be some other marginal improvements on other fronts too.
Of course we’ve just had eight years of a president who also supposedly “wanted such a thing” and pretty much nothing has changed.
How strange. I’ve felt tremendous hostility here based on your conservative views too.
Not remotely accurate.
If the “milieu,” in question is the SDMB, then I don’t agree that scientists predominate. I suppose “other academics and thinkers,” is such a fuzzy term that it may well be accurate, but of course those academics and “thinkers,” would represent supposed disciplines that are themselves fuzzy and lack scientific rigor.
So-called academic disciplines produce peer-reviewed papers that assert that teaching science as a series of disciplines in which there is a definitive right answer is inherently masculine and oppressive, and urge the adoption of a feminine framework described as recognizing that knowledge is not imparted from teacher to student, but nutured and fluid between all… yes, that sort of fuzzy thinking certainly is evident, and is the province of “academics and other thinkers,” by whom I am manifestly outnumbered.
My own undergraduate degree is in computer science, a field notoriously unwelcoming to the idea that precise syntax is unimportant.
That’s not accurate either.
As I acknowledged when I said, “…she’d love to do that, and would do that if the opportunity arose, but I doubt that the opportunity would arise.” (emphasis added)
Several times during President Obama’s term, he tested the waters, so you’re wise to say that “pretty much” nothing happened, as opposed to claiming that ABSOLUTELY nothing happened. In January 2013, the President sought to ban “military-style assault weapons,” and limit magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds. These were both foolish restrictions born of a desire to regulate firearms based on appearance rather than functionality. . . and, indeed, the proposals that flowed from the White House in the wake of other mass shootings often shared the same lack of logical nexus to the crimes that they supposedly wished to prevent. That is, again and again a shooting tragedy would be followed by calls to impose certain restrictions, even though such restrictions would have done nothing to prevent the shooting tragedy that had just occurred. These bore the hallmarks of “never waste a good crisis,” type thinking.
So my objection to Secretary Clinton is that she, too, would be willing to act if the political winds allowed her to restrict firearms rights.
I agree she would be unlikely to get such a favorable wind. I don’t agree she’d be unwilling to exploit it.
She is getting my vote in spite of that danger, because the alternative is so much worse, not because I am sanguine about her damage potential.
Really? Can you share a specific example?
This isn’t about thoughts or beliefs or desires, it’s about how abortion being more freely available will specifically damage the US. Would getting an abortion cause more damage to the US than not getting pregnant in the first place? The end result is the same, after all. And what if 100 anti-abortionists should have a change of heart tomorrow? Will exactly the same number of abortions be that much less damaging to the US because 100 fewer people are upset by them?
There’s a lot of daylight between “abortion upsets those who oppose abortion” and “abortion damages the US”.
People who feel abortion is murder feel than reducing murder is a net benefit, and increasing murder is a net negative. Is it really that hard to understand? Do you want more people killed in cold blood or fewer?
It’s not my stance, so it’s hard to for me to argue it.
As best I can see it, people like Hector St. Clare don’t distinguish between an abortion and shooting a 20 year old human being in the head. To them, asking “how would more abortions damage the US?” is like asking “How would shooting more people in the head damage the US?”
Oh, pish-tush. Of course, all I can do is attempt. And I’m fine with that. Carry on.
Your backpedal is showing.
And it’s making you look ridiculous.
mmm
If they see an increase in people being killed in cold blood as a net negative (and I imagine they do as well), then voting for Trump, the guy who promises to torture people based on the actions of their relatives and who wonders why you don’t use more nuclear weapons on people, is not going to improve matters. And that’s what this thread is about, right? “What will Mrs. Clinton do to damage the country so badly that she makes a vote for Trump look good”.
Well, ~“the results of which [Hillary’s election] could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space time continuum, and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that’s a worse case scenario. The destruction might in fact be very localized, limited to merely our own galaxy.”
Make’s as much sense as some of the stuff Trump’s supporters have said.One supporter interviewed for the Daily Show wanted to know why Obama wasn’t in the Oval Office on 9/11.
Why wasn’t Obama taking charge on that day? Was he hiding? Or, secretly orchestrating 9/11 from some bunker? We demand answers!
Broomstick gave a good example of pro-life reasoning, even though she is constrained because she doesn’t actually hold pro-life views. I do, but I’m not a Trump voter, so I’m constrained in another way.
Still, this puzzlement you seem to feel is not difficult to resolve.
A Trump voter might oppose abortion, for example, as the murder of innocent lives, and regard the abortion equation as well-settled – that is, it’s beyond cavil that abortion kills on the order of 700,000 lives every year. And at the same time, he might regard Trump’s statements as rhetoric that will not result in large numbers of actual deaths. Or he might believe that the majority of human deaths arising from Trump’s policies would not be characterized as “innocent,” lives.
I’m not a liberal, but I believe I understand the basic arguments and views that drive most liberal positions, even if I don’t agree with them. And I understand to at least some degree the assumptions and priorities that might animate Trump voters, even though again I don’t agree.
It’s interesting that you don’t have a similar ability – your evident inability to even construct the argument that the opposing side might use is quite a handicap.
I’m not voting for Trump, and if I were to vote purely based on the pro-life issue I’d vote for the Constitution Party.
Torture is evil, but the number of torture victims under, say, G. W. Bush was quite a bit smaller than the number of elective abortions.
Trump’s obsession with using nuclear weapons in war is very disturbing, but it’s hard to know what that would mean in terms of policy, since he changes his mind with the political winds. (And it’s not improbable that we might get into a proxy war with a nuclear power under Mrs. Clinton too). With Hillary Clinton though, what you see really is what you get: she’s a level headed politician who’s fairly up front and honest about her ideological convictions.
I should add, one thing I think some conservatives fear about a Clinton presidency is that Democrats might try to avoid the risk of a future Trump-like candidate by passing laws against racial or religious ‘inflammatory’ speech, similar to those in some European and Asian democracies. I don’t know how likely that is, though.
Just to be clear, I am not a Trump voter and I’m not personally concerned about Clinton’s gun control beliefs or plans. But from what I’ve seen, there does appear to be a significant number of people who are concerned about this issue and oppose Clinton over it - which is the topic of the thread.
Be careful about getting off topic. ThelmaLou might be over any minute to get rhetorically medieval on your ass!
I don’t feel the resolution you’re offering is as easy to make as you claim. I think you really have to stretch to reach it.
You essentially saying that a person can support Trump despite acknowledging the terrible things Trump has said he will do because Trump lacks the credibility to cause anyone to believe he’ll actually do what he says. I have a hard time believing anybody would offer an argument this weak as a rational basis for supporting Trump.
I think it’s more likely that most people who are supporting Trump do not have rational reasons for doing so and aren’t interested in rationality. Trump’s campaign has been built on the hope that at least 51% of the people vote for irrational reasons.
I manage, thanks.
I also understand why people disapprove of abortion, but we’re not talking about why people disapprove of abortion, we’re talking about the damage increased access to abortion would cause to the country. I don’t understand the claim that increased access to abortion services constitutes some specific form of damage to the country. The reason being I live where abortion is available at any point during a pregnancy without any legal barriers and I see no damage. Does it leave Canada exposed to outside threats? Are there grave negative economic consequences? Are we pariahs on the international stage for it? Does it invite natural catastrophe? Will dogs and cats start living together? What?
That is wise.
It’s not about the number of victims. We’re talking about damage to the country, yes? A lot more people will hate the US, and may well act on that hatred, if you muscle into other countries and start kidnapping and torturing people even once than if American women aren’t forced to bear children against their will. Contrary to the rhetoric of a decade or so ago, they don’t hate you for your freedoms.
I agree; Trump would be an orangutan with a machine gun. Maybe he’ll do a little harm, maybe he’ll do a lot.
I’m reminded of some dialogue from a Seinfeld episiode. Jerry reserves a rental car but the agency has no cars when he arrives. “I don’t understand, I made a reservation, do you have my reservation?”
The clerk affirms she has his reservation, but that they have no cars.
Jerry replies, “But the reservation keeps the car here. That’s why you have the reservation.”
The clerk replies frostily, “I know why we have reservations.”
“I don’t think you do,” Jerry retorts. “If you did, I’d have a car.”
Your problem is similar. You claim you understand why people disapprove of abortion, but your next words belie that understanding.
In my view, the existence of legal abortion damages the country simply by existing, by devaluing human life and providing social sanction to the destruction of unborn children. It is, in other words, self-evident damage.
Of course, that damage doesn’t exist if you regard abortion as a valuable solution to reproductive health choices instead of the killing of an unborn living human.
That is part of the Supreme Court issue, IMHO.
I live in CA, so my vote is irrelevant. But I would be tempted to vote Trump to keep Hillary from making judicial appointments.