When people are criticized over their political views, they will generally respond with either denial or doubling down. For instance, if a gun-control advocate is accused of “wanting to confiscate all privately owned guns in America,” they will probably deny it and claim that that is a misrepresentation, since it likely is misrepresentation (unless, of course, that actually *is *their stance.) But if a pro-lifer is accused of “trying to force pregnant women to carry their babies to term against their will,” their response will probably be something affirmative to the effect of “Well…yeah? Yes, that *is *what we’re advocating.”
As a Taiwan-independence supporter, my side is often accused of pursuing a stance that is “provocative to China.” To which my response is…“Well…yeah.” Not that irritating China is the primary purpose, but there is no need to apologize or compromise on the issue because it angers Beijing, any more than a Ukrainian has to apologize to Russia for saying that Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
In healthcare, UHC/single-payer supporters are sometimes accused of pushing for a “governmental takeover of healthcare.” Which can only elicit a response of “Well…yeah.”
Or some hardline environmentalists, if accused of “wanting to eliminate all gasoline cars in America,” would probably say…“Well…yeah.”
Or some Muslim immigrants (emphasis: some), if accused of trying to convert their new home European nations to sharia law, would say “Well…yeah?”
So what are your “Well…yeah” stances?
Back to gun control, people try to play the “But the Second Amendment!” card as though I should recoil at the idea that the sacred Founding Fathers were anything less than deific in their choices.
No, really, I think they made a bad call and would have zero issues with changing the Second Amendment. I also think that the wraiths of the Founding Fathers haunting the National Archives Building would be cool with that.
No doubt. The Constitution has been used to directly regulate three products, all to disastrous effect: alcohol, guns, and slaves.
My “well… yeah!” is that the Constitution is a framework for establishing a government, and should not be used, in and of itself, to regulate or control markets.
That horrid AHunter3 person would allow abortions to take place the day before the baby was gonna be born! He’s for completely unrestricted abortions! well yeah…
And he’d rather let the sidewalks be full of drooling mentally-incapacitated people and the alleys populated with psycho killers than force psychiatric treatment on anybody! He wants to completely ban all forced psychiatric treatment no matter what! well yeah…
And he thinks we should not only legalize marijuana but also LSD and heroin and crack and that artificial stuff that rots your face off, he thinks people should be allowed to take any substance recreationally and that the state shouldn’t go around protecting people from really bad drugs! well yeah…
Pro-life advocates see there’s nothing wrong with forcing a woman to carry her rapist’s child , which will tie her to him for the rest of their lives. “Well, yeah, the baby didn’t do anything wrong.”
I want to raise taxes on almost everyone. To fund Medicare for all and keep social security solvent, we need higher payroll taxes. Everyone needs their taxes to go up. I support progressive taxes but we can’t balance the budget and keep the welfare state functioning soloey with taxes on the rich.
Also I consider white Christians a bigger threat to American democracy than Muslim immigrants.
Also id be in favor of phasing out animal agriculture when lab grown meat becomes affordable and high quality.
I’d also like to see Trump prosecuted, and see his enablers in congress charged with Obstruction of justice.
“Do think asset forfeiture laws used by law enforcement to confiscate cash from people they have pulled over should be completely abolished?” “Well… yeah.”
I am completely opposed to the idea that LEOs should under pressure to generate revenue for their departments either through asset forfeiture or ticket quotas. Or any other means.
That won’t happen anytime soon. The star trek replicators convert matter into energy and back again, and would build food on the atomic level after converting energy into matter.
Thats a long way off. However lab grown meat will probably be mainstream in a decade.
Will it be proper to call the meat-growing facilities “labs,” though? I would think that by the time they can produce the stuff in quantities suitable for mass distribution and consumption, the processes would be carried out in factories; or at least processing plants.
Just to keep it accurate, it was amended–by a supreme court decision that the first clause of the 2nd amendment ("A well-regulated militia) was meaningless window dressing. Some of us think that the 2nd amendment’s only purpose was to authorize state militias. And it is clear that the writers had never imagine the like of machine guns.