PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[puffnstuff]

^^^ Thats depressing. The best people. Right.

[wittynickname]

It feels like every single day I'm reading at least one news story that depresses me. My desire to be aware and educated is seriously conflicting with my desire to not, y'know, hate literally everything about my country.

First up, Wyoming wants to basically cut off access to renewable energy sources:

The so-called “Electricity Production Standard” proposes to penalize utilities in Wyoming for generating electricity from solar and wind energy. The bill would allow electric power to be generated using one of six pre-approved sources, including oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower and coal, to be used by Wyoming utility companies for electricity generation. Neither solar nor wind energy are included on the list of allowed fuel sources.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamp.../#7fe217cb3942


And then there's Texas, attempting to make abortion a felony.

The bill defines a fetus as a "living human child" from the moment of conception and removes provisions under state law exempting women and abortion providers from being prosecuted for criminal homicide.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/18/tex...-level-crimes/


This is why I get absolutely irate when people who aren't affected by "identity politics" complain when those whose rights are at stake do. Forgive me for caring about issues that are going to directly affect me and those I care about, especially when those issues are going to arise no matter whether Trump remains President, is impeached, or is assassinated. Regardless of whether he survives his four years or not, these attacks on womens' rights will continue. These attempts to roll back renewable energy and roll back environmental protections will continue.

Trump is a "what if" problem.
These are "already happening and getting worse" problems.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Here's the star-studded lineup for Friday.

[calumniate]

Tony Orlando?? Ermahgerd!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by getbak

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/u...ald-trump.html

Okay, to be fair, at least he now knows what the Department of Energy actually is. It's a learning curve, they acknowledged that, which you conveniently left of your quote!

The Secretary of Education is a creationist, the head of the Department of Transportation doubts the existence of the internal combustion engine, and the new boss of the EPA doesn't believe human activity affects the climate.

At least Perry knows nuclear weapons are out there in the world. It's a start. Let's give it time, people.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

This is why I get absolutely irate when people who aren't affected by "identity politics" complain when those whose rights are at stake do. Forgive me for caring about issues that are going to directly affect me and those I care about, especially when those issues are going to arise no matter whether Trump remains President, is impeached, or is assassinated. Regardless of whether he survives his four years or not, these attacks on womens' rights will continue. These attempts to roll back renewable energy and roll back environmental protections will continue.

It's unbelievably ####ing depressing that after all the discussion on this point you've still missed the issue entirely.

Caring about issues that affect you personally, and those you care about, has nothing to do with identity politics. It's the exact opposite, in fact - your concern is your ability to live your life and make your own choices. That is a quintessentially liberal concern.

The ability to take steps to reduce your environmental impact, because you care about the environment, is a choice you should get to make, obviously. More controversially, but still from the liberal standpoint, the choice to have an abortion is a matter of control over your body and your path in life, free of interference from government or those who don't know you but want to impose their values on you and force you to live a different life than the one you'd choose. That freedom is important to preserve and defend, not because you're a woman, but because you're a human being.

None of these things engage identity politics. None of it requires that you be thought of first by virtue of your gender, race, sexual orientation or anything else. It requires that you be thought of as a person, whose life should be theirs to control free of interference to the greatest degree manageable, to make your own decisions rather than having someone else make them for you. That is the entire point; it doesn't matter if you're gay or black or a woman or East Indian or bisexual, the only group identity that matters is homo sapiens.

Trump is a "what if" problem.
These are "already happening and getting worse" problems.

This also has nothing to do with identity politics, it's a matter of pure risk analysis, particularly downside risk. One is an existential threat, the other is a threat to quality of life for people. But it's irrelevant, because unfortunately, this is the real world, and we have to deal with both types of threats at once.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by calumniate

Tony Orlando?? Ermahgerd!

Looks like they couldn't get Dawn though.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's unbelievably ####ing depressing that after all the discussion on this point you've still missed the issue entirely.

Caring about issues that affect you personally, and those you care about, has nothing to do with identity politics. It's the exact opposite, in fact - your concern is your ability to live your life and make your own choices. That is a quintessentially liberal concern.

The ability to take steps to reduce your environmental impact, because you care about the environment, is a choice you should get to make, obviously. More controversially, but still from the liberal standpoint, the choice to have an abortion is a matter of control over your body and your path in life, free of interference from government or those who don't know you but want to impose their values on you and force you to live a different life than the one you'd choose. That freedom is important to preserve and defend, not because you're a woman, but because you're a human being.

None of these things engage identity politics. None of it requires that you be thought of first by virtue of your gender, race, sexual orientation or anything else. It requires that you be thought of as a person, whose life should be theirs to control free of interference to the greatest degree manageable, to make your own decisions rather than having someone else make them for you. That is the entire point; it doesn't matter if you're gay or black or a woman or East Indian or bisexual, the only group identity that matters is homo sapiens.

When the GOP starts telling men that they can't have vasectomies, that masturbation is illegal (I mean, hey, those little guys are potential babies!), then I'll believe that this has nothing to do with one's identity as a woman. No one is trying to regulate when and how men can procreate. Only women. This is not a human right that they are attempting to infringe upon, it is a woman's right.

This is inherently based on one's biological sex, because people biologically born as men are incapable of giving birth, so it literally does not affect them.

When you are enacting laws that only affect certain identities, races, genders, religions, then you are specifically infringing based on their identities.

This also has nothing to do with identity politics, it's a matter of pure risk analysis, particularly downside risk. One is an existential threat, the other is a threat to quality of life for people. But it's irrelevant, because unfortunately, this is the real world, and we have to deal with both types of threats at once.

Both are existential threats for the people who are at risk.

Again, at this moment in time, some big terrifying world-altering problem caused by Trump is hypothetical. He may very well cause another world war, start a nuclear winter, etc. But he has not actually yet done those things.

At this moment in time, GOP lawmakers are actively threatening the rights of others, as well as actively fighting to reduce environmental protections. These things are currently happening.

Yes, we have to worry about Trump and the risks that he brings, but we also have to deal with the actual real things that are already happening. And again, the issue with this is that it does not matter one iota whether Trump remains President or not. If Trump is impeached, the existential threat to humanity is massively lessened, and that's fantastic.

But if Trump is impeached, government is still full of anti-science, hyper-religious conservatives who are still going to be ignoring climate change and attempting to infringe on the rights of women and the LGBT community, demonizing Muslims and undocumented immigrants and refugees, etc.

Trump is a very unique, but understandably huge, threat. But the rest of those threats remain whether he is President or not, so even if we can manage to rid ourselves of Trump, we still have these issues to worry about.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

He never settles.

Three days before his presidential inauguration, Donald Trump paid out $25 million in compliance with the settlement reached in three Trump University lawsuits.

The funds, paid by the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, were deposited Tuesday night in an escrow account, where they will remain until the settlement is finalized, according to Jason Forge, one of the San Diego attorneys representing about 7,000 class members in two of the cases.

Trump University changed its name to the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative in 2010 after being told by New York officials to stop using “university” in its name.

The president-elect had until Wednesday to deposit the funds under the terms of the settlement.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...118-story.html

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

When the GOP starts telling men that they can't have vasectomies, that masturbation is illegal (I mean, hey, those little guys are potential babies!), then I'll believe that this has nothing to do with one's identity as a woman. No one is trying to regulate when and how men can procreate. Only women. This is not a human right that they are attempting to infringe upon, it is a woman's right.

Nope, it's a human rights issue, which should become obvious when you think about it carefully. Why should women be allowed to have abortions? Are abortions an end to themselves, some enjoyable thing that people want to engage in unmolested? No. The answer, I think, to the question of why this is a right worth defending, is because women should control what happens to their own bodies and how they live out their lives.

Now consider: is that right - to control one's body and the course of one's life - exclusive to women? Or should men have the same basic right? Of course they should. Which is why if someone wanted to outlaw vasectomies, it would be objectionable for the same exact reason.

[GGG]

Nm

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by getbak

Looks like they couldn't get Dawn though.

They're called Sunset now

[calgarybornnraised]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Nope, it's a human rights issue, which should become obvious when you think about it carefully. Why should women be allowed to have abortions? Are abortions an end to themselves, some enjoyable thing that people want to engage in unmolested? No. The answer, I think, to the question of why this is a right worth defending, is because women should control what happens to their own bodies and how they live out their lives.

Now consider: is that right - to control one's body and the course of one's life - exclusive to women? Or should men have the same basic right? Of course they should. Which is why if someone wanted to outlaw vasectomies, it would be objectionable for the same exact reason.

Are you equating an Abortion to a Vasectomy?

I don't know who said it but "If a Man got pregnant, Abortion would be a Sacrement"

Don't play the Man card in this debate because it's not your body.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

No, she was the one who brought up vasectomies, I carried through the analogy. Moreover, the two don't have to be equivalent, the point is that the reason you shouldn't be prevented from having an abortion is the same as the reason you shouldn't be prevented from having a vasectomy. That doesn't make them somehow qualitatively the same.

Is it really that tough to process? You don't have a right to abortion for its own sake. The reason we defend peoples' ability to get one is because of basic rights and principles that apply to everyone: the right to self-determination and that their bodies should be inviolable.

This is like an object lesson on Mill's warning about dead dogmas.

[calgarybornnraised]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, she was the one who brought up vasectomies, I carried through the analogy. Moreover, the two don't have to be equivalent, the point is that the reason you shouldn't be prevented from having an abortion is the same as the reason you shouldn't be prevented from having a vasectomy. That doesn't make them somehow qualitatively the same.

Is it really that tough to process? You don't have a right to abortion for its own sake. The reason we defend peoples' ability to get one is because of basic rights and principles that apply to everyone: the right to self-determination and that their bodies should be inviolable.

This is like an object lesson on Mill's warning about dead dogmas.

Your going to make a great politician.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

He never settles.



http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...118-story.html

I can't believe people who pumped this guy could blissfully ignore this while accusing the other of being a criminal.

I just don't get.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by mattyc

i can't believe people who pumped this guy could blissfully ignore this while accusing the other of being a criminal.

I just don't get.

Ioiyar

[Roast Beef]

Ok, I had to do a search on that because I was confused. "Ioiyar" translates to "It's okay if you're a Republican." That pretty much sums up it up doesn't it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Nope, it's a human rights issue, which should become obvious when you think about it carefully. Why should women be allowed to have abortions? Are abortions an end to themselves, some enjoyable thing that people want to engage in unmolested? No. The answer, I think, to the question of why this is a right worth defending, is because women should control what happens to their own bodies and how they live out their lives.

Now consider: is that right - to control one's body and the course of one's life - exclusive to women? Or should men have the same basic right? Of course they should. Which is why if someone wanted to outlaw vasectomies, it would be objectionable for the same exact reason.

Reproductive rights are a human rights issue for sure.

I don't see what is wrong with identifying the victims of specific human rights violations. We know who the victims of these violations are. They are pretty specific. And by "specific", I mean "women".

And yeah, if vasectomies were outlawed, it would be objectionable for the same exact reason. But since outlawing vasectomies hasn't even been suggested by anyone, while stripping women's reproductive rights is actually happening, the comparison really doesn't fly.

It's a good hypothetical though.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And yeah, if vasectomies were outlawed, it would be objectionable for the same exact reason. But since outlawing vasectomies hasn't even been suggested by anyone, while stripping women's reproductive rights is actually happening, the comparison really doesn't fly.

It's a good hypothetical though.

IMO, if you need to reach for a completely unrealistic hypothetical to make your point, it's a pretty good sign your argument is bullsh__. At that point you're almost guaranteed to be arguing something completely irrelevant, totally misunderstanding the context or otherwise just being a distraction.

If you can't base your arguments in the real world, you should just listen when others talk about the real world.

Politics isn't philosophy class, and shouldn't be treated as such.