U.S. Politics - a conservative, a conservative, my kingdom for a conservative

[Guest Raidne]

Buddy, If you're talking about my OP to the merged thread, the intent was to (1) ask conservatives if any of them are Republican anymore and (2) give an example of the kind of thing that passes for a "winning" argument in a one-sided political debate where there are no conservatives. My opinion of the latter is not favorable. To the extent that it sounded like I was supporting the criticism leveled against Republicans - that their position is indeed indefensible - you misread my sarcasm. Hope that explains things a bit more.

As for it being "classy," no, probably not. It was arguably very rude to liberals. Sarcasm and class don't really go together very well, I agree.

On the "defect" thing - defect is hard to define. To take your example, I don't think high functioning autistics have a defect. I think they are a genetic variation. I have ADD. I don't think I have a defect - again, genetic variation. Labor specialization favors these "defects"/variations. High population favors homosexuality. It's a genetic variation. All of these things - autism, ADD, homosexuality - are out of step with the mainstream and create certain issues that people who are neurotypical or heterosexual don't face, so you could arguably state "defect" on those grounds, I suppose, but if homosexuality carries advantages as well - and it appears to - I think this is a hard case to make. Is this what you mean, or do you mean, "it is morally repugnant, and therefore a defect?"

I know the mods will do what they will, but if we could wait for him to answer that I would greatly appreciate it as the former position would just be arguably poorly stated, and not rank bigotry.

[Guest Raidne]

That would be pragmatism in a nutshell.

Nope, it isn't. Weighing conflicting moral concerns is just a moral dilemma. Everyone resolves moral dilemmas, we're not all pragmatists. A pragmatist is someone who says, look, there isn't a rule that captures every result we'd like to see here.

People who support Obama's targeted killings are possibly pragmatists on that issue? I could actually use clarification on that point. Are you okay with Obama killing that specific guy without due process, or are you okay with the President killing any American citizen deemed an imminent threat without due process? Lev seems to be the latter, and so not pragmatic. Can't tell about anyone else.

The solution is those cases is to create a balancing test and allow for judicial discretion - not executive discretion. Jurisdiction over those matters explicitly constitutionally belongs to the courts.

I would not create a balancing test on the abrogation of due process before forfeiture of your life to the government. I want a hard and fast rule, so I'm not pragmatic. I will also face moral dilemmas, as we all will, and I will weigh the harms and decide accordingly, as will everyone else, even if you want to pretend that you don't.

I didn't say that I 100% agree with everyone I've ever voted for. I said that I have not voted for someone who supported something I was 100% against. The most explicit example I can think of was Clinton after his actions in support of Somalia and Serbia, but I've changed a bit since that time.

No, I'm asking this: who have you ever voted for that did not support even one thing that you were not 100% against?

[Oblique]

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-even-fox-news-is-tired-of-romneys-evasive-campaign?c=utw1

Fox News getting uppity again......

[Shryke]

Er, no, not really.

The implication with the smirk is that Mitt does not emotionally feel American deaths on a very deep level. The idea of someone who doesn't really care about the deaths of Americans having the authority to order the deaths of Americans is chilling.

Except no one but YOU is making this connection. You are the one who specifically tied the issue of his alleged "lack of concern for American deaths" to the authorization of drone strikes against American citizens. Neither the initial posts, nor any of the followups before your post talk about the second issue. YOU are the one that brought it up.

Don't try and call people out for the implications and connections that no one but you is making.

It's not hard to look at this and your last week or two of posts and see a rather obvious agenda on your part.

[TrackerNeil]

You can't be if you're voting for Obama.

Sure she can. Fact is, there is very little distance between the major parties on that issue, so it's not as if voting Republican is going to change anything in that regard. In addition, every vote involves the weighing of various priorities, and those who will vote only for candidates who agree with them 100% had better put themselves on the ballot.

[Kalbear]

Nope, it isn't. Weighing conflicting moral concerns is just a moral dilemma. Everyone resolves moral dilemmas, we're not all pragmatists. A pragmatist is someone who says, look, there isn't a rule that captures every result we'd like to see here.

Right - but a pragmatist says that they're not 100% against something. Let's define that since we seem to be talking past each other.

If you are 100% against something you will not support it under any circumstances. It doesn't matter about conflicting moral concerns or what other things are; you cannot personally accept it nor are you willing to support it. In that respect you are assuredly not 100% against lack of due process killings, as you have admitted that you are willing to support someone who does it. That's what I'm using it as.That's what SerMixalot was using it as prior to this. If you mean something else - like you are 100% against it but can support someone who does it provided they also do good things - so be it. That's certainly not what I was using it as.

People who support Obama's targeted killings are possibly pragmatists on that issue? I could actually use clarification on that point. Are you okay with Obama killing that specific guy without due process, or are you okay with the President killing any American citizen deemed an imminent threat without due process? Lev seems to be the latter, and so not pragmatic. Can't tell about anyone else.

I'm actually not okay with it at all. But it's not a 100% killer for me given the circumstances.

No, I'm asking this: who have you ever voted for that did not support even one thing that you were not 100% against?

Err...no one?

[Kalbear]

Sure she can. Fact is, there is very little distance between the major parties on that issue, so it's not as if voting Republican is going to change anything in that regard. In addition, every vote involves the weighing of various priorities, and those who will vote only for candidates who agree with them 100% had better put themselves on the ballot.

Again, this isn't to do with agreeing with every single policy decision. This is having certain things that you will not support under any circumstance and then refusing to vote for people who do support those things.

And the fact is that you can choose not to vote for a republican or a democrat. That is also a choice. It may not be a pragmatic one, but it's certainly an acceptable moral one.

[Mauvka]

Vanity Fair has an interesting in-depth personal profile article on Obama this issue. Michael Lewis (of Moneyball fame) spent 6 months at the White House getting to know the president. I just heard an NPR interview with Lewis on the story, and he had a lot of cool insights into the president's thought processes and decisions.

Link

Worth a read.

[Guest Raidne]

If you are 100% against something you will not support it under any circumstances.

Nope. I am 100% against blood pudding. It is one of the few things I cannot stand to eat. It wants to come back up. There is nothing I like about it. Yet, if someone told me I had to eat blood pudding or they would kill 6 people lined up in front of me, I'd eat the fucking blood pudding. But I'd still be 100% against it.

I think you're equating "100% against" with "deal-breaker." That's okay, it's just not what I mean. A person can say "I am absolutely positive I'm against something, but it's an issue of moderate importance to me." Like I feel about bread-pudding. Or, for instance, I'm only 95-99% certain that abortion isn't murder in some sense, but a pro-life candidate is a deal-breaker for me.

[Guest Raidne]

Vanity Fair has an interesting in-depth personal profile article on Obama this issue. Michael Lewis (of Moneyball fame) spent 6 months at the White House getting to know the president. I just heard an NPR interview with Lewis on the story, and he had a lot of cool insights into the president's thought processes and decisions.

Link

Worth a read.

I love you thank you.

[Kalbear]

Okay, Raidne - do you have any actual dealbreakers then? Anything that you can't be pragmatic about?

Have you ever voted for someone who has a dealbreaker? Have you ever found out later that you have? Because that was the original context that we were discussing before this hijack, so now that we've established that let's move on.

[Guest Raidne]

Okay, Raidne - do you have any actual dealbreakers then? Anything that you can't be pragmatic about?

Kal, I am trying to act in good faith, but since this is the third time you've asked a question I already answered, I have to conclude that you're trolling me.

...a pro-life candidate is a deal-breaker for me.

Also, being against gay marriage. Also, huge capitol gains tax cuts, but that's a new one. I've never noted for anyone but democrats and the green party, so I'm clear on all three of those.

Have you ever voted for someone who has a dealbreaker?

Nope, not that I know of. The due process thing is really close. It's not an easy election for me this year, with regard to voting for Obama.

[Kalbear]

If being against gay marriage is a dealbreaker how did you vote in 2008?

[Guest Raidne]

I actually didn't. The district is over 90% democratic and I'd just moved here. But that beside the point as I would have voted for Obama, because I don't believe that he was really against gay marriage in 2008, which is borne out by his administration's efforts to have DOMA thrown out.

[Guy Kilmore]

Not to interject and I might be off base, but it looks like that you both are operating off a different definition of "100%" against something, Kalbear's is more literal and Raidne's is more figurative. This is causing a disconnect, because Kalbear is on the literal point that if you are "100%" against something, there is no instance that you would support it, whereas Raidne is staying that when she is a 100% against something it means that she really, really, really, really does not like it, but is willing to pick a time and a place to fight that issue.

Of course, I could be obvious guy being obvious and both parties are aware of this, so if that is the case, carry on.

[Guest Raidne]

Guy, I would not quite agree with your characterization of my position, no. See post #50. There is no instance in which I would support blood pudding. But I don't really have the kind of problem with blood pudding that I do with the state-sanctioned rape of women by unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound, say.

[Kalbear]

Ah, I get it. As long as you don't believe someone is against something that's a dealbreaker and you think they're lying then it's rationally okay to vote for them despite them outwardly stating that they're against it. Got it.

By that notion I should probably tell sermixalot that Obama really is against killing us citizens without due process but had to in this one case. But he'll never do it again!

[Guy Kilmore]

Guy, I would not quite agree with your characterization of my position, no. See post #50. There is no instance in which I would support blood pudding. But I don't really have the kind of problem with blood pudding that I do with the state-sanctioned rape of women by unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound, say.

Well, you would eat blood pudding if some dude would shoot 6 guys if you didn't. :box:

ETA: Smilies for humor that this post was more intended for.

[Guest Raidne]

By that notion I should probably tell sermixalot that Obama really is against killing us citizens without due process but had to in this one case. But he'll never do it again!

Honestly, I think it's a much better argument than anything you've said on that subject so far. I think it's also how a lot of people really feel about that issue, and I can understand that. Maybe that Michael Lewis article will shed some light on whether Obama feels that way.

Well, you would eat blood pudding if some dude would shoot 6 guys if you didn't. :box:

ETA: Smilies for humor that this post was more intended for.

Fair enough, but if I were really being honest, it'd probably depend on who they were. I really hate blood pudding. ;)

[TrackerNeil]

Ah, I get it. As long as you don't believe someone is against something that's a dealbreaker and you think they're lying then it's rationally okay to vote for them despite them outwardly stating that they're against it. Got it.

Are you suggesting that Raidne should not have made a political calculation based on what was (I think) a reasonable guess? You seem to have a very...purist...attitude towards voting.