Author Topic: What's your litmus test for national politics?  (Read 9103 times)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #50 on: August 25, 2016, 11:23:46 AM »
I just find with folks who oppose abortion under any circumstances - ok then, don't have one.   But don't try to impose your view through government sanction on the decisions of a woman and what she wants to do with her body.  Interestingly it's always old white guys trying shove this down on women.

Maybe this conversation should continue here:  http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/please-take-your-abortion-talk-here-you're-ruining-a-perfectly-good-thread/

Like the earlier topic with Kris, for many abortion is a litmus test for national politics.  As such, it seems appropriate to list the 'whens and hows' here, though very detailed arguments for/against coudl certainly be moved to the other thread.

So to shove this back on topic, I get turned off any politician who says they are completely opposed to abortions in the first trimester, even if I personally wouldn't want to terminate an otherwise healthy pregnancy. To me, restricting access (e.g. requiring 'admitting privileges' or 'surgical center standards' ) is akin to making voting more difficult; it's designed to circumvent the law instead of solving a problem that largely doesn't exist (in these cases: actual voter fraud and medical complications resulting from medical standards).
So yeah, it's somewhat of a litmus test for me, though not as strong as when someone denies climate change.


dougules

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2899
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #51 on: August 25, 2016, 11:25:04 AM »
My litmus test is generally just who can beat the person who I disagree with the most.  Sad but true. 

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #52 on: August 25, 2016, 11:31:57 AM »

Wow, making a change based on evidence!  Impressed.  He passes my litmus test.  Can't vote for him, wrong country.

According to Donald Trump, you can!  In fact, it's the only way he'll lose!

Umm, what?  I am Canadian, generations and generations of Canadians.  My last ancestor to live in the 13 colonies fled (United Empire Loyalist = political refugee).  Somehow I don't think he would want me to vote, Canadians are so darn left-wing, eh?  Even Democrats look right-wing from here.   ;-)

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #53 on: August 25, 2016, 11:35:49 AM »

Wow, making a change based on evidence!  Impressed.  He passes my litmus test.  Can't vote for him, wrong country.

According to Donald Trump, you can!  In fact, it's the only way he'll lose!

Umm, what?  I am Canadian, generations and generations of Canadians.  My last ancestor to live in the 13 colonies fled (United Empire Loyalist = political refugee).  Somehow I don't think he would want me to vote, Canadians are so darn left-wing, eh?  Even Democrats look right-wing from here.   ;-)

I think that's nereo's point - Trump has been claiming that if he loses, it will be because of voter fraud. And you would be a fraudulent voter (in the U.S.)

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #54 on: August 25, 2016, 11:47:25 AM »

Wow, making a change based on evidence!  Impressed.  He passes my litmus test.  Can't vote for him, wrong country.

According to Donald Trump, you can!  In fact, it's the only way he'll lose!

Umm, what?  I am Canadian, generations and generations of Canadians.  My last ancestor to live in the 13 colonies fled (United Empire Loyalist = political refugee).  Somehow I don't think he would want me to vote, Canadians are so darn left-wing, eh?  Even Democrats look right-wing from here.   ;-)

I think that's nereo's point - Trump has been claiming that if he loses, it will be because of voter fraud. And you would be a fraudulent voter (in the U.S.)

aaah.  As opposed to hanging chads? (whatever they are).

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #55 on: August 25, 2016, 12:07:19 PM »
I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

That's pretty much what criminal law is, is forcing other people to live by society's moral convictions.  We don't make murder illegal because it's inefficient when Joe doesn't show up to work on Monday because he was killed on Sunday morning.  We make it illegal because it's morally wrong to off Joe.  It doesn't become less morally wrong if Joe can't complain before hand because he's mute, or if he can't complain because he's a six month old baby, or if he can't complain because he's a baby that won't be delivered for one week.   

I can understand people having different opinions on abortion, but it is somewhat flabbergasting to see how few people on the pro-choice side even understand the position of people on the pro-life side.  The vast majority of them would think it is abhorrent for a parent to decide that they're really not ready for parenthood and kill their week old baby.  Yet a large portion of them can't even intellectually understand why people would be similarly horrified at killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date?

"killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date? "

Straw man. No one is arguing for that, and if you have to pretend they are, you are implicitly acknowledging that your argument is weaker than you'd like it to be.

We have laws against murder because my right to kill you does not trump your right not to be killed.

The abortion debate is about whether an actual born, sentient human being ought to be able to make decisions about her own body, or whether you get to decide for her.

The tricky part is that there is a fetus inside that woman. The debate, when one does not try to throw a straw man into the middle of it, is about whether that fetus is a viable human with rights. Reasonable people can disagree about this, but it is not medically clear, and arguments to the contrary tend to come from a religious perspective, which is not valid in a country that separates church and state.

So, you can be morally opposed to abortion. And yes, you can personally consider it murder. But it is not the same as murdering an actual post-partum being. As you have sort of admitted by feeling the need to use your straw man.

So another clear example of not understanding, despite having all the right words.  If a fetus is a human with rights, outlawing the killing of it is not any more forcing people to live by your moral conviction than any other murder law.  There was a Princeton professor that advocated that infanticide should be legal because infants don't have a sense of existing as an individual (or something like that).  Most people don't view defining infanticide as murder as forcing him to live by their moral conviction.  They recognize that murder is a moral wrong, even if it doesn't impact them personally. 

The Princeton's professor's dividing line on when a human is a valuable life that the law should prevent the killing of is something along the lines of when the human is aware of their existence as an individual.  Some people, such as those that advocate for legalization of partial birth abortion or third trimester abortions, argue that it's not wrong to kill a human until they clear the womb.  Some people think they it's wrong to kill them when they could live outside the body.  SOme people think it's wrong to kill them when they are recognizably human or have a heart beat.  Some people think it's wrong to kill them once their is a human embryo.  Regardless, everybody pretty much wants to force other people to live by their moral conviction.  It's truly a rare and abhorrent person who would say, "sure, killing a infant/third trimester baby/baby with a heart beat/embryo is murder, but I hate to interfere and really don't like the idea of the government trying to interfere with a murder." 

And obviously this doesnt' cover the range of beliefs, but it covers a range of beliefs and they are all pretty simple to understand, yet you still have tons of people say the equivalent of, "yeah, I get that you think it's murder, but why do you care?"  And you see people that are relatively intelligent make statements like this.  Again, just somewhat flabbergasting. 



 

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #56 on: August 25, 2016, 12:10:17 PM »
I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

That's pretty much what criminal law is, is forcing other people to live by society's moral convictions.  We don't make murder illegal because it's inefficient when Joe doesn't show up to work on Monday because he was killed on Sunday morning.  We make it illegal because it's morally wrong to off Joe.  It doesn't become less morally wrong if Joe can't complain before hand because he's mute, or if he can't complain because he's a six month old baby, or if he can't complain because he's a baby that won't be delivered for one week.   

I can understand people having different opinions on abortion, but it is somewhat flabbergasting to see how few people on the pro-choice side even understand the position of people on the pro-life side.  The vast majority of them would think it is abhorrent for a parent to decide that they're really not ready for parenthood and kill their week old baby.  Yet a large portion of them can't even intellectually understand why people would be similarly horrified at killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date?

"killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date? "

Straw man. No one is arguing for that, and if you have to pretend they are, you are implicitly acknowledging that your argument is weaker than you'd like it to be.

We have laws against murder because my right to kill you does not trump your right not to be killed.

The abortion debate is about whether an actual born, sentient human being ought to be able to make decisions about her own body, or whether you get to decide for her.

The tricky part is that there is a fetus inside that woman. The debate, when one does not try to throw a straw man into the middle of it, is about whether that fetus is a viable human with rights. Reasonable people can disagree about this, but it is not medically clear, and arguments to the contrary tend to come from a religious perspective, which is not valid in a country that separates church and state.

So, you can be morally opposed to abortion. And yes, you can personally consider it murder. But it is not the same as murdering an actual post-partum being. As you have sort of admitted by feeling the need to use your straw man.

So another clear example of not understanding, despite having all the right words.  If a fetus is a human with rights, outlawing the killing of it is not any more forcing people to live by your moral conviction than any other murder law.  There was a Princeton professor that advocated that infanticide should be legal because infants don't have a sense of existing as an individual (or something like that).  Most people don't view defining infanticide as murder as forcing him to live by their moral conviction.  They recognize that murder is a moral wrong, even if it doesn't impact them personally. 

The Princeton's professor's dividing line on when a human is a valuable life that the law should prevent the killing of is something along the lines of when the human is aware of their existence as an individual.  Some people, such as those that advocate for legalization of partial birth abortion or third trimester abortions, argue that it's not wrong to kill a human until they clear the womb.  Some people think they it's wrong to kill them when they could live outside the body.  SOme people think it's wrong to kill them when they are recognizably human or have a heart beat.  Some people think it's wrong to kill them once their is a human embryo.  Regardless, everybody pretty much wants to force other people to live by their moral conviction.  It's truly a rare and abhorrent person who would say, "sure, killing a infant/third trimester baby/baby with a heart beat/embryo is murder, but I hate to interfere and really don't like the idea of the government trying to interfere with a murder." 

And obviously this doesnt' cover the range of beliefs, but it covers a range of beliefs and they are all pretty simple to understand, yet you still have tons of people say the equivalent of, "yeah, I get that you think it's murder, but why do you care?"  And you see people that are relatively intelligent make statements like this.  Again, just somewhat flabbergasting.

Jrr85, once again, you have thrown up a bunch of straw man arguments. Which means that you and are not actually having a conversation. So, carry on. I don't think you need me for this.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #57 on: August 25, 2016, 12:22:03 PM »
Yea, there's a guy, somewhere, who advocates that children under 14 be killed.   Moral arguments center, or should, on what the society deems reasonable, not some wacko outsider views.   Those are considered non-starters, as is this clownish argument.  Really?  That desperate?

Dee18

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2016, 12:22:59 PM »
My #1 litmus test is does the candidate accept that climate change is happening and that we need to change policies now to slow it down.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #59 on: August 25, 2016, 12:37:11 PM »

Wow, making a change based on evidence!  Impressed.  He passes my litmus test.  Can't vote for him, wrong country.

According to Donald Trump, you can!  In fact, it's the only way he'll lose!

Umm, what?  I am Canadian, generations and generations of Canadians.  My last ancestor to live in the 13 colonies fled (United Empire Loyalist = political refugee).  Somehow I don't think he would want me to vote, Canadians are so darn left-wing, eh?  Even Democrats look right-wing from here.   ;-)

I think that's nereo's point - Trump has been claiming that if he loses, it will be because of voter fraud. And you would be a fraudulent voter (in the U.S.)

aaah.  As opposed to hanging chads? (whatever they are).

Yes, that was exactly my point.  Trump has lately started saying that the only way he will lose is if there is voter fraud, and one of the forms this so-called fraud will take will be "millions" of non-citizens trying to cast votes against him.  This ignores all evidence that only several dozen cases of such impersonation fraud have been discovered out of several billion federal votes examined.

Here's a good article on this.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #60 on: August 25, 2016, 01:01:07 PM »
I don't feel it's at all irrational to be single issue when it comes to abortion.

If someone wants to blast me for being morally opposed to something I consider wholesale murder, well, I guess, so be it.

I don't think anyone would blast you for being morally opposed to it.

I think the issue is when you try to legislate that opposition so that everyone has to live by your moral conviction.

That's pretty much what criminal law is, is forcing other people to live by society's moral convictions.  We don't make murder illegal because it's inefficient when Joe doesn't show up to work on Monday because he was killed on Sunday morning.  We make it illegal because it's morally wrong to off Joe.  It doesn't become less morally wrong if Joe can't complain before hand because he's mute, or if he can't complain because he's a six month old baby, or if he can't complain because he's a baby that won't be delivered for one week.   

I can understand people having different opinions on abortion, but it is somewhat flabbergasting to see how few people on the pro-choice side even understand the position of people on the pro-life side.  The vast majority of them would think it is abhorrent for a parent to decide that they're really not ready for parenthood and kill their week old baby.  Yet a large portion of them can't even intellectually understand why people would be similarly horrified at killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date?

"killing a baby that was one month away from his/her due date? "

Straw man. No one is arguing for that, and if you have to pretend they are, you are implicitly acknowledging that your argument is weaker than you'd like it to be.

We have laws against murder because my right to kill you does not trump your right not to be killed.

The abortion debate is about whether an actual born, sentient human being ought to be able to make decisions about her own body, or whether you get to decide for her.

The tricky part is that there is a fetus inside that woman. The debate, when one does not try to throw a straw man into the middle of it, is about whether that fetus is a viable human with rights. Reasonable people can disagree about this, but it is not medically clear, and arguments to the contrary tend to come from a religious perspective, which is not valid in a country that separates church and state.

So, you can be morally opposed to abortion. And yes, you can personally consider it murder. But it is not the same as murdering an actual post-partum being. As you have sort of admitted by feeling the need to use your straw man.

So another clear example of not understanding, despite having all the right words.  If a fetus is a human with rights, outlawing the killing of it is not any more forcing people to live by your moral conviction than any other murder law.  There was a Princeton professor that advocated that infanticide should be legal because infants don't have a sense of existing as an individual (or something like that).  Most people don't view defining infanticide as murder as forcing him to live by their moral conviction.  They recognize that murder is a moral wrong, even if it doesn't impact them personally. 

The Princeton's professor's dividing line on when a human is a valuable life that the law should prevent the killing of is something along the lines of when the human is aware of their existence as an individual.  Some people, such as those that advocate for legalization of partial birth abortion or third trimester abortions, argue that it's not wrong to kill a human until they clear the womb.  Some people think they it's wrong to kill them when they could live outside the body.  SOme people think it's wrong to kill them when they are recognizably human or have a heart beat.  Some people think it's wrong to kill them once their is a human embryo.  Regardless, everybody pretty much wants to force other people to live by their moral conviction.  It's truly a rare and abhorrent person who would say, "sure, killing a infant/third trimester baby/baby with a heart beat/embryo is murder, but I hate to interfere and really don't like the idea of the government trying to interfere with a murder." 

And obviously this doesnt' cover the range of beliefs, but it covers a range of beliefs and they are all pretty simple to understand, yet you still have tons of people say the equivalent of, "yeah, I get that you think it's murder, but why do you care?"  And you see people that are relatively intelligent make statements like this.  Again, just somewhat flabbergasting.

Jrr85, once again, you have thrown up a bunch of straw man arguments. Which means that you and are not actually having a conversation. So, carry on. I don't think you need me for this.

We apparently aren't having a conversation because I think that you somehow are trying to argue what the right position on abortion is even though that has nothing to do with anything I've said?  That's all I can guess from the fact that you referred to a bunch of positions that I was neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with as straw man arguments? 

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #61 on: August 25, 2016, 01:12:35 PM »
I think that's nereo's point - Trump has been claiming that if he loses, it will be because of voter fraud. And you would be a fraudulent voter (in the U.S.)

aaah.  As opposed to hanging chads? (whatever they are).

Yes, that was exactly my point.  Trump has lately started saying that the only way he will lose is if there is voter fraud, and one of the forms this so-called fraud will take will be "millions" of non-citizens trying to cast votes against him.  This ignores all evidence that only several dozen cases of such impersonation fraud have been discovered out of several billion federal votes examined.

Here's a good article on this.
I remember back in the days of the American civil rights movement that one major aspect was getting people registered to vote.  Poor people were not registered and there were barriers to being registered.  Is this still an issue?

At the time this seemed odd to my young naive self, because we were enumerated before each election and there was great effort to make sure everyone eligible got on the voters list.  I am sure people were left off, but there were lots of ways to make sure you voted.  Now you can tick off on your income tax form if you want the information to go to Elections Canada for enumeration,  so anyone filing income tax is automatically able to vote (assuming they are citizens, of course).  The Elections Canada website has detailed instructions on how to vote, and you can register in person once an election has been called.  There is lots of information on the radio, you don't have to have computer access. Our biggest election problem is getting good turnout, especially of the younger voters.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #62 on: August 25, 2016, 01:35:12 PM »
We apparently aren't having a conversation because I think that you somehow are trying to argue what the right position on abortion is even though that has nothing to do with anything I've said?  That's all I can guess from the fact that you referred to a bunch of positions that I was neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with as straw man arguments? 

Moral standards are determined by society at large and subject to change over time. At the present time, the right to abortion in at least some circumstances is heavily favored by society at large. Even the number of people who believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances (29%) outnumber those who believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (19%) by half.



If you wish to equate abortion with murder, then you've got some goddamn work to do, because the society that you live in overwhelmingly disagrees. It doesn't seem that your side has had much success forcing its way into public opinion in the last 40 years, so don't be surprised that most people get pissed off when you try to legislate your minority belief into law.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #63 on: August 25, 2016, 01:57:02 PM »
We apparently aren't having a conversation because I think that you somehow are trying to argue what the right position on abortion is even though that has nothing to do with anything I've said?  That's all I can guess from the fact that you referred to a bunch of positions that I was neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with as straw man arguments? 

Moral standards are determined by society at large and subject to change over time. At the present time, the right to abortion in at least some circumstances is heavily favored by society at large. Even the number of people who believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances (29%) outnumber those who believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (19%) by half.



If you wish to equate abortion with murder, then you've got some goddamn work to do, because the society that you live in overwhelmingly disagrees. It doesn't seem that your side has had much success forcing its way into public opinion in the last 40 years, so don't be surprised that most people get pissed off when you try to legislate your minority belief into law.

Did you inadvertently reply to the wrong post? 

You seem to be pretty worked up when based on the your post, you presumably agree with my point that outlawing murder is absolutely legislating based on a moral position, so it doesn't make any sense to "accuse" pro-life people of trying to legislate that people comply with their moral convictions.  That's mostly what our criminal law is.  Or it's most of the portions of criminal low with roots in on common law, which includes as far as I know all of the malum in se crimes.  Our criminal code has expanded so much that a majority might relate not to moral convictions but administrative requirements. 


Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #64 on: August 25, 2016, 02:20:21 PM »
We apparently aren't having a conversation because I think that you somehow are trying to argue what the right position on abortion is even though that has nothing to do with anything I've said?  That's all I can guess from the fact that you referred to a bunch of positions that I was neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with as straw man arguments? 

Moral standards are determined by society at large and subject to change over time. At the present time, the right to abortion in at least some circumstances is heavily favored by society at large. Even the number of people who believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances (29%) outnumber those who believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (19%) by half.



If you wish to equate abortion with murder, then you've got some goddamn work to do, because the society that you live in overwhelmingly disagrees. It doesn't seem that your side has had much success forcing its way into public opinion in the last 40 years, so don't be surprised that most people get pissed off when you try to legislate your minority belief into law.

Did you inadvertently reply to the wrong post? 

You seem to be pretty worked up when based on the your post, you presumably agree with my point that outlawing murder is absolutely legislating based on a moral position, so it doesn't make any sense to "accuse" pro-life people of trying to legislate that people comply with their moral convictions.  That's mostly what our criminal law is.  Or it's most of the portions of criminal low with roots in on common law, which includes as far as I know all of the malum in se crimes.  Our criminal code has expanded so much that a majority might relate not to moral convictions but administrative requirements. 

Eh, I just curtailed a larger discussion in which you equated abortion to murder to avoid the quote above my text from getting too long. My point is that abortion may be against your moral convictions, but it's unreasonable to equate it to murder because your convictions are not reflected by the majority of our society. Your personal moral convictions regarding abortion carry no more weight than, say, an animal rights activist who wishes to outlaw the consumption of animal products to force the rest of society to abide by their moral convictions. I (and the majority of society) reject both of those moral judgments.

To be brief, your arguments would be more compelling if you could offer a cogent reason why the arbitrary moral judgments of a minority should restrict the rights of the greater majority in circumstances in which the rights of the minority are not being infringed upon. "Murder" is not a reasonable argument, because the overwhelming majority of our society object to murder.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #65 on: August 25, 2016, 02:22:11 PM »
And dammit, now I resent that this thread has devolved into yet another discussion about abortion.

Dancin'Dog

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1759
  • Location: Here & There
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #66 on: August 25, 2016, 02:38:16 PM »
I'm tired of abortions.  Let's talk about guns now. 

When is the NRA going to be giving out free guns?   I'd like one, but can't justify the cost unless I'm going to be putting food on the table with it.  We don't have wild pigs here, and I'm the only one in our house that will eat venison. 

Or, we could talk about building the big fence, or is it a wall?  A wall is a lot prettier & is a great tourist attraction.  Fences are okay, but look kind'a cheap compared to a wall.  Are we still going to ask the Mexicans to build it?  The Chinese have a lot of experience with walls, so they'd be good consultants.  I'd be willing to help some, since I've never been to Mexico, and they'll probably have some good food...especially if the Chinese help.  There are supposed to be a lot of wild pigs in Texas, so I'd enjoy some good BBQ too.  Maybe the wall's a good idea after all, it would bring together a lot of good folks, working on a common project & eating a lot of good food.  That Trump guy really has some good ideas if you stop and think about the big picture. 

What are some other litmus test issues? 

I'd like to see some form of "accountability" in politics.  I guess that's my main problem is we're supposed to be choosing between two crooks.  Can't either party find an honest candidate to represent their party, and ultimately  the entire United States of America?   Would you knowingly marry a cheater?  Why is the highest office in our country given to a dishonorable person?   


Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #67 on: August 25, 2016, 02:38:59 PM »

Eh, I just curtailed a larger discussion in which you equated abortion to murder to avoid the quote above my text from getting too long. My point is that abortion may be against your moral convictions, but it's unreasonable to equate it to murder because your convictions are not reflected by the majority of our society. Your personal moral convictions regarding abortion carry no more weight than, say, an animal rights activist who wishes to outlaw the consumption of animal products to force the rest of society to abide by their moral convictions. I (and the majority of society) reject both of those moral judgments.

To be brief, your arguments would be more compelling if you could offer a cogent reason why the arbitrary moral judgments of a minority should restrict the rights of the greater majority in circumstances in which the rights of the minority are not being infringed upon. "Murder" is not a reasonable argument, because the overwhelming majority of our society object to murder.

Well, you are attributing a lot of arguments to me that I did not make.  My point is not really relevant to your argument that morality is determined by majority sentiment (although I do disagree with that); it's relevant to the people that argue they don't understand why pro-life people want to legislate their moral convictions while they, often in the very same breath or sentence, express their desire to legislate their own moral convictions and act as if it would be crazy to not legislate their own moral convictions.  And it's not even hypocrisy that I'm commenting on, as I completely understand self-interested hypocrisy.  It's that seemingly and I think actually intelligent people don't even recognize how illogical their argument is.   

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #68 on: August 25, 2016, 02:41:49 PM »
I think that's nereo's point - Trump has been claiming that if he loses, it will be because of voter fraud. And you would be a fraudulent voter (in the U.S.)

aaah.  As opposed to hanging chads? (whatever they are).

Yes, that was exactly my point.  Trump has lately started saying that the only way he will lose is if there is voter fraud, and one of the forms this so-called fraud will take will be "millions" of non-citizens trying to cast votes against him.  This ignores all evidence that only several dozen cases of such impersonation fraud have been discovered out of several billion federal votes examined.

Here's a good article on this.
I remember back in the days of the American civil rights movement that one major aspect was getting people registered to vote.  Poor people were not registered and there were barriers to being registered.  Is this still an issue?

Unfortunately it still is an issue.  In fact, in the last few months federal appeals courts have  struck down several voter registration laws because the law: was passed with racially discriminatory intent (to quote one ruling).  Laws in North Carolina, Wisconsin and Texas have been at least struck down (in the case of Texas only parts of the law were removed).  In short the courts ruled they did very little to reduce actual voter fraud, failed to prove that fraud was a problem in the first place and disproportionately impacted certain populations, including racial minorities and the poor.
In other words, they have ... "a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities (District Judge Peterson)"

Certain tactics include requiring a DMV-issued ID card (which costs money and which people without cars often don't have), establishing polling places which are easy accessible only by car, limited voting hours (hard to vote when you can't get off work) and no option to do a mail-in ballot.

It's also worth noting that Trump has called on his supporters to sign up to "monitor" polling stations. Some see this as intimidation tactics.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #69 on: August 25, 2016, 07:18:06 PM »
Jrr85, once again, you have thrown up a bunch of straw man arguments. Which means that you and are not actually having a conversation. So, carry on. I don't think you need me for this.

It is always far easier to dismiss logical inconsistencies that it is to talk about them.

Eh, I just curtailed a larger discussion in which you equated abortion to murder to avoid the quote above my text from getting too long. My point is that abortion may be against your moral convictions, but it's unreasonable to equate it to murder because your convictions are not reflected by the majority of our society. Your personal moral convictions regarding abortion carry no more weight than, say, an animal rights activist who wishes to outlaw the consumption of animal products to force the rest of society to abide by their moral convictions. I (and the majority of society) reject both of those moral judgments.

To be brief, your arguments would be more compelling if you could offer a cogent reason why the arbitrary moral judgments of a minority should restrict the rights of the greater majority in circumstances in which the rights of the minority are not being infringed upon. "Murder" is not a reasonable argument, because the overwhelming majority of our society object to murder.

This attitude terrifies me - do you really believe that all that it takes to make something moral is if a majority of people agree to it? And that once a majority is achieved the action itself is no longer of interest, only the fact that most agree?

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #70 on: August 25, 2016, 08:32:34 PM »
Jrr85, once again, you have thrown up a bunch of straw man arguments. Which means that you and are not actually having a conversation. So, carry on. I don't think you need me for this.

It is always far easier to dismiss logical inconsistencies that it is to talk about them.

Eh, I just curtailed a larger discussion in which you equated abortion to murder to avoid the quote above my text from getting too long. My point is that abortion may be against your moral convictions, but it's unreasonable to equate it to murder because your convictions are not reflected by the majority of our society. Your personal moral convictions regarding abortion carry no more weight than, say, an animal rights activist who wishes to outlaw the consumption of animal products to force the rest of society to abide by their moral convictions. I (and the majority of society) reject both of those moral judgments.

To be brief, your arguments would be more compelling if you could offer a cogent reason why the arbitrary moral judgments of a minority should restrict the rights of the greater majority in circumstances in which the rights of the minority are not being infringed upon. "Murder" is not a reasonable argument, because the overwhelming majority of our society object to murder.

This attitude terrifies me - do you really believe that all that it takes to make something moral is if a majority of people agree to it? And that once a majority is achieved the action itself is no longer of interest, only the fact that most agree?

Rather than have you summarize your version of my beliefs for me, allow me to do it myself: I believe that morality, ethics, rights, and every other abstract idea is part of a made-up system of beliefs that evolved because it has helped  us to sustain ourselves as a species. I belief that there is not, nor has there ever been, a clear line in the sand that divides the moral from the immoral. The line is blurry and constantly evolving as we ourselves evolve. We are inseparably a product of our genetics and our environments, and given that each of those factors are unique for all of us, it's to be expected that we would all come to different conclusions about what we consider to be moral behavior. That so many people so strongly agree that murder is wrong gives me a clear indication that it's in our best interest as a society (and as a species) to prevent murder. However, I don't consider societal agreement to be infallible. It wasn't so long ago that society had mostly agreed to deprive gay people of many rights that heterosexuals enjoy, and really not long before that that we agreed that killing gay people was an ok thing to do. Though I consider those actions immoral, I find it difficult to assign blame to the individual members who were raised in a society that indoctrinated them with the beliefs that led to those actions. Perhaps people in the future will look back at our society with disgust as they recall how we barbarians used to abort non-sentient masses of cells ("babies", if you prefer), but I consider it at least equally likely that we will be judged for fighting against providing health care to the poor, or slaughtering sentient beings for food, or burning through billions of year's worth or resources in a dozen generations. Only time will tell.

Why, what's your take on morality?

Pigeon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1298
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #71 on: August 26, 2016, 11:16:13 AM »
What's considered moral is a social construct. 

Slavery and rape, for example have been considered perfectly acceptable in many places at many times throughout history and still are in some places.  Infanticide has been widely and openly practiced in many cultures.  Widows are expected to kill themselves even today.

Read the bible.  Stoning, incest, murder, war, pillage, all stuff commanded of god.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #72 on: August 26, 2016, 05:00:47 PM »
I vote on two issues and two issues only:

1) Who gives me the best chance of lower taxes.
2) Who will better protect 2nd Amendment rights.

Everything else is noise to me.

I personally will not vote for anyone unless they lower the taxes on guns. 

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #73 on: August 26, 2016, 05:17:38 PM »
I vote on two issues and two issues only:

1) Who gives me the best chance of lower taxes.
2) Who will better protect 2nd Amendment rights.

Everything else is noise to me.

I personally will not vote for anyone unless they lower the taxes on guns.

Double Barreled Win
FTFY :) (too good a pun opportunity to pass up on)

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #74 on: August 26, 2016, 05:24:36 PM »
My litmus test:
- I want them to play nice with science
- I want them to be smart, not too basic
- I dislike acidic remarks that eat away at our social fabric
- I don't care what specific color the result is, as long as it gives me a useful result
- Is gender neutral
- In practice, accuracy usually involves more nuance than the instructions or some image on the internet would imply.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #75 on: August 26, 2016, 05:35:56 PM »
My litmus test:
- I want them to play nice with science
- I want them to be smart, not too basic
- I dislike acidic remarks that eat away at our social fabric
- I don't care what specific color the result is, as long as it gives me a useful result
- Is gender neutral
- In practice, accuracy usually involves more nuance than the instructions or some image on the internet would imply.

I get all this but "is gender neutral".  Like... you want androgynous candidates?

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: What's your litmus test for national politics?
« Reply #76 on: August 26, 2016, 05:58:43 PM »
My litmus test:
- I want them to play nice with science
- I want them to be smart, not too basic
- I dislike acidic remarks that eat away at our social fabric
- I don't care what specific color the result is, as long as it gives me a useful result
- Is gender neutral
- In practice, accuracy usually involves more nuance than the instructions or some image on the internet would imply.

I get all this but "is gender neutral".  Like... you want androgynous candidates?

This is more at the local level where (in my area at least the representation is close to parity)  I don't consider the gender of the candidate as an important characteristic. I'm neutral on that aspect.