Evidence for God from Science

BW wasn't rabid about politics, he was just rabid.

If talk here is often about politics that's because this is the politics subforum. If talk elsewhere is political then you have my condolences, but that has nothing to do with me.

My posts aren't filled with "obsession" or "intense criticism" they're filled with accurate information that makes the President look corrupt, incompetent, hypocritical, and authoritarian. I don't nitpick. I've seen the pictures of Donald holding an umbrella over his own head while his wife stands in the rain, but I don't bring that stuff up. Nor do I bring up misleading claims like the one about Trump profiting by pushing hydroxychloroquine. That's the equivalent of going after Obama for a tan suit and it's pointless.

Instead I stick to things that are significant - things that represent a potential danger to our shared democracy. When the President - any President - starts tearing down the checks on his power that's a problem. In the short term it means that a guy like Trump can do whatever he wants. In the long term it means that more and more power is concentrated in the hands of one person. That's bad for us. I don't understand how that doesn't concern you guys.

But when I bring up real, clear, present issues the response I get are sarcasm, dismissiveness, or misdirection. You're as bad as Abe. What about Hillary's emails? That's just, like, your opinion man. I virtually never get a well thought out response that challenges me on the facts. I never see an attempt to justify Trump's outrageous behavior. It's always just empty-headed [nonsense] like "He's better than Biden" or "Typical liberal" [nonsense], [nonsense], [nonsense].

And this obsession with being balanced is stupid. Obama is no longer President and Clinton never was. Criticizing them in order to seem balanced is a waste of time. If Mueller identifies 10 instances of obstruction of justice, or Roger Stone perjures himself in order to hide the connection between the Trump Campaign and the Russians the proper response is concern, not [love] "if you were balanced you'd have brought up about Killary's emails." As the last three years have progressed it feels increasingly like the American political right is all in on authoritarianism as long as the strongman claims to share their values - even if he obviously doesn't.

Phil, if I seem strident it's because I care about the erosion of our democracy, and if I seem frustrated it's because none of you seem to give a [poop] and a few even seem to welcome it.

My point about Obama was that you didn’t criticize him WHEN he was president.

I thought he screwed up on the red line thing. Happy?

I also recall that he was under nonstop attack about things that were, to be frank, trivial [nonsense]. The apology tour, the death panels, the tan suit, his birth certificate, he's gonna take yer guns, he's got secret camps in the desert ready to hold his political opponents, he's gonna run for a third term, he's a Muslim, he's a communist, he's a socialist, an so on and so forth. Stupid, trivial [nonsense].

By comparison, Trump has cheated on 3 wives, paid off a porn star, bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, and been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by more than 20 women. A special counsel laid out 10 instances of obstruction of justice and explicitly declined to clear him of conspiracy. I've lost count of how many of his staffers have been convicted of crimes or forced to resign due to misconduct. He's been impeached with cause. He screwed up reading a teleprompter, incorrectly stated that trade with Europe would be suspended, and crashed the futures market in real time. He never loses a chance to be petty or vindictive and he thinks nothing of punching down. He constantly uses the office to enrich himself, and does it in ways that sure look illegal. Is anything on that list trivial? Is any of it [nonsense]?

I don't know, Rick. I just don't see how the two men can be compared. If I'm missing something feel free to point it out, but I feel like I've been paying pretty close attention.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 7:53 pm …

I also recall that [Obama] was under nonstop attack about things that were, to be frank, trivial [nonsense]. The apology tour, the death panels, the tan suit, his birth certificate, he's gonna take yer guns, he's got secret camps in the desert ready to hold his political opponents, he's gonna run for a third term, he's a Muslim, he's a communist, he's a socialist, an so on and so forth. Stupid, trivial [nonsense]…

I was waiting for a reasoned answer to your post but none seems to be forthcoming. Maybe everyone is busy...

Anyway, I was reading J.S. Mill’s On Liberty Of Thought And Discussion and came across this gem:

...In politics...it is almost a commonplace that a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political affairs...but it is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of sanity and reason...Truth, in the great practical concerns of life, is so much a concern of the reconciling and combining of opposites, that very few have minds sufficiently capacious and impartial to make the adjustment with an approach to correctness, and it has to be made by the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners..


Mill was writing about the UK’s political scene in the 1800s but it reminded me of what is going on in the USA now with highly polarized politics and a President who demonizes the opposition, surrounds himself with yes men and fires them when they get out of line.

On a more serious note, in your post you forgot to mention that Obama also represented the Antichrist...

Yeah, I forgot the antichrist. Oh well. Too late to edit it.

I like that quote, too. It's true that we need both parties to keep each other in check. Liberals have a tendency to want to rush forward on big ideas, and sometimes that works out very poorly. Conservatives have a tendency to ossify and get stuck on some idea or other just because that's how it's always been done, and that can also work out very poorly.

The problem we have now is that one party has gotten contentious to the point that they no longer recognize long held norms. The Constitution is often really vague, and if a group is willing to just blow off precedents and ignore norms we wind up with situations like the current one in the Supreme Court.

The Senate had the Constitutional responsibility to hold hearings on judicial nominations, but McConnell ignored past precedent and legislative norms because he didn't want Obama picking judges. The result has been that Trump, meaning McConnell, has been able to push thousands of conservative judges through. We, meaning liberals who once expected the Republicans to abide by precedents and norms, are mad as hell. Now we're thinking about packing the courts in order to deprive the GOP of the advantage that they got by ignoring decades of precedent in order to steal a nomination when it wasn't their turn. None of that bodes well for an independent judiciary.

There are many other examples, but you get the idea. It's important to have contention in government, but there also has to be a set of rules that both sides agree to follow. If one side suddenly says "[love] rules that don't work to my short term advantage" then you have problems.