President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

Trump and his handlers and cronies are coming to KILL YOU and your children and anyone else he deems insufficiently worshipful of the glorious HIM. And he has eager hordes of MAGA torturers, killers, and rapists slavering to execute his evil will with extreme prejudice and sadistic glee.

 

Bring it.

 

If these had been 'utilitarian' groups, or 'communitarian' groups, they probably wouldn't be supporting 'restrictive' abortion policies.

They'd likely be supporting common sense abortion policies that did the most good for the most people as part of a non-ideological, common sense approach to public health.

As a majority of Americans already do.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...rtion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

As to your second hypothetical, please send up a flare when 'love thy neighbor' becomes part of the Federalist Society / Heritage Foundation's next coast-to-coast big-money tyranny-of-the-minority legislative imperative.

 

Pick up a book, it’s $14 on Amazon.

 

Hmmmmmmm ...

 

How about 'safe, legal, rare.'?

 

I know Grover Cleveland. I've studied Grover Cleveland. And Donald Trump is no Grover Cleveland, the most recent president to win, lose and run again. Sure, they're both flabby New Yorkers with shocking personal lives who ran in three consecutive elections who never once one a majority of the vote.....

.....but Cleveland had a plurality in each of his elections. Trump has had zero. Cleveland didn't attempt an insurrection in 1888 even though he got more votes than his opponent. And in Cleveland's time during the B. Harrison presidency he wasn't indicted 91 times.

 

Enter: Dan Quayle.

 

Mine had to do with the fons et origo of those justifications.

 

TFW you think Biden is the bigger threat to our nation

 

There are many Christians - including on this board - who'd describe themselves as pro-choice and some may even say they are because of their Christian belief. Whether they belong to the Federalist Society/Heritage Foundation is immaterial to their own personal belief; the argument isn't belief + power. (Or at least it isn't mine.) I'm not sure what role the Federalist Society or Heritage Foundation have in this discussion.

Here's what I'm getting at: You may not think there is or could be an utilitarian argument for banning abortion because restrictive abortion policies, in your eyes, do more harm for more people than less restrictive policies. In this equation, of course, you get to decide what "good" and "harm" mean, in addition to "non-ideological" and "common sense."

More broadly, this: Progressivism often presents itself as an assessment tool, but it's really just a belief system competing with any other belief system. It's not "you arrived at your conclusion using the wrong methods." It's "you arrived at the wrong conclusion."

To the extent progressivism has more insight on what is "good" or how to achieve "good," it'd have to prove that, not merely claim it, and there isn't a ton of compelling evidence that progressives know that much more than others about goodness or have achieved that much more than others in its name, outside of making critiques against standing belief systems.

I mean, I know how someone disagrees with a Christian, right? A critic of Christianity either critiques the Bible, or critiques an individual's application of the Bible. Those are two ways, at least. As a Christian, I have to accept someone saying "look, Jesus may have said some good things, and done some good things, but he didn't die for anyone's 'sins' or rise from the dead, so there are quick limits to how valuable his teachings really are." That's one of many arguments.

How does someone disagree with a progressive? How could someone? How does progressivism decide what's good and not good and through what means?

Note: Added wise edits by dq