Trump

[KlaxonCow]

It is in the end about punishing women for their lack of morals.

More precisely, it's about punishing women for disagreeing with God.

Let's not downplay that this is basically a form of theocracy and that it's very, very much debatable that these so-called "morals" are actually, in fact, genuinely moral.

[gravy]

http://www.secularprolife.org/

Everyone has a moral view irrespective of whether they have spiritual belief.

Stop trying to pin everything on religion, it's really tedious.

[pogo]

It is in the end about punishing women for their lack of morals.

More precisely, it's about punishing women for disagreeing with God.

No. Religion is a pretext for this, but it is not the underlying reason, which has more to do with white supremacy than anything else.

Racism in the US did not end with the abolition of slavery. It did not end eighty years later with the civil rights movement and the overturning of racist Jim Crow laws. It has changed down the years, perhaps most significantly politically as it became associated with the Republican party.

Republicans though are very careful to not be overtly racist. They instead support policies which superficially have another basis, but which also reinforce the vote of prejudicial whites. E.g. they are tough on immigration which keeps out non-whites. They are tough on crime, supporting a justice system which disproportionately punishes Blacks.

Their social policies are not about solving problems but blaming victims. It is much easier to accept Black disadvantage if you can blame Blacks for it, despite all the evidence that Blacks are disadvantaged by the system and legacy of slavery. This also helps them feel more comfortable about another policy, suppressing the Black vote.

This takes many forms: while we agonise over allowing prisoners to vote while in prison, in many US states the ban on voting persists after leaving prison, so many ex-cons, disproportionately Black, cannot vote. Onerous voter registration requirements aimed at Democrat voters, including Blacks. Gerrymandering. Often these things are illegal but they try them anyway, until they get taken to court over them by which time it may be too late if an election is due.

Abortion plays into this very well. It is partly victim blaming, and also plays into the narrative that Blacks are trying to gain unfair electoral advantage by breeding too much. Religion is a pretext for some, but it is not the main force behind this.

The above is a simplification. In particular there are not just two ethnic groups in America. Unfortunately for Republicans their policies offend other groups. E.g. Latinos, the other large minority, are conservative and religious in their own way but are turned off by the anti-immigration message.

Trump’s problem is that he is just being far too unsubtle about this. He says things that other Republicans prefer to say only in code, for fear of appearing too cruel or too racist. Trump has gained a lot of support this way, but also put off a lot of people, even within the Republican party. I’ve read some reports today that his polls may be dropping, as at long last voters take fright at what he has been saying. Probably too late though to save the Republican party from disaster.

[pogo]

I dislike Obama’s policies more, but Donald is a unique individual. If I were in my car and getting ready to reverse and saw Donald in the backup camera, I’m not confident which pedal I would push.

[(o)(o)]

[gumboot]

Well, they're right. Trump's a blatant liar and his supporters don't give a flying fuck.

[gumboot]

I suppose there is a kind of honesty in doing such a shit job of telling lies. Maybe it's a matter of "he might lie just like the rest of them, but at least he's too stupid to fool us".

[pogo]

Yes. To his supporters Trump is seen as honest, straighforward, telling it as it is. When the media calls him on it he rounds on them, saying they are biased, and usually doubles down on whatever he said. He only rarely tries to walk back anything; his recent statements are one example, his pretending not to know who the KKK are was another. But he does it very rarely, only when he has said something so stupid and offensive that even he sees it is doing real damage.

Except he does not get away with it so easily. Both of them were on TV, so there are recordings. No matter how he tries to explain it after the fact, the original recordings will still exist, for replay again and again in adverts. Along with all his other unpleasant, offensive and ridiculous statements.

[PumaG]

Yes. To his supporters Trump is seen as honest, straighforward, telling it as it is. When the media calls him on it he rounds on them, saying they are biased, and usually doubles down on whatever he said. He only rarely tries to walk back anything; his recent statements are one example, his pretending not to know who the KKK are was another. But he does it very rarely, only when he has said something so stupid and offensive that even he sees it is doing real damage.

Except he does not get away with it so easily. Both of them were on TV, so there are recordings. No matter how he tries to explain it after the fact, the original recordings will still exist, for replay again and again in adverts. Along with all his other unpleasant, offensive and ridiculous statements.

Funny thing is, Liberal America also gets offended by the truth. So Trump could just as easily offend by reeling off lists of uncomfortable truths, but that on it's own won't win votes. If he's successful , the next stage would be to wriggle out of promises he made. All standard stuff for a politician.

Weirdly Trump is now a million Dollar industry for the media and comics who hate him

The video posted a couple of pages ago about the Mexican wall is a great example. Predominately mocking Trump for wild exaggerations, haha this is funny, then the comic states the truth (almost as if he's sneaked it past the Network) that it was Bush signed the Mexican wall agreement, Xenophobes helped build it, Clinton and Obama actually voted for it "AND YOU VOTED FOR THEM" ......dead uncomfortable silence. Until the next quip that couldn't come soon enough mocking Trump's lies. It's almost like Trump is actually a relief valve for the shit system.

[PumaG]

Yes. To his supporters Trump is seen as honest, straighforward, telling it as it is. When the media calls him on it he rounds on them, saying they are biased, and usually doubles down on whatever he said.

to be fair there was that point where he came right out and said he'd changed his mind about Abortion. I can't think of a UK politician who would still be in a job telling the media he'd changed his mind on a policy, we have to listen to 4 years of drivel and ducking the questions

[gumboot]

Surely the existing wall detracts from the argument that Trump is too crazy to be dangerous. It's no longer clear that the US has any limit on how stupid an idea has to be before they won't implement it.

[PumaG]

I suppose there is a kind of honesty in doing such a shit job of telling lies. Maybe it's a matter of "he might lie just like the rest of them, but at least he's too stupid to fool us".

Well, they're right. Trump's a blatant liar and his supporters don't give a flying fuck.

I think Liberal America needs Trump more than the Rednecks need him. Like Britain, America has got to the low point of being offended by truth, so Trump is a relief and escape mechanism for the failures that existed way before he started mouthing off. Why blame yourselves for past failures and the shit state of things when you can blame Trump for things he hasn't done yet. Trump could almost be a BOT made by Microsoft paid for by the Democrats.

Obama and Clinton voted for the Mexican wall and you voted for them.

[pogo]

It’s not just Trump though, it’s the whole Republican party. Krugman I think put it very concisely this week:

The Pathos of Republican Reformers

After all, what is the modern GOP? A simple model that accounts for just about everything you see is that it’s an engine designed to harness white resentment on behalf of higher incomes for the donor class.

Trump is a product of this, but this means he is not that exceptional. If Trump had not come along then Cruz might well be the candidate, and he is barely better, being more extreme than Trump, more disliked by Republicans (Trump was at one point seen as more acceptable than Cruz, before he started saying totally crazy things). Four years ago they chose Mitt Romney, very similar to Trump. Another billionaire who had made his money dubiously, but who portrayed himself as a successful businessman. The difference between them is mainly presentational. Trump is just another version of Romney, but dumber, cruder, with less time for bothering with understanding the issues.

The Democrats in contrast pretty much believe what they say. Politically Clinton and Sanders are not that far apart. They want the same things, and agree on many areas of policy. The difference is in how they would go about governing, if elected.

[KlaxonCow]

Stop trying to pin everything on religion, it's really tedious.

They spent most of that interview talking about the Catholic Church's position on abortion.

Challenged on the legal practicality of his "ban abortions" policy, Trump repeatedly badgers the interviewer on his Catholic credentials.

"Are you Catholic? Then how do you feel about the Catholic Church's position? Do you know what their position on abortion is and do you concur with that position? What do you say about your Church?"

The code here could hardly be more explicit. Trump is haranguing the interviewer - knowing his religion and using it to advantage - with a "Catholic guilt trip" for daring to challenge him on the specifics of his abortion policy.

"Are you Catholic?". Trump knows well that he is. It's not a genuine innocent inquiry into the interviewer's religious beliefs. What he's really asking there, in code, is "Are you a good Catholic? I know you claim to be Catholic, but are you really?". And, thus, begins the guilt trip.

"How do you feel about the Catholic Church's position?" is a reminder to the god-fearing Catholic interviewing him that sticking up for abortion is disagreeing with the Church and disagreeing with God. "How can you claim to be a good Catholic when, by challenging my abortion policy, you're disagreeing with your Church and God himself?".

"Do you know what their position on abortion is?". Of course he does. We all do. This is "do bears shit in woods?" territory here and it's, again, not a genuine innocent inquiry. He's getting more aggressive with his guilt trip. "Are you disagreeing with God deliberately and with malice, or are you just too stupid to know God?" - both being the highest insults to the Christian.

Remember, defiant rebellion against God is the Original Sin, and ignorance of God is a one-way ticket to Hell ("I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me" - Jesus, John 14:6). Trump is laying the guilt trip down hard on this poor interviewer guy.

"What do you say about your Church?". More accusation.

Even if you can't read between the lines to realise that Trump's employing a standard religious "guilt trip" on the guy for challenging him over his abortion policy - and what effect "thou sinner!" has on the religious believer, doubly so when Catholic, so these are very insidious little tricks that Trump is using here - then how could you fail to spot that they spent the majority of that interview, nominally about abortion policy, talking about the Catholic Church?

Interviewer: "Abortion."
Trump: "Catholic Church, Catholic Church, Catholic Church, Catholic Church, etc. PUNISH WOMEN!!"

KlaxonCow: "Look, bloody religion again."
gravy: "Stop unfairly trying to pin it on religion!"

This is farcical. Watch the video again. They spent almost all of the interview talking about the Catholic Church and, in essence, the credentials of the interviewer in being a good little religious boy, for daring to challenge Trump - and, by extension, the Church and God himself - on the practicalities of his abortion policy.

And I'm out-of-order for simply pointing to what's self-evidently and explicitly right there - religion is pretty much all they spend the interview talking about - in front of us all in that video?

If I find you a token black man who supports racial segregation - they do exist - then can I claim that racism just doesn't exist at all? There's a movement - women against feminism - so does that mean female oppression and misogyny's never ever happened?

I'm not "pinning it" on religion. It's explicitly right there. Questioned on his abortion policy, Trump essentially replies "Catholic Church, Catholic Church, Catholic Church, Catholic Church" - bashing religion over the interviewer's head - for nearly the entirety of the interview. I'm just pointing at that and saying "look, religion again" and I'm the one in the wrong for nothing more than making an observation of the self-declaring self-evident explicit "religion talk" that compromises the overwhelming majority of that interview?

"For evil to triumph, all it needs is for good people to do nothing"

You're a good person, doing nothing.

Thankfully, there's a slim chance that, in practice, Trump would ever get his way on this - to win the Presidency, to enact this against Congress and the Supreme Court, etc. - because he is openly talking about punishing women. That's not in code. He explicitly says that his policy is punishing women. Actual women. Suffering. By conscious and deliberate "moral" choice.

Sorry if I am breaking the orthodoxy that religion is the ideology that's magically above all criticism, but they are openly talking about punishing women - choosing to cause perfectly unnecessary suffering - and I just consider that very much the moral imperative to point that out here, in favour of, well, not telling the children that the adult Santa Claus isn't real.


Or, more precisely, to go back to the comment I was replying to:

It is in the end about punishing women for their lack of morals.

And what moral standard are they using? Trump tells us over and over again: "Catholic Church, Catholic Church, Catholic Church, etc."

Yes, you can point to a different moral standard that just so happens to concur with the Catholic Church's on this. So fucking what?

That's a logical non-sequitur. What does the fact that someone over there, elsewhere, believes the same thing have to do with the basis on which the person in question here explicitly claims to believe it on?

[pogo]

tl;dr

In other news Trump’s new (as in in the last few hours) policy is that the abortion law is settled. Which is true, as the Supreme Court in 1973 found the law in the constitution, and that’s not going to change any time soon. The Supreme Court could revisit it and contradict itself but it is really reluctant to do that.

Problem is that is far too honest for Republicans whose candidates always promise to somehow make abortion illegal, via a constitutional amendment, stacking the Supreme Court, or something else even more far fetched. It’s a much better position for Trump but probably won’t help him, it will just get lost in the noise of his repeated flip-flops.

And what’s next? His actual position which is much closer to the Democrat one, based on statements before he converted to Republicanism to run for president. That will confirm the suspicions of many, that his demagogic stands on many issues is just a show, he really is a centre-left businessman with ties to the Democratic party.