Feds Bust Militia Plot to Kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Overthrow Government

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Racism is only one thread of the fabric of hate Trump has woven together.
Racism is the damaging of human rights, due to race. i o w racists are a type of rights violator.

The only real villains are human rights violators, and any charge that is not basically a rights violation charge is not weighty.

There is zero evidence that President Trump is any type of human rights violator. Therefore he has no hatred for anybody, for any reason. He doesn't condone or authorize rights violation either.

I could say the same for Biden, the abortion controversy aside perhaps, f w i w.

b t w human rights are negative rights. Negative rights are best defined by contrasting them with positive rights.

A good Samaritan law is an example of punishment for not doing the right thing, a positive right that people help you when you need help, and it is violent, and it is aggressive. While negative rights are also violent, they are instead peaceful. If you do not actively break someone's negative rights then you are in no danger of violence from the police, unlike with positive rights where you are under legal threat unless you do the prescribed right thing.

The people accusing the president of hatred and racism are begging the question that positive human rights naturally exist, rather than that they're just a preference.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Racism is the damaging of human rights, due to race. i o w racists are a type of rights violator.

The only real villains are human rights violators, and any charge that is not basically a rights violation charge is not weighty.

I've heard some civil rights advocates claim that one can only be racist if one is in power. I reject that notion. Anyone who attributes any sort of inferiority to a racial group because they happen to be in that racial group (and races are never biological) is a racist.

There is zero evidence that President Trump is any type of human rights violator.

When he used troops and gas to disperse perfectly legal demonstrations near a church, so he could get a photo op waving a Bible, that was a violation.

When he ordered children tossed into cages, without blankets, soap or other necessities, that was a violation, and a court so ruled.

Therefore he has no hatred for anybody, for any reason.

Like all narcissists, he's filled with hatred for anyone he perceives as being in his way.

He doesn't condone or authorize rights violation either.

He says we should seize people's guns and then worry about due process later.

He says that police should hurt people they arrest.
He described the precautions typically taken by police where they place a hand over a suspect's head while they're being put into a police car to protect them.

"When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just seen them thrown in, rough. I said, ‘Please don’t be too nice,’" he said.

"When you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head you know, the way you put their hand over [their head]," Trump continued, mimicking the motion. "Like, 'Don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head.' I said, 'You can take the hand away, OK?'

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=48914504

I could say the same for Biden, the abortion controversy aside perhaps, f w i w.

You're claiming Biden paid the woman he was commiting adultery with, to kill his unborn child? Trump did. So maybe that's not a very good argument for you.

b t w human rights are negative rights.

Freedom of speech, press, and religion, sound like positive rights to me. So does the right to bear arms, and the right to equal protection under the law. Trump has attacked every one of those rights. Would you like me to show you?

A good Samaritan law is an example of punishment for not doing the right thing, a positive right that people help you when you need help, and it is violent, and it is aggressive. While negative rights are also violent, they are instead peaceful.

You need to be a little more clear about this one. Can you restate it?
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I've heard some civil rights advocates claim that one can only be racist if one is in power. I reject that notion.
I do too. Many people holding no positions or offices of power can still violate someone's rights. I'd like to call them criminals as rights violators, but not all rights violations are against the law for civilians or private individuals, even though they are for government or police.
Anyone who attributes any sort of inferiority to a racial group because they happen to be in that racial group (and races are never biological) is a racist.
False. As an idea, that is just the preferred view of woke Karens and very many other voices today with audiences, but all of that is merely an appeal to popularity unless the idea is demonstrated to be true, and it has not been.

It doesn't matter what your view of races is, you could personally be a white supremacist or whatever, and you could nonetheless objectively defend everyone's rights equally, and, that is categorically superior to being a racial egalitarian philosophically, but objectively favoring or discriminating against any identity group for any reason at any time.

But according to the idea you expressed, you'd have to disagree with me, and maintain that there is evil in the rights defending and that there is goodness in favoritism and discrimination.

Are you sure you want to stand by your idea here?
When he used troops and gas to disperse perfectly legal demonstrations near a church, so he could get a photo op waving a Bible, that was a violation.

When he ordered children tossed into cages, without blankets, soap or other necessities, that was a violation, and a court so ruled.



Like all narcissists, he's filled with hatred for anyone he perceives as being in his way.
Projection. You're seeing things.
He says we should seize people's guns and then worry about due process later.
He did say that extemporaneously but that's who he is, extemporaneous and bombastic. All the time. Even when it doesn't make any sense to most people. Eccentricity is not a character defect.
He says that police should hurt people they arrest.
He described the precautions typically taken by police where they place a hand over a suspect's head while they're being put into a police car to protect them.

"When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just seen them thrown in, rough. I said, ‘Please don’t be too nice,’" he said.

"When you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head you know, the way you put their hand over [their head]," Trump continued, mimicking the motion. "Like, 'Don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head.' I said, 'You can take the hand away, OK?'

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=48914504
You're defending murderers in criticizing him for this, according to your own source. Murderers have a positive right to due process. They are also rights violators.
You're claiming Biden paid the woman he was commiting adultery with, to kill his unborn child? Trump did. So maybe that's not a very good argument for you.
Policy. Biden's policy reflects the very dogmatic idea that the embryo and fetus is not a human being, when he says he supports the supposed right to abortion.
Freedom of speech, press, and religion, sound like positive rights to me. So does the right to bear arms, and the right to equal protection under the law.
Because you're unfamiliar with the distinction.
Trump has attacked every one of those rights. Would you like me to show you?
He has not.
You need to be a little more clear about this one. Can you restate it?
Positive rights distinguish classical liberals from so-called modern, New Deal, French style, progressive liberals. They both support negative rights, but classical liberals don't believe in positive rights, and we see them as dangerous because they confuse the language of rights, and even more seriously they actually infringe negative rights. Positive rights are things like the right to health care, to food, to school, to universal basic income. Positive rights justify punishing people for not making them happen. Negative rights only punish people for actively infringing them.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Dueling Banjos ...
Nothing can sway us from our preferred candidate in this election, that's not the point. The point is, to explain how the world isn't insane or crazy or irrational or scary just because President Trump gets reelected.

The reaction of Clinton supporters to the 2016 election result was not good for our country. I hope, we Trump supporters hope, that another 2016 doesn't happen when he wins again.

I personally don't think it's going to repeat itself, I think everybody will be cooler and calmer about it and we'll get to the second impeachment in a more orderly fashion than we did to the first impeachment. We've all matured a little since 2016, and I am optimistic that 2020 won't be a repeat performance when Democrats again win the house, perhaps even the Senate, but still lose the Oval Office.

The sky's not falling when he wins again. Everything's going to be all right. That's the only message we can have a hope of communicating that might land, we certainly aren't going to win any converts by emphasizing his policies over Biden's, and downplaying his personal defects. We get the impression his own wife might not like him that much, who knows, but this isn't a popularity contest for us. Policy, including Supreme Court nominations (Trump supporters tend to believe we aren't taking our Constitution seriously, and "conservative" judges tend to be "originalists" which addresses our concern directly, we just want to take the document seriously in the way that originalists read it), is what Trump voters vote for.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Anyone who attributes any sort of inferiority to a racial group because they happen to be in that racial group (and races are never biological) is a racist.


No, that's what racism is. By definition.

It doesn't matter what your view of races is, you could personally be a white supremacist or whatever, and you could nonetheless objectively defend everyone's rights equally,

That would just be a racist who doesn't act on his racism.

But according to the idea you expressed, you'd have to disagree with me,

Yep. Racism is independent of power. You can be a racist without acting on it.

Are you sure you want to stand by your idea here?

Yep. It's commendable that a racist might be cautious enough or ethical enough to not act on his racism. That doesn't mean he isn't a racist.

When he used troops and gas to disperse perfectly legal demonstrations near a church, so he could get a photo op waving a Bible, that was a violation.
When he ordered children tossed into cages, without blankets, soap or other necessities, that was a violation, and a court so ruled.
Like all narcissists, he's filled with hatred for anyone he perceives as being in his way.

Projection. You're seeing things.

The court so ordered. Reality counts. And he openly admitted hating people he perceived to be thwarting his efforts.

He did say that extemporaneously but that's who he is, extemporaneous and bombastic.

He carelessly blurted out the truth. He doesn't do that a lot, but he did this time.

You're defending murderers in criticizing him for this,

Nope, and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying so.

Murderers have a positive right to due process. They are also rights violators.

So is Trump. As the court ruled. And yes, he will get due process, when he leaves office.

Policy. Biden's policy reflects the very dogmatic idea that the embryo and fetus is not a human being, when he says he supports the supposed right to abortion.

Whereas Trump paid his girlfriend to kill their unborn child.

Because you're unfamiliar with the distinction. Not only has he actually paid to have his own unborn child killed, he's advocated taking people's guns without due process, changing libel laws to stop reporting that he finds troublesome, and attacks the right of free assembly with force.

He has not.

Everyone knows he has. Why bother denying it?

Positive rights distinguish classical liberals from so-called modern, New Deal, French style, progressive liberals.

"French style?" 😀

So you don't think the right to bear arms, to life and due process, are "positive rights?"
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Anyone who attributes any sort of inferiority to a racial group because they happen to be in that racial group (and races are never biological) is a racist.

...that's what racism is. By definition.
That's a thought crime. A thought crime is fictional, it exists only in the subjunctive mood since to demonstrate that natural law suggests anything like thought crime, is to at once demonstrate that you do not understand natural law theory, and, not or, but and, that you also misunderstand the moods of sentences, in order for you to demonstrate a thought crime, is to "bridge the is-ought gap", only by assuming the antecedent, which is the same as assuming the consequent or conclusion, assuming good logic otherwise. That's just a fallacy, which means thought crimes are fictional. This is regarding of course metaphysical reality, since no crimes can really be objectively isolated and identified, apart from describing crimes in words.

Prove that you don't believe in thought crimes.

More below.
That would just be a racist who doesn't act on his racism.
Typical thought crime apologist---no thanks, we're not buying. There are no thought crimes, and I know that we can agree that there never ought be thought police. I'm being generous here, I'm genuinely giving you the benefit of the doubt, I believe that you too agree that thought police ought never be real. I'm not arguing that because we never want thought police, that thought crimes aren't real crimes like murder and rape are real crimes. Thought crimes are fake, made up, fictional, and if they are real and I am wrong, then the worst case is that they are real crimes but that they are all light crimes, lightweight crimes, and shouldn't be seriously punished, not like kidnapping or bearing false witness under oath against an innocent person. The latter two are serious crimes, and that means the punishments are more serious. I contend that thought crimes are just fake, not real crimes, but I will concede if it gets us to agree quicker, that they are real crimes but that they are all lightweight crimes.
Yep. Racism is independent of power. You can be a racist without acting on it.
Fake. No you can't. "Not acting on" racism is, not being racist. They are equivalent. It doesn't matter what kind of warm feeling you get in your heart when you think of Blacks, the only thing that matters is if you are in any way condemning, denying, delaying, ignoring, disregarding, breaking, invading, infringing, abridging, damaging, harming, censoring, disabling, corroding or eroding, offending, divesting, suspending, trampling, transgressing, wounding, trespassing against or otherwise treating them with contempt, the natural, fundamental, inborn, God given, inalienable or unalienable, intrinsic, inherent, basic, indivisible, indefeasible, absolute, primitive, primordial, pre-political, pre-existing, native, inviolable, sacred, universal human rights, entitlements, permissions, authorizations, liberties, freedoms, or inheritance, of Blacks, without justification.

If you are guilty of this for anybody else or of any other identity group, then you are what a racist is but with a different prejudice. You are equal with a racist, if you for example fail to preserve, protect, secure, well defend, recognize, acknowledge, affirm, guarantee and confess the rights of women, or of billionaires, or of Catholics, you're equal to racists, just with a different prejudice.
Yep. It's commendable that a racist might be cautious enough or ethical enough to not act on his racism. That doesn't mean he isn't a racist.
You're just begging the question by calling him a racist, without him "acting on his racism". Without "acting on 'his racism'", he's not a racist.

He's not a racist.
When he used troops and gas to disperse perfectly legal demonstrations near a church, so he could get a photo op waving a Bible, that was a violation.
When he ordered children tossed into cages, without blankets, soap or other necessities, that was a violation, and a court so ruled.
Like all narcissists, he's filled with hatred for anyone he perceives as being in his way.



The court so ordered. Reality counts. And he openly admitted hating people he perceived to be thwarting his efforts.



He carelessly blurted out the truth. He doesn't do that a lot, but he did this time.
You never know when he's doing that. It'd be so much easier to debunk him if he never told the truth but he mixes it in just enough so that he can't be cancelled or modeled. And it's delightful when an otherwise transparently biased newsman has to admit when the president does utter a salient and timely fact amidst the din of bombast.
Nope, and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying so.
Read your own quotes from your own source. He specifically mentioned murderers as those whose heads should accidentally get bumped on the way into the cruiser. And you're defending them.
So is Trump. As the court ruled. And yes, he will get due process, when he leaves office.
Bluster.
Whereas Trump paid his girlfriend to kill their unborn child.
Was the right thing to do, to make her pay for it?
Because you're unfamiliar with the distinction. Not only has he actually paid to have his own unborn child killed, he's advocated taking people's guns without due process, changing libel laws to stop reporting that he finds troublesome, and attacks the right of free assembly with force.
His policy position on abortion is the dogma that the embryo and fetus are persons, which means fully as much as it does that children are persons, and that Blacks are persons. Persons possess rights. Biden's policy position on abortion is that it's up to the mother to decide if her embryo and fetus is a person. Are you familiar with that distinction?

It's the distinction between an Antebellum political abolitionist in the South who honestly campaigns as an abolitionist, but, in the meantime, while slavery is still legally protected, keeps his own slaves. Not a hero by any means, and absolutely a hypocrite, and maybe a coward, but if legislation abolishing slavery comes across his desk, he will sign it into law.

But compare that now to his opponent candidate B who, while owning no slaves himself, fully defends the right of other slavers to own and deal in slaves. "It's the slaver's choice" he says. "Nobody is forcing anybody to keep slaves" he says, to defend against accusations that his policy is oppressive. "Pro-choice."

Candidate A is Trump and candidate B is Biden.
Everyone knows he has. Why bother denying it?



"French style?" 😀
Yeah

The French revolutionaries, inspired by us, came up with a declaration of rights that included a number of positive rights rather than just the predominantly negative rights in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
So you don't think the right to bear arms, to life and due process, are "positive rights?"
Man, I don't think that positive rights are rights at all, but subsidization policy draped in the language of rights. I think it's the same linguistic error as those French made, and it's as a result a political and legal error too. And it's manipulative to the impressionable. Which is, due to a lack of civics education in our subsidized (largely public) schools, a k a political science, almost everybody.

The only inborn rights are negative rights, a distinction that's only necessary because of the fictional positive "rights" that bleeding hearts have appropriated to support their moralistic subsidization policies.

Negative rights are good, like how testing "negative" for a dangerous disease (like covid, if you're over 70 and have over two comorbidities and low vitamin D levels) is good.

I'd just assume not have to qualify rights with either positive or negative, but those supporting positive rights have made it necessary.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Anyone who attributes any sort of inferiority to a racial group because they happen to be in that racial group (and races are never biological) is a racist.

...that's what racism is. By definition.


That's a thought crime.


It's not a crime at all. What's the matter with you?

A thought crime is fictional, it exists only in the subjunctive mood since to demonstrate that natural law suggests anything like thought crime, is to at once demonstrate that you do not understand natural law theory, and, not or, but and, that you also misunderstand the moods of sentences, in order for you to demonstrate a thought crime, is to "bridge the is-ought gap", only by assuming the antecedent, which is the same as assuming the consequent or conclusion, assuming good logic otherwise. That's just a fallacy, which means thought crimes are fictional. This is regarding of course metaphysical reality, since no crimes can really be objectively isolated and identified, apart from describing crimes in words.

Racism isn't a crime at all. Acting on it in certain ways can be a crime. Did you really not realize that? Seriously?

Prove that you don't believe in thought crimes.

I'm having a hard time believing you aren't being intentionally dense here.

(No, it seems it's not intentional)

Typical thought crime apologist---


No thanks, we're not buying.

"Not acting on" racism is, not being racist.

Of course it can be. Racism is a state of mind, not an action. You can act on a state of mind, but that doesn't make a state of mind an action.

They are equivalent.

No. States of mind are not actions. A state of mind can be a sin, of course. Which is what I think is bothering you, not a crime.

Read your own quotes from your own source. He specifically mentioned murderers as those whose heads should accidentally get bumped on the way into the cruiser. And you're defending them.

I'm defending the rule of law. It is not the function of the police to punish wrong-doers, particularly people who are still innocent, but charged with a crime. It is up to courts to decide guilt and to determine punishment. If a police officer can slam an accused murderer's head into a door, he can also beat you up when he stops you for speeding or having an expired inspection sticker. You don't support the law; you're merely supporting whoever happens to have power at the moment.

He's not a racist.

Your denials are impotent in the face of the facts. Sorry.

Whereas Trump paid his girlfriend to kill their unborn child.

Was the right thing to do, to make her pay for it?

If you don't know that the right thing to do would be to not pay her to kill his child, then we've located the problem.

His policy position on abortion is the dogma that the embryo and fetus are persons, which means fully as much as it does that children are persons,

And he paid his girlfriend to kill his own child, a person according to his own beliefs. You want a man like that making decisions as president?

and that Blacks are persons. Persons possess rights.

Unless, for example in the case of his child, he decides that he should kill that person because it would be better for him to do so.

Biden is willing to follow the law on abortion, but refuses to actually kill a child himself.

Trump says that abortion is evil, and killing a child, but paid his girlfriend to kill his own child.

That's the difference.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Anyone who attributes any sort of inferiority to a racial group because they happen to be in that racial group (and races are never biological) is a racist.

...that's what racism is. By definition.
You are familiar with homonymy, correct? The idea that the same word can have different lexical or literary definitions?
It's not a crime at all. What's the matter with you?
Have you lost your mind?
Racism isn't a crime at all. Acting on it in certain ways can be a crime.
You are of two minds.
Did you really not realize that? Seriously?



I'm having a hard time believing you aren't being intentionally dense here.

(No, it seems it's not intentional)




No thanks, we're not buying.



Of course it can be. Racism is a state of mind, not an action. You can act on a state of mind, but that doesn't make a state of mind an action.
Then is there any objective things besides words, either uttered or written (or sung I suppose), that positively identifies racism? I mean, apart from human rights violations, that are made due to race?

To remind you, my position is that rights violations due to race is the only real racism in the world today, that anybody basically is capable of violating a person's rights, and that there are a number of other reasons or excuses or motives or prejudices besides race, that people have for violating some person's or some identity group's rights.

Your position is that racism is invisible. I contend that it is real, and observable.
No. States of mind are not actions. A state of mind can be a sin, of course. Which is what I think is bothering you, not a crime.
Then in confessing that racism is a state of mind, that it is not a crime to have this state of mind, but that it might be a "sin", you are making a religious argument.
I'm defending the rule of law.
The rule of law is a liberal institution, but tell me, if our own government is not obeying our Constitution, then how is the rule of law defended currently? We basically trust our government to defend the rule of law, but if our government ever fails to defend the rule of law, what is our recourse? Of course our Constitution recognized a right to petition the government for redress, but what if they don't listen or care? What then becomes of the rule of law, if our government fails to defend the rule of law?
It is not the function of the police to punish wrong-doers, particularly people who are still innocent, but charged with a crime. It is up to courts to decide guilt and to determine punishment. If a police officer can slam an accused murderer's head into a door, he can also beat you up when he stops you for speeding or having an expired inspection sticker.
Slippery slope fallacy.
You don't support the law; you're merely supporting whoever happens to have power at the moment.
Rather, I have a natural rights based legal theory. The theory sets out what should and what should not be laws. And laws that are invalid according to the theory, are wrong laws, that are wrong to obey. And I don't mean wrong like a mathematical problem is worked out wrong and the answer is wrong. I mean it is morally wrong, it has moral significance, in an absolute fashion. You cannot hide behind an enacted law and just say you were following orders or obeying the law, to escape the moral implications of obeying an invalid, immoral law.
Your denials are impotent in the face of the facts. Sorry.
So you're granting that the president has done nothing objective that supports your assertion that he's a racist. Instead you maintain that you can see into his mind.
Whereas Trump paid his girlfriend to kill their unborn child.



If you don't know that the right thing to do would be to not pay her to kill his child, then we've located the problem.



And he paid his girlfriend to kill his own child, a person according to his own beliefs. You want a man like that making decisions as president?
He would sign anti-abortion legislation if it crossed his desk. Biden would not.
Unless, for example in the case of his child, he decides that he should kill that person because it would be better for him to do so.

Biden is willing to follow the law on abortion
So were anti-abolitionists in the Antebellum South.
, but refuses to actually kill a child himself.
Thanks for confirming my analogy. The president would sign anti-abortion legislation if it crossed his desk. Biden would not.
Trump says that abortion is evil, and killing a child, but paid his girlfriend to kill his own child.

That's the difference.
Policy. A former, or even a current slaver who has already nominated Supreme Court justices who believe that Blacks are persons, and that all persons possess all the same rights, including the right against being enslaved, is better than a candidate who is personally opposed to slavery, but who will not sign legislation to abolish it.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Anyone who attributes any sort of inferiority to a racial group because they happen to be in that racial group (and races are never biological) is a racist.

...that's what racism is. By definition.

You are familiar with homonymy, correct? The idea that the same word can have different lexical or literary definitions?

You're talking about obfuscation, in this case. Words mean things. Racism is not a crime. If you doubt this, pull up a document from any state or federal law, making it so.

Racism isn't a crime at all. Acting on it in certain ways can be a crime.

You are of two minds.

I'm just showing you the facts. Dishonesty isn't a crime, either, unless you act on it in certain ways. There's no crime of "dishonesty" per se; it's only if one acts on one's dishonesty in particular ways,that it can it become criminal.

There is no crime of racism, unless one acts on it in a way that illegally harms others. There's no crime in dishonesty, unless one acts on it, in an illegal manner.

Your position is that racism is invisible.

In the same sense that faith is invisible. And yet we can infer states of mind in others by observing what they do. Racism is visible only when that state of mind causes one to do something visible.

I contend that it is real, and observable.

So you are claiming states of mind are not real? You think we can't infer them by observation? C'mon.
States of mind are not actions. A state of mind can be a sin, of course. Which is what I think is bothering you, not a crime.

Then in confessing that racism is a state of mind, that it is not a crime to have this state of mind, but that it might be a "sin", you are making a religious argument.

Yes. But a sin is not a crime. Corrupt states might seek to make it so, but that is another sin it itself. That racism can be a sin, does not make it a crime.

The rule of law is a liberal institution, but tell me, if our own government is not obeying our Constitution, then how is the rule of law defended currently? We basically trust our government to defend the rule of law, but if our government ever fails to defend the rule of law, what is our recourse?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Notice that the declaration asserts three positive rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And notice there's no assertion of a right to happiness, just the right to pursue it. So for Americans, there more than just things government is forbidden to do.

So you're granting that the president has done nothing objective that supports your assertion that he's a racist. Instead you maintain that you can see into his mind.

I'm pointing out that one can infer states of mind from behavior. Do you really not realize this?

Whereas Trump paid his girlfriend to kill their unborn child.

He would sign anti-abortion legislation if it crossed his desk.

But he pays to have his unborn child killed. Biden would not.

Trump still says it was the right thing to do. "Things happen" he says, as if convenience was sufficient to take a human life. It you agree with that, then Trump is your guy.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
"Your position is that racism is invisible"
In the same sense that faith is invisible. And yet we can infer states of mind in others by observing what they do. Racism is visible only when that state of mind causes one to do something visible.
We cannot infer states of mind in others by observing what they do unless their words corroborate, because there can be any number of reasons why anybody does what they do, even if it's habitual. You don't have any especially unambiguous words from the president corroborating your notion that he's racist, it's all interpretation on your part and on the part of his political enemies. Fact is he hasn't supported in any way any racist laws or policies based on anybody's race which is literally what racism is.



So you are claiming states of mind are not real? You think we can't infer them by observation? C'mon.
States of mind are not actions. A state of mind can be a sin, of course. Which is what I think is bothering you, not a crime.
You're the one talking about states of mind.

"Then in confessing that racism is a state of mind, that it is not a crime to have this state of mind, but that it might be a "sin", you are making a religious argument."
Yes. But a sin is not a crime. Corrupt states might seek to make it so, but that is another sin it itself. That racism can be a sin, does not make it a crime.
Are you literally voting for Biden because you think he's a good Catholic? And the president isn't?
Spoiler



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


Notice that the declaration asserts three positive rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And notice there's no assertion of a right to happiness, just the right to pursue it. So for Americans, there more than just things government is forbidden to do.
In a political context those are negative rights, that are proscriptions against the government, and others. It has no meaning at all if those aren't proscriptions against others. You're pursuing happiness and someone blocks you, that's interfering with your right, which means they're not allowed to do that, that's a negative right.

A positive right is, I think building a roller coaster in my back yard will make me happy, give me money to do it. That's a positive right.
I'm pointing out that one can infer states of mind from behavior. Do you really not realize this?
We can beyond a reasonable doubt infer that a killing was a murder. We cannot infer anything if someone doesn't do anything though.
Trump paid his girlfriend to kill their unborn child. ... he pays to have his unborn child killed. ... says it was the right thing to do. "Things happen" he says, as if convenience was sufficient to take a human life. It you agree with that, then Trump is your guy.
There's one idea at the heart of abortion, and it's similar, analogical, parallel with the central idea with slavery. Everybody believed in the inalienable right to liberty, which is at minimum the right against being enslaved, but Blacks did not possess this right because Blacks were not persons.

Everybody believes in the inalienable right to life, which is at minimum the right against being murdered. But the embryo and fetus is not considered a person.

Biden the Catholic who acts like he's a faithful Catholic supposedly believes that the embryo and fetus is a person but resists supporting laws forbidding indiscriminate abortion.

In the 1850s say, if there were a campaign for president where one candidate promised to protect slavery, that candidate would be saying in his policy position that he does not believe Blacks are persons.

Biden promises to protect indiscriminate abortion.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump doesn't want to talk about abortion.
After years of saying he would appoint "pro-life” judges and bragging that the landmark Roe v. Wade decision would be overturned “automatically" if he won, Trump is now tiptoeing around the issue as he tries to get another justice confirmed to the Supreme Court before the Nov. 3 election.

“You don’t know what’s on the ballot,” Trump interjected during this week's first presidential debate when Democrat Joe Biden said the ruling giving women the right to an abortion was at stake.

“Why is it on the ballot? Why is it on the ballot?” Trump demanded. “It’s not on the ballot. ... There’s nothing happening there."

That reticence stands in stark contrast to his past statements and underscores the risks Trump and Republicans are facing as they rush to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett before the election.

With polls showing Trump trailing Biden nationally and in some battleground states, Trump is trying to deliver for his conservative base while avoiding making abortion a central focus of the election. His campaign worries it could turn off voters who support abortion rights and drive on-the-fence or undecided voters — especially women — to turn out for Biden en masse.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...ump-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-abortion-rights

Trump doesn't care. It only matters to him as a political game. When it looks like it might hurt him to be pro-life he tosses pro-life people under the bus.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
...Trump doesn't care. It only matters to him as a political game. When it looks like it might hurt him to be pro-life he tosses pro-life people under the bus.
And yet the three justices.... He could throw everybody under the bus, but those justices persist. They survive this election, whether or not the president does, and they survive his at most four more years in office too.

I again compare his personal history, all the things he's ever said about the matter, to the justices he's nominated and how an Antebellum president with the same policies on slavery would earn my vote and most likely your vote as well. Why he hasn't earned your vote is anybody's guest ([sic]; 'guess'). Democrats reject the very Catholic, but not exclusively Catholic idea that the embryo and fetus are persons. President Trump has nominated justices who are at least going to make it interesting, if the abortion crisis ever reaches the Supreme Court. A President Biden or Harris would never.
 
Last edited:

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
And yet the three justices.... He could throw everybody under the bus, but those justices persist. They survive this election, whether or not the president does, and they survive his at most four more years in office too.

I again compare his personal history, all the things he's ever said about the matter, to the justices he's nominated and how an Antebellum president with the same policies on slavery would earn my vote and most likely your vote as well. Why he hasn't earned your vote is anybody's guest. Democrats reject the very Catholic, but not exclusively Catholic idea that the embryo and fetus are persons. President Trump has nominated justices who are at least going to make it interesting, if the abortion crisis ever reaches the Supreme Court. A President Biden or Harris would never.

I supported Trump half heartedly in 2016, mostly as a block against Hillary. Never expected him to win. Figured that the main stream republicans in the senate would be a block to his more potentially outrageous actions and that was correct. I support him wholeheartedly this time not only as a block against extreme progressivism in the form of the real Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, but also because of his record - a record of success economically and surprisingly in the international stage. Four years of no new wars. Four years of quiescence on the North Korean front, on the Ukrainian front, on the Syrian front - those three constant drum beats of threat during the eight years of the former presidency.
 
Top