Thursday, January 05, 2017

more politics

When we have an election in the US, there is usually a time where the losing party holds fire to see what the other one will do. When GW Bush won with a minority of the vote, 2 electoral college majority, and a Supreme Court intervention, still we saw a time of waiting to see-- but then along came 911 and all bets were off for a few years. 

Now, here we are in 2017 and half the country ready to rebel at anything the winner won (who won a lot of states but lost the popular vote thanks to California giving the loser a big plurality). We have populations in one state angry at another state. There is political philosophy against political philosophy with no real idea how half the country even thinks since out of the voting age population of 229.1 million, only 129.1 million bothered to vote.  Why did they stay home? Who did they favor? Did they even know there was an election?

With the aftermath so bitter-- and it is still very bitter if you read comments or have friends who are not all of one side of the partisan divide-- how can anyone govern? The left is trying to make Trump a failed president before he gets in office. They want to make him even more seen as a failed human being-- often using tidbits of what he said as ammunition with no idea what he really wants to do.

Well, a leader can govern, as Obama often had to do using executive orders, by fiat and that appears to be where we are heading. In the end though, how does that work for a country working for common goals? Can there even be any? Will this end up with revolution of one sort or another? some do believe that and it's interesting to see how they come up with our future.

Other than total panic, where does that lead? The where is where it gets interesting as there is a lot of disagreement on that. If you read only one of the links, make it be the one from Salon on Turchin's theories and how he got to his theory (and a book on it). 

The irony is that right now the left is alternating between raging and chuckling over Trump voters, and how upset they will be when they realize what he is going to do. If that means chaos, it's fine with them. They want back the country they thought they had before November. 

We heard the same thing from the right when Obama won and McConnell said he'd do all he could to make his a failed presidency. Obviously, it didn't matter what that cost the country. It doesn't now from the left either. They want their philosophies to succeed and who cares what happens to the people who are hurt by it. 

There is some irony to listen to Senator Schumer say he'll block any Supreme Court nominee. In the summer, he said it was horrible for the Republicans to do the same thing to Obama's pick. The country needs a Supreme court... *cough cough* Apparently, not anymore.

This isn't really a rant as I don't feel angry about any of it. I am interested in what comes next and how we personally can deal with it in a positive way. I am one of those-- glass is half full, let's fill it back up, kind of persons. I am not into my way or the highway thinking although I don't like losing important civil rights due to a religious agenda of someone else. Anyway I'll be writing more about this and how it might play out. :)


T. Paine said...

While I am not happy that Trump won, I would have been even less happy had Hillary Clinton won. I voted for neither of them.

I agree with your philosophy of "the glass is half full" though.

I did not vote for nor did I like much of the policies that President Obama championed. That said, he won the presidency and I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in the beginning. I disagree with him on most issues, but Obama was still my president because I am an American.

If I disagree with policies, then I work to convince others to think similarly and I petition my government's representatives accordingly. If I lose, I work harder to win next time. I try not to be embittered or work to dehumanize those with whom I disagree. After all, we are all Americans.

You and I probably disagree on many issues, Rain, but I have great respect for your optimism and your work to still have a conversation even with "evil" conservatives. :) If people as different as you and I are can be civil and get along, perhaps others can also find common ground that can help heal this battered nation. Such is my prayer!

Rain Trueax said...

I often have more in common with conservatives than liberals these days, which is rather shocking me. I though always considered myself a conservative in the sense of how I live my life and the values I live by. Somehow a lot of the conservative party got hijacked by a false kind of religiosity to the point they don't seem very conservative.

The thing with Trump winning is at the same time the House and Senate went even more far right (and that doesn't necessarily mean conservative). Half the country sees things one way and the other half totally the opposite. Well, not really half 1/3 with 1/3 of us in the middle and going both ways on different issues.

I have no idea how it'll go with Trump. Last night I didn't plan to watch Obama's swan song as I don't often watch speeches, but I did and saw it very idealistic but not necessarily practical. When he mentioned Iran and how his administration got a nuke deal was especially one of those times where I was shaking my head. Giving Iran all that money under the table to get a deal Iran may already be ignoring wasn't exactly telling how it was. And he didn't go into Arab Spring where I see his administration as having blown it-- leaving that whole region worse off than it was. I saw him though as an idealist regarding how people operate-- at the same time he's been gung-ho on more regulations on business because he doesn't trust them to do right. It's kind of funny in an ironic sort of way.

So Trump might do good for the business community, which would be good for jobs, while he also is forced to side with the righties in terms of taking away people's liberties-- like birth control, abortion, and gay marriage. It seems neither party ever gives me all I'd like ;).

I appreciate you coming here and commenting whether we agree or disagree. It's a dialogue from which I think we all benefit.

T. Paine said...

I think Trump probably will be good for jobs and business too. Some of his rhetoric against China and possibly starting a trade war could temper that though. I definitely have some serious apprehension about how he will govern in many ways.

As for social issues, there is no way that Trump is going to mess with birth control, other than to perhaps remove the anti-first amendment HHS mandate that causes religious-affiliated institutions to provide birth control, including abortifacients, against their religious beliefs. That is one area where I believe he needs to restore liberty. I would also think that anything he can do reduce abortion in the country is a very good thing. As for gay marriage, I would be very surprised if anything is done regarding the current status quo. I don't see him spending political capital on that issue.

I do agree with you that neither party gives me all that I'd like, for sure. I'd be happy if they simply followed the constitution, whether I liked a particular policy or not. I could at least respect that!

Cheers to you!

Rain Trueax said...

I want abortion to stay legal and safe. If someone wants to reduce its prevalence, offer more help to mothers for raising their baby. Sometimes women have abortions because they can't see a way with the children they already have. For those who don't want abortion, they should favor programs for the ones who need help and be willing to pay increased taxes to cover it. Having a child someone doesn't want can end up with a child who turns bitter and dangerous in adulthood. The whole issue of interfering with a woman's choice has a lot of ramifications. I was a young woman when abortion was illegal and it only forced it into dangerous back alleys. It's an important issue for women who are not into a religion.

T. Paine said...

Rain, I understand and can even appreciate your points. I further agree that we must provide the necessary resources, time, and love as a society to be able to help those that are unable to care for and raise another child. That responsibility first should fall on the extended family when possible. Churches and charitable organizations should then help pick up the slack, and then lastly the state or federal government. I am helping to raise a grandson specifically because of this situation, so I am not just blowing hot air without backing it up.

I fear the darkness of a society that refuses to protect the most innocent of life. If that life is disposable, then we all are at jeopardy based on the changing standards of our societal demands. Our very founding document as a nation speaks to the inherent right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all of us.

Yes, we absolutely should help those mothers that need assistance so that a child is raised to be healthy, well-adjusted, and productive. In order to do that though, it is my belief that we must ensure that all life, even nascent unborn life, is protected as sacred. We have already seen what the alternative is when we no longer hold life to be pricelessly valuable. Our soul as a nation has darkened and hardened because of our embrace of the culture of death, in my opinion. I don't think we will improve this by further traveling down this dark path.

Rain Trueax said...

I agree if you are talking about late term abortions. I favor limiting when they can be done as not after the fetus is viable. To me, early abortions are birth control if they happen early enough. But forcing a choice on a mother who has four kids and feels she cannot raise a fifth or a child with a severe handicap, that isn't for us to decide. It's ironic that many who want to end all abortions (won't happen-- it will just force it to back alleys) still favor wars and capital punishment. I don't feel that an early abortion is murder but those who see it that way, they better have the right punishment on the mothers to indicate they mean it. The right to abortion, for other than the religious, is a big deal to women. It's freedom and respecting a wman's right to make that decision.

T. Paine said...

Well, I do agree with your thoughts on consistency. It is my opinion that abortion should be illegal. I further think that the death penalty should be abolished and true life in prison should be the punishment for murder. As for war, I am a veteran and fought in the first gulf war. That said, declaration of war should follow the constitution and be declared by congress, in my opinion, and the war powers act stringently followed otherwise. Further, and most importantly, war should only be fought in self defense, when other innocent parties are in imminent mortal danger, or when VITAL national interests that would cause death of innocents is at stake.

As for abortion, I look at it from multiple points. First my faith informs me. Second, science says that a unique and valuable life begins with its own DNA and potential for greatness or mayhem at the point of conception. As a unique nascent life, it is my opinion that as a civilized people we should afford all possible protections for that life and every other life accordingly. To do that, we need to help those that would consider aborting their child that other options are indeed available, including adoption. We should support those women with our support, love, and treasure as needed accordingly, in my opinion once again. :)

Rain Trueax said...

Sounds like then you also want birth control illegal if it helps prevent conception... You are basing it on religion and today's interpretation of a few scriptures. People who base it on religion really aren't looking at an issue logically-- it's faith. You will never stop abortion. You can just bring it back to what it was when I was a young woman. It might make some people feel more righteous but it won't stop it. It's not in the Bible even though of course it was happening as women have long known how to end a pregnancy that is not wanted. The closest against it is when in the Old Testament and there is a punishment for a man who injures a woman and her 'fruit departs her' with a fine or legal penalty depending on what the husband thought (keep in mind an early pregnancy then wasn't even known; so this had to be further along). There is also the reference where one of the prophets said God had known him before he was in the womb... which sounds more like reincarnation than anything else. We do not know what God's view of abortion is but if it had been a big deal to Jesus, he'd have mentioned it. He didn't anymore than he did gay marriage. Anyway we won't agree. It's a big deal to women unless they are of a certain type of religion where it now has become a flash point. I want women to have the option but only for the first few months; then the baby becomes an issue also. Adoption is not always a good thing; so can't blame women for not wanting to spend the rest of their life worrying over where their baby is and whether it's being abused. Ending the pregnancy early on is the best solution for them-- again early on is key to me. Anyway we won't agree, as I said as I understand how those who are active in churches see this. I left organized religions for assorted reasons and these days have no use for religion. I know they give some great comfort.

T. Paine said...

I do want birth control to be illegal if it is an abortifacient after conception.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion though. I do indeed look at the issue of abortion from a position informed by my religious faith. I also look at it from a scientific perspective. The two are not a dichotomy but rather support each other in a very logical fashion.

I agree that we will never stop abortion, just as we will never stop theft or murder. Does that mean we should abandon the ideal that theft and murder are wrong and should be punished accordingly?

And just to give you perspective on my line of thought, I don't despise those that have had or support abortions. Rather, I feel a sense of sadness that they think this is truly their best option to end an unwanted pregnancy. I pray for those that are stuck in such a desperate situation and have nothing but compassion for them and their pain.

I know of two women in particular that were both friends in high school (many decades ago) of whom I both dated. They both got pregnant (not by me) after high school and sadly they both chose to abort their children. My one friend felt great sorrow and grief and is haunted by this to this very day. She then chose to marry the father of her aborted child and raised two other wonderful children since. She found a deep faith in God and has worked hard to help others in the world, to the point of even adopting two girls who were in an abusive drug-addicted home. Her journey has been difficult but very blessed and full of hope and optimism with her family.

The other lady continued on in one promiscuous relationship after another for decades. She never married and since has had many more abortions. Her life is very sad and she is always despondent about her lot in life. She has a very disjointed notion of God. I realize that this is anecdotal but it seems to be a common theme I have seen repeated over the years.

As for abortion not specifically being stated in scripture, I would agree. Christ also never explicitly said anything against pedophilia or necrophilia in scripture, but I think you would agree with me that He is distinctly against such practices.

Life is a gift given to us by our very creator. It is my belief that the willful destruction of that life is a reproach to God for this gift.

I don't expect to change your mind and you are correct that we will probably never agree. That is fine. Perhaps we can agree that we should all work together to make abortions "less necessary" for the women that choose that option.

If I may, you state that you only want to allow abortion in the first few month of pregnancy, presumably until the baby becomes viable outside of the womb. Fine. I can appreciate that limitation; however, I must ask you when that time is exactly? It used to be that the child wasn't viable until many months along the pregnancy. Now with modern medicine, a child is viable far earlier in the pregnancy then it ever was before. For that matter, a child may be viable far earlier in the United States then it would be in Nigeria. My point is that viability is an arbitrary standard based on knowledge and technology. The fact is that it is a separate life from the moment of conception. Shouldn't we err at least at that point?

Anyway, I will let you have the last word on this topic and I am sorry if this is something you would rather not discuss. Best wishes to you and yours, Rain. Cheers!

Rain Trueax said...

I don't mind discussing it since it is how many vote and very important. I heard about abortion from the time I was a child as my grandmother knew a woman who did them safely for women. She got arrested at least once for it but she cared more about the women who she could protect.

I'd personally have it be 10 weeks, which used to be the Jewish limit. These days a baby can survive at 7 months and sometimes less. I feel that except for serious complications where the mother could not know sooner, the earlier it'd done the better for the mother and the fetus. My mother had a miscarriage that she described when she had missed two periods. She said it only showed up as a blob in the toilet. By the time they look like babies, I think it's a lot tougher to justify it.

The thing is science allows us to have many options we once did not. If we really believe only what is natural is okay, a lot won't happen :).