Reasons not to support Trump and the Republican Party

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 6, 2020

First, let me establish that doing something because “It’s what the Bible says Christians should do” is a great idea in theory, but has often been twisted into a mockery of actual Biblical teaching. The best historical example of that, of course, is the whole thing with slavery in Colonial days and Jim Crow laws between the 1870s and the 1960s. A whole lot of Christians supported those things, and they were dead wrong.

Now let’s look at where Donald Trump and the current Republican platform are also dead wrong.

First, while it is true that the Bible encourages personal freedom and self-sufficiency, it does not teach us to do so at the expense of the poor. Throughout history, mankind in general has always despised its own poor, but both Old and New Testament strongly teach God’s people to provide a safety net for the poor. That’s a literal, simple, plain-sense-of-the-language interpretation of the Bible, not a “liberal” interpretation. Too many of the rich in ancient Israel ignored what the prophets said, and too many Christians today do the same thing, both by ignoring the commands and, even worse, by explaining them away to make it seem that the Bible doesn’t really say what it says. So you have sincere Christians—decent people, on the whole, in their private actions—actually believing that the Bible commands individuals to be like the Good Samaritan by helping those in need, while it commands civil government to do as the priest and the Levite did. (They are the ones who walked on past the injured man in the parable. According to some Christian school textbooks, government has no business dispensing private “charity.” The Christians who teach that believe that all government welfare—unemployment benefits, food stamps, free school lunches, Social Security and Medicare, everything—is anti-Christian. This is ridiculous on the face of it, and the reasoning that “explains away” the lesson of the Good Samaritan is every bit as bad as the reasoning that explained away Revelation 7:9 and the whole book of Philemon and allowed “good Christians” to purchase human beings that had been kidnapped from their homeland and transported across the ocean to become beasts of burden, and to terrorize free blacks after the Civil War in order to “keep them in their place.”

Second, while it is true that the Bible teaches high standards of personal morality and conduct, it does not teach us to impose God’s standards on unwilling individuals by force. There is a story that Charlemagne once marched a defeated army into a river and baptized 3000 new “converts” on the spot. That might have made sense militarily and politically from Charlemagne’s standpoint, but it was a complete perversion of what the Bible actually teaches about personal conversion. Likewise today, the whole idea of electing certain lawmakers so that they will pass “moral” laws completely flies in the face of the Biblical teaching of freedom of conscience. Laws enforcing private morality do nothing to actually improve private morality, because righteousness does not come by law, but only by faith. It cannot be imposed by force. Ergo, the whole “moral majority” political movement goes completely against what the Bible actually teaches.

Third, Donald Trump, with the complicity of Republican leadership, is encouraging American citizens to indulge in self-righteousness and the hate that flows from such self-righteousness. He is encouraging Americans to hate everybody who isn’t as righteous as they are, in contrast to Jesus’ own command that we love even our enemies. Too many American Christians who profess to believe the Bible are perfectly OK with that hate.

As I have said elsewhere, if I made an upper-class income and didn’t care about anybody except myself, I could easily be a strong supporter of Donald Trump. But I do care about people besides myself (because the Bible commands Christians to do that), and therefore I cannot support the policies of a man, and a political party, that encourages what the Bible condemns.

(As to how I can support the Other Party, which also pushes that which God condemns. . .that’s simple. The Democratic Party platform will not force me to engage in immoral activities if I don’t want to; their platform is all about leaving other people alone to do what they want even if I don’t personally approve. I’m OK with that. As the Apostle Paul himself wrote: “What have I to do with judging those outside the Church? God will judge them.”

Oh, and Democrats aren’t Communists, despite 40 years of Republican propaganda to the contrary. Even Bill Gates, one of the Kings of Capitalism, said as much. Gates said that Democrats are just Capitalists who believe in a bigger social safety net than Republicans do.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I’m good with that.

.Mikha'el. · Apr 6, 2020

So in other words, your entire thread is "Everyone go vote for the Democrats".

Ophiolite · Apr 6, 2020

.Mikha'el. said:
So in other words, your entire thread is "Everyone go vote for the Democrats".

I think a more accurate characterisation, if you insist on simplicity, would be "Don't vote Republican under the present 'management team' ", but @Evan Jellicoe can tell us if he thinks that fits, or misses by a mile.

SoldierOfTheKing · Apr 6, 2020

The poorest states in the union are solidly behind Trump.

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 6, 2020

.Mikha'el. said:
So in other words, your entire thread is "Everyone go vote for the Democrats".

Well, I admit that it is kind of a natural corollary of not supporting Trump and the Republicans. However, I will offer one caveat: if a Christian who takes the Bible seriously considers the points I make and gives rational rebuttals to them, and concludes that the Republicans are still a better choice, I will respect that. I will never say that the way a person votes constitutes proof or disproof of their faith. I know of too many Christians who do claim that a "real" Christian must vote a certain way.

Sketcher · Apr 6, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
First, while it is true that the Bible encourages personal freedom and self-sufficiency, it does not teach us to do so at the expense of the poor. Throughout history, mankind in general has always despised its own poor, but both Old and New Testament strongly teach God’s people to provide a safety net for the poor. That’s a literal, simple, plain-sense-of-the-language interpretation of the Bible, not a “liberal” interpretation. Too many of the rich in ancient Israel ignored what the prophets said, and too many Christians today do the same thing, both by ignoring the commands and, even worse, by explaining them away to make it seem that the Bible doesn’t really say what it says. So you have sincere Christians—decent people, on the whole, in their private actions—actually believing that the Bible commands individuals to be like the Good Samaritan by helping those in need, while it commands civil government to do as the priest and the Levite did. (They are the ones who walked on past the injured man in the parable. According to some Christian school textbooks, government has no business dispensing private “charity.” The Christians who teach that believe that all government welfare—unemployment benefits, food stamps, free school lunches, Social Security and Medicare, everything—is anti-Christian.

Where did Jesus or the Apostles command that the church give its charitable responsibilities to the state? Where is there any sort of command in the New Testament for a state-run welfare system that is automatically funded by wages that are taken out of your pay before you even receive your pay? Where is there any sort of command in the New Testament for a welfare system that fosters dependence on the government and penalizes people for trying to rise up out of poverty - discouraging single moms from marrying men who are willing to take responsibility for them and their children, discouraging people on state assistance from getting a job that gives them more than 15 hours a week? Or for Social Security checks to be taxed as income? That's what we have now.

Evan Jellicoe said:
Second, while it is true that the Bible teaches high standards of personal morality and conduct, it does not teach us to impose God’s standards on unwilling individuals by force. There is a story that Charlemagne once marched a defeated army into a river and baptized 3000 new “converts” on the spot. That might have made sense militarily and politically from Charlemagne’s standpoint, but it was a complete perversion of what the Bible actually teaches about personal conversion. Likewise today, the whole idea of electing certain lawmakers so that they will pass “moral” laws completely flies in the face of the Biblical teaching of freedom of conscience. Laws enforcing private morality do nothing to actually improve private morality, because righteousness does not come by law, but only by faith. It cannot be imposed by force. Ergo, the whole “moral majority” political movement goes completely against what the Bible actually teaches.

OK. Are you then in favor of rolling back existing restrictions on purchasing firearms, and rolling back anti-discrimination laws?

Evan Jellicoe said:
Third, Donald Trump, with the complicity of Republican leadership, is encouraging American citizens to indulge in self-righteousness and the hate that flows from such self-righteousness. He is encouraging Americans to hate everybody who isn’t as righteous as they are, in contrast to Jesus’ own command that we love even our enemies. Too many American Christians who profess to believe the Bible are perfectly OK with that hate.

Democrats are no better. Whether it is the Democrat-dominated press getting excited over a war, or the so-called progressive wing of the party fostering contempt of conservative Christians or white males or Jews, or reflexively assaulting the character of conservative women or racial or sexual minorities, or trying to silence any and all opposition with what has evolved into "cancel culture," there is plenty of self-righteousness and hatred on the left. It is evidence of idolizing left-wing views as morality.

GACfan · Apr 6, 2020

As an Independent, I would vote for a Republican if I thought the candidate was more qualified than the Democratic candidate, but I've changed my mind on that since Trump hijacked the Republican Party four years ago. I'll consider voting Democratic or Third Party in the upcoming election because I won't vote for Trump. I won't vote for a Republican or a Third Party candidate who supported him either. But I will more than likely end up voting for a Third Party candidate like I did in the 2016 presidential election.

Personally, I'm fed up with the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. As I've said before, neither one is morally superior and more righteous than the other. Both of these parties are filled with shrewd politicians who habitually lie through their teeth and deliberately try to deceive and cheat. Both of these parties are filled with arrogant politicians who behave as if they haven't matured past adolescence. IOW, both of these parties are filled with politicians who would stab other people in the back to obtain power.

Blade · Apr 6, 2020

For me I respect anyone that sits in that office. And I was told by my God in His word to pray for my leaders. I didn't care for Obama one bit. Yet. I never spoke negatively about him. Just words of life.

That being said. Forgive me...why your leaving other facts out about Rep.. and then nothing about the Dem's other then "Democrats aren’t Communists"? Well sure... if what you said was ALL there was.. then.. wow the DEMS are the best bet. Yet both sides of the media said many of Dem's are pushing, going that way. So many headlines "articles" "Democrats Socialists or Communists?"

See I look at what each one says and does. I search I don't just listen to LEFT or RIGHT media. We know some congressmen/women have out right lied so many times. Both sides do this yet.. not like this. I've been around since 60's. You like Dem's praise God!

expos4ever · Apr 6, 2020

Sketcher said:
Where did Jesus or the Apostles command that the church give its charitable responsibilities to the state?

I have always found this argument puzzling, as this is not an either-or situation. Given that Jesus so clearly commends charity, why in the world would Christians not passionately advocate for enshrining this principle in the way we order our entire society? It is almost as if you are saying the principles of charity are good enough for us (the church) but let's abandon our broader world to the forces of bare-knuckle, unregulated capitalism. And may the devil take the hindmost.

It is only at the level of government that a society can mobilize and, importantly, coordinate implementation of the principle of charity at the needed level; it is a fantasy to think that the church can achieve the economies of scale and sophisticated organization that a government can. Not to mention the fact that when the church solicits donations, it draws on a relatively small base of possible donors. When, on the other hand, people freely elect a government with a mandate to generally move money from the wealthy to the needy through taxation, the entire society is pitching in.

I also suspect that the position you appear to be espousing is a distinctly American one - I would bet that relatively few Christians in other nations would share your take on this.

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 6, 2020

Sketcher said:
Where did Jesus or the Apostles command that the church give its charitable responsibilities to the state? Where is there any sort of command in the New Testament for a state-run welfare system that is automatically funded by wages that are taken out of your pay before you even receive your pay? Where is there any sort of command in the New Testament for a welfare system that fosters dependence on the government and penalizes people for trying to rise up out of poverty - discouraging single moms from marrying men who are willing to take responsibility for them and their children, discouraging people on state assistance from getting a job that gives them more than 15 hours a week? Or for Social Security checks to be taxed as income? That's what we have now.

Yes, I am familiar with this argument, and there was a time when I accepted it. That would be during the time period 1972-2012, when I always voted Republican. Then, upon concentrated closer study, I started seeing some things I had missed. For example, it is true that families and churches can take care of their own, but nothing prevents self-governing entities from taking care of their own, either. The church is under no obligation to take care of those outside its own membership, although it is free to do so. But for the state to expect the church to take care of everybody is an abdication of the state's responsibility.
And that bit about fostering dependence is a red herring. Sometimes it does, but more often it doesn't. The majority of people on "welfare" are not deadbeats, and I realized I was wrong to accept the propaganda line that they were.

OK. Are you then in favor of rolling back existing restrictions on purchasing firearms, and rolling back anti-discrimination laws?

No. Both of those categories represent the state's legitimate efforts to promote the safety and equal rights of all its citizens.

Democrats are no better. Whether it is the Democrat-dominated press getting excited over a war, or the so-called progressive wing of the party fostering contempt of conservative Christians or white males or Jews, or reflexively assaulting the character of conservative women or racial or sexual minorities, or trying to silence any and all opposition with what has evolved into "cancel culture," there is plenty of self-righteousness and hatred on the left. It is evidence of idolizing left-wing views as morality.

I absolutely agree with you that this is a substantial problem. As I have said elsewhere, it is dishonest to argue that "my side does only good things; your side does only bad things." Both sides do some good and some bad, and both are guilty of hypocrisy in many ways. My view is simply that, all things considered, there are more and better Biblical reasons to support the Democratic Party than there are to support the Republican Party. But I would never say that the Republican Party never does anything right and the Democratic Party never does anything wrong. Only a blind partisan would say that. (Unfortunately, there are way too many blind partisans in America.)

Sketcher · Apr 6, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
But for the state to expect the church to take care of everybody is an abdication of the state's responsibility.

Where in the New Testament does it describe welfare as the state's responsibility?

Evan Jellicoe said:
And that bit about fostering dependence is a red herring. Sometimes it does, but more often it doesn't. The majority of people on "welfare" are not deadbeats, and I realized I was wrong to accept the propaganda line that they were.

I didn't say they're deadbeats, but the system incentivizes people to be deadbeats.

Evan Jellicoe said:
No. Both of those categories represent the state's legitimate efforts to promote the safety and equal rights of all its citizens.

Promoting abstinence and limiting abortion on demand also promotes safety and equal rights. Also, limiting access to firearms does not.

Evan Jellicoe said:
I absolutely agree with you that this is a substantial problem. As I have said elsewhere, it is dishonest to argue that "my side does only good things; your side does only bad things." Both sides do some good and some bad, and both are guilty of hypocrisy in many ways. My view is simply that, all things considered, there are more and better Biblical reasons to support the Democratic Party than there are to support the Republican Party. But I would never say that the Republican Party never does anything right and the Democratic Party never does anything wrong. Only a blind partisan would say that. (Unfortunately, there are way too many blind partisans in America.)

There are no Biblical reasons to support the Democrats over the Republicans, with the possible exception of environmental protection.

JSRG · Apr 6, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
Well, I admit that it is kind of a natural corollary of not supporting Trump and the Republicans.

What about third parties like the American Solidarity Party (whose platform seems to be more in line with your views)?

Big Boo · Apr 6, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
First, let me establish that doing something because “It’s what the Bible says Christians should do” is a great idea in theory, but has often been twisted into a mockery of actual Biblical teaching. The best historical example of that, of course, is the whole thing with slavery in Colonial days and Jim Crow laws between the 1870s and the 1960s. A whole lot of Christians supported those things, and they were dead wrong.

Now let’s look at where Donald Trump and the current Republican platform are also dead wrong.

First, while it is true that the Bible encourages personal freedom and self-sufficiency, it does not teach us to do so at the expense of the poor. Throughout history, mankind in general has always despised its own poor, but both Old and New Testament strongly teach God’s people to provide a safety net for the poor. That’s a literal, simple, plain-sense-of-the-language interpretation of the Bible, not a “liberal” interpretation. Too many of the rich in ancient Israel ignored what the prophets said, and too many Christians today do the same thing, both by ignoring the commands and, even worse, by explaining them away to make it seem that the Bible doesn’t really say what it says. So you have sincere Christians—decent people, on the whole, in their private actions—actually believing that the Bible commands individuals to be like the Good Samaritan by helping those in need, while it commands civil government to do as the priest and the Levite did. (They are the ones who walked on past the injured man in the parable. According to some Christian school textbooks, government has no business dispensing private “charity.” The Christians who teach that believe that all government welfare—unemployment benefits, food stamps, free school lunches, Social Security and Medicare, everything—is anti-Christian. This is ridiculous on the face of it, and the reasoning that “explains away” the lesson of the Good Samaritan is every bit as bad as the reasoning that explained away Revelation 7:9 and the whole book of Philemon and allowed “good Christians” to purchase human beings that had been kidnapped from their homeland and transported across the ocean to become beasts of burden, and to terrorize free blacks after the Civil War in order to “keep them in their place.”

Second, while it is true that the Bible teaches high standards of personal morality and conduct, it does not teach us to impose God’s standards on unwilling individuals by force. There is a story that Charlemagne once marched a defeated army into a river and baptized 3000 new “converts” on the spot. That might have made sense militarily and politically from Charlemagne’s standpoint, but it was a complete perversion of what the Bible actually teaches about personal conversion. Likewise today, the whole idea of electing certain lawmakers so that they will pass “moral” laws completely flies in the face of the Biblical teaching of freedom of conscience. Laws enforcing private morality do nothing to actually improve private morality, because righteousness does not come by law, but only by faith. It cannot be imposed by force. Ergo, the whole “moral majority” political movement goes completely against what the Bible actually teaches.

Third, Donald Trump, with the complicity of Republican leadership, is encouraging American citizens to indulge in self-righteousness and the hate that flows from such self-righteousness. He is encouraging Americans to hate everybody who isn’t as righteous as they are, in contrast to Jesus’ own command that we love even our enemies. Too many American Christians who profess to believe the Bible are perfectly OK with that hate.

As I have said elsewhere, if I made an upper-class income and didn’t care about anybody except myself, I could easily be a strong supporter of Donald Trump. But I do care about people besides myself (because the Bible commands Christians to do that), and therefore I cannot support the policies of a man, and a political party, that encourages what the Bible condemns.

(As to how I can support the Other Party, which also pushes that which God condemns. . .that’s simple. The Democratic Party platform will not force me to engage in immoral activities if I don’t want to; their platform is all about leaving other people alone to do what they want even if I don’t personally approve. I’m OK with that. As the Apostle Paul himself wrote: “What have I to do with judging those outside the Church? God will judge them.”

Oh, and Democrats aren’t Communists, despite 40 years of Republican propaganda to the contrary. Even Bill Gates, one of the Kings of Capitalism, said as much. Gates said that Democrats are just Capitalists who believe in a bigger social safety net than Republicans do.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I’m good with that.

As a Trump supporter, I'll be the first to admit that he is far from perfect. In fact, some of his views are questionable. For example, he wants to keep people out with a wall. He has also called immigrants criminals, drug dealers, and rapists, which is defamatory at best and xenophobic at worst.

Despite Trump's imperfections, I support him because he is pro-life.

It cannot be understated that abortion is the number one political issue of our time. Being in the womb is arguably the most dangerous place in America today. Did you know that one in four pregnancies ends in abortion? That means millions of unborn babies are having their lives snuffed out. Even sadder is the fact that so many people these days believe it’s merely a lifestyle “choice.” But it isn’t a choice—it’s taking a human life.

The Democrats are staunch supporters of so-called choice, which is to say they are pro-abortion. I cannot in good conscience support a party that would allow abortion to continue unabated. Roe v. Wade must be overturned.

Sketcher · Apr 6, 2020

expos4ever said:
I have always found this argument puzzling, as this is not an either-or situation. Given that Jesus so clearly commends charity, why in the world would Christians not passionately advocate for enshrining this principle in the way we order our entire society? It is almost as if you are saying the principles of charity are good enough for us (the church) but let's abandon our broader world to the forces of bare-knuckle, unregulated capitalism. And may the devil take the hindmost.

It is only at the level of government that a society can mobilize and, importantly, coordinate implementation of the principle of charity at the needed level; it is a fantasy to think that the church can achieve the economies of scale and sophisticated organization that a government can. Not to mention the fact that when the church solicits donations, it draws on a relatively small base of possible donors. When, on the other hand, people freely elect a government with a mandate to generally move money from the wealthy to the needy through taxation, the entire society is pitching in.

When I don't vote for the person who raises my taxes, I'm not pitching in. Heck, even if I do vote for someone who raises my taxes, I'm still not pitching in, because the money is automatically deducted from my paycheck before I can choose how to spend it. This does not meet the New Testament standards of charity. Worse, it disincentivizes people from giving by reducing their disposable income. Abandoning charity to the government is not moral, it is lazy.

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 6, 2020

Sketcher said:
Where in the New Testament does it describe government welfare as the state's responsibility?

Nowhere. But there is an unspoken assumption there, which is that anything not specifically permitted in Scripture is forbidden. The opposing view is that anything not specifically forbidden is permitted. I lean toward the second view. Otherwise, there is another problem: the only non-theistic form of government even mentioned in the Bible is rule by a monarch (Pharaoh, King, Emperor, etc.). There is no place in the Bible that explicitly allows for a republican form of government such as America has. Yet here we are.

I didn't say they're deadbeats, but the system incentivizes people to be deadbeats.

True. But the absence of any form of "welfare" permits employers to take advantage of people in desperate circumstances. No system can be tuned to perfection, so in an imperfect world I would rather have a few undeserving people get away with welfare fraud than have a large number of desperate, deserving people receive nothing.

Promoting abstinence and limiting abortion on demand also promotes safety and equal rights. Also, limiting access to firearms does not.

I treat the abortion question in greater detail elsewhere. I'll pass on it here, but I'll come back to it later.

There are no Biblical reasons to support the Democrats over the Republicans, with the possible exception of environmental protection.

See, that's the kind of partisanship I'm talking about. I just gave you a few reasons, and could have given many more, and rather than saying "I disagree with your logic" you just say "there are no reasons" as though I hadn't said anything.

Sketcher · Apr 6, 2020

Evan Jellicoe said:
Nowhere. But there is an unspoken assumption there, which is that anything not specifically permitted in Scripture is forbidden. The opposing view is that anything not specifically forbidden is permitted. I lean toward the second view. Otherwise, there is another problem: the only non-theistic form of government even mentioned in the Bible is rule by a monarch (Pharaoh, King, Emperor, etc.). There is no place in the Bible that explicitly allows for a republican form of government such as America has. Yet here we are.

I'm not saying it's forbidden. Thank you for admitting though, that it's not required. If it's not required, I have no obligation to support it if I believe it is a bad idea, and I do believe it is a bad idea.

Evan Jellicoe said:
True. But the absence of any form of "welfare" permits employers to take advantage of people in desperate circumstances. No system can be tuned to perfection, so in an imperfect world I would rather have a few undeserving people get away with welfare fraud than have a large number of desperate, deserving people receive nothing.

The welfare system as we have it doesn't stop that. What it does do is it punishes people for trying to work their way out of their circumstances, which I find unconscionable.

Evan Jellicoe said:
See, that's the kind of partisanship I'm talking about. I just gave you a few reasons, and could have given many more, and rather than saying "I disagree with your logic" you just say "there are no reasons" as though I hadn't said anything.

I made an exception which isn't exactly popular with many on the right (though I wish those I have in mind shared my view). So no, that's not blind partisanship. I have examined left-wing positions, and found most of them wanting.

lordjeff · Apr 6, 2020

Welfare states don't work. When it comes down to it, it comes down to self-preservation. During this pandemic I made an observation from a newspaper photo of a person hoarding toilet paper. Then I compared it over the last decade & the media's constant taunt to Trump et al about that its perhaps better to forget our republic & capitalist system & go communist. In other words divide things up equally & dole them out because that is really what people desire. Then I see this clipping. So much for sharing or leaving some TP for other people. Moral of the story. There is no such thing as an altruistic person on the planet. Everything comes down to self-preservation. It's just an innate thing to humanity. So I don't buy this social justice thing. America-even an imperfect one still has more opportunity than any other country. If this were not true, there would not be so many people trying to cross the border. And I agree with a previous commenter there are corrupt deal makers on both sides. It's the nature of the system. Now while it's easy to paint a picture that the GOP is somehow the moral equivalent of Stalin, then I look at the Democrats. They attack any conservative person on any view. E.g. people who are pro-life. I applaud Trump for being pro-life. That's the right thing. I understand it's divisive but I think in this difficult situation, the Creator who created us all is asking people to rise to a higher standard. Pope John Paul II the cells themselves are human or else it would be something else. People just maybe cannot appreciate that which they cannot observe & maybe just can't see the challenge of it laid out by the Creator. With regard to the issue of the poor. Jesus said the poor you will always have & it's true, people will have bad luck, have infirmities, not have skills, or make bad decisions. However, having administered the dole, it clearly is an industry that exploits the poor by keeping them in a barely-sustaining means-tested system, unable to set up an avenue to break free. The people who administer is are the ones dependent on the system because the poverty industry sets up job security. What is lacking are programs to provide job training or simply skill training, life skills courses, family skills courses, informational sessions on nutrition, budgeting, avoiding scams, staying healthy. This particular group of people is in need of much more mentoring & close counseling.

Allandavid · Apr 6, 2020

Big Boo said:
Despite Trump's imperfections, I support him because he is pro-life.

This week......

The Democrats are staunch supporters of so-called choice, which is to say they are pro-abortion.

This is quite untrue. To be in favour of allowing another person to make choices about their own reproduction DOES NOT automatically mean that I would be in agreement with that choice. I personally find abortion disagreeable, except in the cases of rape, health of the woman, etc. However, as a male, I will never be in the position of having to contemplate having the procedure done and I certainly do not feel I have the right to dictate to someone else how they should choose.

lordjeff · Apr 6, 2020

I have some liberal friends who are not pro-abortion, just want the choice. It's a shame & failing of this country that we can't even get to a middle road. What some of these folks are saying are what about rape, incest, wartime rape, medical emergency. I understand all that & for me it would be easy to design a law that met at the middle & allowed exceptions. That would be the best for a society of fallible humans. But I'm amazed in the last decade that nearly every piece of legislation seems to want to include some loophole for abortion as if this is the most imiportant thing for humanity. Would not a better approach be to go get some protection. Or is this just a cunning way to tell people of color that they have a free & vested interest to abortion rights because because...it's really a racist policy.

Evan Jellicoe · Apr 6, 2020

lordjeff said:
Welfare states don't work.

Define what you mean by "welfare state." If you mean a pure Marxist society, you are absolutely right. Marxism does not and cannot work. But if you just mean a democratic society with a safety net, well, America already has that, and America works. Mostly. But I can still argue that the safety net could and should be better. For example, there is no good reason not to have a healthcare system that includes everybody. Other developed countries have it, and the people of those countries are basically happy with it, despite propaganda to the contrary.

Reasons not to support Trump and the Republican Party

Well-Known Member

7x13=28

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Christian Spenglerian

Well-Known Member

Born Imperishable

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Born Imperishable

Well-Known Member

Ghastly

Born Imperishable

Well-Known Member

Born Imperishable

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads