Reasons not to support Trump and the Republican Party

[Big Boo]

I give you credit for being logically consistent, which most "pro-life" advocates are not. If a fetus in the womb is exactly identical to a baby outside the womb, then one must indeed conclude that an abortion doctor is a murderer-for-hire, and the woman who paid the doctor to kill her baby is no different from somebody who hires a hit man to kill somebody. This makes both of them guilty of a capital crime. You are absolutely right. And you are fully entitled to your opinion, which then should guide your own personal actions if you should one day discover that your wife is pregnant by rape.

However, you should be aware that until at least 1973 the Southern Baptist Church did not agree with your position. In January of that year the Baptist Press ran an editorial praising Roe v Wade as being a victory for freedom of conscience and religious liberty. And prior to 1869 the Catholic Church did not consider abortion to be a crime. The claim that the Catholic Church has always agreed with the Hippocratic Oath (which does condemn abortion) is simply not true.

So, you are entitled to your opinion. But I, and the great majority of Americans, and even a majority of Christians who call themselves "pro-life" do not agree with you. Not even the Alabama legislature, which recently passed the strictest anti-abortion law so far, is fully in agreement with your position. Alabama House Bill 314 finds the doctor guilty of a felony, but does not criminalize the woman who hired the doctor. It seems that nobody is willing to go that far.

How do you reconcile your pro-choice views with pro-life scripture? Whether or not the majority of Christians agree with the pro-life position doesn't matter; it's what the Bible says on the subject that determines if the pro-life position is true or not. And scripture is pretty clear about life in the womb being life. You can view pro-life verses here: 12 Verses about Abortion - What Does the Bible Say? Pro-Life Scriptures

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

1. Can you provide evidence to back this up? Considering also the secular charity organizations, I don't believe that to be true.

That's a fair question. Give me a little time to collect information.

2. Not always, let me us the word "predominantly" and this position is based on my own personal experiences with folks, whom I am acquainted, who are on WIC and SNAP.

I'm sure you realize that anecdotal evidence can be illustrative, but it cannot be used as proof. Only reliable statistics can provide information that is useful for broad policy decisions.

3. It seems to me that the GOP panders to the middle class more.

My point exactly. All politicians are vulnerable to the accusation of "pandering." But I usually give them credit for "pandering" to the side that they actually prefer. That may not always be true (I once knew a hardcore conservative--not a politician himself, but somebody who had some small amount of influence--who registered as a Democrat precisely because one could not have any credibility as a Republican in that state. But I tend to be charitable and assume that most politicians join the party that actually reflects their own views to start with.

4. Go back and read the Constitution. You've switch the wordA "promote" with "provide!" HUGE difference and in complete contrast to the Founders' intentions. Federal government is to provide national defense, and promote the General Welfare (which could be understood as welfare between the states rather than individuals). This is clear, and quite stark that this has gone by the wayside since the 1930s.

That's a fair debate point. And I would argue, in such a fair debate, that federal policies are not necessarily required to remain unchanged from their "original intent" if the language in the Constitution is not precise. For example, the working definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" has changed quite a bit since 1788. Similarly, the meaning of "promote" may not mean the same thing now as it did in 1788. Still, I agree with you that your point is a fair one to make. I just don't come to the same final conclusions that you do. I think that what Franklin Roosevelt did was hugely beneficial, and do not agree with those who maintain that he only made things worse and should have left well enough alone.

So again I reiterate that if you carefully think about what I say, and still come to a different conclusion, I respect that. It is only the blind, unthinking partisan that I lack respect for.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

How do you reconcile your pro-choice views with pro-life scripture? Whether or not the majority of Christians agree with the pro-life position doesn't matter; it's what the Bible says on the subject that determines if the pro-life position is true or not. And scripture is pretty clear about life in the womb being life. You can view pro-life verses here: 12 Verses about Abortion - What Does the Bible Say? Pro-Life Scriptures

That's actually easy: I don't think the Bible says what you think it says. And as a former teacher of junior high and high school English, and a Bible college graduate, I do know something about vocabulary and grammar and the original languages.
Just to take a common starting point, Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 1 are not teaching about the starting point of life; they are referring to God's foreknowledge. That is the plain sense of the passage if you just read it for what it says. And Numbers chapter 5 actually has God not only permitting, but commanding a procedure that will lead to a miscarriage. I have read some commentaries that deny that any miscarriage follows, but their arguments only work if you believe that the plain language of the passage doesn't really say what it says. And that comes from starting with an unshakeable conclusion, then interpreting the passage in a way that forces it to come to the preordained conclusion. I prefer to start with an open mind, and allow the Scriptures to say what they say.

 

[Big Boo]

That's actually easy: I don't think the Bible says what you think it says. And as a former teacher of junior high and high school English, and a Bible college graduate, I do know something about vocabulary and grammar and the original languages.
Just to take a common starting point, Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 1 are not teaching about the starting point of life; they are referring to God's foreknowledge. That is the plain sense of the passage if you just read it for what it says. And Numbers chapter 5 actually has God not only permitting, but commanding a procedure that will lead to a miscarriage. I have read some commentaries that deny that any miscarriage follows, but their arguments only work if you believe that the plain language of the passage doesn't really say what it says. And that comes from starting with an unshakeable conclusion, then interpreting the passage in a way that forces it to come to the preordained conclusion. I prefer to start with an open mind, and allow the Scriptures to say what they say.

That is an interesting point of view. I’ve never heard anyone argue that verses such as Jeremiah 1:5 meant God’s foreknowledge of life instead of life being in the womb.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

That is an interesting point of view. I’ve never heard anyone argue that verses such as Jeremiah 1:5 meant God’s foreknowledge of life instead of life being in the womb.

I don't doubt that. And I can cite you lots of other verses that are always (in my experience) interpreted a certain way, which does not actually fit the language. Usually the common understanding is harmless, but sometimes it really matters. Like when all the Southern theologians agreed that the "curse of Canaan" justified singling black people out for slavery. Then there are all those exegetical gymnastics that were performed to "prove" that "wine" did not mean "wine." The Bible does give plenty of support for choosing total abstinence as a lifestyle, but it never categorically commands it, despite the fact that abstinence is widely assumed to be a Biblical command. That assumption never existed before the 1800s, and never existed outside America.

So, yes, I am perfectly at ease talking about the proper interpretation of Psalm 139. The plain vocabulary and grammar points to foreknowledge; only a preordained conclusion makes it come out as defining the starting point of life.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

1. Can you provide evidence to back this up? Considering also the secular charity organizations, I don't believe that to be true.

A skimming of Googled sources gives some information that can serve as a starting point.

Here is an article from a liberal source that does not give hard statistics, but does quote a number of experts as being skeptical that private charity has the ability to take up the slack.
Can Religious Charities Take the Place of the Welfare State?

Here is an article from a Libertarian source, but it doesn’t assert that private charity is currently able to take over the burden from government; it only argues that private charity is more efficient at getting more of the donated money to its intended recipient. I won’t dispute that, but it still doesn’t address the question of whether there are even enough private charities to get the job done.
How Effective is Government Welfare Compared to Private Charity?

Finally, here is an article from a Conservative source (American Enterprise Institute) that makes a good argument that private charity is insufficient, and that conservatives can and should do a better job of providing for those in need. My own additional comment is that while private charity perhaps could be increased enough to take over the full load (I doubt that, but let’s allow the idea for a moment), I have a problem with allowing people who basically don’t give a damn about the poor being given permission to opt out and let the more generous people do the whole job if they want to.
https://www.aei.org/poverty-studies/no-we-really-cant-replace-the-safety-net-with-charity/

 

[lasthero]

How about not supporting someone so incredibly childish and vindictive...

Again we see a display of the utmost cowardice in the face of legitimately asked questions...

Please remove this stain....

By the way, I want to point something out that Trump said, because it's misleading. He's trying to brush over the lack of tests by saying that we've done more than anyone else in the world - while that's true by sheer volume, it completely ignores the percentage in relation to our population. Per capita, which is what matters, we are far, far behind other countries.

This stat is, at best, misleading. It's Trump trying to prop things, up, while ignoring the larger context.

 

[rambot]

I would posit that there are very, very few homeless people who have escaped poverty with exactly no help from a robust social service network.
Countries with strong social support networks typically don't have a huge homelessness "problem" the way extensively free market capitalists do. I think....but I'd love to be proven wrong on that.

 

[98cwitr]

A skimming of Googled sources gives some information that can serve as a starting point.

Here is an article from a liberal source that does not give hard statistics, but does quote a number of experts as being skeptical that private charity has the ability to take up the slack.
Can Religious Charities Take the Place of the Welfare State?

Here is an article from a Libertarian source, but it doesn’t assert that private charity is currently able to take over the burden from government; it only argues that private charity is more efficient at getting more of the donated money to its intended recipient. I won’t dispute that, but it still doesn’t address the question of whether there are even enough private charities to get the job done.
How Effective is Government Welfare Compared to Private Charity?

Finally, here is an article from a Conservative source (American Enterprise Institute) that makes a good argument that private charity is insufficient, and that conservatives can and should do a better job of providing for those in need. My own additional comment is that while private charity perhaps could be increased enough to take over the full load (I doubt that, but let’s allow the idea for a moment), I have a problem with allowing people who basically don’t give a damn about the poor being given permission to opt out and let the more generous people do the whole job if they want to.
https://www.aei.org/poverty-studies/no-we-really-cant-replace-the-safety-net-with-charity/

To all your sources I say: If the tax dollars to fund the public coffer is via the People, how can anyone logically say that the People, via charity, could not fund it? You will then say that it's because the general public wants to keep the predominate amount of the fruits of their labors for themselves, rather than fund charity. This is true, but many are taking advantage of social services that have no business being on it. All the analysis performed is to maintain the current budgets. For those who can work, should work. If we all took care of ourselves and our families, I think we could trim social services by 50% or more. That's much more palpable and achievable to and by private charity and churches.

AEI is another reason not to support the GOP! This is that soft virtue signaling of the corporatism I've been speaking of.

 

[iluvatar5150]

To all your sources I say: If the tax dollars to fund the public coffer is via the People, how can anyone logically say that the People, via charity, could not fund it?

The issue isn't that the money doesn't exist. The issue is that people don't voluntarily donate enough to private charity to get the job done; and they never have.

If we all took care of ourselves and our families, I think we could trim social services by 50% or more. That's much more palpable and achievable to and by private charity and churches.

Even assuming that that were true, it'll never happen, so I don't see the point in even giving it much thought.

 

[rambot]

If we all took care of ourselves and our families, I think we could trim social services by 50% or more. That's much more palpable and achievable to and by private charity and churches.

In the same way that if everyone stopped sexual assaulting others, there'd be no sexual assault.

There are many people who have difficulty keeping employment long term for a variety of reasons. "Sadly", to some they are seen as fully capable, when really, they are at best partly capable.

In my whole time working with my clients I never came across someone who was maliciously taking advantage of the system. To a person, EVERY one would rather be employed. In fact, in all my time in clinics, lines, offices with people, I only EVER got that vibe off of one couple. I mean, it was a STROOOOOONG vibe but I couldn't prove it.

 

[98cwitr]

In the same way that if everyone stopped sexual assaulting others, there'd be no sexual assault.

There are many people who have difficulty keeping employment long term for a variety of reasons. "Sadly", to some they are seen as fully capable, when really, they are at best partly capable.

In my whole time working with my clients I never came across someone who was maliciously taking advantage of the system. To a person, EVERY one would rather be employed. In fact, in all my time in clinics, lines, offices with people, I only EVER got that vibe off of one couple. I mean, it was a STROOOOOONG vibe but I couldn't prove it.

You should meet my neighbor then.

 

[rambot]

You should meet my neighbor then.

Nah. I completely disliked that person.

Can't deny it. Skeezy, cheating people exist at all strata of society.

 

[eclipsenow]

Following this thread...

 

[MIDutch]

Excellent observation. This is why I consider it dishonest when Trump and other Republican politicians slam Democrats for being "crazy Socialists" and other such "boogeyman" terms. Bill Gates was absolutely right when he said that Democrats are not really "socialists" in the old sense of the word, but are just capitalists who believe in a more generous safety net.

This is a conservative argument that really bothers me. They are always saying that Democrats want to turn the US into Venezuela. This is, of course, a lie. Democrats are trying to push the US towards a more fair and equitable society like the Scandinavian countries or the Netherlands. But then you get this;

Which is, of course, also a lie. The Netherlands pretty much INVENTED modern capitalism (the first stock market was in Amsterdam, the first international megacorporation was the Dutch East India Company, the first insurance policies, etc.), but they also more or less invented Liberalism, as in capital L liberalism (liberty, personal freedom, consent of the governed, equality before the law, etc.). Russel Shorto has a fascinating book about the history of Amsterdam which goes into good detail about how the Dutch capital saw the rise of both of these concepts simultaneously entitled Amsterdam: A history of the World's Most Liberal City.

Capitalism and Liberalism are not mutually exclusive, but conservatives sure seem to want people to think they are.

Don't get me wrong, as a Dutchman I know that the Netherlands is far from perfect, especially the nationalistic movement headed by the Dutch version of Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, but it is NOT the liberal, socialist cesspool that conservatives (who have never been there) think it is. Quite the contrary, actually.

 

[Allandavid]

This is a conservative argument that really bothers me. They are always saying that Democrats want to turn the US into Venezuela. This is, of course, a lie. Democrats are trying to push the US towards a more fair and equitable society like the Scandinavian countries or the Netherlands. But then you get this;

Which is, of course, also a lie. The Netherlands pretty much INVENTED modern capitalism (the first stock market was in Amsterdam, the first international megacorporation was the Dutch East India Company, the first insurance policies, etc.), but they also more or less invented Liberalism, as in capital L liberalism (liberty, personal freedom, consent of the governed, equality before the law, etc.). Russel Shorto has a fascinating book about the history of Amsterdam which goes into good detail about how the Dutch capital saw the rise of both of these concepts simultaneously entitled Amsterdam: A history of the World's Most Liberal City.

Capitalism and Liberalism are not mutually exclusive, but conservatives sure seem to want people to think they are.

Don't get me wrong, as a Dutchman I know that the Netherlands is far from perfect, especially the nationalistic movement headed by the Dutch version of Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, but it is NOT the liberal, socialist cesspool that conservatives (who have never been there) think it is. Quite the contrary, actually.

I strongly agree. My wife was originally Dutch. She described Holland as ‘Economically capitalist - socially progressive’ and I think that’s just about right. People should visit (once this chaos is over) - they might be pleasantly surprised...

 

[iluvatar5150]

I strongly agree. My wife was originally Dutch. She described Holland as ‘Economically capitalist - socially progressive’ and I think that’s just about right. People should visit (once this chaos is over) - they might be pleasantly surprised...

A couple years ago, The Mrs and I spent a week in London and took a day trip to Amsterdam. IIRC, it was either a Thursday or Friday morning and we, in our mid 30’s, were among the oldest folks on there. It was like spring break in January. When we stepped off the plane, it was overcast, drizzling, and just above freezing, and I immediately understood why the Dutch chose to settle NY instead of some place nice.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

To all your sources I say: If the tax dollars to fund the public coffer is via the People, how can anyone logically say that the People, via charity, could not fund it? You will then say that it's because the general public wants to keep the predominate amount of the fruits of their labors for themselves, rather than fund charity. This is true, but many are taking advantage of social services that have no business being on it. All the analysis performed is to maintain the current budgets. For those who can work, should work. If we all took care of ourselves and our families, I think we could trim social services by 50% or more. That's much more palpable and achievable to and by private charity and churches.

AEI is another reason not to support the GOP! This is that soft virtue signaling of the corporatism I've been speaking of.

That is always the #1 reason I hear for criticizing welfare. I agree with the principle you are stating, but with the exception of a small number of people who enjoy looking things up and crunching numbers, the people who raise this objection have no real idea how many people are taking unfair advantage of the system. Their speculation is just that--speculation. So I have done some reading (not enough to qualify me as an expert, but enough to satisfy some of my curiosity), and that's where I found the information that outright fraud rates are lower in HHS than they are in the DoD. And the question of who "ought" to be on welfare is fraught with personal judgment and self-righteousness, which is why I personally am comfortable with delegating that responsibility to an agency that will actually set standards for who qualifies for welfare. Finally, I maintain that regardless of what individuals like you or me might believe personally, a large number of people--a majority, maybe?--really and truly do not give a damn about the poor, and consider any money given to the poor to be a waste of money. As far as I can tell, Jesus did not share that opinion. As the Apostle James wrote: "Mercy triumphs over judgment."

 

[lordjeff]

To paraphrase a bit -- Where did Jesus or the Apostles command that the individual give their charitable responsibilities to the Church? Where is there any sort of command in the New Testament for a church-run welfare system?

Christs commands in the Bible were for individual Christians to give to the poor, not the Church. Yet we have no issue with acting as if the Church giving to the poor is in line with Christ's commands -- so why is the government, which is also not mentioned, not also allowable?

And, sure, the government taxes your pay; but we, as Americans, decide where that money goes -- maybe not as directly as you would like, but probably more directly than you get to decide how your Church spends the money they collect.

Last, this "dependence" thing is based on false understanding -- particularly since Welfare reform under Pres. Clinton. You realize there is a maximum amount of lifetime benefits that people can receive of 5 years (60 months) under the federal welfare program? I trust you also realize that there are various training programs to help those on welfare, and even before people need to go on welfare, to get trained for jobs and become self-sufficient?

Last, I don't recall Christ every telling us we should "judge" the poor, and not donate or help them if they aren't living the lives they should. In fact, it almost seems to be the opposite, with Christ telling us not to judge others and his ministry to the "sinners" (harlots and publicans) of his time (as viewed by the religious establishment).



This feels a lot like a strawman, talking about this "progressive wing" that all have identical viewpoints that you oppose. It is no different than Democrats strawmanning the "far right" or "alt right" of the Republican party. Nowhere do I see him say that we should always support Democrats -- in fact, in a post further down he clarifies he did not mean that.

Instead, I think this building of 'straw men' by both sides is a large part of the issue. We are to a point where we debate "politics" -- as in which party is more correct -- rather than the issues, and how we can come together as a country and fix the individual issues. Neither side is nearly as far apart as what the straw man position, built by the other side, would make it appear to be.

 

[lordjeff]

Jesus did not really specify a target of where to give one's taxes b/c I'm sure he knew of the misuse of tax dollars-largely going to buy the loyalty of the Roman soldiers. Having administered the welfare system, Clinton's reform was needed & long overdue, but subsequently was lightened as the years went by. The so-called 21 month time limit was appealed by many a client with the help of legal aid in order to stay on the dole. They tried to find every excuse in the book. Legal aid is dependent on having a welfare system available for their own livelihood. Initially the system began with the intent of doing some kind of job counseling but then dissolved their job connection units & shifted the duties to the Labor Dept. which did not follow thru. In hindsight what we tried to sell was that you could get work w/o decent education or trade training & we learned you can't just walk into a job. I.e. we set them up for failure. Many of the clientele did not have any life skills training so typically if they tried to locate work & got work they could not keep it because they would not show up on time or show up at all. The program then stagnated when we stopped encouraging any type of vocational training & then began excusing people if they simply attended a seminar or read a book. Basically what I'm saying is the people most dependent on the poor are those who derive a job from it. And we know that the hardest thing to do is find a job in a buyers market so job security was part of the plot. And this behavior occurs with other agencies as well no doubt the DOD & their $800 hammers. Fraud does indeed rife the system the thing is the public does not know that the agencies come up with different excuses as to what defines fraud. So the indigent are given a higher burden to establish fraud so much for the equal balance of justice. I broke open some fraud cases that were unbelievable. And what lends itself to fraud is the sheer amount of rules & means-testing. See the stipends are never enough to live well on so underground sources of income must be found. Now it's easy to say well why don't we just hand over $50k to each person & then of course they would never come off. In terms of the abortion law, the goal would not be to criminalize it that's why it's made to go after the docs & discourage them from doing the procedure. But given the reality of human behavior this is just an unfixable problem unless there is a middle of the road solution. Regarding the Southern Baptist, I have found this to be an anomaly that ministers such as Al S. would think abortion is a sound policy. This illustrates a hypocrisy. He only cares to fall into the Devil's trap & be aligned with the Party that he views as favorable, the hell with religious principles.