Abortion and 19th Century Science

[Kshartle]

So I just gotta have faith.   

What you call violence/theft, I call justice and paying my dues to be a part of the social club (but this must be the Orwellian brainwashing).  Tomato/tomahto.

I wish you luck on your crusade.

Faith in what? Faith that you will pick the right referees to tax you and rule you and protect you? That's more faith than I have.

They have to use words like "taxes" because if they said theft you would understand what was happening. They have to say "quantitative easing" because if they said counterfieting you would understand what was happening. They have to say "police action or pre-emptive strike" or you would know they mean organized murder and understand what was happening.

They can't use proper language to describe their activites and they must drill the euphemisms in as soon as possible and they can't stop repeating them even for a second lest people wake up to the scam.

You might never wake up. Most people never do. I'm not on a crusade to wake people up. I chat on here mostly for intellecutal entertainment. It's cheap and fun and good argument practice. The real crusade is to convince people not to hit their kids so they don't grow up speaking the language of violence. That's where the real change will come from....the children, not the posters here.

Incidently, paying dues is voluntary.

[Kshartle]

Yes brilliantly said Lowe. As I've said countless times....Government is the effect, not the cause of the problem. The problem is the acceptance and support of the initiation of force as a solution to problems. The elimination of government will be the effect, not the cause of the rejection of the initiation of force as a solution to problems.

Right there: the perfectibility of man.  And it's bogus.

But let's say it'll happen someday.  In the meantime, you think murder should be legal?

Yes in fact think everyone should murder everyone. You nailed it. Brilliant analysis. You sliced right through everything I wrote and got right to the heart of the matter. I think murder should be legal. Love it. Never has a nail been stuck so squarely on the head before. You got me. I think murder is probably the single greatest human activity possible even.

[Kshartle]

Now, PS is right that it's really the consequences of being a murderer that are the deterrent.  At the moment, it's in the form of the law.  In his theoretical society, those consequences come from other places.  But you don't even like THAT, because it's still "force" in the end.

Back to the original topic: we made it legal for mothers to kill their own babies as long as they weren't born yet, and it has now happened FIFTY-FIVE MILLION TIMES since then.  So yes, I think the body count from "Taken" is a gross understatement.

Why don't those consequences seem to be having an effect in Detroit? Why do they have such a different murder rate than say...Scottsdale? Isn't it illegal in both places? Why is the rate more than ten times different? If the law is actually effective at deterring murder...how can the rate be so different from one place to the next? How can you support the belief that the law is a significant deterrent in the face of these two vastly different rates?

Regarding abortion: You may see no moral difference between murder and abortion, but surely you understand this is a vastly different activity in a real sense. One is a violent attack against another human that is independantly out in the world and the other is a medical procedure performed on a mother and a fetus or unborn human.

They are vastly different in practice. No one argues that murder is acceptable...even governments have to figure out other names to call it. More than half the population views abortion as a medical procedure that is the right of a human. The law did not create that. Of course making abortion illegal decreases the amount because it exposes the doctor to the consequences.

You are pretending that not having a law against murder will somehow remove the consequences because you are programmed to think that way. You will accept the theft of your property and cede so much of your freedom to a group of humans because they promise to punish someone if they murder you. This is the statrix.

[Mountaineer]

1. Why don't those consequences seem to be having an effect in Detroit? Why do they have such a different murder rate than say...Scottsdale? Isn't it illegal in both places?

2. Regarding abortion: You may see no moral difference between murder and abortion, but surely you understand this is a vastly different activity in a real sense. One is a violent attack against another human that is independantly out in the world and the other is a medical procedure performed on a mother and a fetus or unborn human.

Re. your statements and questions (sorry, I'm not Xan but I cannot let this pass):

1. Look at the makeup of Detroit and Scottsdale.  One is becoming increasingly Muslim.  One is heavily Christian.  One has less corrupt politicians than the other.  One has more employment than the other.  One has more people who have a "work ethic".  What is the religion of homicide bombers?  Do you see any correlations?

2. From the standpoint of the one who was murdered, I doubt it makes any difference whether they were killed by an attack or a medical procedure.  A life taken is a life taken.  No need to sugar coat the method used to make it sound "politically correct".

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

1. Why don't those consequences seem to be having an effect in Detroit? Why do they have such a different murder rate than say...Scottsdale? Isn't it illegal in both places?

2. Regarding abortion: You may see no moral difference between murder and abortion, but surely you understand this is a vastly different activity in a real sense. One is a violent attack against another human that is independantly out in the world and the other is a medical procedure performed on a mother and a fetus or unborn human.

Re. your statements and questions (sorry, I'm not Xan but I cannot let this pass):

1. Look at the makeup of Detroit and Scottsdale.  One is becoming increasingly Muslim.  One is heavily Christian.  One has less corrupt politicians than the other.  One has more employment than the other.  One has more people who have a "work ethic".  What is the religion of homicide bombers?  Do you see any correlations?

2. From the standpoint of the one who was murdered, I doubt it makes any difference whether they were killed by an attack or a medical procedure.  A life taken is a life taken.  No need to sugar coat the method used to make it sound "politically correct".

... Mountaineer

1. Yes thank you for making my case. The other factors are what contribute to the murder rate...not the legality or illegality of it. I was hoping Xan would prove my point but you have made a good start. Perhaps he can contribute further.

2. You doubt it makes any difference to the one murdered? That's inconsequential Mountaineer. We are discussing the person commiting the act. It makes all the difference in the world to them if they view it as a medical procedure vs murder. My point is it's not the law that makes people view it this way. And so the laws surrounding abortion will be much more effective at stopping abortion. Obviously some laws are very effective at stopping certain activity. Car companies can't sell a car that doesn't have an airbag in it, and so they don't. No one percieves this as a moral issue (or at least no one with any sense).

Murder and theft are viewed as moral wrongs to everyone practically (though clearly not to some here), and they increase or decrease in an area due to specific and various factors as you've demonstrated above. They do not, I contend, decrease significantly because of a law against them, as evidenced by Scottsdale and Detroit. It's illegal in both places, and yet the rate is more than ten times higher in one vs. the other.

I haven't forgotten about your other questions btw. I'll get to them I promise. I want to do them justice and I'm not quite in the mood for going down that road at the moment.

[Mountaineer]

My point is it's not the law that makes people view it this way. And so the laws surrounding abortion will be much more effective at stopping abortion. Obviously some laws are very effective at stopping certain activity.

Murder and theft are viewed as moral wrongs to everyone practically (though clearly not to some here), and they increase or decrease in an area due to specific and various factors as you've demonstrated above. They do not, I contend, decrease significantly because of a law against them, as evidenced by Scottsdale and Detroit. It's illegal in both places, and yet the rate is more than ten times higher in one vs. the other.

My perspective:  I do believe that laws matter - with a caveat.  For those who are believers, I think it matters very much what God's Law is (to very briefly repeat what I've said before, God's Law has three purposes - a curb, a mirror, and for Christians a guide for how to live).  Man's laws only matter for those who believe it is in their own interest while on this earth to obey them; if man has a limited moral code, then he will do whatever he thinks he can get away with.  If man is Christian, he will honor God's desires to the best of his ability.  Even though a Christian believer who repents of his errors is forgiven by God, that believer will almost always try to honor God's wishes because he is responding in thanks for the undeserved gift of forgiveness and eternal salvation.  I guess you could say that man is justified because God says so, and man is sanctified throughout his life because he is constantly fighting the "old Adam" and trying to be the "new Adam" because he, internally, wants to please his benefactor.

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

Yes in fact think everyone should murder everyone. You nailed it. Brilliant analysis. You sliced right through everything I wrote and got right to the heart of the matter. I think murder should be legal. Love it. Never has a nail been stuck so squarely on the head before. You got me. I think murder is probably the single greatest human activity possible even.

It sounds like this is sarcastic, and yet you do actually think that murder should be legal:

I'm opposed to all laws, that includes laws against murder.

All I'm pointing out is that making murder legal will increase the number of murders.

Your Detroit/Scottsdale argument is a complete non sequitur and a strawman.  Nowhere did anyone say that the presence or absence of a law against murder is the ONLY factor that causes it.  But a law against murder is certainly one more barrier to doing it, therefore it suppresses the number of murders.  No?  You use logic exactly like this in many other situations, and then lambast anyone who even dares to discuss it.

So, if you somehow had the power today to repeal all the laws against murder, would you do it, or not, and why?

[Lowe]

Right there: the perfectibility of man.  And it's bogus

I think everyone can be happy and healthy.  Do you think they can't be?

[Pointedstick]

Let's not confuse "the perfectibility of man" with "a general improvement in the standard of living and moral compass of individual men." I would remain skeptical of the former at the same time that I would argue that evidence for the latter is all around us.

[Lowe]

People are already perfect.  It's impossible, but it's inside, all the time.

That's why the Flynn effect is happening faster than genetic drift can explain.  Greater intelligence, empathy, and wisdom were there all along.  It doesn't even make sense, after thousands of years of war, starvation, and slavery.  But it's right there, better than anyone could have imagined.

[Kshartle]

All I'm pointing out is that making murder legal will increase the number of murders.

No you're now splitting hairs. You wanted me to say I think there should be no law against murder. Why did you want that when you already knew my answer?

You are moving the goal post and splitting hairs.

[Xan]

I'm not sure just what hairs I'm splitting and goalposts I'm moving, but whatevs.  I'm assuming that your refusal to answer my question:

So, if you somehow had the power today to repeal all the laws against murder, would you do it, or not, and why?

is because it leads you down a path you don't want to go.  It's okay; I think I can get there on my own.  And good news: I think it gets us to a point where we all agree!

Based on this:

As I've said countless times....Government is the effect, not the cause of the problem. The problem is the acceptance and support of the initiation of force as a solution to problems. The elimination of government will be the effect, not the cause of the rejection of the initiation of force as a solution to problems.

it seems you believe in an eschaton, of sorts.  I believe in an eschaton, too: I believe that Christ will return with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, that we will be raised incorruptible, and that the government shall be upon His shoulders.

Your eschaton involves humanity progressing to a point where force is unnecessary, where the non-aggression principle actually works.  It requires a belief in the constant progress and ultimate perfectibility of the human race, which puts you right in line with Marx, Lenin, Whiggism (hi Ad!), and all the leftist ideologies.

Anyway.  I believe your eschaton is bollocks, because there's simply no way that 100% of people will magically come to agree on definitions of arbitrary concepts like property ownership.  You probably believe mine is bollocks too.  But I think the specifics of the eschaton aren't important for this immediate conversation: we both believe that there will come a point when the laws of man will be wiped away, because the nature of man will have been changed.

And here's the thing: we both believe this hasn't happened yet.  We as a species aren't ready for all the laws of man to go away.  Since you believe government is the symptom and not the cause, your answer to my question would have to be "No".

So we agree that, here and now, pre-eschaton, we are just trying to muddle through as best we can, working out a way to live together on this rock we're stuck on (hi Moda!).  Which means you no longer have to occupy that high horse about you having a monopoly on the Only Way to arrange society.  We both agree that perfection won't, can't, happen until the eschaton.  We can both look at laws against murder, city ordinances, state law, federal law, etc, as temporary but necessary evils.  No longer do you have to charge in to every discussion and say how everybody is wrong but you!

I believe you've said on multiple occasions that the root cause is parents "hitting their children".  I would suggest you advocate for an end to that, rather than lecturing all of us about government and anarchy.  Since you believe government won't go away until parents stop "hitting", then it seems counter-productive to spend your energy on anything else.

[Lowe]

Yes, but Xan, you're an adult who believes a magic creature controls the universe, and watches us when we poop.

[Pointedstick]

Fantastic summary, Xan. I think that's something we can probably all agree on, more or less.

[Mountaineer]

it seems you believe in an eschaton, of sorts.  I believe in an eschaton, too: I believe that Christ will return with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, that we will be raised incorruptible, and that the government shall be upon His shoulders.

Xan,

Our beliefs coincide.  Speaking of the eschaton (and eschatology), have you read Louis Brighton's commentary on Revelation?  Best one I've ever read.  A different way of understanding that book that really makes sense.

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

Thanks, PS.

Mountaineer, I think I've seen you mention that work here before.  I'll have to look that up!

[Mountaineer]

Thanks, PS.

Mountaineer, I think I've seen you mention that work here before.  I'll have to look that up!

Louis A. Brighton - Revelation

http://www.cph.org/p-688-revelation-con ... 20brighton

You can also find it at Amazon for a few dollars less.

A summary:

About This Volume:
Revelation may be the most perplexing book of the Scriptures, but Dr. Brighton explains its message with exceptional clarity. He interprets the features of the vision in light of similar images elsewhere in Scripture and appeals to the views of other theologians from the early church down to the present.
This last book of the Bible is the final testimony of the risen Christ to his church—until he returns in glory. Ascension Christology is the heart of the prophetic and visionary message. The saving work of Christ is implicit throughout the prophecy. Revelation depicts the ongoing reign of the exalted Christ, who governs all things in heaven and on earth for the sake of his church. While the book contains frightening images of God’s wrath and judgment, even more is it a celebration of the saints. Those still in the church on earth join the saints and angels in heaven in the joyful worship of the Lamb who was slain. The swelling hymn of victory is just one of the liturgical features of Revelation that inform the church’s worship.
Dr. Brighton shows that Revelation is not about some distant future, but is about the present life of the church amid the turmoil of world history. It inspires Christians to be urgent and faithful in their proclamation of the Gospel, no matter how fierce the opposition, because of Christ’s comforting promise: “I am coming quickly!”?

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Child sacrifice then and now

January 24, 2014 By Gene Veith

Collin Garbarino tells of a controversy in archaeology about whether or not the ancient Carthaginians practiced child sacrifice, as the Romans always said they did.  Recently, evidence has arisen that they did, in fact, sacrifice children.  Some archaeologists, though, just won’t believe it.  Mr. Garbarino says that the Carthaginians sacrificed children for the same reason we do.

From Collin Garbarino, Child Sacrifice, Ancient and Modern:

Some things are just so horrible that we do not want to think about them. We do not want to believe they are true. This archeologist correctly notes that we ought to look at the Carthaginians honestly. But I think we need to look at ourselves honestly too.

She said, “We like to think that we’re quite close to the ancient world, that they were really just like us—the truth is, I’m afraid that they really weren’t.”? I, on the other hand, am afraid that we are too much like them.

How is American abortion so very different from what the Carthaginians did? Priests killed their children in a temple, and abortionists kill our children in a clinic. Carthaginian parents expected favors from their gods if they offered their children. They expected a better life. Why do we abort our children?

Americans abort their children because they believe they’ll have a better life. Maybe they want better health by not undergoing the rigors of pregnancy. Maybe they expect that their career opportunities will be better without a child. Maybe they just don’t want to shop at Costco.

Carthaginians killed babies because they wanted a better life. We kill babies because we want a better life. The only difference that I can see is that the Carthaginians sacrificed children to their gods, while we just sacrifice them to ourselves.

But this level of selfishness is too terrible to think about, so most of us will turn a blind eye to our atrocities, just as most scholars have refused to see the atrocities of the Carthaginians.

[yankees60]

Louis C.K. - If Murder Was Legal (3:25)

I like Louis so much, I made him my avatar earlier in the week. :-)

Still?

When the headlines came out about him in 2017, I had no idea who he was. And, this is the above is the first time I've read anyone write about him (aside from just seeing those headlines). I just did a search and saw that he is a comedian. And, that he is now again performing.

Vinny

[yankees60]

But weren't per-civilization mankind also deeply religious; they completely believed there were Gods watching over them (they had the fear of God).  I personally think that the Moral Law or Golden Rule is one of the strangest mysteries in the Universe.  Here is a quote from Immanuel Kant:

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence."

Why does every single human being seem to be aware of some form of the Golden Rule?  I agree some people have polished their moral compass more than others, but there is no doubt something pushing down on every human to "be good".  But an even stranger thing is that almost nobody is "good", or if they are it is mostly superficial, only to satisfy themselves.  The Golden Rule pushes against our natural evolutionary instinct to think only for ourselves.  It is a constant war inside of our own minds. 

We admire saints and hate tyrants.  The saint has placed the Golden Rule at the center of their life, while the tyrant has placed their enormous ego at the center of their life.

For me this is one of strongest clues to their being a purpose or meaning behind the Universe.  IMO we should fear and love the Golden Rule, not just think it is a lovely concept that is impossible to follow.  But this requires a partial or complete sacrifice of the ego, which is not easy, maybe even impossible in today's culture.

I actually don't find it that hard to follow the Golden Rule, because I believe that what you do is what will be done to you, as a law of nature, although sometimes there is a time lag. Thus, being mean or vicious, or even merely disregarding the effects of my actions on others, will harm me.

My real question is why others don't see this. I want to say, "Look around you and see who is happy. Is it the liars, cheaters and thieves, or the honest people? So then why would you want to violate the Golden Rule?"

We obviously have a person leading our country who is the exact opposite of what you state above and, therefore, opposite to which you seem to stand for. Do you disagree?

Strictly on the basis of you stating your beliefs on this matter, if it was you running against him, you'd get my vote.

Vinny

[yankees60]

Child sacrifice then and now

January 24, 2014 By Gene Veith

Collin Garbarino tells of a controversy in archaeology about whether or not the ancient Carthaginians practiced child sacrifice, as the Romans always said they did.  Recently, evidence has arisen that they did, in fact, sacrifice children.  Some archaeologists, though, just won’t believe it.  Mr. Garbarino says that the Carthaginians sacrificed children for the same reason we do.

From Collin Garbarino, Child Sacrifice, Ancient and Modern:

Some things are just so horrible that we do not want to think about them. We do not want to believe they are true. This archeologist correctly notes that we ought to look at the Carthaginians honestly. But I think we need to look at ourselves honestly too.

She said, “We like to think that we’re quite close to the ancient world, that they were really just like us—the truth is, I’m afraid that they really weren’t.”? I, on the other hand, am afraid that we are too much like them.

How is American abortion so very different from what the Carthaginians did? Priests killed their children in a temple, and abortionists kill our children in a clinic. Carthaginian parents expected favors from their gods if they offered their children. They expected a better life. Why do we abort our children?

Americans abort their children because they believe they’ll have a better life. Maybe they want better health by not undergoing the rigors of pregnancy. Maybe they expect that their career opportunities will be better without a child. Maybe they just don’t want to shop at Costco.

Carthaginians killed babies because they wanted a better life. We kill babies because we want a better life. The only difference that I can see is that the Carthaginians sacrificed children to their gods, while we just sacrifice them to ourselves.

But this level of selfishness is too terrible to think about, so most of us will turn a blind eye to our atrocities, just as most scholars have refused to see the atrocities of the Carthaginians.

To counter that the world is getting worse.....the above and this...

https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/lucius-romans/ ... ient-rome/

...both state that in ancient times actual born children were either killed or left to die. I don't know (I'm sure, though, that someone here does) if there were abortions in ancient times? However, is it not some form of progress (and not things getting worse) that nowhere in today's civilized world is it permissible to sacrifice born children or to let unwanted born children to die?

For the record on an intellectual level, I'm 100% anti-abortion with NO exceptions. If one believes that abortion is the taking of a life than there can be no exceptions. I never can understand the logical inconsistency of those who say they are pro-life but believe in the exception in the cases of rape or incest. How do those reasons negate the taking of a human life (if that is what you believe). My views have been somewhat tempered that I'm only speaking the theoretical in that never would I have to face the decision of whether or not I should have an abortion.

And, a friend and I like to think we are true pro-life: Anti-abortion, supporting single / poor mothers, anti-war.

On the other hand we see the Democrats as being for abortion but wanting to take care of the child once born and being less militaristic of taking human life while Republicans are anti-abortion but you are on your own once they mandate you to have a baby and they'll also send the baby to later get killed in some useless war while also killing some other grown up babies (and, as a write that realizing that they will actually be killing real babies as "collateral damage").

Vinny

[boglerdude]

Can we get a rolling list of the regulations he removes

[yankees60]

I actually don't find it that hard to follow the Golden Rule, because I believe that what you do is what will be done to you, as a law of nature, although sometimes there is a time lag. Thus, being mean or vicious, or even merely disregarding the effects of my actions on others, will harm me.

My real question is why others don't see this. I want to say, "Look around you and see who is happy. Is it the liars, cheaters and thieves, or the honest people? So then why would you want to violate the Golden Rule?"

We obviously have a person leading our country who is the exact opposite of what you state above and, therefore, opposite to which you seem to stand for. Do you disagree?

Strictly on the basis of you stating your beliefs on this matter, if it was you running against him, you'd get my vote.

Vinny

Thank you for your support, but I disagree very strongly on President Trump. I believe that while of course he is not a libertarian (nor has he ever claimed to be one), he is the least non-libertarian President of my lifetime.

Why do I say this?

He has cut taxes and regulations, especially the latter.
He has been trying to end the Korean War with some progress seeming to have been made.
He has been interfering with Iran's terrorism but almost entirely by financial means other than the killing of a mass murderer, which doesn't bother me.
He has been instrumental in the Right to Try Act, the First Step Act, and a number of other laws that have reduced the interference of the government in society.
He is very inclusive, welcoming people of all races and religions into his movement. Just watch a rally sometime if you haven't done so already; there are plenty of women and minority members, and even quite a few Democrats if you believe his campaign manager's statistics gathered from the people waiting in line for days to see him.
He almost never attacks anyone verbally without first being attacked himself, which is a valid justification for defensive action. Of course in his case he has been attacked 24/7 by the mainstream media and the Democrat party, with very little support from others in the Republican party.

So why do you say that he is the exact opposite of what I was stating? Please be specific.
[/quote]

Let me first start by quoting here what you said above with bolding all I believe he is (in the negative) and is not (in the positive).

"Thus, being mean or vicious, or even merely disregarding the effects of my actions on others, will harm me.

My real question is why others don't see this. I want to say, "Look around you and see who is happy. Is it the liars, cheaters and thieves, or the honest people?"

I'll say without a doubt he is NOT honest. He is: mean, vicious, disregards the effects of his actions on others, is a First Ballot Hall of Fame Superstar LIAR (being only second to Mariano Rivera to get this vote from EVERYONE), a cheater, and a thief!

And, I'm glad that none of them describe you!

And, I still think there is hope for you (politically) since you have told us that you voted for Bernie in the primaries (something I'd NEVER EVER do under any circumstances) and that you voted for Obama in 2012 (I gleefully voted for him in both elections, although Hillary in the 2008 primaries). Therefore you can be both MORE liberal and MORE conservative than me, depending upon what else is going on.

Regarding your next list, which was NOT what I was addressing -- I was only addressing your description of your version of the Golden Rule...but I will address each of them.

Cutting taxes? I'm neither for high or low taxes. Just if you are going to spend then you'd better tax to cover that spending. And, he clearly is not doing that. Just a big lie of how he was going to wipe out the deficit in four years.

Regulations? We need some. What is the right balance? I'd not trust him to be capable of deciding which ones to keep and which ones to get rid of.

Ending the Korean War. Great if he can do it. But again it seems like he's been getting played on that one.

Yes, he's been interfering with Iran's way of life. But he also unilaterally walked away from an agreement which was keeping them in their place. Big negative on this one.

I plead ignorance regarding both: Right to Try Act, the First Step Act. Therefore, I plead nolo and throw myself at the mercy of the court!

I'd not say he is welcoming at all! That is borne out in that after three years he's never had higher than a 46% approval rating. How can that be with the economy and market returns we've had since he's been president? He has to therefore be doing SOMETHING wrong? And, since I absolutely love C-Span I have it on a lot. Whenever he comes on I keep watching. And, then sometimes I watch and listen to it again on my computer! I could not dislike Obama's predecessor any more than I did (and still do). Trump still has not done 10% of the damage to our country and the world than Obama's predecessor did. But back to Trump and his rallies. I watch (but am mainly listening while doing something else) because I find him so fascinating and entertaining. Prior to him running for president I'd only heard of him, never having prior seen him or heard him talk. The rallies are great TV viewing even though I disagree with just about everything he says at them. As I just stated I had / have a white hot intense dislike of Obama's predecessor. I just don't have that emotional dislike of Trump. He IS a charmer as odious as his words and tweets too oftentimes may be!

His attacks? He is extremely thin skinned. He is like the bully who cries once you confront the bully with a tiny portion of what the bully has regularly been dishing out.

I'll conclude with these questions (and you can tell me if they are valid questions to ask at all).

Are these good measures for our president, who in this particular case happens to be Trump?

1. Would you want your child to marry him?
2. Would you want to be a co-worker of his?
3. And, maybe the biggest one of all. You have worked all your life to create this highly successful business which you own 100%. You've done the whole entrepreneurial thing working way too many 50, 60 hour weeks for years on end. Now it's time for you to sit back, enjoy the fruits of all that work, and turn over the day-to-day running of the company to a president while you remain 100% owner. Would you turn over the reins of the company to the brilliant businessman aka Donald Trump? A man who turns 74 years old in five months from now. Before you answer, your equity in your company represents your ENTIRE net worth. You going to do it??!! I would certainly NOT do it! And, I certainly don't want him running my country! (Nor do I want Biden / Warren / Bernie doing so, either!)

Vinny

[Mountaineer]

<snip>

I'll conclude with these questions (and you can tell me if they are valid questions to ask at all).

Are these good measures for our president, who in this particular case happens to be Trump?

1. Would you want your child to marry him?
2. Would you want to be a co-worker of his?
3. And, maybe the biggest one of all. You have worked all your life to create this highly successful business which you own 100%. You've done the whole entrepreneurial thing working way too many 50, 60 hour weeks for years on end. Now it's time for you to sit back, enjoy the fruits of all that work, and turn over the day-to-day running of the company to a president while you remain 100% owner. Would you turn over the reins of the company to the brilliant businessman aka Donald Trump? A man who turns 74 years old in five months from now. Before you answer, your equity in your company represents your ENTIRE net worth. You going to do it??!! I would certainly NOT do it! And, I certainly don't want him running my country! (Nor do I want Biden / Warren / Bernie doing so, either!)

Vinny

I'm not Libertarian666 but I can't resist responding. You ask:

Are these good measures for our president?

1. No - (I want a leader for president, not a son-in-law who "might" think he has to be nice to me); way too subjective a question/criteria.
2. No - this is another question based on "nice guy or not" as being the most important qualification; way too subjective a question/criteria.
3. No - I do not want a king or dictator for a leader (regardless of potential ageism bias); I prefer the Constitutional Republic we currently have with all the various checks and balances; ditto for a corporate CEO/Board of Directors/Stockholders model aimed at mutual accountability and responsibility. I would never turn over my assets to a "one-person in charge" company. Concentration of power in one person rarely works out well.

Objective criteria shoud be used for presidential selection purposes, i.e. the objective results the person has accomplished in their life/career AND the trend of his predecessors accomplishments should be examined, the hand dealt when coming into a given situation. Favorable results are usually achieved by those able to learn from their mistakes, get up and try again, and lead regardless of a "nice guy" persona. Being a nice guy is a bonus, not the base pay. I would say that being a "just" guy ("just" being based upon objective criteria) along with a "mercy" guy when others screw up is valuable.

YMMV

[yankees60]

<snip>

I'll conclude with these questions (and you can tell me if they are valid questions to ask at all).

Are these good measures for our president, who in this particular case happens to be Trump?

1. Would you want your child to marry him?
2. Would you want to be a co-worker of his?
3. And, maybe the biggest one of all. You have worked all your life to create this highly successful business which you own 100%. You've done the whole entrepreneurial thing working way too many 50, 60 hour weeks for years on end. Now it's time for you to sit back, enjoy the fruits of all that work, and turn over the day-to-day running of the company to a president while you remain 100% owner. Would you turn over the reins of the company to the brilliant businessman aka Donald Trump? A man who turns 74 years old in five months from now. Before you answer, your equity in your company represents your ENTIRE net worth. You going to do it??!! I would certainly NOT do it! And, I certainly don't want him running my country! (Nor do I want Biden / Warren / Bernie doing so, either!)

Vinny

I'm not Libertarian666 but I can't resist responding. You ask:

Are these good measures for our president?

1. No - (I want a leader for president, not a son-in-law who "might" think he has to be nice to me); way too subjective a question/criteria.
2. No - this is another question based on "nice guy or not" as being the most important qualification; way too subjective a question/criteria.
3. No - I do not want a king or dictator for a leader (regardless of potential ageism bias); I prefer the Constitutional Republic we currently have with all the various checks and balances; ditto for a corporate CEO/Board of Directors/Stockholders model aimed at mutual accountability and responsibility. I would never turn over my assets to a "one-person in charge" company. Concentration of power in one person rarely works out well.

Objective criteria shoud be used for presidential selection purposes, i.e. the objective results the person has accomplished in their life/career AND the trend of his predecessors accomplishments should be examined, the hand dealt when coming into a given situation. Favorable results are usually achieved by those able to learn from their mistakes, get up and try again, and lead regardless of a "nice guy" persona. Being a nice guy is a bonus, not the base pay. I would say that being a "just" guy ("just" being based upon objective criteria) along with a "mercy" guy when others screw up is valuable.

YMMV

1 & 2 are far more than being a "nice guy". They take into account the character of the person. Is the person reliable, fair and does his / her fair share, trustworthy, upstanding, consistent, responsible, effective in all relationships (personal and business / organizational), hard working (whether at work / as a spouse / as a parent), possess requisite intelligence for the task at hand (again, whether at work / as spouse / as a parent), health oriented, not a narcissist but selfless...I hope that paints a better picture of what I mean beyond being a "nice guy".

3. But in my hypothetical, you HAD BEEN the one person in whom all the power was concentrated. That's typical and the norm in thousands and thousands of the successful businesses in our country. So, answer the hypothetical question as posed. You are only going to hire one person to fulfill this needed role for you for where you are at this point in your life. Would you hire Donald Trump today to fulfill that role for you?

I totally agree that objective criteria should be used in choosing a president. I don't think the vast electorate looks upon being the president as an actual job. That is one of my main objections to Bernie and his supporters. It's a real job; it's not one which is confined to simply running around giving speeches whenever one feels like it.

Vinny