The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

Democratic positions being touted by the media and academia as the only reasonable opinion.

Did it occur to you that maybe you have this the wrong way around? That it's more likely that academic results are picked up by the media and become Democratic positions because of their rigour, and that conservatives simply refuse to believe them (often due to established interests)? Shall I take climate change as an example? The planet is warming rapidly - there's overwhelming evidence - yet Trump and his ilk want to end climate deals and bring back the coal industry. Thus the Democratic position is treated as the only reasonable opinion because it is backed up by facts, and the opposing position works directly counter to those facts.

Of course, not all liberal positions are so clear-cut, and yes, a lot of Democrat supporters pretend that some of their positions are the only right ones when they aren't.


Mexicans just traipsing across the border are flouting those laws

"Traipsing across the border"? Most illegal immigrants actually enter the USA by plane, with visas. You know that, right? You were just being metaphorical? I agree, though, that illegal immigration is a problem.

The solution to this problem, though, isn't nearly so simple as building a wall. It would probably require investment in policing - which, incidentally, could be paid for if the rich got a higher tax rate.

But you know what would be really good? If the USA joined civilised countries in having a head of government elected by popular vote rather than the archaic system it has now. That way, the will of the majority of voters will always be carried out. (Fun fact: no Republican has been elected (as opposed to re-elected) by the popular vote since George H W Bush.)

And I'm really sorry if I seem angry. I am - Donald Trump being elected did that to me - but I am really keen to see a right wing that isn't populated near-entirely by denial and reactionary politics. If you can be that rational right-winger, I'll do my best to stay civil.

I have to admit that I was misled in part.

Long story short, the conservative talking points were 1) that Clinton ignored calls for help in Benghazi, and 2) that Clinton misled the American people by saying that the attack was part of a spontaneous protest instead of a coordinated terrorist attack.

As far as the first talking point is concerned, this article from the fact-checking website Politifact, shows that it's clear that saying that Clinton ignored cries for help is patently unfair. So I admit that I've been misled.

As far as the second talking point, though, there is some basis in fact. As factcheck.org puts it: "But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been." Here is the full article.

Before I go any further, please allow me to correct your question. You ask: “Why are you afraid of Democratic positions?”

I, for one, do not think that we are afraid of Democratic positions, per se, as much as that we vehemently disagree.

The things that I, for one, am afraid of, however are
1) Democratic positions being touted by media and academia as the only reasonable opinion, and
2) conservative successes at the ballot box being derailed by left-leaning lawyers in black robes.

Even though I am no hillbilly (obviously), that Cracked article that Neshomeh mentions is more on-the-nose than one might expect. Give it a read.

That said, allow me to reply to the topics you brought up.

• I don't want to take their freedoms away. Not to go to church. Not to proselytize.

As a preliminary matter, I do not know anyone who feels that the Democrats are trying to strip Christians of their right to go to church. The issue is that we may be told—via social pressure even if not via government fiat—that we are to keep our beliefs within the walls of the church.

Take the gay-marriage issue, for one. As I mentioned in a previous post on the Board: “I am not speaking in hypotheticals here, it is clear from Europe and even here in the United States as well that wherever gay marriage goes, forced acceptance thereof follows.” And I do not think that I need to post a link to talk about the lawsuits that have arisen over Christian business owners not wanting to participate in gay weddings.

As far as we conservatives see it, the liberal looks at the evangelical Christian, at best, like an adult looks at a little kid who doesn’t know any better: “That’s cute. You’ll understand when you grow older.” And at worst, they think of us as bigots.

In short, the prevailing orthodoxy is slowly becoming, “That’s nice that you believe what that millennia-old book says. But we don’t bring that sort of stuff up in polite society.”

The conservative’s reaction (quoting from the Cracked article): “Their heads are so far up their [hind ends] that they can't tell up from down. Basic, obvious truths that have gone unquestioned for thousands of years now get laughed at and shouted down.”

So, no, no one is afraid of Democrats telling us not to go to church. Or even telling us we cannot preach the Gospel. The fear is that we will be seen as bigots once we do, simply because we actually take the Bible’s teachings seriously out in the working world.

(Is it any wonder, then, that with the death of a conservative icon like Scalia, Republicans would bend over backwards to make sure a liberal does not take his place? Before Scalia’s death, the Court was in precarious balance, with four conservatives, four liberals, and Kennedy the swing vote. A Clinton win, and thus a Clinton appointee to the Court, would have led to guaranteed losses for us, 6-3 or 5-4 depending on where Kennedy swings. At least with a balanced Court, there’s some hope that the pendulum can swing in our favor.)

• Not even, believe it or not, to own guns. I'd like to see fewer domestic terrorist attacks, so fewer high-magazine guns. Maybe more checks against domestic abusers and people with violence problems buying them. But, as someone who's lived a long time in a rural area, I fully understand the necessity of some gun ownership. And that is honestly the norm - "ban all guns" is a radical and not well supported position.

And I personally agree with much of what you said there. As far as this particular topic goes, I think that the case is that there’s a lot of misinformation and hyperbole on both sides. AFAIK, and please correct me if I'm wrong, The Right claims that the Left wants to take away their guns, and the Left says that the Right wants no regulations whatsoever.

This topic brings up a theme that everyone should ponder: For as much as any one side can talk about the other, how much does the talker really know about the other side? Who is really listening to what they are actually saying? It’s easy to argue against a caricature, but not every divide is unbridgeable. Some legitimately are “believe our position or believe their position”, but some divides can be bridged. I believe that gun control is one of them.

And that’s it as far as your particular post goes. However, there is one more issue that I would like to bring up: immigration.

AFAIK, no sane conservative believes that all foreigners should be barred from the United States. However, it must not be denied that we have laws that determine who can come in and the processes they must undergo. However, Mexicans just traipsing across the border are flouting those laws, taking advantage of birthright citizenship to make it harder to uproot them (“You heartless Republicans want to tear innocent families apart!”), and are basically freeloading off of America.

Granted, it can take way too long for someone outside the country to be able to get a visa to get in (I know this firsthand: my father wants to bring one of my aunts here from Haiti, and the wait for a visa is years if you’re a married sibling of a citizen, as opposed to, e.g., a child of a citizen or an unmarried sibling), but we should not reward those who have flouted the laws.

Personally, I do not think that all illegal immigrants should be deported, but we must first find a way to stop any further illegal entry into the United States, and then and only then address what to do with those already here. Announce the second without doing the first, and you’ll only get more border-crossers hoping to arrive in time to receive the “amnesty”.

I could theoretically go on for ages, but I honestly have no idea where to go from here, so I’ll just stop at this point. At the very least, I thank you for being willing to open a dialogue—who knows what either of us may learn?

I will be narrating the saga of Richard Fontaine in the Discord voice chat momentarily. I felt it would be appropriate, given its content.

Was because of how outlandish everything in 2016 has already been. If there was ever a year where the Electoral College was going to go sideways, this would be the year.

Hope everything's okay with you.

So I did.
Whoopsie!

Ha-ha!
We can still have fun, in these times!

Ahem, pardon me.

Mikhayu didn't say anything about climate change—or any other issue that I can identify, for that matter. Did you reply to the wrong post, maybe?

~Neshomeh

...a list of issues that are important in my eyes (in no particular order):

-Stopping climate change
-Scientific research and funding
-Protecting human rights at home and abroad
-Immigration and helping refugees escape from warzones
-Gun control
-Collaboration with military and political allies
-Facepalming at the ham-fisted attempts of the Bloc Québecois at remaining relevant

Thanks a million.

Shoot me an email and I'll link you to it. I'd prefer to keep it off the board in these early stages.

What are the odds that all the people who cheerfully deny climate change are the ones who'll be worm-chewed ashes within 20 years?
The one group of people for whom caring v. not caring about climate change isn't a life or death matter?
That's a wee bit suspect. How very suspicious.

On the bright side, we'll all be too busy trying to fix everything that's been broken to even notice that we're being crushed by the water pressure of the rising sea levels.

God bless the meme-master Harambe voters. Bless them.

Like I said, I copied it from Discord, where Matt posted it. Hope she's at least relatively close of truth.

Well, I don't think I have time/energy to go over it with a fine comb, but I can look for "oh my god why'd you write that" bits.

"Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth. No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom!"
-- Philotheus, addressing Vasili III of Muscovy in 1510.

The idea of the Third Rome has been present throughout history, with more than a few people laying claim to it. Ivan III of Moscow, Mehmet II of the Ottomans, Mussolini, that sort of person. In your future, with those having failed at various points, we can have this Latin-inspired demented empire covering the westernmost parts of Russia as well as northern Latvia, Estonia, Finland, bits of Sweden, and the parts of northern Norway that the Vikingar either don't want or can't take back. The Third Rome of the Ottomans is dead. Long live the Fourth Rome! Long live the Emperor! Death to the infidel Mongol! Death to the heretical scientist! Glory everlasting for the Quadriromulate Patriarchate of Palatinograd! And so on.

The irony is, I had it in my head that the Muscovite Third Rome would not actually be part of the Fourth Rome - it only really reaches as far south as the border with the Battle Pope in my head. If you wanted, you could easily fit in a generic Rus state around Moscow. Also, Tsarist Russia retreating to Alaska is awesome and brilliant and you should totally do it.

As for China, maybe a Properly Paranoid fortress-state based around bunker-villages called tulou, which in our history are a kind of rammed-earth castle-village capable of supporting hundreds of people. Perhaps this China is comprised of massive versions of same plonked everywhere, massively decentralized and massively fortified, with half the population living beneath the ground. Their exports are hydroponically-grown foodstuffs and anti-radiation technology, as well as cheap building materials... hmmm... perhaps a representative democracy, with each tulou its own constituency... just a thought.

As for the Kosovar Khaganate, I just wanted an enclave and this seemed like the best way to do it. You can never have enough paranoid juntas in sci-fi.

Apparently.

=]

Is it because he recognized the reference and approves? Possibly, but I think this answer is too easy. Perhaps I am meant to think this.

Could it be that Jebboy is an agent of the Lizard People from the center of the Earth? More investigation is needed.

-Phobos "The Question" Phobosson

You can damn well be sure I'm going.

There's a petition right now that's an attempt to sway the electoral college.

Picked up from a friend on Facebook:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

Just in case anyone thought we were afraid for nothing. We're not. Electing Trump for president of the United States implicitly sanctions stuff like this, or has at least made these people feel emboldened to act hatefully toward others. Know that this is real. People are being hurt by this.

Look out for your friends and neighbors, people. If you see things like this, say something. Do something. Be there.

(And in case it needs saying, never ever resort to violence. That does not help.)

~Neshomeh

…when your so-called evidence stems from Fox News, the American Center for Law and Justice (a Christian conservative advocacy group that has supported anti-LGBT laws in Africa) and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. If you're trying to convince people, then picking such blatantly biased sources is not the way to go.

Likewise, your bringing up of Benghazi—an enormous pile of nothing which has been publicly acknowledged as nothing more than an attempt to smear Secretary Clinton—makes me think you've spent far too long in a conservative echo chamber. Your assumptions and choice of language seem to back that up. "She is clearly corrupt, believing herself to be above the law." How do you know? Do you have words that she has written or said that prove this point? Or is this just an claim made on all this weak evidence?

You say you make a cogent argument for "honestly believing that Hillary would have been worse." I disagree. All you've done is spout the same Fox News drivel that I've seen dozens of times.

Sure, both candidates were flawed. I will fully cop to that. But I would rather have a typical "public stance, private stance" politician than a narcissistic, short-tempered moron who surrounds himself with extremist yes-men.

I have a particular vested interest in LGBT+ rights, especially once Pence was announced as Trump's running mate. Now that he's VP elect... Well, it looks like progress is going to end up getting set back quite a bit unless we fight it.

-Ix, still hoping for a different outcome in December