Fill Your Hands!

Agree with him or not, our guest today is a man of true grit. Former Navy SEAL and representative of Texas’ 2nd congressional district, Dan Crenshaw joins the podcast to discuss the Intel Community; the rising temperature of the conflict in Ukraine; and our very own border, which, you may have heard, has its own problemos.

Florida man Charlie Cooke is with us again, and he’s got thought on football and his governor. James defies Twitter, comes out as pro-“the” and anti-peasantry; Peter still likes what we used to call chivalry.

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

Boll & Branch

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 93 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    If the 20 who opposed McCarthy and as a result got a bunch of really good concessions are “fringe,” then I stand with the fringe.

    By Congressman Dan’s account, the concessions were not worth the cost — but I haven’t seen a conclusive reckoning.

    I mean, it remains to be seen whether we actually get the agreed-upon concessions, but the idea that those things were considered “concessions” — that is, reluctantly agreed-to — ought to be alarming.

    • #61
  2. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    If the 20 who opposed McCarthy and as a result got a bunch of really good concessions are “fringe,” then I stand with the fringe.

    By Congressman Dan’s account, the concessions were not worth the cost — but I haven’t seen a conclusive reckoning.

    Well, they cost nothing, and Ann Henshaw says that the concessions were trivial anyway.

    • #62
  3. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    BDB (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Republican candidates who take fringe positions not only guarantee their own defeat, but damage the party as a whole. This is why the Democrats are pouring money into Republican primaries, to help such candidates get nominated.

    Define “fringe.”

    It’s interesting how many “fringe beliefs” are now mainstream thought. The idea that COVID came from a lab was called “fringe” by the “expert class.”

    Well, to be precise, by the “expert liar class”. Like immunologist-bureaucrat Anthony Fauci trying to suppress the epidemiological views of leading epidemiologists, with the assistance of geneticist-bureaucrat Francis Collins.

    Fauci and Collins really are (or were) scientific experts, but pontificating outside their area of expertise.

    And lying about what they were doing within their areas of expertise, Fauci anyway.

    Fauci has admitted to lying about herd immunity, repeatedly low-balling the percentage of the population that would have to be vaccinated first.   It was for the common good, he says, to keep the public from becoming disheartened.

    • #63
  4. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Taras (View Comment):

    Trump, basically a conservative Democrat in the mold of JFK, won in 2016 because his views were not “fringy”.  

    […]

    In political terms, “fringe” is defined by the swing voters you’re trying to win over. […]

    This is incoherent.  We endured years of screaming here about how fringe Trump was.  People hated him because he was “not conservative enough” but they didn’t often say he was some sort of moderate or centrist.  They said he was a fascist dictator with no principles, much less conservative principles.

    I am not trying to win swing voters by emulating their fumbling indecision.  That will win precisely zero of anybody, and will lose many.

    • #64
  5. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    If the 20 who opposed McCarthy and as a result got a bunch of really good concessions are “fringe,” then I stand with the fringe.

    By Congressman Dan’s account, the concessions were not worth the cost — but I haven’t seen a conclusive reckoning.

    I mean, it remains to be seen whether we actually get the agreed-upon concessions, but the idea that those things were considered “concessions” — that is, reluctantly agreed-to — ought to be alarming.

    Right — Eyepatch McCain apparently (allegedly, supposedly) had to give something up, while I gained from the transaction.  That puts him on the other side.

    • #65
  6. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Taras (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Republican candidates who take fringe positions not only guarantee their own defeat, but damage the party as a whole. This is why the Democrats are pouring money into Republican primaries, to help such candidates get nominated.

    Define “fringe.”

    It’s interesting how many “fringe beliefs” are now mainstream thought. The idea that COVID came from a lab was called “fringe” by the “expert class.”

    Well, to be precise, by the “expert liar class”. Like immunologist-bureaucrat Anthony Fauci trying to suppress the epidemiological views of leading epidemiologists, with the assistance of geneticist-bureaucrat Francis Collins.

    Fauci and Collins really are (or were) scientific experts, but pontificating outside their area of expertise.

    And lying about what they were doing within their areas of expertise, Fauci anyway.

    Fauci has admitted to lying about herd immunity, repeatedly low-balling the percentage of the population that would have to be vaccinated first. It was for the common good, he says, to keep the public from becoming disheartened.

    If you accept that, you deserve it.

    • #66
  7. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Taras (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Trump, basically a conservative Democrat in the mold of JFK, won in 2016 because his views were not “fringy”.

    For example, he was attacked by some conservatives for his wholehearted embrace of Social Security.

    And most Americans are for immigration restriction. Trump’s hand would have been strengthened if he had done a referendum.

    In political terms, “fringe” is defined by the swing voters you’re trying to win over. Does what you say make sense to them? If not, is it feasible to reeducate them, or do you have to work around their current beliefs — even if those beliefs are mistaken?

    I broadly agree.

    However, I disagree that the opposite position – talking about reforming or privatizing social security – should be spoken of as fringe, let alone derided by teammates, even if you think people don’t understand it and won’t be educated because of their current beliefs.

    I’m also not too sure about the concept of swing voters, or, that swing voters swing based on ideas. In 2020 Trump’s views weren’t fringy either, while the Dems got only fringier. I think “Orange Man Bad” was successfully sold as more important and worse than soft coups, authoritarianism, and child genital mutilation (assuming it did actually win). 

    • #67
  8. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    BDB (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Trump, basically a conservative Democrat in the mold of JFK, won in 2016 because his views were not “fringy”.

    […]

    In political terms, “fringe” is defined by the swing voters you’re trying to win over. […]

    This is incoherent. We endured years of screaming here about how fringe Trump was. People hated him because he was “not conservative enough” but they didn’t often say he was some sort of moderate or centrist. They said he was a fascist dictator with no principles, much less conservative principles.

    I am not trying to win swing voters by emulating their fumbling indecision. That will win precisely zero of anybody, and will lose many.

    I originally thought of him as a conservative democrat or a 90’s centrist. Today that makes him more conservative than most, especially in policy deed. Quite a shock (not really, in restrospect) that our deep bench couldn’t flank him from the right in nearly any way except maybe for personal sin. 

    Amen on the swing voters – chasing after them will lead us farther into the leftist hole. Instead we need to fight to drag them out of the hole. 

    • #68
  9. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Quite a shock (not really, in restrospect) that our deep bench couldn’t flank him from the right in nearly any way except maybe for personal sin. 

    True. I kept expecting someone (probably not Rubio though) to start getting tough on immigration to peel off Trump supporters. No one was willing to try even though it was obviously a big part of Trump’s appeal.

    • #69
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    If the 20 who opposed McCarthy and as a result got a bunch of really good concessions are “fringe,” then I stand with the fringe.

    By Congressman Dan’s account, the concessions were not worth the cost — but I haven’t seen a conclusive reckoning.

    Both the costs and the benefits are not conclusively known.  He shouldn’t be making those claims any more than Bill Barr should have been proclaiming “election security” on Nov 9.

    • #70
  11. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Trump, basically a conservative Democrat in the mold of JFK, won in 2016 because his views were not “fringy”.

    For example, he was attacked by some conservatives for his wholehearted embrace of Social Security.

    And most Americans are for immigration restriction. Trump’s hand would have been strengthened if he had done a referendum.

    In political terms, “fringe” is defined by the swing voters you’re trying to win over. Does what you say make sense to them? If not, is it feasible to reeducate them, or do you have to work around their current beliefs — even if those beliefs are mistaken?

    I broadly agree.

    However, I disagree that the opposite position – talking about reforming or privatizing social security – should be spoken of as fringe, let alone derided by teammates, even if you think people don’t understand it and won’t be educated because of their current beliefs.

    I’m also not too sure about the concept of swing voters, or, that swing voters swing based on ideas. In 2020 Trump’s views weren’t fringy either, while the Dems got only fringier. I think “Orange Man Bad” was successfully sold as more important and worse than soft coups, authoritarianism, and child genital mutilation (assuming it did actually win).

    Given that Democrats have run at least 100,000 ads about how Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and are always on their toes, ready to pounce on anything any Republican says on the subject that can be construed or misconstrued as an attack on Social Security, my advice to Republicans about this subject is SHUT THE F*** UP.

    As for the 2020 election, it is not clear to me how many of the name-address combinations that submitted mail ballots for Joe Biden represented legal voters, or citizens, or even living human beings.

    • #71
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):
    Given that Democrats have run at least 100,000 ads about how Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and are always on their toes, ready to pounce on anything any Republican says on the subject that can be construed or misconstrued as an attack on Social Security, my advice to Republicans about this subject is SHUT THE F*** UP.

    Unless the Republicans intend to actually give up on that, being quiet about it just gives the Dims another excuse to accuse Republicans of lying to the voters about what they REALLY want.

    • #72
  13. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    If the 20 who opposed McCarthy and as a result got a bunch of really good concessions are “fringe,” then I stand with the fringe.

    By Congressman Dan’s account, the concessions were not worth the cost — but I haven’t seen a conclusive reckoning.

    Both the costs and the benefits are not conclusively known. He shouldn’t be making those claims any more than Bill Barr should have been proclaiming “election security” on Nov 9.

    It made the House Republicans look divided and incompetent, even in conservative media.   But it may blow over by November 2024.

    • #73
  14. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Given that Democrats have run at least 100,000 ads about how Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and are always on their toes, ready to pounce on anything any Republican says on the subject that can be construed or misconstrued as an attack on Social Security, my advice to Republicans about this subject is SHUT THE F*** UP.

    Unless the Republicans intend to actually give up on that, being quiet about it just gives the Dims another excuse to accuse Republicans of lying to the voters about what they REALLY want.

    It’s futile to try to do it, and suicidal to talk about it.

    • #74
  15. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Given that Democrats have run at least 100,000 ads about how Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and are always on their toes, ready to pounce on anything any Republican says on the subject that can be construed or misconstrued as an attack on Social Security, my advice to Republicans about this subject is SHUT THE F*** UP.

    Unless the Republicans intend to actually give up on that, being quiet about it just gives the Dims another excuse to accuse Republicans of lying to the voters about what they REALLY want.

    It’s futile to try to do it, and suicidal to talk about it.

    But unless they want the Democrats to set the narrative, they NEED to talk about it.

    That’s what happened after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Democrats seized the fake narrative and used fearmongering all the way to the November election. (And when some Republicans did talk, they were idiots like Graham who decided to push for federal law, giving Democrats ammunition.)

    • #75
  16. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    If the 20 who opposed McCarthy and as a result got a bunch of really good concessions are “fringe,” then I stand with the fringe.

    By Congressman Dan’s account, the concessions were not worth the cost — but I haven’t seen a conclusive reckoning.

    Both the costs and the benefits are not conclusively known. He shouldn’t be making those claims any more than Bill Barr should have been proclaiming “election security” on Nov 9.

    It made the House Republicans look divided and incompetent, even in conservative media. But it may blow over by November 2024.

    Then we should get rid of all the messy Republic business, and get the trains running on time.

    • #76
  17. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Given that Democrats have run at least 100,000 ads about how Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and are always on their toes, ready to pounce on anything any Republican says on the subject that can be construed or misconstrued as an attack on Social Security, my advice to Republicans about this subject is SHUT THE F*** UP.

    Unless the Republicans intend to actually give up on that, being quiet about it just gives the Dims another excuse to accuse Republicans of lying to the voters about what they REALLY want.

    It’s futile to try to do it, and suicidal to talk about it.

    But unless they want the Democrats to set the narrative, they NEED to talk about it.

    That’s what happened after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Democrats seized the fake narrative and used fearmongering all the way to the November election. (And when some Republicans did talk, they were idiots like Graham who decided to push for federal law, giving Democrats ammunition.)

    The Democratic TV ads I saw in New York did not mention Sen. Graham’s proposal, possibly because most Americans would agree with it:   legal in the first trimester, illegal in the second and third.    Instead, they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    • #77
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Given that Democrats have run at least 100,000 ads about how Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and are always on their toes, ready to pounce on anything any Republican says on the subject that can be construed or misconstrued as an attack on Social Security, my advice to Republicans about this subject is SHUT THE F*** UP.

    Unless the Republicans intend to actually give up on that, being quiet about it just gives the Dims another excuse to accuse Republicans of lying to the voters about what they REALLY want.

    It’s futile to try to do it, and suicidal to talk about it.

    But unless they want the Democrats to set the narrative, they NEED to talk about it.

    That’s what happened after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Democrats seized the fake narrative and used fearmongering all the way to the November election. (And when some Republicans did talk, they were idiots like Graham who decided to push for federal law, giving Democrats ammunition.)

    The Democratic TV ads I saw in New York did not mention Sen. Graham’s proposal, possibly because most Americans would agree with it: legal in the first trimester, illegal in the second and third. Instead, they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    It’s clearly unpopular, no surprise since people have been told it’s “unpopular” for decades, but why should it be loathsome?  Life (not just “health”) of the mother has a self-defense aspect, but how does (alleged) rape or (supposed) incest make a human life become not a human life?

    • #78
  19. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Given that Democrats have run at least 100,000 ads about how Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and are always on their toes, ready to pounce on anything any Republican says on the subject that can be construed or misconstrued as an attack on Social Security, my advice to Republicans about this subject is SHUT THE F*** UP.

    Unless the Republicans intend to actually give up on that, being quiet about it just gives the Dims another excuse to accuse Republicans of lying to the voters about what they REALLY want.

    It’s futile to try to do it, and suicidal to talk about it.

    But unless they want the Democrats to set the narrative, they NEED to talk about it.

    That’s what happened after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Democrats seized the fake narrative and used fearmongering all the way to the November election. (And when some Republicans did talk, they were idiots like Graham who decided to push for federal law, giving Democrats ammunition.)

    The Democratic TV ads I saw in New York did not mention Sen. Graham’s proposal, possibly because most Americans would agree with it: legal in the first trimester, illegal in the second and third. Instead, they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    It’s clearly unpopular, no surprise since people have been told it’s “unpopular” for decades, but why should it be loathsome? Life (not just “health”) of the mother has a self-defense aspect, but how does (alleged) rape or (supposed) incest make a human life become not a human life?

    A rape victim is not responsible for a life that was forced on her.   That would be a particularly onerous kind of involuntary servitude, which violates the Constitution.    It’s like a continuous rape for nine months.

    • #79
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Given that Democrats have run at least 100,000 ads about how Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and are always on their toes, ready to pounce on anything any Republican says on the subject that can be construed or misconstrued as an attack on Social Security, my advice to Republicans about this subject is SHUT THE F*** UP.

    Unless the Republicans intend to actually give up on that, being quiet about it just gives the Dims another excuse to accuse Republicans of lying to the voters about what they REALLY want.

    It’s futile to try to do it, and suicidal to talk about it.

    But unless they want the Democrats to set the narrative, they NEED to talk about it.

    That’s what happened after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Democrats seized the fake narrative and used fearmongering all the way to the November election. (And when some Republicans did talk, they were idiots like Graham who decided to push for federal law, giving Democrats ammunition.)

    The Democratic TV ads I saw in New York did not mention Sen. Graham’s proposal, possibly because most Americans would agree with it: legal in the first trimester, illegal in the second and third. Instead, they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    It’s clearly unpopular, no surprise since people have been told it’s “unpopular” for decades, but why should it be loathsome? Life (not just “health”) of the mother has a self-defense aspect, but how does (alleged) rape or (supposed) incest make a human life become not a human life?

    A rape victim is not responsible for a life that was forced on her. That would be a particularly onerous kind of involuntary servitude, which violates the Constitution. It’s like a continuous rape for nine months.

    I suppose there are other analogies, but the main problem seems to be the concession that a human life not being “wanted” makes it okay to kill it.  Leftys use that argument – and that a life she doesn’t “want” is rape, etc – for ALL abortion, now.

    • #80
  21. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Taras (View Comment):
    they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    Count me as one of those loathsome people. Your comment is loathsome. Yes, let’s kill the innocent baby – that is a surefire way to right a wrong. What an evil worldview.

    • #81
  22. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    Count me as one of those loathsome people. Your comment is loathsome. Yes, let’s kill the innocent baby – that is a surefire way to right a wrong. What an evil worldview.

    Let’s reward the rapist and further punish his victim, by forcing a 12-year-old girl to carry the rapist’s child to term.

    That’s the anti-abortion extreme.

    The pro-abortion extreme is, if the baby is born alive, kill it anyway, or stand around until it dies.

    • #82
  23. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Given that Democrats have run at least 100,000 ads about how Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and are always on their toes, ready to pounce on anything any Republican says on the subject that can be construed or misconstrued as an attack on Social Security, my advice to Republicans about this subject is SHUT THE F*** UP.

    Unless the Republicans intend to actually give up on that, being quiet about it just gives the Dims another excuse to accuse Republicans of lying to the voters about what they REALLY want.

    It’s futile to try to do it, and suicidal to talk about it.

    But unless they want the Democrats to set the narrative, they NEED to talk about it.

    That’s what happened after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Democrats seized the fake narrative and used fearmongering all the way to the November election. (And when some Republicans did talk, they were idiots like Graham who decided to push for federal law, giving Democrats ammunition.)

    The Democratic TV ads I saw in New York did not mention Sen. Graham’s proposal, possibly because most Americans would agree with it: legal in the first trimester, illegal in the second and third. Instead, they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    It’s clearly unpopular, no surprise since people have been told it’s “unpopular” for decades, but why should it be loathsome? Life (not just “health”) of the mother has a self-defense aspect, but how does (alleged) rape or (supposed) incest make a human life become not a human life?

    A rape victim is not responsible for a life that was forced on her. That would be a particularly onerous kind of involuntary servitude, which violates the Constitution. It’s like a continuous rape for nine months.

    I suppose there are other analogies, but the main problem seems to be the concession that a human life not being “wanted” makes it okay to kill it. Leftys use that argument – and that a life she doesn’t “want” is rape, etc – for ALL abortion, now.

    It’s actually a gray area.   If you take a morning-after pill, for example, you’re not killing anything, just refusing support to a fertilized egg.   It’s not the same as a late-term abortion that hacks up the baby to make it easier to remove.   Most people instinctively recognize the difference, it seems.

    • #83
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Given that Democrats have run at least 100,000 ads about how Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and are always on their toes, ready to pounce on anything any Republican says on the subject that can be construed or misconstrued as an attack on Social Security, my advice to Republicans about this subject is SHUT THE F*** UP.

    Unless the Republicans intend to actually give up on that, being quiet about it just gives the Dims another excuse to accuse Republicans of lying to the voters about what they REALLY want.

    It’s futile to try to do it, and suicidal to talk about it.

    But unless they want the Democrats to set the narrative, they NEED to talk about it.

    That’s what happened after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Democrats seized the fake narrative and used fearmongering all the way to the November election. (And when some Republicans did talk, they were idiots like Graham who decided to push for federal law, giving Democrats ammunition.)

    The Democratic TV ads I saw in New York did not mention Sen. Graham’s proposal, possibly because most Americans would agree with it: legal in the first trimester, illegal in the second and third. Instead, they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    It’s clearly unpopular, no surprise since people have been told it’s “unpopular” for decades, but why should it be loathsome? Life (not just “health”) of the mother has a self-defense aspect, but how does (alleged) rape or (supposed) incest make a human life become not a human life?

    A rape victim is not responsible for a life that was forced on her. That would be a particularly onerous kind of involuntary servitude, which violates the Constitution. It’s like a continuous rape for nine months.

    I suppose there are other analogies, but the main problem seems to be the concession that a human life not being “wanted” makes it okay to kill it. Leftys use that argument – and that a life she doesn’t “want” is rape, etc – for ALL abortion, now.

    It’s actually a gray area. If you take a morning-after pill, for example, you’re not killing anything, just refusing support to a fertilized egg. It’s not the same as a late-term abortion that hacks up the baby to make it easier to remove. Most people instinctively recognize the difference, it seems.

    It’s a difference of degree, but not of kind.  For many people, as a moral issue, the degree isn’t terribly relevant.

    • #84
  25. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Taras (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    Count me as one of those loathsome people. Your comment is loathsome. Yes, let’s kill the innocent baby – that is a surefire way to right a wrong. What an evil worldview.

    Let’s reward the rapist and further punish his victim, by forcing a 12-year-old girl to carry the rapist’s child to term.

    That’s the anti-abortion extreme.

    The pro-abortion extreme is, if the baby is born alive, kill it anyway, or stand around until it dies.

    You were able to make an even more loathsome comment. Impressive.

    • #85
  26. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    Count me as one of those loathsome people. Your comment is loathsome. Yes, let’s kill the innocent baby – that is a surefire way to right a wrong. What an evil worldview.

    Let’s reward the rapist and further punish his victim, by forcing a 12-year-old girl to carry the rapist’s child to term.

    That’s the anti-abortion extreme.

    The pro-abortion extreme is, if the baby is born alive, kill it anyway, or stand around until it dies.

    You were able to make an even more loathsome comment. Impressive.

    I think both extremes are loathsome.   However, if the American people are forced to choose between the extremes, they overwhelmingly choose the pro-abortion extreme.   (The alternative, after all, is to bring back slavery.)   This is why Democrats love to promote anti-abortion extremists in Republican primaries.   Evidently some Republican voters are too dim to figure out what’s going on.

    • #86
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    Count me as one of those loathsome people. Your comment is loathsome. Yes, let’s kill the innocent baby – that is a surefire way to right a wrong. What an evil worldview.

    Let’s reward the rapist and further punish his victim, by forcing a 12-year-old girl to carry the rapist’s child to term.

    That’s the anti-abortion extreme.

    The pro-abortion extreme is, if the baby is born alive, kill it anyway, or stand around until it dies.

    You were able to make an even more loathsome comment. Impressive.

    I think both extremes are loathsome. However, if the American people are forced to choose between the extremes, they overwhelmingly choose the pro-abortion extreme. (The alternative, after all, is to bring back slavery.) This is why Democrats love to promote anti-abortion extremists in Republican primaries. Evidently some Republican voters are too dim to figure out what’s going on.

    Many – perhaps even most – PEOPLE are too dim to figure out a lot of things.  But most of them seem okay with going whole-hog and just become Democrats.

    • #87
  28. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Given that Democrats have run at least 100,000 ads about how Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and are always on their toes, ready to pounce on anything any Republican says on the subject that can be construed or misconstrued as an attack on Social Security, my advice to Republicans about this subject is SHUT THE F*** UP.

    Unless the Republicans intend to actually give up on that, being quiet about it just gives the Dims another excuse to accuse Republicans of lying to the voters about what they REALLY want.

    It’s futile to try to do it, and suicidal to talk about it.

    But unless they want the Democrats to set the narrative, they NEED to talk about it.

    That’s what happened after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Democrats seized the fake narrative and used fearmongering all the way to the November election. (And when some Republicans did talk, they were idiots like Graham who decided to push for federal law, giving Democrats ammunition.)

    The Democratic TV ads I saw in New York did not mention Sen. Graham’s proposal, possibly because most Americans would agree with it: legal in the first trimester, illegal in the second and third. Instead, they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    It’s clearly unpopular, no surprise since people have been told it’s “unpopular” for decades, but why should it be loathsome? Life (not just “health”) of the mother has a self-defense aspect, but how does (alleged) rape or (supposed) incest make a human life become not a human life?

    A rape victim is not responsible for a life that was forced on her. That would be a particularly onerous kind of involuntary servitude, which violates the Constitution. It’s like a continuous rape for nine months.

    I suppose there are other analogies, but the main problem seems to be the concession that a human life not being “wanted” makes it okay to kill it. Leftys use that argument – and that a life she doesn’t “want” is rape, etc – for ALL abortion, now.

    It’s actually a gray area. If you take a morning-after pill, for example, you’re not killing anything, just refusing support to a fertilized egg. It’s not the same as a late-term abortion that hacks up the baby to make it easier to remove. Most people instinctively recognize the difference, it seems.

    It’s a difference of degree, but not of kind. For many people, as a moral issue, the degree isn’t terribly relevant.

    For example, refusing to donate an organ might result in someone’s death, but it’s not the same as killing that person.

    • #88
  29. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Unless the Republicans intend to actually give up on that, being quiet about it just gives the Dims another excuse to accuse Republicans of lying to the voters about what they REALLY want.

    It’s futile to try to do it, and suicidal to talk about it.

    But unless they want the Democrats to set the narrative, they NEED to talk about it.

    That’s what happened after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Democrats seized the fake narrative and used fearmongering all the way to the November election. (And when some Republicans did talk, they were idiots like Graham who decided to push for federal law, giving Democrats ammunition.)

    The Democratic TV ads I saw in New York did not mention Sen. Graham’s proposal, possibly because most Americans would agree with it: legal in the first trimester, illegal in the second and third. Instead, they attacked pro-life Republican candidates who refused to make an exception for rape and incest, a loathsome and unpopular position.

    It’s clearly unpopular, no surprise since people have been told it’s “unpopular” for decades, but why should it be loathsome? Life (not just “health”) of the mother has a self-defense aspect, but how does (alleged) rape or (supposed) incest make a human life become not a human life?

    A rape victim is not responsible for a life that was forced on her. That would be a particularly onerous kind of involuntary servitude, which violates the Constitution. It’s like a continuous rape for nine months.

    I suppose there are other analogies, but the main problem seems to be the concession that a human life not being “wanted” makes it okay to kill it. Leftys use that argument – and that a life she doesn’t “want” is rape, etc – for ALL abortion, now.

    It’s actually a gray area. If you take a morning-after pill, for example, you’re not killing anything, just refusing support to a fertilized egg. It’s not the same as a late-term abortion that hacks up the baby to make it easier to remove. Most people instinctively recognize the difference, it seems.

    It’s a difference of degree, but not of kind. For many people, as a moral issue, the degree isn’t terribly relevant.

    For example, refusing to donate an organ might result in someone’s death, but it’s not the same as killing that person.

    It might be closer to killing someone in their sleep when they’re not awake to know you’re doing it etc, versus stabbing them in the street when they feel it happening.

    • #89
  30. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Taras (View Comment):
    I think both extremes are loathsome.   However, if the American people are forced to choose between the extremes, they overwhelmingly choose the pro-abortion extreme.   (The alternative, after all, is to bring back slavery.)   This is why Democrats love to promote anti-abortion extremists in Republican primaries.   Evidently some Republican voters are too dim to figure out what’s going on.

    There you go again, calling me dim. So, allowing a baby to live is a loathsome position. Got it. That is a demonic position.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.