There is a difference, and not a small one either, between answering an argument and responding to a tantrum. When you try to make the tantrum stop through appeasement, all you are actually doing is purchasing the next tantrum. “A man of great wrath shall suffer punishment: For if thou deliver him, yet thou must do it again” (Prov. 19:19). It is a most unfruitful way of paying it forward.
This is why the removal of Confederate symbols and statues is a big deal. A people can decide to put up statues, and a people through their elected representatives can decide to take them down again. It might be a shame or not, depending on the symbol. But because it would be a function of debate and deliberation, what is at stake is the subject under discussion—the statue or symbol itself.
But there is another way of conducting public affairs, where the impetus to do something is because somebody is pitching a fit. And that means that if you capitulate, you are not just capitulating on that subject. The issue is not what decision you are making, but rather how you make decisions. If a surly two-year-old boy is throwing down in the toy aisle at Walmart, you are not just negotiating with him about the particular toy he wants. You are actually talking about everything in the store.
Because we are living in a time when any attempt at rational discourse will get you branded as a racist, and then shouted down, this means that we are talking about every toy in the store. We are talking about Stone Mountain, the American flag, the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, Mt. Rushmore, the name of Washington D.C., the name of Washington State, the name of Washington State University, the name of the Washington Redskins (how about the Beltway Indigenous Peoples?), and so on. There is no logical stopping point because we are not dealing with logic. We are dealing with what the Left wants, with what the Left demands, with what the Left is drumming its heels on the floor about.
As we respond to the tantrum, it does not need to be reasoned discourse. It should be a simple no. Deal with it, buttercup. There is no need for argument in response because no arguments are being offered. There has been far too much appeasement already, and so the appeasement should skid to stop at the very next thing that is demanded. Sorry, kids. Moscow, Idaho will continue to have streets running north and south with names like Washington, Jackson, Jefferson, Grant, et al.
Of course, in the meantime, we do have to take some account of the losers on the bent-Right who want to make paper mache shields with stark and frightening lightning-bolty thingies on them. But these are people who live on the margins, and are not likely to be able to run anything larger than a convenience store. They are a bugbear—they are not a real threat. They can overrun a comments thread on a blog like nobody’s business, but the only big thing they can successfully do is besmirch the reputation of honorable men like Robert E. Lee. And the only thing real conservatives actually have to do with regard to them is to make it absolutely clear how much we genuinely detest their venomous posturing.
Meantime, the antifa types are a genuine threat because they do have backing of the actual commies who run places like Illinois, say, or California. These people can’t even run a convenience store, but they can take anything, however large, and run it into the ground. They can do that, and have done, many times.
“… no need for argument in response because no arguments are being offered”
Bravo, and that is SUCH an important distinction I too often forget.
Can you tell us of any bent-right (your coin?) or antifa folks who DO attempt logic?
Marx did back in the day, right?
And I did hear a KKK guy yesterday at least cite Bible verses for pro “white separatist” logic.
Antifa is getting converts, and not just mercenaries, aren’t they?
“And I did hear a KKK guy yesterday at least cite Bible verses for pro “white separatist” logic.”
This is exactly the kind of thing what I addressed in my comment. The truth of that statement should be seen as a real problem that Christians need to address. Is racial vainglory okay because you wrap it in faith and scripture? No,it is not,in fact it’s probably worse because now you’re using His name, His word,to justify hatred.
Racial vainglory? All I see is “anti-racist” vainglory. You forbid race arbitrarily because it feels un-Christian simply because you live in a society that conditions you to feel guilty for thinking the white race is a cause worth fighting for. The truth can’t possibly be something that most of society gets wrong- and yet if racial distinctions are always bad 100% of the time, that means all of societies in history, even explicitly Christian societies, as well as all present-day non-white societies, got it wrong, and you, a mere blip in history, have solved the “real” meaning of the scriptures?… Read more »
“If you denounce racism, you should also denounce preferring your family over non-relatives(nepotism!) or caring about serving your country more than other countries(patriotism!). You can’t arbitrarily say race is a distinction that the church can magically erase, but other distinctions are okay.” Lots of confusion abounding here. If race is equivalent to family, that greatly enlarges my social obligations and loyalties. Not only do I need to be loyal to my family, but also to every genetically white nation and people group on Earth. Your position amounts to globalism. A family large enough to include millions of people in scores… Read more »
Hmm, lets just stick with Scripture for a second and place it next to your statement. Paul said (Gal 3:27-28) “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” He also said (Col. 3:11) “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave,e free; but Christ is all, and in all.” He spent a large part of Romans telling Jews and non-Jews (i.e., people of… Read more »
And when the Christian Jews didn’t care enough about the Greek widows in Acts, the response of the Apostles wasn’t “well they’re not Jew, so?”, but building a better structure in order for everyone in the Christian family to be treated equally, and the context is race.
Those verses only apply to those in Christ. If you apply those verses to those not in Christ you make the error of universalism.
All this though, is predicated on people actually listening when actual arguments are presented. Usually a tantrum is just a tantrum, but occasionally a tantrum happens because people stopped listening to the arguments.
The left must suffer losses else it won’t stop. Trump knows this, which is why he is drawing the line. The alt left must be prosecuted whenever it riots or destroys statues and monuments. This will only happen if the right demands some courage from their Republican politicians.
There is no courage from Republican politicians. They are controlled opposition(just like their KKK boogeyman, ironically)
Gary, that’s an important point, and there’s far more to it than that. The right talks and acts as if it’s the majority viewpoint, when in fact every objective piece of evidence points in the opposite direction. Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, but had two of those taken away by the electoral college. Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump did. Gerrymandering and minority voter suppression ensures GOP control of the House even though nationwide more votes are consistently cast for Democratic House candidates than for Republican House candidates,… Read more »
Winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college is not having the election “taken away”. The electoral college functions exactly as it is meant to, and thank goodness for that. The president is not elected by the people. The president is the executive of the federal government: key word – “federal”. The US is not meant to be an amorphous blob of a nation ruled by popular vote. It’s a federation of states and the president is chosen by state votes and not by popular vote. I wouldn’t want to live in a country where the people of two… Read more »
Rick, even if I agreed with your take on federalism — which I partially do and partially don’t — it doesn’t alter my point that we have reached the point in which not just a majority, but a significant majority, can’t elect the leadership they want, are being subjected to policies they detest, and can’t do much about it under the rules as they are currently written. That’s the stuff of which civil wars and revolutions are made. Maybe not yet, but a tipping point will come. Tyranny of the minority is showing itself to be every bit as toxic… Read more »
Could you go back and explore how the current party in power is making peaceful change impossible? Surely if, as you say, the growing majority of folks are heading in one direction, then isn’t the “tipping point” that time at which even the electoral college reps have most of the states follow suit? Isn’t the violence we’re seeing from Occupiers & KKK-er born out of a frustration that the peaceful means of change devised by our founding fathers is inadequate to serve their needs & wants? At some point, don’t folks need to accept the station in life to which… Read more »
Eric, did you see the near-riots that broke out when it looked like Obamacare might be repealed? You may not approve of socialized medicine, but substantial majorities of Americans do. In fact, they mostly want single payer. If Congressional elections accurately reflected the wishes of their constituents, they’d have it. Have you been to the hinterlands recently? They’ve been devastated by globalization and wealth inequality. The 1% are doing dandy, but if you’re a 55 year old machinist whose job got sent overseas, you’re not. The party in power could pursue policies that would alleviate the wealth inequality, but they… Read more »
@Krychek_2 , “Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump did.” “3 million” sounds much better than “2.1% of the popular vote”. “… we have reached the point in which not just a majority, but a significant majority, can’t elect the leadership they want, ….” I don’t consider 2.1% to be a “significant majority”. “You may not approve of socialized medicine, but substantial majorities of Americans do. In fact, they mostly want single payer.” According to the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll (Aug. 2017), 52% have a favorable opinion of the Affordable Care Act and 39% unfavorable. Perhaps that is… Read more »
OKRickety:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-support-for-single-payer-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/
Krychek_2
Except the 55 year old machinist’s job didn’t so much get sent overseas as it got sent to a cnc machine. His kind of people are not so much devastated by globalization as they are by technological innovation. Anyway, I do agree, people like our machinist have, and for the rest of us are, a problem. I think you are also right about the popularity of socialized medicine, whether it is a good idea or not.
Krychek tantrumed: …it doesn’t alter my point that we have reached the point in which not just a majority, but a significant majority, can’t elect the leadership they want, are being subjected to policies they detest, and can’t do much about it under the rules as they are currently written. Bovine excrement. With one exception (and we all know what you’re really talking about is that one exception), elected officials at ALL levels of government are elected by popular vote. In light of this, to insinuate that the majority isn’t getting the leadership they want, the subtext being that current… Read more »
Pastor Wilson, there is one very distinct difference here. Many on the far right are professing Christ’s name and attempting to bend scripture into pretzels. The Antifa are not. As far as I am concerned the number one priority should be preserving and protecting our faith. Our faith is being used to justify hatred, violence,and bigotry. Or in the case of many Dalrockians, polygamy, rape, and domestic violence. We need to address that, deal with it. The very fact that so many people are that lost and confused about faith, is on us. It isn’t about politics or statues, it’s… Read more »
Once again, you’re professing Christ’s name and misrepresenting the truth. There are a handful of weirdos at Dalrock’s site defending prostitution and polygamy (based on OT law), and Dalrock and many others have been setting them straight.
And there are many Antifa sympathizers/SJWs who profess Christ’s name and bend Scripture beyond pretzels.
I am misrepresenting nothing. It is the truth.
Dalrock isn’t a polygamist lol. He is a guy who is offering sound, sane advise to Christian young men encouraging them to be MEN and not “nu-males”.
I personally find Dalrock’s words enlightening.
“I personally find Dalrock’s words enlightening.”
Precisely my point. You are what you eat.
I suppose it would be useless to ask for a quote.
“What the Apostle Paul explains repeatedly in this passage is that marriage is the solution to sexual temptation. If you don’t desire sex, do not marry. But if you desire sex, the only licit way to pursue it is to marry…The text is clear. Marriage is the only permitted path to sex. That we have done great violence to marriage doesn’t (and can’t) change this. ” – Dalrock
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/is-marriage-the-cause-of-sexual-immorality/
Sorry, CHer, I didn’t mean a quote from you! Little as I have read of Dalrock’s writings, I was aware that he explicitly denounces polygamy. I remember reading about his disagreement with Vox Day over “The Economics of Polygamy.”
Well I’m afraid that’s the only quote you’ll get…
You’re right about that!
@Jill Smith , I presume you are asking MeMe, but do you want a quote where the “far right are professing Christ’s name and attempting to bend scripture into pretzels”, or where “Dalrockians” are trying to justify polygamy, rape, or domestic violence with Scripture?
I wanted MeMe to back up her assertion with anything resembling a citation from Dalrock’s writings. I am well aware that some people on the far right blaspheme Christ’s name to promote hideous viewpoints but I have never seen a trace of this from Dalrock. Nor have I seen any justification of polygamy, rape, or violence. That doesn’t mean I agree with his worldview in general, but it does mean that I shouldn’t make false statement about what he advocates.
Thanks. It’s nice to see someone else calling her out for false/outlandish claims.
“I have never seen a trace of this from Dalrock. ” I had no idea you were such a red pill gal, Jilly? It’s simply astounding to me how many people NEVER read Dalrock and yet they feel qualified to accuse me of lying. You’ll notice I said, “Dalrockians.” That is a term for people who read him and load his comment section down with perversion and vulgarity and the alleged biblical justification for it. Since Dalrock himself had to write post attempting to explain that marriage does not causes sexual perversion, I am obviously not lying. I don’t want… Read more »
Meme, I got the “Dalrockian” and assumed you meant that, but it seems a little unfair to apply that moniker to someone that comments rather than someone who supports his ideas. After all, Lewisian means in the style of Lewis; Wilsonian means of Wilson, or at least consistent with him. If Dalrock is not a rape apologist a rape apologist is hardly Dalrockian.
Tell you what Bethyada. I’ll just leave the wife
beaters and rapists to Dalrock and the pedophiles and rapists to Pastor Wilson.
I know better, I should be hanging out with the people who actually want to follow Jesus Christ, rather than exposing myself to constant abuse and human stupidity from people who don’t understand why banging hot chicks and hating Jews might be a problem.
I don’t necessarily agree with Dalrock. I think he gets fundamental Christian issues wrong.
Meme, many people here think you characterise some people unfairly. You may wish to consider why that may be?
I don’t read him enough to know his theological views outside of sex, marriage and feminism. I do think the site preaches to the choir and can be a bit reactionary, but that’s the space he’s in. From what I’ve read, I think he’s more on target than the “churchian” side which promotes things like: 1) Porn always = adultery = get of marriage free card for the wife. This is the case even if the husband turns to porn after years of being in low sex/no sex marriage contrary to I Cor 7 2) Silence on issues of women… Read more »
I agree with much of the link, though I would not phrase it the way they have. I would say that divorce can be consistent with biblical principles, that a person initiating a divorce may not necessarily be sinning, and I don’t think describing divorce in positive ways is particularly helpful. Moreover, it is somewhat one sided against men. I am not convinced about the porn = adultery = reason for divorce. Jesus likened thoughts to behaviour, Paul said that joining with a prostitute makes a person one flesh with her and I don’t think this is necessarily the case… Read more »
I’d say it’s more than “somewhat” one-sided. And the idea that porn is worse than adultery because you’re supporting the sex trafficking? That does happen, but many men only look at the soft-core stuff (well-paid models). And porn stars have their own trade shows, agents, social media, etc…that doesn’t sound like they were all forced into it. So that’s a really, really bad argument. The author is really stretching her case for porn = adultery = divorce (and maybe some nice alimony, and hey, maybe a taller, richer husband while we’re at it!)
CHer, I think there is a lot of muddled thinking about this. Men’s porn is easily identifiable, and looks disgusting and gross to nicely brought up women. That doesn’t mean that it’s not possible for a woman to be using porn herself to some degree. If a photo of a fully dressed, incredibly handsome man makes a wife start daydreaming about him, this is a socially acceptable kind of porn. Because most women don’t need the naked, sweaty part to experience a sexual response–even if it is slight. Women prefer to read porn rather than watch it, but people don’t… Read more »
Very good points. Romance novels, 50 Shades of Whatever, etc. are all forms of female porn. But I’ve yet to hear anyone say that’s virtual adultery…and find an attorney, honey, I’m outta here. And I’m no apologist for porn. Many men and women when are enslaved to. I think it’s a terrible scourge, especially now that it’s so readily available. And it *could* be grounds for divorce if someone is confronted, given ample opportunity to repent and simply refuse to give it up. But to simply say repeated porn (which could be 2 or 3 times) = adultery is nonsense.… Read more »
Porn is not worse than adultery from the perspective of marriage. I may have missed that. This comment? Deliberate and repeated porn use is at least adultery, Not certain what she means. One of the problems people have is a failure to look at the first action and look downstream. But downstream is always problematic. We don’t know everything downstream. And one can twist this. Paul addresses this with meat. So I would say that the trafficking of women is a useful polemic against pornography, but it is unhelpful in grading the evil of participating in it. If a man… Read more »
Bethyada, I think the wrongness of any individual’s purchase of porn is increased if he knows and does not care that the woman portrayed may be a victim of the sex trafficking trade. California has a major problem with women being trafficked across the border by cartels and then handed over to international criminal street gangs. Usually they are forced into prostitution but there is also a thriving trade in online pornography streamed live to a user who has paid with a credit card. Sometimes the user gets to dictate what he wants to see, and this can be lethally… Read more »
Possibly Jill. But it is the world who tries to get us to analyse everything by downstream effects, most of which we cannot know. We have had this discussion before, having to know who picked our coffee and who milked our cows, and whether or not the butcher swore at his wife before coming to work. If you do not know something but you sin, your sin is not intrinsically greater or lesser because of off scene shenanigans. It is what it is. Of course, if your get your sin made to order, then you are sinning by consumption and… Read more »
You are choosing to misunderstand what was said to you. One more time: very few people are on board with banging hot chicks and hating Jews. They are asking you to prove that Dalrock (or anyone else) has endorsed those things. They are not willing to condemn someone on your say-so. On anyone’s say-so. Instead of accepting the legitimacy of refusing to condemn someone without evidence, you have chosen to attack people who disagree with you as stupid and unchristian. This is wrong. It is a wicked thing to make an accusation without solid evidence. It is just plain unreasonable… Read more »
MeMe, it was you who introduced me to the red pill world. After reading your many comments on it over the years, I wandered on over and took a look. Many of the writers lived up (or down) to everything you led me to expect. For example, I have not yet read a word of Artisanal Toad that did not make me wonder what the world is coming to. Of the many writers I have read off and on, I think that Dalrock is one of the most reasonable. That doesn’t mean I agree with him. It means that I… Read more »
“And I would not be remotely offended because that is all part of the rules of debate.”
I shouldn’t be involved in debate with a Christian over this at all. Flat out, “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” When my “Christians” are posting endless perversions and outright misogyny, and Dalrock is hosting it, I shouldn’t have to write a darn thesis complete with 45 links and citations explaining WTH is wrong with that!
Now I am angry Jilly.
MeMe, take a deep cleansing breath and approach this rationally. No one is asking you to explain what is wrong with perversions and misogyny. They (we) are asking you first to establish the facts. You have acknowledged that you are not accusing Dalrock himself of promoting evil ideas in what he has written. Can you see how your first post may have led people to think that you were? Because I took Dalrockian to include Dalrock himself, your accusation about polygamy struck me as not supported by the evidence. Remember, I and others here also read him, and I had… Read more »
Meme, or insanitybytes has been from several men’s sites for her continual noxious commentary. She is obsessed with the men’s sphere.
It’s sad to watch.
“But I do not lie. I speak the truth.” And your nose just grew another 0.25 inches.
All kinds of people make comments on blogs–especially if the subject matter is controversial There have been atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, theonomists, alt-right, alt-left and others on this blog alone. Labeling them all “Wilsonians” or “Dalrockians” is absurd.
Pastor Wilson attracts an awful lot of red pills and genuine racists. That is because much of what he posts fuels those fires.
Dalrocks post are always about reviling women, hence he draws people who revile women. To revile is an abomination.
My nose is just fine. I do not lie.
“Dalrocks post are always about reviling women,” – another lie. His last one was “Basic tags for WordPress comments.” I guess you can run that through some Womyn’s Studies Dept, though, and they’ll find some crazy unconscious sexism employing white male power structures.
You’re the one who recently talked about sinful men need to be “pushed off the edge of the earth” while sinful women were merely “broken.” Talk about a misandrist.
I am not a misandrist, but I do understand how I could easily become one.
You can stop heaping abuse on me, I’ve said what I wanted to say to Pastor Wilson and I see no reason to continue here.
CHer, you are being a bit dim here. We have just learned in the last few weeks that the techie world is hostile to women and nastily prevents them from becoming programmers even though every woman yearns to spend her life writing code. Is there a major programming language that was developed by women, for women? I thought not. Naming a language Python is so insensitive to feminine women who loathe reptiles that I don’t know where to start. Just seeing the word in print gives me shivers, and what more evidence do you need? (I was fully adult before… Read more »
That’s it, Jill. I’m getting you a job at Salon or HuffPo.
We are fighting for the truths held by Christians for thousands of years. You label these truths “bigotry” yet you substitute them with repackaged leftism.
Pepe, I’m not sure that is even historically true for Christians in general. The Spanish and Portuguese obviously bred across racial lines in South America, and the French certainly did in Canada. A people which values racial purity above all else really needs to avoid colonizing other nations’ territory.
Doug’s recent discussion on the confederate statue issue brought back a memory that is relevant to the discussion. Doug might remember his Daily News’ opinion column(circa 1980) that called for the taking down of the Statue of Liberty, gift from France to our country, and representation of Libertas the Roman goddess. I was in agreement with his argument that idols such as that are a degradation of our understanding of ourselves as a nation under God. But this is where my conservatism contrasts with Doug’s radicalism: Doug, like the leftists in Virginia, would tear it down (New York Harbor Commission,… Read more »
Okay, Fred, I’ll bite. Not a conservative, eh? I would invite you to guess who I wrote in for president, and then guess, in the second place, if you would consider *him* a conservative.
I would guess you voted for Senator Ted Cruz and his new federalism (reinvigorate the 10th amendment). A conservative choice, if this was the case. But, you could have gone for Dean Wullenwaber depending on your mood. Doug, you are still a work in progress,and I am trying, bro, to get you in touch with you real political self or identity!!!! Lest the youth of Moscow be corrupted!!!
Best, FB
Cato the Elder? Sorry, it couldn’t be avoided. ;)
Ben Sasse?
He wrote in Ben Sasse.
I wish I could say that I made an inspired and correct guess, but honesty compels me to report that I remember reading it somewhere.
He’s a perfect conservative by Dabney’s definition.
Some of the other toys in the store:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/confederate-symbols-by-the-numbers/index.html
“Deal with it, Buttercup”? In my military settings, the phrase as I typically hear it has shall we say more of a rhyme to it…
MOScow? Home of Ivan the Terrible and Josef Stalin? That has got to change!
Nah, Moss-co will never be Mos-cauw. ;)
“They can overrun a comments thread on a blog like nobody’s business…”
They can also run over women and murder them. Poor choice of words. Not sure why you are taking sides between the RedShirts and Brown.
Taking sides? He’s saying one is a bigger threat than another.
Maybe by saying the group that actually murdered someone this weekend is merely a bugbear. This might have been applicable IF there wasn’t a loss of life.
If they group that had a permit didn’t meet violent resistance, no one would’ve been killed, hit with sticks, pepper sprayed, hit with Antifa urine/feces bags, etc.
And don’t forget James Hodgkinson since we’re talking about loss of life over different worldviews.
This is exactly what I mean in my first comment about taking sides. By dismissing these people as nothing more than a bunch of annoying losers against the real enemy makes the Alt-right and Nazi’s into the sympathetic group who had their permit and things were going fine until Antifa comes along.
There is zero point in downplaying the Nazi’s to point out Antifa. Playing “what-about” makes you sympathize with one group over the other. This isn’t the first time this scenario has occurred in the last hundred years
You continue to totally miss the point. So is MeMe but that’s a given. The MSM would have us believe the alt-right is a huge threat while Antifa are a bunch of misfits with their hearts in the right place…who just happen to get violent sometimes. DW is talking about threats and he’s 100% correct: “losers on the bent-Right who want to make paper mache shields with stark and frightening lightning-bolty thingies on them. But these are people who live on the margins, and are not likely to be able to run anything larger than a convenience store…Meantime, the antifa… Read more »
The Alt-Right is grassroots, but it’s hardly a loser movement. It is different than skinheads and KKK, though loser white power groups have certainly latched on to them. It was a mistake to let those guys bring their swastikas and hoods to the rally.
“It was a mistake to let those guys bring their swastikas and hoods to the rally.”
I want to say that’s a start, that’s something.
How about: “It was a mistake to let those entirely other guys who even have swastikas and hoods in the first place crash the rally.” ?
That’s the way I’d want to put it if I identified as Alt-right.
As with most things Trump says, this one was false. Not that I think it particularly matters.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/17/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-charlottesville-counter-protest/
Jilly would love this – I somehow got two downvotes simply for pointing out the clear fact that something Trump said was factually wrong. It’s not even debateable. Some of you people have become insane in your idolatry.
I do agree with part of your point, that antifa is to blame for their violence, though certainly not for the car attack.
There was no car attack. Why are you repeating leftist lies?
llion, the president disagrees with you: “I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and this country. And that is — you can call it terrorism, you can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That’s what I’d call it. And there is a question. Is it murder? Is it terrorism? Then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer, and what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing.”… Read more »
The videos show there was quite clearly a car attack. He came screaming in at high speed from several empty blocks away, slammed into his target, then reversed back out of there as quick as he could. In what world is that not a car attack?
Of course, he had plenty of chances to “study the technique”:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/15/january_daily_caller_video_demonstrates_how_to_plow_through_protesters_with.html
Apparently Pastor Wilson empathizes more with National Socialists than with Fascist Communists. It’s one of those choices like, firing squad or hanging?
Myself, I like to dream a bit higher,but whatever.
“There is no room for genuine racism in the church of God. There is, however, more than enough room in the church for things that are called racist these days. So, that said, I reiterate all that I said about the unifying power of the gospel, and the fragmenting power of every form of secularism.” Wilson yesterday
MeMe, there is no empathy for either side, but a call to the foot of the cross. The choice is Christ or the world. Keep praying for a more Christian America.
Well said, Dave. I’ll take it. The choice has always been Christ or the world.
No, we don’t erase metaphors with hundreds of years of provenance from the language because there are murderers in the world, sorry.
No, a poor choice of words and erasing metaphors from the English language are not the same thing. Sorry.
Claiming no one is ever allowed to use the word “overrun” in this context again — a context related to, but not the same as, the one in which people were run over — certainly is erasing a metaphor. Or at least trying to.
That’s not what happened. Why are you spreading leftist lies?
Simple clarity. Thank you very much .
Wilson wrote: As we respond to the tantrum, it does not need to be reasoned discourse. It should be a simple no. Deal with it, buttercup. There is no need for argument in response because no arguments are being offered. … There is no logical stopping point because we are not dealing with logic. This is a really important reminder. As we are even seeing here, with a small handful of SJWs, like Krychek_2 and Jonathan, they’re just not responsive to any facts that would upset their predetermined conclusion regarding the motives of everyone in the old South. It’s quite… Read more »
Either Dunning–Kruger in full effect or simply some old-fashioned narcissism.
My vote’s for Dunning-Kruger. It’s kind of sad that someone close to Katecho has never said him, “Honey, please stop. They’re not laughing with you.”
Three different people called him out for how bad his arguments had become, including one person who was actually on the same side as him but who felt the arguments he was trying to use to attack me were terrible. He ended up on the wrong side of literally every argument with me involving verifiable facts. Yet he had the gall to come and post that someone else was not responsive to facts. Sad.
Right now Trump is about the only Republican politician holding the line (as usual, the rest of them are useless). The grassroots needs to make sure the cucks feel the heat, particularly the ones who have publicly denounced Trump for daring to stand up to the communist mobs. Marco Rubio–whose family escaped from communist Cuba–should be ashamed for excusing the Bolshevik left in order to bash the man who beat him out for the nomination. Denouncing the alt-reich is counter-productive as it only reinforces the leftist narrative. You’re not morally required to denounce the sins of only specific groups, and… Read more »
You can do that, of course. But you will lose the support of the vast majority in the center who actually want to do what is right, whose loyalties are not tribal, and who care about who is telling the truth.
Human interaction is inherently tribal.
If tribalism is the ultimate scourge of humanity, then God would have forbidden it first and foremost in the bible. But He didn’t, and so lefties pick and choose specific verses to try to make it look that way and brainwash Christians into committing cultural suicide.
“Human interaction is inherently tribal.”
Is that a proposition? If so, that means you believe in proposition nations.
Pepe. even if your first statement is true, doesn’t it assume that all tribal allegiances are based on shared ethnicity? I don’t think of myself as having a tribe, but if I were forced to declare membership in one, it would be the tribe of city-dwelling, latte-sipping, hybrid-driving, Uber-using, “New Yorker” reading, diversity-tolerant culture vultures who happen to be mostly Catholic or Jewish (Protestants being few on the ground in my part of Los Angeles). How is this a less valid form of tribal allegiance?
Jill Smith wrote:
Wait, Jill thinks there is still a constituency to be won in the political center? The Republican party thought there was a ripe constituency in the center too, for the last several elections, and that strategy ensured that they kept losing. Trump didn’t bother with that quaint notion, and he ended up beating everyone else from the “center” establishment in the primaries.
Jill probably self-identifies as being in the political center too, right? :-)
Yes, I do. My desperate hope is for a party (and a candidate) I can vote for sometime before I am eligible to vote in the next election. Katecho, I am well aware that you will define me as a leftist social progressive, just as I am well aware that my Democrat friends abhor my rejection of the pro-abortion plank in their platform and consider me a covert Republican. That is not important to me.
Jill Smith wrote: Katecho, I am well aware that you will define me as a leftist social progressive, just as I am well aware that my Democrat friends abhor my rejection of the pro-abortion plank in their platform and consider me a covert Republican. No. I didn’t say I would define Jill. What I said, tongue in cheek, was that Jill would probably self-define as centrist even though she has, at various times, and quite recently, self-identified as leftist. It’s quite clear that Jill has nothing against big government at all, and I don’t even endorse the misleading left/right model… Read more »
Katecho, if a centrist is one who invariably takes a middle of the road position, regardless of the issue at hand, I am not a centrist. But I question whether anyone other than you defines centrist in that way. I consider myself a centrist because I find specific planks of both party platforms to be morally repugnant. I am unwilling to join any political party which values loyalty over personal principle, or which demands orthodoxy on points where decent people may differ. Where I land on a particular issue is based on what my conscience, informed by my faith, tells… Read more »
@Jill Smith
You may not be aware of how left the current centrist position is.
Hi Bethyada, read my response to Katecho. For me, being a centrist does not imply giving assent to a list of positions held by other centrists. It’s not a political definition, but a philosophical approach. It’s the right to assert the primacy of conscience over loyalty to a party. It is the unwillingness to support an immoral or wrongheaded leader on the grounds that he is part of my tribe or that he cares about my interests and no one else’s. It is the right to examine every issue for myself and form my own conclusions, based on what I… Read more »
What Jill seems to be trying to say is that, we are all centrists now.
Katecho, if you mean many of the people who post here, I think that is very likely. I believe it is true of our host, and I admire his candidate’s willingness to put principle ahead of party. Unfortunately, it is not true of everyone:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/trump-approvers-never-stop-approving-poll/index.html.
And, yes, I deplore that kind of thinking with regard to any imaginable candidate of any conceivable party. “Obama could murder someone and I would still support him” is not loyalty. It is both detestable and moronic.
Silly poll, people answer based on what they think it is likely Trump will do. It would not be that result if the question was, “Would you still approve of Trump if he murdered and ate you mother?”
Bethyada, I grant that. But if the question was “If Trump was proven to have lied repeatedly to the American people on a matter of major importance solely in his own self-interest, would that make a difference to your approval?”, I am not sure that it would make much difference at all.
Bethyada, I amused myself by taking a very long online quiz to find my true identity. Which is a Centrist, Free-Trade Supporting, Noninterventionist, Social Libertarian with Cultural Liberal Leanings.
Jill, your writings are indeed centrist at times with some flavour of leftism. I do not dispute this. My comment was merely that what we now call centrist is quite far to the left in some ways.
I am to the right. I do not think that the government should fund schools, retirement, welfare, or health. Even right leaning people support this.
German Nazis are left wing by the way, so I feel safe on what is considered the far right while at the same time disavowing Adolf.
Does any mainstream New Zealand political party represent your views? By mainstream, I mean electable. I always thought of New Zealanders’ political options as similar to Canadians’–the primary difference among parties being the degree to which, and for what programs, they are willing to run up the deficit. But, on core issues like universal health care and public education (both of which I support), as well as on social issues like abortion, the death penalty, and gay marriage, there is little difference between the three major parties.
It sounds pretty similar to NZ, Jill. I’d agree with @bethyada that our ‘right’ party is more centrist than really ‘right’. He’d be the first kiwi I’ve encountered to believe the Govt shouldn’t fund any social programmes.
We have an election coming up next month and I don’t know who to vote for. None of them are much good, in my view. Not even the fringe ones.
Indighost, I was reading a Catholic article on what you do when every party is pro-abortion. It advised readers to stop asking who will do the most good, and go with who will do the least damage.
It’s hard to measure these things. I did one of those quizzes to see which party I should vote for. Apparently I agreed with 51% of the policies of the Conservative Party, which has never achieved 5% of the vote (the minimum for a seat in Parliament) and everyone else scored lower.
Indighost, I agree with you about Edmund, by the way. I find him the least attractive of Austen’s heroes. He lost me when, having been so censorious about performing the play, he not only caves but presses Fanny to cave as well.
He’d be the first kiwi I’ve encountered to believe the Govt shouldn’t fund any social programmes.
Yeah, we’re a rare breed. Though I have some thoughts. I would probably make health and retirement compulsory personal saving, at least initially.
And I think transition is very important. You can’t just end the current funding. That would be harsh on many people.
Act would be the closest until the leader decided he wanted to introduce a bill to legalise euthanasia and it would force medical personal to be involved. Kind of like the guy does not understand what “libertarian” means. It is one think to allow suicide, it is another to say that one’s right to die supersedes others right not to murder. There was a conservative party but the leader wrecked that for the time being. I may vote for the main party which is centrist. I did not like the previous leader (as a politician, seemed like a nice bloke)… Read more »
“Trump didn’t bother with that quaint notion, and he ended up beating everyone else from the “center” establishment in the primaries.”
Trump was the centrist candidate. Certainly much more centrist than the free-trade, low tax, roll back entitlements fetishists in congress. He is pro LGBT(QRS) rights, pro massive entitlements, pro corporate welfare, pro federal infrastructure, etc. It turns out he has no idea what he is doing or what he believes (surprise) so his policy pushes are incoherent, but he is definitely full blown centrist on pretty much every axis except bowing to standard identity politics.
“The free-trade, low tax, roll back entitlements fetishists”
There’s nothing “fetishist” about any of that. The problem is the same Congressmen won’t cut spending in other areas, particularly defense.
Of course. Most objects of fetishes are perfectly reasonable things. I am in favor of all of the listed policies to some extent. However , contra Ryan et al. this sort of fiscal policy is enormously unpopular, will have dire political ramifications, and is far from the most important issue facing America.
And trump is ostensibly centrist on all of them.
demosthenes1d wrote: Trump was the centrist candidate. Promising to demolish Obamacare, and promising to build a wall are not centrist planks. Nor does that explain why Trump beat all of the other Republican candidates in the primary. I agree that Trump’s policy pushes are incoherent, and can range all over the political spectrum, but that doesn’t qualify him as a centrist. Someone who might be radical in both directions isn’t a centrist. For example, someone who is radically socially liberal and yet fiscally hawkish isn’t automatically centrist. McCain is constantly “reaching across the aisle”, war mongering, and stabbing conservatives in… Read more »
The candidate who was ignoring the center (and lost) was Cruz. Trump won via the votes he was able to pick up from the center.
Jonathan wrote:
No. Jonathan’s theory doesn’t explain why Cruz, along with Trump, were both leading all of the other centrist Republican candidates in the primaries. Cruz was well ahead of all of the other centrists in the party, and one of the only ones threatening Trump.
Jonathan wrote:
Right, because promising to build a wall is such a centrist idea.
I did not say that Trump was a centrist, but he certainly didn’t ignore the center. He appealed to both the conservative right and the centrists. Take this article from the National Review from back in October, for example: “Ted Cruz eventually consolidated the orthodox-conservative branch, but his weaknesses as a candidate meant that he struggled to push out Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee. The center-right party bounced from Chris Christie to Jeb Bush to Marco Rubio to John Kasich but never settled on a candidate. Meanwhile Trump shot the gap. His jihad against the establishments of both… Read more »
“the vast majority in the center who actually want to do what is right, whose loyalties are not tribal, and who care about who is telling the truth.”
If by ‘vast majority’ you mean all seven or eight Americans who haven’t made up their minds yet, not only about what actually happened with the crash heard round the world, but about what the other tribe must do to make it right.
Just for the sake of clarity, the only sense in which Rubio’s parents escaped from communist Cuba is by not being there. They immigrated to the United States three years before Castro took power.
I like Rubio in many respects, but this was an example of him going too far in trying to play his history for points.
How about petitioning to give Moscow a Robert E. Lee Street? It would cause U of I professors heads to explode!
“Of course, in the meantime, we do have to take some account of the losers on the bent-Right who want to make paper mache shields with stark and frightening lightning-bolty thingies on them.”
Well, I suppose this is a good argument for the importance of video games.
Not to mention plush couches, basements with no windows and,……………………. tasty snacks!
Maybe for the collective good, we should be funding free Cheetohs, too. :)
Don’t knock the tasty, rolled snacks. Without them liberalism starts to look totally incoherent.
You realize that’s what started a lot of the Alt-Right stuff – the SJW Perpetual Offense Brigade coming in and saying that video games were racist, misogynist, and homophobic and the men who played them were rapist, virgin losers. (Don’t ask me to explain the juxtaposition of that last set.)
Except the Leftists were so committed to the “Everything within the ideology, nothing out side the ideology” that they couldn’t leave well enough alone.
I do realize that, Arwenb. Hence the reference to video games, basement dwellers, and cheetohs. Ha! “It is not good for the man to be alone.” :) In all seriousness however, some of the rebels without a clue were Obama supporters and Occupiers just a few years ago. Antifa, before it was Antifa was beating up on Hillary supporters. Bernie-dines where I live headed to Charlottesville to protest on both sides of the issue. A few “Occupy everything” people I know are now, “alt right.” So, in crazy upside down world,many of these labels mean nothing except some people really… Read more »
ArwenB, it is a puzzling juxtaposition until you read posts by a few on the fringes. It’s virgins who indulge in rape fantasies because they have despaired of getting girls to like them without using force. Rape is seen as a kind of payback against women in general for finding them unattractive.
I’m kind of sympathetic to people who want relationships and have a hard time finding them. But, on the list of things women find a total turnoff, male whining is probably number one.
Jilly,many of those guys are not simply frustrated virgins sitting in the friend zone, trust me. You should be very careful pouring your pity and compassion on them. You do not now who is on the other side of the keyboard.
MeMe, I don’t have pity for them; I think they are repulsive. The inability to get a girlfriend does not justify rape fantasies. I said that I was sorry for people who can’t get dates. I think it must be miserable to be so unattractive (in ways that go far beyond the physical) that no one wants to go out with you. But that sympathy is for normal people, not for people who translate their sense of rejection into violent misogyny.
I neither know nor care what the fantasies of these supposed basement dwellers were.
I do know that the accusations made by the feminists regarding the content of the video games were either overblown and/or complete misrepresentations.
And regardless of the content of the video games, these supposed basement dwelling losers were happily occupied by those video games – and not doing anything to actual people – until the SJWs decided that no man should be allowed to do anything that did not meet the most current politically correct shibboleths they could come up with.
I’m a man, and having trouble coming up with anything interesting that any SJW have ever kept me from doing. Still can hunt, play contact sports, hang out with other men, make ridiculously loud music, drive any vehicle I’ve ever been able to, carry a gun, do ridiculous survivalist stuff, care for my family, worship God, have a beer, occupy positions of power in my community, occupy positions of service in my community, eat meat, not eat meat, make media that caters to other men, and know my wife in the Biblical way. And talk about it all on the… Read more »
Did anyone address the point of the post? Tearing down isn’t the issue. How did we come to the point of a demo project? By capitulation. History has a lesson with respect to leadership by capitulation.
“Deal with it buttercup.”
Yup…and tell them to go get a job, do something useful, become a productive member of society instead of a rabble-rouser.
Greetings Paulm01 – I’m probably going to show off my poor parenting skills here, but your comment reminded me of how I deal with many issues with my children. They know that there are many situations regarding their behavior that I treat in an “All for One and One for All” manner. I don’t care who started it, I don’t care what it is about, but they all violated the family rules. I would like it if the local government of Charlottesville acted similarly. They don’t need to pick sides, or even care who started it – but enforce the… Read more »
I was reared similarly…it is a sign of the times that this is even being discussed. Used to be consequences had repercussions. Apparently not anymore. 1) In these street riots (let’s call ’em what they are), what are these people doing there in the first place? Ignore the rabble and that takes all the wind out of their sails. And…treading lightly here…while the young woman’s death is certainly tragic, one cannot become a victim of something they have directly caused. In other words “she was there when she should have been doing something more productive” — her own profile indicated… Read more »
Your point #1 has led me to a new thought experiment. What would each side say if you asked them what the perfect result of the gathering would be?
My church is having “Church in the Park” next month. I’m praying about the result and my personal response to potential protest.
” What would each side say if you asked them what the perfect result of the gathering would be? ” They couldn’t answer that question, or more likely these days, they’d say all these people should go the way of the Dodo bird (to put it politely). Christian’s want peaceable solutions, we want others to locate God in a direct personal way, we don’t want anarchy. But these types love this stuff, live for it, create it if it doesn’t exist. It is their religion. Your final statement is the exceptional approach…God can’t steer a parked car, we must be… Read more »
I think the Teletubbie and Barnie cartoons have had their full effect and droves of Christians think there is no evil witch, plotting to eat them. Instead, they want everyone to just find the light inside of them and stop making so much trouble so they can enjoy their sports, Facebook pages and Amazon streaming.
We are being played by Chomsky (Phoenix) and Alinsky (Mr. Ashes) aficionados.
I know many people are disgusted with the dead white males who founded this country. In addition to taking monuments down, you may want to get rid of their pictures. Feel free to send them my way–especially the ones that the numbers 20, 50 and 100 on them. In fact, feel free to send a whole shoe box full of them. You’ll make your SJW self proud and I’ll actually find a use for them..
CHer, the SJW’s won’t send you their Hamiltons. Since the musical, he is their new statesman hero. Lin-Manuel Miranda inspired my own Snowflake to work her way through the entire Federalist Papers. She can discuss the National Bank dispute with a wealth of detail formerly devoted to the best way to apply hair extensions. On a trip to New York, she visited sites associated with him as if they were sacred shrines. I don’t know much about Alexander Hamilton, but I see nothing that inspires such devotion. Perhaps we should persuade Miranda to write musicals about the other guys as… Read more »
Ha, that’s true. Maybe we should replace every monument in the U.S. with Hamilton to appease them.
Jilly, you should go see Hamilton. It’s every bit worthy of the adulation poured upon it. A remarkable and soulful work of art. You would love it! (And as I am sure you know, it has come to LA.)
I have a ticket for October 3, and I can’t wait. Thanks to my Snowflake, I know the first act by heart. I even know that the sound following the opening dum-dadada-dum was inspired by a creaking screen door!
Thank you for this, Doug.
What happened to Barnie’s comments and follow-up?
I wondered the same thing. He certainly didn’t do anything worse than MeMe’s blatant lying and misrepresentation of others (her “polygamy, rape, and domestic violence” comment).
Several posts have disappeared, not just Barnie’s. They are still accessible through the comment search, so it is probably a technical glitch.
I’m just irritated the i took the time to write an excellent rejoinder, and it is lost to the machine :)
Demo, I hate that as well. If it’s a post I really care about, or which involves verifying half-forgotten facts, I write in Google docs and then copy and paste. After Katecho challenged my centrism, I took a few online tests. The first assured me that I am a Centrist Social Libertarian who leans left. The second told me that I am a Libertarian who leans right on markets, trade, and defense. How do they arrive at these conclusions? Is it by comparing my responses with other people’s based on voting preferences? Does my disapproval of using tax money to… Read more »
Online tests can get things wrong. Opposing abortion can mean right leaning or authoritarian (anti-libertarian) but opposing murder does not. Being pro-Israel can also mean that.
Which tests @Jill Smith?
The first, which labeled me Centrist Social Libertarian, is this: http://.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum. The second, which found me to be a right-leaning libertarian, was this: http://www.politicalcompass.org. I suppose the good thing is that my time in the U.S. has awakened a libertarian spirit, modifying my natural Canadian tendency to advise people how to run their lives, all for their own good. The anti-authoritarianism is innate, and exasperated one or two nuns along the way. I suppose it was a plus for my daughter, though perhaps not in the long term. When she was 15, one of her dates asked me what time… Read more »
Well I can’t get the first one. The second is poorly written in places. For what it is worth mine was: Economic Left/Right: 2.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.72 But the fact they have Hitler right on centre is concerning. It is simplistic, has too many negatives, and makes assumptions about how ideas should be put into practice. Eye for eye? Well for the state it represents a fair approach to justice, and limits what one can do. As a policy for personal enmity, terrible. So what is the question asking. The state has no role in the bedroom? Generally no, but… Read more »
I would like to test drive my own simple placement survey: Are you more irritated by the aloof dignity of cats or by the fawning devotion of dogs? Do you suspect people who laugh at New Yorker cartoons of only pretending to think they are funny? Do you wish people would shut up about the health benefits of quinoa? Do you prefer “Oklahoma!” to musicals about people killing themselves, dying from AIDS, or working as prostitutes in the inner city? Do you really, really believe in the presumption of innocence? Does Prince Charles strike you as a good reason to… Read more »
:)
amused by both
don’t think I’ve seen one
yesterday
never seen it but probably the former
in legal parlance only
a solid reason to end a lot of things
I think Doug’s Friday cartoons might come from the New Yorker. My personal all time favorite is this:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=sUXRY5RE&id=6365769EC5F2539D2A27DA535D431647DE6FF722&thid=OIP.sUXRY5REJuV8UVMWnCLVZwEgDY&q=lassie+get+help+cartoon&simid=607989752423187381&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0.
But a close second is the one where a cat walks through the front door and calls, “Honey! I’m home!”
My favorite is Peter Arno’s look at the stereotypical engineer:
“Well, back to the old drawing board!”
Neither. That is to say, I’d be personally more irritated by a dog not because I find their devotion offensive, but because I’ve just never warmed up to dogs for reasons of upbringing. And the aloof dignity of a cat is always observed in conjunction with their bursts of complete absurdity, which takes the edge off. I would, except my husband thinks they’re funny and he doesn’t do that sort of thing. So I guess it’s just a kind of humor not everyone gets Yes — I think quinoa’s actually great stuff but I dislike that kind of nattering Absolutely… Read more »
If the Queen lives for another years, Charles will be 80 when he accedes to the throne. The thing that particularly concerned me–his inability to respect the constraints placed on a constitutional monarch–will probably not be much of an issue. I wouldn’t personally end the monarchy if it were up to me (although I am not sure about keeping Canada as a monarchy), and I think that the whole point is that you take what you get. From George V onward, the monarchs have been decent human beings (excluding Edward VIII from whom we were delivered). But that is unusual,… Read more »
“But the fact they have Hitler right on centre is concerning.”
That makes no sense. I think the survey that Libertarians used to pass out was the most accurate. It had Hitler and Stalin (or at least their types) on one end, and practically no government on the other end. It also made distinctions between social and economic issues.
The issue is that there aren’t just two “ends” in politics. As someone recently said, (but I completely forgot who or where), there’s more than two poles. Authoritarianism/Libertarianism are two poles that don’t really line up to Right/Left at all. There are people on the “right” and on the “left” that come under both spectrums. Nowadays a conservative libertarian and a liberal libertarian might find more in common with each other than either one would have with, say, Trump or Sanders. As far as Fascists like Hitler and Mussolini go, they don’t really match up on the right/left spectrum at… Read more »
You’re right. I’ve seen a graph with four poles — authoritarian/libertarian, individualistic/collective, maybe? That seems much more useful than a bipoloar representation.
Though I wouldn’t say that Hitler and Mussolini’s antipathy for Communism necessarily demonstrates that they have no ideological kinship. It could as well be that they simply didn’t want competition from any direction, and/or found them to be a useful scapegoat.
Hi Jane, I think that is a more useful identifier. It covers economic free marketers who support legalized weed, and economic left wingers who want to ban cigarettes. I read an article a couple of months about tailoring one’s argument to where his opponent falls under these categories. It is useless to appeal to a non-authoritarian type by trying to shame him for having different opinions, and it is useless to appeal to an individualist to support consensus or group decisions. The article said that if, for example, you want to persuade a non-authoritarian individualist to accept climate change, show… Read more »
Unfortunately, showing people how they can make money off of climate change has been all too effective an argument!
There’s almost always antagonism within extreme movements…ever heard of Trotsky? Communists and fascists (the real kind) can be placed near each other on a continuum. Whether they get along is immaterial. Look at what we’re seeing now…”anti-fascists” acting a lot like the Browshirts.
Jilly,
Since I tap most of my comments out on a phone it takes commitment to write a medium length rejoinder.
As far as online political affiliation quizes go, they are mostly propaganda. They tend to shepherd people towards a preapproved position. Due to the large presence of gray tribe “libertarians” on the internet many of the quizes are structured to make you think you are a libertarian – though the vast majority of regular people are no such thing.
I’m sure that not even Hilter’s cats obeyed orders.
True that.
Demo, I looked up the LP platform, and you are right that most ordinary people would reject a lot of it. You’re also right that the questions are phrased to get an affirmative answer to a softball version of the core tenet. “Do you support free trade?” is not exactly the same thing as “Do you support open borders?”