Donald Trump

The Stupidity of American Political Discourse – Elijah’s Blog

Posted on Updated on

14479600_1312542195422967_2896391346849603603_nRemember when you were in 5th grade and someone called you a doodoo brain knuckle head? You couldn’t think of a witty response right off the bat, so you pulled out ol’ faithful:
I know you are but what am I? I’m rubber you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!

Man, what a comeback, right? What were they going to say after that? Something dumb like, “no! … YOU’RE GLUE and I’M RUBBER, stupid!” So lame!

It got a little more complicated once you emerged out of elementary school, but not much. If someone called you a loser in middle school, you just pointed out that they sit with the nerds in lunch. And in high school, if someone mocked you for your glasses, you mocked them for their shoes.

This “I know you are but what am I?” response apparently never gets old, because even the 2 primary candidates for the highest office in one of the the most powerful countries in the world embrace it in the same way that those jerks in middle school did. I hate to say that I expect it from them, but it’s true. They are not promoting anything close to reasonable discourse about issues, but that’s not entirely their fault. Some of it is, but not all of it.

People, the voters, gets bored when they talk about the issues. They’d rather hear quips and personal attacks, instead of substantive critiques or solutions. As evidence of this, just look at your facebook newsfeed. If it’s anything like mine, people who otherwise don’t care about political issues, share memes of one-line zingers. They share short videos of Trump threatening to send Clinton to jail. A short list of the dirty things that Trump has said. It’s a profoundly shallow form of political engagement that most people should be ashamed of. Just a snarky meme with no substance.

I’d like to encourage you to raise your level of political engagement.
Please.

EDIT:
After writing this and scheduling it to be released several days after I wrote it, someone took the same idea and made it into a video meme. It’s gold. lol
Click here to watch it.

 

What is Really at Stake in the 2016 Election? – Elijah’s Blog

Posted on Updated on

ballot-voteLet’s imagine that you are a part of the vast majority of human beings in the US who thinks that Trump and Clinton are the two worst possible candidates for the president of the united states. On one hand, we have an openly corrupt, morally inept, economically illiterate, inconsistent, lying, totalitarian maniac. And on the other hand, we have an openly corrupt, morally inept, economically illiterate, inconsistent, lying, totalitarian maniac.

What should we do?

Well, there are only 2 options. But not the options you think.
Here is the real binary choice for those of you who can’t stand Trump or Clinton:

  1. Sacrifice your principles on the altar of utilitarian pragmatism and vote for corruption, lies, immorality, and totalitarianism.
  2. Retain your principles, vote against both grossly immoral, corrupt, lying, disgusting candidates, vote against the two-party system.
    Oh and the people voting for Trump & Clinton will try to guilt you into voting for their disgusting candidate, as if their candidate deserves your vote or something.

Now which one is a better option?
Should you sacrifice your principles?
Or should you retain your principles and endure a little bit of uninformed ridicule?

The choice is clear.
Principle > Party.
Principle > Pragmatism.
Principle > Utilitarianism.

A Clear Lens Podcast – Elijah’s Blog

Posted on Updated on

Hey! So I was a guest on A Clear Lens podcast this last week, and it was a lot of fun.
Click here to listen to that on iTunes or visit their site to listen to it there.

cropped-cropped-acl-header-for-website-2-e14326951544161I got a chance to play in one of their games (I got completely destroyed; didn’t answer a single question correctly), and they had a chance to ask as many questions as they could think of and stuff it all into just over an hour and a half.
The title of the episode is Abortion & the Presidential Candidates with Elijah Thompson, and the main focus of the conversation was where the national election and abortion meet. As many followers of the Fetal Position podcast know, I’ve been going through a mini-series on that topic, so the conversation I had with the guys at A Clear Lens was abbreviated, but very packed full of information, including stuff on the supreme court justices (which isn’t something I covered on my show).
A Clear Lens is one of my favorite podcasts, and I had a gr8 time with them. And I was on after the following guests:
Mary Jo Sharpe, Holly Ordway, Brian Godawa, Craig Hazen, Greg Koukl, David Wood, and J. Warner Wallace. Needless to say, I am very glad for their contribution to the apologetics world and I am excited to have been a guest on their show.

Definitely check out A Clear Lens.
And after you listen to this episode, listen to all of the rest! You won’t regret it 🙂

Paid Maternity Leave – Elijah’s Blog

Posted on Updated on

Ok let’s talk about this whole paid maternity leave for a second. The ‘left’ has been advocating for government-mandated paid maternity leave for a while, and now that Trump has advocated it, many people on ‘the right’ are jumping on board.
I can understand why both sides would do it too.
Progressives hold equality as their primary political value, and they believe that the government should promote equality above almost anything else. And conservatives hold very strongly to the idea the government is here to promote a society in which the traditional family is upheld.
Even though equality and family are very important things, I think mandatory, government-enforced, paid maternity leave is a bad idea. And here’s why.photo-1474244037712-b4ba4128170fFirst, let me say this.

Paid maternity leave is great. It is a wonderful thing. If possible, I encourage everyone to work for companies who offer paid maternity leave.
 
But let me also say this.
Paid maternity leave isn’t some kind of right. It is a privilege that we have because some companies are willing to offer that service to their employees, at great expense to the company.
 
Think about it. What is involved in paid maternity leave, from the business’ perspective?
– they have to pay someone to do no work, for an extended period of time.
– they have to pay someone else to do the work that the new mother isn’t currently doing (which may include extensive training).
– they have to keep the job for the new mom when (or if) she comes back.
 
All of this costs money.
Which is why I think it’s awesome when a company *voluntarily* offers this to their employees. Unlike what many people assume, it is not a “country” that offers paid maternity leave, it is a business that offers it. All the government can do is make it mandatory.
 
But what would happen, from the business’ perspective, if paid maternity leave is forced upon them from the government? Well, they’d likely hire fewer women of child-bearing age. Or, if it paid maternity leave was only available to full-time employees, they would only hire part-time women.
 
And this means that the women who are not going to have children in their 20s & 30s are hurt by the mandate, because they are not going to take advantage of the paid maternity leave, yet they are discriminated against because of it.
Result? – fewer young women are hired.
 
Additionally, companies are generally pretty good at budgeting. They have a set amount of money that they are willing to pay for a particular employee. If paid maternity leave becomes required by government, there is a good chance that the woman’s pay will decrease because those same resources must be re-allocated to paying for potential paid maternity leave.
Result? – a wage gap between men and women, because of a government mandate.
 
Fewer young women getting hired, and when they do… they get hired at a lower pay rate than equally qualified men? Two problems that people are trying to erase from the private sector, being ushered in by government regulations.
 
Please think about this before you dive in, just because you think paid maternity leave is a good idea. I agree that it is a great idea, but I also don’t want the government to get involved in the way people run their business, because it always ends up hurting more than it helps. Plus, at a more fundamental level, it is a violation of government’s purpose; to promote promote personal and economic liberty, as much as possible.

Please don’t support government-enforced, mandatory paid maternity leave. Please.
We can not simply embrace this culture of “free stuff” and expect to have long term progress or prosperity.

Additional resources:
The Tom Woods Show, Episode 738
Independent Women’s Forum, video

Episode 14 – Responding to “I Consent to Sex, Not Pregnancy!” & Also Donald Trump’s Stance on Abortion

Posted on Updated on

FP_Logo1Hi! Welcome to The Fetal Position, episode 14. If you want to listen to the show in a new window, click the following link: http://traffic.libsyn.com/thefetalposition/ep_14.mp3

Resources mentioned in the show:
Common Ground Without Compromise, Free EBook
Clinton Wilcox’s blog, ProLifePhilosophy.Blogspot.com
Debunking Planned Parenthood’s 3% Abortion Myth

—————————————————————-

Too Long Didn’t Listen (TLDL)?:

– ZEF stands for zygote/embryo/fetus. It seems dehumanizing to me, but if both parties understand that ZEF stands for an unborn human being, I have little problem with the usage.
– 40 Days for Life is starting soon! If you have any ideas about what we could do as a podcast group, let me know!

Claim:
Consent to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.

  • This is a variant of the bodily autonomy argument.
    – Originally by Eileen McDonough, and she wants to shift the focus from what the ZEF is and focus on what the ZEF does. On this view, the ZEF causes pregnancy, and if the woman did not consent to pregnancy, then she has the right to say “no”. It’s her body, it’s her choice.
    – The entire argument hinges upon the ZEF being an invader, against her consent.
    – If you have the right to protect yourself against someone attacking you (even if they do not have malicious intent), then you have the right to protect yourself against the unborn invader.
    – On this view, consent must be ongoing. The woman reserves the right to revoke consent, even if consent was given at the beginning.
  • Response:
    – Sex is tacit consent to pregnancy, because sex is a behavior that is intrinsically ordered towards procreation. When your sexual organs are functioning properly, sex results in pregnancy. Pregnancy cannot be seen as an accidental feature of sexual intercourse. Procreation is the designed (even if it is not the desired) function of sex.
    – The embryo does not cause pregnancy. The embryo is an effect. There is a correlation, but not a causation. A new human being is caused by sex.
    – The car accident analogy does not work because driving a car is not intrinsically ordered towards an accident. When someone hits you, that’s because they’re not functioning properly.
    – When someone requires your consent to live, the consent need not be ongoing. Especially if you are responsible for placing the person in that dependent state. If I consent to you riding on my airplane, I cannot revoke consent mid-flight. This is because revoking consent causes you to die.
    – Trotting Out The Toddler: You cannot revoke consent to your toddler living in your house, and in response, throw him outside in the snow.
    – I am not suggesting that it is immoral revoke consent in the middle of an act. If a woman consents to sex and finds it to be painful, mid-coitus, she is well within her rights to revoke consent.
    – Yes I understand that there are other ways to make babies outside of sexual intercourse.
    – Men are expected to support their children, either with a job, staying at home, or child support. If they refuse to do that, they are shamed and forced to pay. Yet, if a woman chooses to kill her child because she doesn’t consent… apparently she is a champion of woman’s rights?

 

Donald Trump on abortion

Ultimately, my conclusion is that Trump is not a principled pro-lifer. I am skeptical of him because he became pro-life after hearing a story, and when it was politically convenient. If you trust Trump to stick to his word, then the stuff he has said might good news for you. But because I remember that Trump has flip flopped on issues like our involvement in Iraq & Libya, how much he likes Hillary Clinton, on universal, government-run health care, on throwing illegal aliens out of the country, on nuclear weapons, on the minimum wage, on gun control, on free speech, and even on the importance of political correctness…

That’s why I don’t trust him.
And that’s why I can’t vote for him.
If he is elected, I am confident that he will do nothing to help the pro-life movement.
However, if he is elected and ends up doing good for the pro-life movement, I will publicly admit that I was wrong. But I don’t think I’m going to be wrong.

EDIT:
I wish I seen this interview before recording the episode, because this interview solidifies my position on Donald Trump and abortion. When asked, “There are a lot of laws you want to change, you’ve talked about them on everything from libel to torture. Anything you would want to change on abortion?”, Trump says, “At this moment the laws are set, and I think we have to leave it that way.”

In case you had a tiny glimmer of hope… I can assure you that Trump has no plans to change the laws on abortion.