I just got up on the weekend and am making some eggs and toast and tea. I'm also, of course, looking over what people have posted on Facebook. A friend liked a meme with the following text:
He didn't say you couldn't have an abortion... he said you have to pay for it yourself if you do.
He didn't say refugees were not welcome... he said let's make sure they are not here to harm us before we let them in.
He didn't say Mexicans couldn't come in... he said come in the right way, not through the back door.
He's not taking away ANYONES freedom, he's keeping us safe and unfunding things that should never have been funded in the first place.
That's simply the way I see it... if I'm wrong please correct me.
The "he" is Trump, obviously. The writing requires vetting. Extreme vetting!
It's probably best to start (and end) at the end. The author has just made a number of statements that read like facts. Then, they soften their tone to say that's just their opinion and they are, apparently, open to discussion. This leaves the reader with a less harsh impression, perhaps more open to the idea that the author at least has some points. Let's look at those points.
He didn't say you couldn't have an abortion... he said you have to pay for it yourself if you do.
This has been essentially the case for 40 years. Abortions became federally legal in 1973 (Roe v Wade) and the Hyde amendment to limit the use of federal funds for abortions passed in 1976. It's been expanded a bit since; in its current incarnation it allows the use of those funds for abortions in the case of rape or life-endangering condition. So, Trump is saying nothing new from a Republican platform perspective.... is he?
He is, or at least he's backing legislation that does. In addition to the standard pro-life, pro-Hyde stance, the current draft of the AHCA ("TrumpCare", or "RyanCare", but lol neither wants their name attached to that steaming pile of shit) has a provision that the health care tax credits (akin to the ACA subsidies) that make health care theoretically more affordable for people can NOT be used on a plan that covers abortions. It's worth repeating that simply covering abortions negates the tax credit. It makes no difference if you use that coverage or not. This would essentially force a huge number of plans to abandon abortion coverage (evidently about 2/3 of insurance plans cover abortions to some degree), making abortion uncovered for a huge number of women. Even if a woman has no intention of ever having an abortion and is fine not covering it, there's still the case of rape or danger that may now not be covered. The AHCA clause is a poison pill designed to create new gaps which will almost definitely leave people uncovered in unfortunate cases.
He didn't say refugees were not welcome... he said let's make sure they are not here to harm us before we let them in.
On a very basic level this false. Trump has reduced the number of refugees the USA is taking in this year (50,000) to its lowest levels since at least 1980. That sends no other message than refugees are less welcome. It's not technically "not welcome", but clearly they are less, rather than as or more, welcome than before. This is also a crazy huge false dichotomy. It implies that there are two mindsets:
1. We have to further limit refugees to be safe
2. We should just let anyone in
There are clearly other possibilities, including the system we've had in place. As has been argued and documented over and over, refugees face years of vetting. There seems to be a misunderstanding that refugees just show up at our border and we give them hugs and gift baskets. And as has been documented time and again, these refugees (and immigrants in general) have caused less crime than the American baseline. As confirmed by leaked DHS documents, the new immigration policy from the Middle East is unlikely to have any positive effect on safety. There's just no need to "do more vetting". It's like checking that your door is locked three times instead of twice. Sure, it's not less safe ... but is it really more safe? To complete the analogy, what else did you miss out on doing while you were needlessly checking that lock over and over? Bringing that back to reality, we're creating the perfect propaganda for ISIS recruitment. I've purposefully avoided purely humanitarian or compassionate arguments. Yes, we should feel those things, but even without invoking any humanity, this is bullshit.
He didn't say Mexicans couldn't come in... he said come in the right way, not through the back door.
Funny, I'm sure his Mexicans went through the back door while working for him. Snark aside, this is an almost identically set up false dichotomy. There's no mainstream argument that we should just let Mexicans walk over the border illegally anytime they want. We just don't agree that a giant wall is the right way to accomplish this. A person can be for border security AND think the wall is idiotic. Since we're talking specifically about Mexicans, there's the other half (roughly) who came over legally and overstayed because it was unclear if they'd be able to come back again in the future as border policy changed. Or they just wanted to stay. Wrongs were done, sure. But the argument here is not an ideologue justice one, but rather a pragmatic one. Can we round up and deport millions of people and if we do, what effect does that have on communities and economies? These are the conversations we need to have instead of running around with our pitchforks to push people out who have been here far longer than the statute of limitations on most crimes lasts.
He's not taking away ANYONES freedom, he's keeping us safe and unfunding things that should never have been funded in the first place.
On a basic technical level, the unfunding claim pretends an opinion is actually fact. There's certainly disagreement on funding abortions, but that it never should have been funded is not a fact. TrumpCare is unfunding it in a roundabout way (and it will have unintended consequences), but it's mostly already unfunded. The claim that he's keeping us safe implies that he's doing more to keep us safer. That doesn't appear to hold water. He's like the daddy who won't let you go to the park because there might be a bad hombre there, even though you're going with your 20 friends and even though he has no concerns about you going to the grocery store or mall or movies or abandoned quarry. If we take "keeping us safe" literally, it's a status quo statement and adds nothing. Either way, there's nothing there.
Whether or not he's taking away anyone's freedom is a much broader question. This meme addresses three concrete items. If, say, a 4th item was "and no one is allowed out after dark", then this would be blatantly false. Not losing freedom does not follow from these particular three lines not encroaching on freedoms. Academics aside, even these 3 shouldn't lead to that conclusion. Even if you take the stance that refugees and Mexicans have no freedoms promised and are therefore not an issue, the abortion-related tax credit loss should raise a few flags. Technically you can still get whatever plan you want, but there's now a federal incentive to get one that does not cover abortions. If not a loss of freedom, it's at least a case of coercion. If we want to look beyond these three, the assault on the free press is evidence enough that he wants less freedom.
... and we come full circle.
Now that we've shoveled a giant load of contentious shit, we do the same thing Trump does. Tone it like we care so much, that this is just common sense, and maybe it's not bulletproof but the heart's in the right place. Even if you can nitpick things, overall this is sound.
I can't nitpick anything here, I can only blow the whole thing up.
He didn't say you couldn't have an abortion... he said you have to pay for it yourself if you do.
He didn't say refugees were not welcome... he said let's make sure they are not here to harm us before we let them in.
He didn't say Mexicans couldn't come in... he said come in the right way, not through the back door.
He's not taking away ANYONES freedom, he's keeping us safe and unfunding things that should never have been funded in the first place.
That's simply the way I see it... if I'm wrong please correct me.
The "he" is Trump, obviously. The writing requires vetting. Extreme vetting!
It's probably best to start (and end) at the end. The author has just made a number of statements that read like facts. Then, they soften their tone to say that's just their opinion and they are, apparently, open to discussion. This leaves the reader with a less harsh impression, perhaps more open to the idea that the author at least has some points. Let's look at those points.
He didn't say you couldn't have an abortion... he said you have to pay for it yourself if you do.
This has been essentially the case for 40 years. Abortions became federally legal in 1973 (Roe v Wade) and the Hyde amendment to limit the use of federal funds for abortions passed in 1976. It's been expanded a bit since; in its current incarnation it allows the use of those funds for abortions in the case of rape or life-endangering condition. So, Trump is saying nothing new from a Republican platform perspective.... is he?
He is, or at least he's backing legislation that does. In addition to the standard pro-life, pro-Hyde stance, the current draft of the AHCA ("TrumpCare", or "RyanCare", but lol neither wants their name attached to that steaming pile of shit) has a provision that the health care tax credits (akin to the ACA subsidies) that make health care theoretically more affordable for people can NOT be used on a plan that covers abortions. It's worth repeating that simply covering abortions negates the tax credit. It makes no difference if you use that coverage or not. This would essentially force a huge number of plans to abandon abortion coverage (evidently about 2/3 of insurance plans cover abortions to some degree), making abortion uncovered for a huge number of women. Even if a woman has no intention of ever having an abortion and is fine not covering it, there's still the case of rape or danger that may now not be covered. The AHCA clause is a poison pill designed to create new gaps which will almost definitely leave people uncovered in unfortunate cases.
He didn't say refugees were not welcome... he said let's make sure they are not here to harm us before we let them in.
On a very basic level this false. Trump has reduced the number of refugees the USA is taking in this year (50,000) to its lowest levels since at least 1980. That sends no other message than refugees are less welcome. It's not technically "not welcome", but clearly they are less, rather than as or more, welcome than before. This is also a crazy huge false dichotomy. It implies that there are two mindsets:
1. We have to further limit refugees to be safe
2. We should just let anyone in
There are clearly other possibilities, including the system we've had in place. As has been argued and documented over and over, refugees face years of vetting. There seems to be a misunderstanding that refugees just show up at our border and we give them hugs and gift baskets. And as has been documented time and again, these refugees (and immigrants in general) have caused less crime than the American baseline. As confirmed by leaked DHS documents, the new immigration policy from the Middle East is unlikely to have any positive effect on safety. There's just no need to "do more vetting". It's like checking that your door is locked three times instead of twice. Sure, it's not less safe ... but is it really more safe? To complete the analogy, what else did you miss out on doing while you were needlessly checking that lock over and over? Bringing that back to reality, we're creating the perfect propaganda for ISIS recruitment. I've purposefully avoided purely humanitarian or compassionate arguments. Yes, we should feel those things, but even without invoking any humanity, this is bullshit.
He didn't say Mexicans couldn't come in... he said come in the right way, not through the back door.
Funny, I'm sure his Mexicans went through the back door while working for him. Snark aside, this is an almost identically set up false dichotomy. There's no mainstream argument that we should just let Mexicans walk over the border illegally anytime they want. We just don't agree that a giant wall is the right way to accomplish this. A person can be for border security AND think the wall is idiotic. Since we're talking specifically about Mexicans, there's the other half (roughly) who came over legally and overstayed because it was unclear if they'd be able to come back again in the future as border policy changed. Or they just wanted to stay. Wrongs were done, sure. But the argument here is not an ideologue justice one, but rather a pragmatic one. Can we round up and deport millions of people and if we do, what effect does that have on communities and economies? These are the conversations we need to have instead of running around with our pitchforks to push people out who have been here far longer than the statute of limitations on most crimes lasts.
He's not taking away ANYONES freedom, he's keeping us safe and unfunding things that should never have been funded in the first place.
On a basic technical level, the unfunding claim pretends an opinion is actually fact. There's certainly disagreement on funding abortions, but that it never should have been funded is not a fact. TrumpCare is unfunding it in a roundabout way (and it will have unintended consequences), but it's mostly already unfunded. The claim that he's keeping us safe implies that he's doing more to keep us safer. That doesn't appear to hold water. He's like the daddy who won't let you go to the park because there might be a bad hombre there, even though you're going with your 20 friends and even though he has no concerns about you going to the grocery store or mall or movies or abandoned quarry. If we take "keeping us safe" literally, it's a status quo statement and adds nothing. Either way, there's nothing there.
Whether or not he's taking away anyone's freedom is a much broader question. This meme addresses three concrete items. If, say, a 4th item was "and no one is allowed out after dark", then this would be blatantly false. Not losing freedom does not follow from these particular three lines not encroaching on freedoms. Academics aside, even these 3 shouldn't lead to that conclusion. Even if you take the stance that refugees and Mexicans have no freedoms promised and are therefore not an issue, the abortion-related tax credit loss should raise a few flags. Technically you can still get whatever plan you want, but there's now a federal incentive to get one that does not cover abortions. If not a loss of freedom, it's at least a case of coercion. If we want to look beyond these three, the assault on the free press is evidence enough that he wants less freedom.
... and we come full circle.
Now that we've shoveled a giant load of contentious shit, we do the same thing Trump does. Tone it like we care so much, that this is just common sense, and maybe it's not bulletproof but the heart's in the right place. Even if you can nitpick things, overall this is sound.
I can't nitpick anything here, I can only blow the whole thing up.
No comments:
Post a Comment