Reasonable political debate seems to be disappearing faster in our country than tax dollars around Bernie Sanders. It is not fair to say that Democrats should shoulder the blame alone for this loss of civility, but I would be lying if I said I did not think that a good portion of it can be laid on their door step. The fact of the matter is the radical Left is more concerned about shutting down conversation in order to achieve victory and when those tactics do not work they quickly escalate through name calling, shouting down and recently all out violence in order to stifle opposing viewpoints. I enjoy discussions where reasonable well thought-out arguments are encouraged, but over the last couple of years I tend to get recycled talking points without any original ideas. Here are the five things that Democrats say that immediately cause me to mentally disengage because if they are using one of these phrases they have already lost the argument.

1. But the popular vote…

The United States is a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. In fact our founders saw the dangers of a direct democracy and the evil that it cause as bad thing. They worked very hard to put a system in place that would balance the minority concerns and the majority concerns. Ben Franklin said that “Democracy was two wolves and a lamb trying to decide what to have for dinner.” The system they came up with was that the president would be elected not by the vote of the people, but through the selection from the states. After all he is called President of the United States and the States collectively choose the President through the consent of their citizens.

If we switched to a pure popular vote, the President would effectively only represent the concerns of California, New York, Texas and Chicago. States that did not have cities with sizable populations would never be adequately represented. Thus we would always have those in urban areas dictating policies to those in rural areas. As Leftists are fond of pointing out life is very different as soon as you leave the city. Having someone living in California who knows nothing about life in Missouri making policies to impact their lives there for a prolonged period would not be conducive to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. While the system is not perfect is does ensure that smaller states and population areas are represented and the balance of power tends to move around depending on the concerns of the country as a whole and not based upon specific regional issues.


2. But Institutional Racism…

The system of slavery pre civil war America, the South during the Jim Crow era and South African apartheid are examples of institutional racism. You having to read Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet for an English class is not institutional racism. The Left recently has started conflating the concepts of unconscious bias with institutional racism essentially arguing that because people are inherently bias to their tribe that any systems or rules put in place are defacto institutional racism. This arguments jumps to plenty of conclusions without any supporting facts as it also implies that unconscious biases of which we are unaware is the primary driver for behavior. I have always believed that you solve problems the same way you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. We certainly have racist people in America, but calling every institution inherently racist is a week argument to allow some groups to claim victim status where results do not meet expectations. My arguments on this topic are not nearly as good a Ben Shapiro’s… BOOM!


3. You’re a Denier…

Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Magellan and Darwin. All giants of scientific discovery and yet they were called deniers because they failed to adhere to the dogmatic teaching of both the church and conventional wisdom of their times. Now we have a new modern religion which is the subservient worship of Gaia and any who fail to bow to the alter of her intellectual homogeneity must be branded heretic and punished for your carbon footprint. I am sorry, but when you use words like “denier” because you believe climate change is “settle science” you immediately close out all opportunity for reasoned debate and the exchange of information to determine the truth… which is kind of the purpose of science. If climate change is settle science then why do climate scientists keep falsifying data? If climate change is settle science then why do the goal posts on predictions keep getting moved back every time they are wrong? If climate change is settle science than what is the exact percentage of the warming that can be directly attributed to man versus normal climate patterns versus the interaction with our sun?

See I can drop and apple in an airless tube and once I account for all the factors like distance, friction weight and acceleration I can tell you exactly how long it will take to hit the ground. Furthermore I can take an apple and replicate the exact conditions and it will take the same amount of time to hit the ground each and every time. Gravity is a settled science. Understanding the climate requires thousands for variables, some of which we do not fully understand because of the complex interrelationships between those variables. We still have difficulty predicting the weather tomorrow within a localized region with 100% certainty, yet we are supposed to accept wholesale predictions made many years in the future over a global scale when the models that are used to make these distant predictions use the similar math and assumptions that occasionally generate a daily forecast that called for clear skies when it is clearly raining.

I am not denying that the earth’s climate changes. I am not even denying that some portion of this may be due to man. I will however admit that I remain skeptical and think it is perfectly fine to ask that the science be beyond reproach if we are going to implement policies that will cost our economy billions of dollars and keep many countries in poverty. Where would we be if Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Magellan or Darwin allowed the denier label to dissuade them from their work?  If the science is good then scientists should welcome the skepticism and debate not seek to stifle their critics. We should feel free to question and challenge science, not allow science to be used as a political weapon to silence the opposition.


4. He is literally Hitler…

Goodwin’s law essentially states that the longer that an online discussion (regardless of topic of scope) goes on, the more likely that someone will compare someone or something to Hitler. Since this law has been around since 1990 I believe that it needs to be updated to reflect our modern political climate. The RedStateRonin addendum to Goodwin’s Law states that the further to the left on the political spectrum one’s political views are the sooner you will make the Hitler comparison. Continually comparing President Trump to Hitler when he has not done anything even remotely close to what Hitler did in his rise to power dilutes the strength of your arguments and trivializes what his atrocities is an insult to the actual victims of Hitler. I have legitimate complaints about Trump and I am sure many Democrats do as well. The problem is that when every other word is Hitler, Nazi, racist, bigot, sexist and homophobe it is very difficult for us to have a conversation on any of those issues that both sides may have some concern. As long as the Left is running top cover for President Trump with their over the top and hyperbolic attacks it will be difficult to hold him accountable on mundane issues. If you must know Hillary was closer to Hitler than Trump.


5. He needs to be impeached…

There is no faster way to lose credibility with me than to suggest that we forgo someone’s due process and forget that in this country we allow for the presumption of innocence. The only court that allows rumor and innuendo to be entered as exhibits of evidence is the court of public opinion. Despite the efforts of the Left to try President Trump there, we are still a nation of laws. We cannot simply begin an impeachment process and hope to find evidence of wrongdoing along the way. The fact that we have the leadership of a major political party calling for impeachment without any concrete evidence should be very concerning for every American. These are Americans who are willing to use political theatrics to try to force an unlawful legal solution to usurp the will of the people because they dislike the results of an election. What they are suggesting is not that far of a leap from those banana republics which jail political opposition. It is not unreasonable to wait for the conclusion of all the investigations before we make the determination of what must be done. Sadly the Democrats no the likelihood of any collusion between the Trump administration is so small that their best hope is to use these calls for impeachment in an attempt to delegitimize the administration before it can even get started.

Posted by redstateronin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s