I'm not convinced by any of that , a squirrel is a squirrel. Native or not Native is a meaningless distinction in the global world we live in. The UK is covered in non native species. I think plenty of those people just seem to get off on killing things, even better if they are foreign.
I disagree that you can't make a judgement about what's going on in those people's heads. I did, you can too. Granted, it's just our opinion.
Good to see you back anyway. Maybe you'll have some time to post those specific Tweets by Mayor Khan that justified Trump's classless attack on all Londoners while we were counting our dead. I haven't forgotten, and neither has anyone else here, as Trump will find if he ever gathers the courage to show his face around here.
By the way, I'm also interested in your opinion of another of Trump's obnoxious Tweets, where he offered help to the parents of the dying kid who want to bring him to America for treatment. I thought that was stupid, cruel and callous beyond belief.
What's your take on that?
Are you serious?
You like diversity and multiculturalism I assume, but you think it's okay to wipe out a whole species here and there cause you don't appreciate the special distinctive differences between them? I don't know how you feel about GMOs, but the best argument against them is they reduce biodiversity. You don't care about gray vs red squirrels till reds are wiped out and only grays remain. Then some disease comes along that reds could have better resisted & it wipes out greys. Now you got no squirrels, but you have starving foxes encroaching on people & attacking chickens or whatever... how is that good?
Any sane biologist, liberal or conservative, would say at very least you have to hold grey squirrels in check if not eliminate them.
I don't have a lot of time as I'm studying for multiple bar exams, but...
To be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter and never have been. I don't like the guy at all. I don't think he's conservative at all, I do think he's a classless narcissistic terrible person, I wish he'd shut up about as much as I suspect you do, and I don't appreciate the way he represents the office or the country.
That aside, he is legitimately the president and as such is owed the deference and respect due to that office.
For my part, I'll defend pretty much anyone I believe is being unfairly attacked. I think there's a lot of room to be critical of the president on a lot of things, but when it goes too far then I'll push back. If you look at what's going on in America right now among conservatives, that's it. Most of us don't really like Trump. Easily more than half the votes for him were much more about being against Hillary or points left of her. When opposition to the president goes beyond reasonable and respectful, then people start rejecting it and find themselves increasingly defending people they may not like very much. Whatever you may think of the president, attacking him personally to the degree happening now makes him stronger and more likely to be reelected.
Specifically to the exchange with Khan... the timing & delivery weren't very good, but conservatives criticizing an attitude of multiculturalism that avoids asking legitimate security questions or doing investigations so as not to offend, and then results in people known to police with a history of involvement in extremism carrying out attacks? Yeah it's very fair to criticize that. You may disagree. You may believe, as Khan does, that extremism can be defeated with hugs and govt paid benefits, and that we should just accept the casualties from the attacks that still happen in spite of your strategy. But if we follow your strategy, and there's a mass casualty attack, you should not be surprised or offended when people point out that these are the casualties you said we have to sacrifice for the attitudes and policies you've demanded we have. Trump might be a ham fisted jerk, but his criticism isn't really wrong. If you're going to be on the other side of that, just own it. Just accept and openly say yes, this is the cost of the society you want to be part of, and tragic as it is, that's the price of doing business. I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. I'm very happy to put those two clear honest and reasonable positions before the people of any free nation and let them decide for themselves what they want.
As for the baby Charlie thing...
Obviously I believe the parents need to come to terms with their kid isn't going to be cured or have a long and happy life. He's going to die. Either this week or a year from now if they get their way, but he's going to die. The logical choice is to accept that and let him go.
However, I also believe that has to be the choice of the parents. If the action proposed by the parent is not abuse sufficient to remove custody and terminate their parental rights, then never should a doctor (much less the government) be able to terminate life support against the wishes of the next of kin. That the UK courts decided as they did is extremely troubling to me from a legal perspective.
If that was you sitting in a UK hospital with cancer and NHS decided it's not cost effective to treat you further, but a US hospital said they're willing to treat you and have some options that might extend your life for a few years... but the UK govt said they would not permit you to leave the hospital or to travel abroad. That you were physically under arrest and would be held in hospital where they've decided you will die... that's crazy! By what right should govt be able to take that choice out of your hands, most especially in a life or death situation.
Specifically to Trump's tweet on the subject...
You'll note it follows statements by the Pope and the senior leadership of the Catholic Church. So, if we're going to attack Trump then we have to lump the Pope in with him.
That aside, the mother retweeted Trump's tweet saying if the kid was still in the fight then they were too. The parents together released statements saying they were gratified by the support from the president and that it brought them a great deal of comfort.
If your point is that his tweet is embarrassing to the UK and that is more important than what these parents are going through, then I just can't be with you on that.
Whatever policy decisions a govt or court makes, they have to own. If it's embarrassing to them, then so be it. If that makes them the bad guy then that's the way it is. If it focuses a magnifying glass of public sentiment on these decisions so that they're either reinforced or moderated in the future, then that's a good thing.
I don't know, that's my take.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
