4 ms·

Again, avoiding the political angle for the most part, is anyone else absolutely astounded that someone as intelligent as The President would say something like

by staunch 14y ago

Again, avoiding the political angle for the most part, is anyone else absolutely astounded that someone as intelligent as The President would say something like "If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act."? Using that logic could lead you could justify almost anything. There are literally thousands of things we could ban that would certainly save at least one child's life.

Cushman 14y ago
He said that for emotional effect, he obviously doesn't actually believe it. Since somehow "This is killing hundreds of children every year, we need to act" doesn't connect with people, I give it a pass.
- staunch 14y ago
  If it was an off-the-cuff remark once I might think the same, but he's written it in his plan multiple times and said it a dozen times publicly. He may not believe this in general, but he's quite obviously serious about using this argument for his proposed legislation.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    I'm not saying it wasn't a planned remark — nothing that man says is off-the-cuff — just that it was planned for emotional effect, not as a real basis for policy. If he seemed to be actually applying that standard, I'd worry. Otherwise it just seems like he cares a lot about children, which, man, I just can't be mad at someone for that.
    - staunch 14y ago
      Well, based on your response to it, I guess it at least it has the desired effect. I find it absolutely flabbergasting that someone so smart would take the oldest political trope, "think of the children", to such an illogical extreme.
strlen 14y ago
> is anyone else absolutely astounded that someone as intelligent as The President would say something like "If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act."? Someone as intelligent as the president would never say this on Hacker News, no. Someone was intelligent as a president looking to get anywhere in politics, would. Sad, but there's one solution: actively support the rights of people you otherwise disagree with. The right-wing backlash in ~2001-2004 was immense and "justified" with statements "well, you guys didn't speak up after Ruby Ridge[1], so why should we speak up for you?" In ~12/14-12/16, my Twitter stream was full of variation of "you right-wing nuts did not support 4th amendment rights after 9/11, why should we support 2nd amendment today?" Reminder: "eye for an eye" leads "we're all blind!" more often than "people we don't like have one eye punched out too!". [1] "I don't think it's fair to entrap someone in order to make them spy on a neo-Nazi organization, then lay siege and kill their wife if they don't" does not equate to "I support their black helicopter conspiracy theory views".

by staunch 14y ago

Cushman 14y ago

He said that for emotional effect, he obviously doesn't actually believe it. Since somehow "This is killing hundreds of children every year, we need to act" doesn't connect with people, I give it a pass.

staunch 14y ago
If it was an off-the-cuff remark once I might think the same, but he's written it in his plan multiple times and said it a dozen times publicly. He may not believe this in general, but he's quite obviously serious about using this argument for his proposed legislation.
- Cushman 14y ago
  I'm not saying it wasn't a planned remark — nothing that man says is off-the-cuff — just that it was planned for emotional effect, not as a real basis for policy. If he seemed to be actually applying that standard, I'd worry. Otherwise it just seems like he cares a lot about children, which, man, I just can't be mad at someone for that.
  - staunch 14y ago
    Well, based on your response to it, I guess it at least it has the desired effect. I find it absolutely flabbergasting that someone so smart would take the oldest political trope, "think of the children", to such an illogical extreme.

strlen 14y ago

> is anyone else absolutely astounded that someone as intelligent as The President would say something like "If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act."? Someone as intelligent as the president would never say this on Hacker News, no. Someone was intelligent as a president looking to get anywhere in politics, would. Sad, but there's one solution: actively support the rights of people you otherwise disagree with. The right-wing backlash in ~2001-2004 was immense and "justified" with statements "well, you guys didn't speak up after Ruby Ridge[1], so why should we speak up for you?" In ~12/14-12/16, my Twitter stream was full of variation of "you right-wing nuts did not support 4th amendment rights after 9/11, why should we support 2nd amendment today?" Reminder: "eye for an eye" leads "we're all blind!" more often than "people we don't like have one eye punched out too!". [1] "I don't think it's fair to entrap someone in order to make them spy on a neo-Nazi organization, then lay siege and kill their wife if they don't" does not equate to "I support their black helicopter conspiracy theory views".