Maurile Tremblay

Admin
  • Content count

    41,094
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Maurile Tremblay last won the day on November 24 2017

Maurile Tremblay had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12,015 Excellent

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    San Diego Chargers

Recent Profile Visitors

43,302 profile views
  1. Billy Wayne Ruddick Jr., Ph.D., is claiming that he was duped into appearing in Sasha Baron Cohen’s garbage new show.
  2. The long-term trend is definitely toward a reduction in racism. Things are much better now than they were in the 1960s. They were much better in the 1960s than they were in the 1920s. They were much better in the 1920s than they were in the post-reconstruction period. Over the very short term, just in the last three years or so, I don't know whether racism has gotten slightly less prevalent, slightly more prevalent, or has remained about the same. It does seem like more of whatever racism already existed has bubbled out into the open. But I don't know whether it seems like that because it's true or because it's received greater publicity.
  3. My summary: There's a stereotype that conservatives, who are mostly straight white folks these days, are intolerant of immigrants, racial minorities, gay and transgendered persons, and other folks who aren't straight or white. To the extent that there's any truth to that stereotype, it's not because conservatives are automatically intolerant regardless of circumstances. Rather, people tend to become less tolerant of their outgroup when they feel like their in-group is under attack from outsiders. A key quote from the article: "It’s as though some people have a button on their foreheads, and when the button is pushed, they suddenly become intensely focused on defending their in-group.… But when they perceive no such threat, their behavior is not unusually intolerant. So the key is to understand what pushes that button." What pushes that button prominently includes calling them racists or xenophobes. Insulting or ridiculing them will do the trick as well. What works, in a word, is incivility. The situation is not the same for conservatives, where incivility can actually help them politically. When Trump is uncivil, it causes his detractors to lash out at him (and his supporters), which pushes the conservatives' in-group-loyalty (and out-group-intolerance) button. This bodes well for Republicans' electoral prospects and seems to be a key part of Trump's strategy. So liberals have a choice to make: do they want the cathartic pleasure that comes from venting about how racist and horrible conservatives are, or do they want electoral wins? It might be difficult to have both. On public policy issues like abortion, gun control, immigration, drug legalization, etc., the voting public is generally to the left of our elected legislators. There are plenty of conservative voters who align more closely with current Democratic politicians than with current Republican politicians on numerous specific issues. The Democrats' strategy should be to find common ground on those issues, inviting conservatives to join them rather than repelling them with insults. (The strategy of emphasizing issues over identities can absolutely include peaceful protests.) The bottom line is that there's a double standard: conservatives get to be uncivil with electoral impunity while liberals don't get to. The article's advice to liberals is to get over it.
  4. Why Identity Politics Benefits The Right More Than The Left
  5. “In Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio, Democratic senators once thought to be endangered have rebounded and are in fairly safe positions. In House and gubernatorial races, Democrats have grown more competitive since the start of the year — especially in House districts drawn from suburbs that were thought to be safely Republican. In special elections held in the Midwest since Trump’s inauguration, Democrats have improved on their 2016 performance by an average of 11 points.” Link.
  6. I’m not sure how France fits in, but the British colonized present-day Kenya, which gave rise to Obama, who made fun of Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
  7. If I ask you to think of a card, and then I randomly pull one from the deck, it will be a great trick one out of 52 times. I don’t know how many people live in that precinct, but maybe it’s the same principle. Every once in a while, it’s like, “Holy cow, how did you know????”
  8. It’s uninformed. Ford competes with Tesla, so they might be foes of each other in some respects, but neither are foes of American consumers. Similarly, Toyota and Mercedes-Benz may also be foes of Ford and Tesla, but they are obviously not foes of American consumers. When it comes to trade, the only foes of American consumers are tariff-wielding politicians.
  9. I think this is probably true (even taking into account that incumbents historically have a sizeable advantage) — as long as it’s not Clinton again. I also think the Democrats are very strong favorites to take back the House in November. The last betting odds I saw put it at around a 60% chance, but I’d feel very comfortable laying 2-3 odds on it (i.e., I think there’s a substantially better chance than 60%). The Senate seems like a long shot, but not impossible.
  10. I thought the first episode was great. The gun bit was the best part, but he’s got several characters that had fun scenes.
  11. I’d be more on board with a judge taking the position that medical treatments are private (and therefore constitutionally protected) if the judge struck down anti-drug laws on that basis to the extent that such laws prevent doctors from prescribing marijuana or ecstasy to their patients.
  12. I think that’s a reasonable position.
  13. I agree with all of this. There may be something like a right of privacy emanating from the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, or in the Ninth Amendment, or as part of the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment ... with the Ninth Amendment probably being the best candidate, IMO. But abortions aren’t very private affairs. The right of privacy was solidified in Griswold, the contraception case, because what happens in the bedroom is nobody else’s business. Although Griswold and Roe both involved reproductive issues, the domain of Roe’s was not the bedroom. I feel like the Roe Court shoehorned abortion into privacy because they wanted it to seem like a natural extension of the same right announced in Griswold rather than yet another newly identified constitutional right. In any case, I think a good case can be made for a constitutional right for a woman to make her own reproductive choices. I would have emphasized the Ninth Amendment more, but he 14th works as well. Either way, while it’s not a slam dunk, I’m on board with calling that right ‘fundamental’ and applying heightened scrutiny to any government infringement of it. The more questionable aspect of Roe, to me, is whether laws prohibiting abortion can meet that heightened scrutiny. To violate run-of-the-mill liberties, a state has to show that its law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. To violate a fundamental right, a state has to show that its law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Protecting the lives of fetuses is certainly a legitimate interest of a state, same as protecting the lives of certain owls or whatever. But is it compelling? That turns on how much value people put on the lives of fetuses, which seems like something that should probably be determined by the people themselves, through their legislatures, rather than by judges. I don’t want to automatically defer to states about what they find compelling and what they find merely legitimate, but the importance of protecting the lives of fetuses seems like an especially good candidate to defer to the people on. So I’d grant states that their interest in protecting the lives of human fetuses can be compelling. Are laws prohibiting abortion narrowly tailored to serve that interest? It may depend on exactly how they’re drafted, but in general, I can’t think of a less intrusive means of protecting fetuses. So while I recognize that it’s a hard case in several respects (and I’ve flipped back and forth on it a number of times), my own feeling is that Roe was probably wrongly decided back in 1973. Does that mean it should be overturned today? That’s also a hard question because there is value in the principle of stare decisis — the idea that we don’t want major laws to change every time the Court changes its composition. Here’s where I think it matters that Roe isn’t obviously bad policy the way Dred Scott was. I’d be much more inclined to overturn a case that was disfavored by a strong majority of the public than one that most of the citizenry have come to accept. But I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.
  14. That’s not trolling. I think it’s great to avoid responding to people you don’t feel like conversing with. It would be trolling to write something you didn’t actually believe just to get a rise out of others. But as long as you’re sharing your sincere views, it’s not trolling in the least. If you never respond to reasonable questions or counterpoints, you’ll get a reputation as someone not worth engaging. But you don’t have to respond all the time.
  15. if a couple made the call 10 minutes after birth to kill the child because or whatever reason, would you support that ? Probably not, but that's changing the subject pretty sharply. I said that the person who's supposed to put the time and resources into developing the fetus seems like a reasonable candidate to determine whether to abort it or to carry it to term. Once it's been born (or comes close enough to being born that aborting it isn't any easier than birthing it), the time and resources have already been expended. They're a sunk cost. At that point, nobody fits the description I gave.