USA Trump Administration forbids CDC from using 7 words

[tango]

There's been an increase in people saying that since the election of Donald Trump, but I am sure that no other Republican could have beaten Hillary Clinton, despite everything that should have made her unelectable.

I'm not sure, having come across a few people who are lifelong Republicans who really didn't want to see Clinton in the White House but even so couldn't bring themselves to vote Trump, I wonder whether a different Republican candidate would have rallied Democrat voters to help keep him out, or rallied Republican voters keen to elect him, to a greater extent.

I wouldn't count on it. When politics heads down some slope, it usually gets worse before it gets better. But that's not the biggest obstacle to what you are hoping for. The biggest obstacle is that the Democratic Party has become a radical, hate-driven party. At the top, at least.

Certainly the more vocal elements of the Democratic Party seems to be ever-more hate-filled, all the time proclaiming their tolerance of everyone who is just like them. When the same people who ridiculed Sarah Palin in 2008 turned around and insisted that the only reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton was sexism you know something is badly wrong. As at least one person put it, it's perfectly possible to be willing to elect a woman President without wanting that particular woman to be President.

Not every Democrat voter is that way, of course, but the party is very unlikely to put up a moderate-left candidate in 2020. The pressure is too great for that. Instead, a real firebreather like Elizabeth Warren will probably emerge, and we can see the language of some of the contenders already becoming extreme. If they don't do that, they'll seem "soft on Trump."

It is a possibility that, if Trump stands for re-election (and it seems likely he will, assuming he makes it to the end of his first four-year term), the Democrats will put forward an equally populist candidate who does just as much rabble-rousing and tub-thumping as he does. Given the increasingly precarious state of the economy, whatever the talking heads on either side might tell us, I suspect that will be the primary driver of who is successful in 2020.

 

[MennoSota]

Sadly so much political movement over the years has been about censoring speech, whether it be the "loony left" wing of the UK Labour Party seeking to ban nursery rhymes such as "Baa Baa Black Sheep" (apparently it's racist, although the black parents who teach it to their children obviously didn't get that memo) and "The Farmer Wants A Wife" (because, you know, the farmer might be female or - gasp - gay), the endless fussing over whether we should call our fellow human beings with darker pigmentation "African Americans" (even if they are not American), "Negro", "Black", "Persons of Color" etc, or the fussing over whether people who are not fully able-bodied should be called "disabled", "special needs", "handicapped", "handicapable" etc.

As a side note, what's often sadly ironic is that the politically correct terms of choice typically provide less information for those seeking to meet the special needs of those with, well, special needs. For example, if you're catering to someone who is blind in one eye you know they won't have depth perception, but someone who is "partially sighted" might have severe cataracts, they might be blind in one eye, they might be color-blind, they might be totally blind, so the term provides a politically correct descriptor that doesn't offer useful information as to what accommodations they may need.

It's sad when politicians of any persuasion try and manage discussion through the requirement or prohibition of specific terms but it's not as if this is a new thing with Trump.

I love Smokey Robinsons poem, "Being Black."
https://youtu.be/j9zPRVKQvIM

 

[MennoSota]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to turn so many things into Trump bashing.

Yeah...we should never diss an Oompa Loompa...

 

[tango]

Yeah...we should never diss an Oompa Loompa...

Such eloquence...

 

[MennoSota]

Such eloquence...

I try...

 

[IACOBVS]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-cdc-forbidden-words-20171215-story.html

"Trump administration officials are forbidding officials at the nation's top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases - including "fetus" and "transgender" - in any official documents being prepared for next year's budget.

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are: "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based.""


I'm not sure I understand why this has happened. Is it because the words are controversial?

The words aren't controversial. They're true words that the alt-right, God-hating, Trumpists fear.

 

[Albion]

But it was fun to watch the leftwing crowd squirm and try to double-talk away their embarrassment when it came to light that there was no order forbidding or banning or censoring or replacing any words and the whole thing was just another Fake News report from the Washington Post citing unidentified sources. That's all it takes for these folks to announce that the end of the world has arrived.

 

[Lamb]

The words aren't controversial. They're true words that the alt-right, God-hating, Trumpists fear.

Do you really think that people fear words?