|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 29 2016 08:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2016 08:03 oBlade wrote:On January 29 2016 07:45 Nyxisto wrote:On January 29 2016 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
Uncritical literalism is the language of the retarded. C'mon, people. Pointing at what's written on the Statute of Liberty is not the basis for sane immigration policy. I think the important part is keeping the original spirit alive, which I guess is all about letting people in who genuinely search a better life and not just rich kids or people with a three PhDs. I don't think anybody expects a single nation to help every poor person on the planet, but this whole anti-immigrant talk that comes from Trump and the likes actually sounds like something that you'd expect to hear here from the far-right on the European continent, but not from the US. I think if you actually dissect the language used by Trump and others (mainly referring to people following his lead in the campaign), the focus is illegal immigration. I agree with xDaunt that inscriptions on national monuments might not be the best source for policy specifics in the here and now. Has there been any talk about reforming current immigration law? As far as I know, Trump has been pretty adamant about kicking out "illegals" (and Muslims) and only doing reform "after" that's done...
Has Trump come out saying to kick out Muslim Americans? Thought he was just against letting Muslims in?
|
On January 29 2016 09:52 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2016 08:25 aksfjh wrote:On January 29 2016 08:03 oBlade wrote:On January 29 2016 07:45 Nyxisto wrote:On January 29 2016 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
Uncritical literalism is the language of the retarded. C'mon, people. Pointing at what's written on the Statute of Liberty is not the basis for sane immigration policy. I think the important part is keeping the original spirit alive, which I guess is all about letting people in who genuinely search a better life and not just rich kids or people with a three PhDs. I don't think anybody expects a single nation to help every poor person on the planet, but this whole anti-immigrant talk that comes from Trump and the likes actually sounds like something that you'd expect to hear here from the far-right on the European continent, but not from the US. I think if you actually dissect the language used by Trump and others (mainly referring to people following his lead in the campaign), the focus is illegal immigration. I agree with xDaunt that inscriptions on national monuments might not be the best source for policy specifics in the here and now. Has there been any talk about reforming current immigration law? As far as I know, Trump has been pretty adamant about kicking out "illegals" (and Muslims) and only doing reform "after" that's done... Has Trump come out saying to kick out Muslim Americans? Thought he was just against letting Muslims in?
He wanted them all registered in a data base and to carry ID cards. For reasons. Even if they were US citizens.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'm pretty concerned over the incentives a lax policy would create, as well as the migrant composition under such conditions. it's not really a stable path of development for the countries of origin either. you want to encourage development in these other places so that people have less reason to be in grave debt and work slave wages after risking their lives.
|
Wow, I actually forgot Jim Gilmore was still running for president.
|
On January 29 2016 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2016 09:26 oBlade wrote:On January 29 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2016 09:00 oBlade wrote:On January 29 2016 08:25 Plansix wrote:On January 29 2016 08:03 oBlade wrote:On January 29 2016 07:45 Nyxisto wrote:On January 29 2016 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
Uncritical literalism is the language of the retarded. C'mon, people. Pointing at what's written on the Statute of Liberty is not the basis for sane immigration policy. I think the important part is keeping the original spirit alive, which I guess is all about letting people in who genuinely search a better life and not just rich kids or people with a three PhDs. I don't think anybody expects a single nation to help every poor person on the planet, but this whole anti-immigrant talk that comes from Trump and the likes actually sounds like something that you'd expect to hear here from the far-right on the European continent, but not from the US. I think if you actually dissect the language used by Trump and others (mainly referring to people following his lead in the campaign), the focus is illegal immigration. I agree with xDaunt that inscriptions on national monuments might not be the best source for policy specifics in the here and now. And straight up racism. Lets not forget the racism when he talks about immigration. It is a critical part of his base and what they are interested in on that topic. You don't get endorsed by white supremacists without solid racism. No, that's what I'm saying - I've been listening to the candidates' own words for months, and don't see that the constant peltings of Trump with names like "racist" and "bigot" hold any water. And I don't know what "endorsement" you're alluding to, but I'm prepared to say that characterizing a white supremacist's opinion as an "endorsement," when they have in our society about as much reach as a psychotic person shouting at cars from a highway overpass, is a mistake. Yup the white supremacist that massacred innocent people at a church in South Carolina and the bigots who influenced him, no big deal. What point was in your mind when you wrote this, and how do you think it's connected to my last post? Show nested quote + And I don't know what "endorsement" you're alluding to, but I'm prepared to say that characterizing a white supremacist's opinion as an "endorsement," when they have in our society about as much reach as a psychotic person shouting at cars from a highway overpass, is a mistake. Trump's been endorsed by the former grand wizard of the KKK, several white supremacist groups and one group is even making robocalls for him.
Wider society rightly does not take white supremacists seriously. These are not "endorsements" in a meaningful sense of the word as white supremacists aren't public figures. They aren't public figures even in a capacity outside of being white supremacists, because being a white supremacist immediately destroys a person's ability to be a public figure. You could just as easily "endorse" a candidate on this forum. It would carry the same weight and be equally newsworthy. (In any other context, you would be making fun of an adult who wore a costume and called himself the "Grand Wizard" pretending his influence meant something.)
One supremacist group in particular the "Council of Conservative Citizens" helped influence a white supremacist to go into a church and slaughter 9 people including a pastor. Meanwhile you are dismissing their influence as being akin to some whackjob yelling at traffic. Besides being crass, it's wrong.
I think we're living on different planets if you think there's an appreciable segment of society that condones mass murder of any kind. And it strikes me as an offense to taste that you would bring up that tragedy here. Moreover, it's a non sequitur to my original point (from which we've further strayed), which was that in all the rhetoric I've seen from the various candidates, I've yet to see anything to warrant the "racist" moniker. Are you not willing to engage the actual content? Surely what Trump says is either racist or not on its own... in what way is it contingent on whether a racist somewhere likes or supports or "endorses" him? It's hardly up to him whether someone who happens to be a piece of shit makes a robocall or says they support him.
|
racists endorsing you is not an indicator that somebody is a racist? what do you think the KKK likes Trump for, his haircut?
|
On January 29 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
racists endorsing you is not an indicator that somebody is a racist? what do you think the KKK likes Trump for, his haircut?
If that's the case them I'm pretty sure every world leader in every country ever is a racist.
|
This just in, nothing Trump a racist. No matter what.
|
Wow. Kelly looks good tonight. Also, Jeb so awkward.
|
On January 29 2016 10:56 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
racists endorsing you is not an indicator that somebody is a racist? what do you think the KKK likes Trump for, his haircut? If that's the case them I'm pretty sure every world leader in every country ever is a racist.
The KKK endorsed Obama?
|
|
|
On January 29 2016 11:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2016 10:56 Chewbacca. wrote:On January 29 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
racists endorsing you is not an indicator that somebody is a racist? what do you think the KKK likes Trump for, his haircut? If that's the case them I'm pretty sure every world leader in every country ever is a racist. The KKK endorsed Obama?
You can be racist without being part of the KKK? Do you really think that there weren't any Obama supporters that were racist to Asians, Lations, or Whites?
|
On January 29 2016 11:18 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2016 11:14 Nyxisto wrote:On January 29 2016 10:56 Chewbacca. wrote:On January 29 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
racists endorsing you is not an indicator that somebody is a racist? what do you think the KKK likes Trump for, his haircut? If that's the case them I'm pretty sure every world leader in every country ever is a racist. The KKK endorsed Obama? The can be racist without being part of the KKK? Do you really think that there weren't any Obama supporters that were racist to Asians, Lations, or Whites?
Welp of course individuals can be racist and Obama supporters, but I don't think any organisation endorses Obama because he holds racist views (because he doesn't). Trump on the other hand has his whole momentum going on his xenophobic stuff. Even the conservatives here agreed that he basically has no other policy.
|
On January 29 2016 11:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2016 11:18 Chewbacca. wrote:On January 29 2016 11:14 Nyxisto wrote:On January 29 2016 10:56 Chewbacca. wrote:On January 29 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
racists endorsing you is not an indicator that somebody is a racist? what do you think the KKK likes Trump for, his haircut? If that's the case them I'm pretty sure every world leader in every country ever is a racist. The KKK endorsed Obama? The can be racist without being part of the KKK? Do you really think that there weren't any Obama supporters that were racist to Asians, Lations, or Whites? Welp of course individuals can be racist and Obama supporters, but I don't think any organisation endorses Obama because he holds racist views (because he doesn't). Trump on the other hand has his whole momentum going on his xenophobic stuff. Even the conservatives here agreed that he basically has no other policy.
While Trump is for sure prejudice, being anti-muslim or anti-illegal immigrant doesn't make you a racist.
And what's the difference between a racist organization endorsing you and racist people endorsing you?
|
I can sense the "Islam is not a race " speech coming
And what's the difference between a racist organization endorsing you and racist people endorsing you?
An individual might endorse you for other reasons, an organization most likely supports you because you further their cause, this really isn't rocket science
|
On January 29 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
racists endorsing you is not an indicator that somebody is a racist? what do you think the KKK likes Trump for, his haircut?
I honestly, and someone please let me know if I'm oversimplifying this issue because it seems obvious to me, care very little about what the KKK has to say about anything. It's telling that the only time we would take them seriously is when their leader apparently says he likes one of our political opponents. And I don't think anyone can produce, for example, a photo of Trump and a notorious white supremacist shaking hands and smiling for a camera pose. The smoking gun "endorsements" are entirely one-sided where they exist.
Now, under normal circumstances, they would be a small clue to take a closer look, sure (not a predictor, or something that necessitates someone being racist, but something that raises an eyebrow). Nothing too serious or unnerving, as white supremacists, like any of us, have to vote for someone. The problem is after 6 months my eyebrows are exhausted and I still don't see it. 
On January 29 2016 10:59 Plansix wrote:
This just in, nothing Trump a racist. No matter what.
I don't know exactly what the first sentence was supposed to be, but I suspect it's a strawman. It's possible for any one of the candidates to be racist, or to say something racist. What I'm saying is that I have yet to see it, and over half a year it's become tiring; because to the extent we believe a political candidate is clearly a clown, we should be able to find tangible reasons why that's so, and be happy to share them with others so everyone has substantive reasons to satisfy why a candidate is bad, rather than just call people names hoping they'll stick. If someone isn't getting where I'm coming from, let me add that I think dialogue about Bernie that starts and ends with calling him "socialist" also doesn't befit a population of adult voters.
|
On January 29 2016 11:25 Nyxisto wrote:I can sense the "Islam is not a race " speech coming Show nested quote +And what's the difference between a racist organization endorsing you and racist people endorsing you? An individual might endorse you for other reasons, an organization most likely supports you because you further their cause, this really isn't rocket science
I agree, and I'll just quibble with you a bit. I think the causation a bit foggier. They endorse him because they think he has policy positions closest to him (although I think Trump has a 50%+probability of being a racist as well). But, the point is that just because bad people share an idea, or that it furthers thier agenda doesn't mean it must be a bad idea. Castro and Che love universal healthcare, Putin loves a strong military, one of those 90s white guy terrorists was afraid of wiretaps and government surveillance, those dumb Bundys think the Feds have too much land out West. Not all these ideas should be dismissed out of hand because of that.
|
Also @ the "white supremacists have to vote for somebody", nope they really don't. Correct me if I'm wrong but these people don't seem to have been politically active at all apart from some fringe local elections or whatever. I'd be willing to bet that if you poll the increasingly large group of non-voters over the last few decades you'd find those extremist views among quite a lot of them. And if someone manages to mobilize them that would definitely be something new.
|
On January 29 2016 11:29 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2016 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:
racists endorsing you is not an indicator that somebody is a racist? what do you think the KKK likes Trump for, his haircut? I honestly, and someone please let me know if I'm oversimplifying this issue because it seems obvious to me, care very little about what the KKK has to say about anything. It's telling that the only time we would take them seriously is when their leader apparently says he likes one of our political opponents. And I don't think anyone can produce, for example, a photo of Trump and a notorious white supremacist shaking hands and smiling for a camera pose. The smoking gun "endorsements" are entirely one-sided where they exist. Now, under normal circumstances, they would be a small clue to take a closer look, sure (not a predictor, or something that necessitates someone being racist, but something that raises an eyebrow). Nothing too serious or unnerving, as white supremacists, like any of us, have to vote for someone. The problem is after 6 months my eyebrows are exhausted and I still don't see it. Show nested quote +On January 29 2016 10:59 Plansix wrote:
This just in, nothing Trump a racist. No matter what. I don't know exactly what the first sentence was supposed to be, but I suspect it's a strawman. It's possible for any one of the candidates to be racist, or to say something racist. What I'm saying is that I have yet to see it, and over half a year it's become tiring; because to the extent we believe a political candidate is clearly a clown, we should be able to find tangible reasons why that's so, and be happy to share them with others so everyone has substantive reasons to satisfy why a candidate is bad, rather than just call people names hoping they'll stick. If someone isn't getting where I'm coming from, let me add that I think dialogue about Bernie that starts and ends with calling him "socialist" also doesn't befit a population of adult voters.
You realize there's been cases of high ranking police officials being linked to the KKK and other white supremacy groups right?
He helped spread white supremacy propaganda for gods sake.
That you don't think Trump says racist stuff is making more sense. That you don't see it doesn't mean much at all.
|
This debate is pretty damn awful. There's no critical questions and they are simply allowing the candidates to say whatever they want that is tangentially relayed to the question. Really dumb and about as informative as watching their stump speaches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
