|
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 June 08 2016 09:30 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:12 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 09:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:55 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:44 SK.Testie wrote:
So you're against the Migrant crisis? Or perhaps at least a far more sensible solution to it. Not this mass migration that is coming from WAY more countries than just Syria. Do you think Republicans have a point in saying, "accept Christians and families please! Muslims, no thank you?" Of all the Muslims I talk to they tell me the only hopeful country in the region is Iran. And judging from my own readings it seems to be the only one.
So why would the left keep forcing mass immigration against our will?
What of Mexico? It's full of beautiful and awesome people I agree and I loved my visit there. But I was also robbed within one day of being there which hadn't happened to me once in all my days of being in the west. So maybe.. republicans can say.. BUILD THE WALL? Everyone is "against" the migrant crisis in the sense that they'd rather people were staying back home in a stable country with jobs and prospects etc, hell, I think even the migrants would agree on that. What people disagree with is what to do about it. I'd rather secure borders with camps outside of the EU for processing, screening and so forth and ideally for getting them back home when shit stops hitting the fan there. As for the Muslims coming to the US, no, I don't agree. The hysterical claims of millions of ISIS members crossing into America are false, we are talking small numbers of heavily screened individuals to the point that I feel no more threatened by knowing they're a Muslim than I do by anything else. If there was a murderous army waiting to destroy America and Obama wanted to invite them in I'd object to that policy. But that isn't the reality of the situation, that's a propaganda piece that the far right tell themselves. I work with handful of Muslims day to day from all over the Middle East (foreign students doing their PhDs mostly) and the reality of the situation is that once they get their doctorates they will probably be denied the right to stay in the US due to their backgrounds. Which is insane, they're overqualified for their home nations, they're bright and motivated young men and they're very happy to be in the US. Hell, half of them eat pork. But this is where we end up from fearing the Muslim. The entire argument isn't that there's millions of bloodthirsty radicals that want to hurt us. It's that we don't feel comfortable with our vetting process to guarantee the safety of any given refugee when there's millions of them out there at this point. Do you know what the vetting process is ? I do, Ive been through it. Its not easy. Not at fucking all. Im talking years of my life gone not able to commit to shit waiting for bureaucracy to work long. On June 08 2016 09:11 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 09:04 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 08:58 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact.
I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people.
Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors.
Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No.
The MSM would have you believe it is though. It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly. It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen. Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess If he has clearly states motivations for believing the trial is being conducted unfairly that do not rely on race why have his laywers not tried to have the judge replaced? Why did he take the argument to national tv by using his position as Presidential candidate instead? Is he going to make such statements about judges involved in his (former) business lawsuits when he is President? You keep asking this question, the reason is because standards in the legal system are different than someone's opinion, right? OJ Simpson is not legally a murderer, but a lot of people, when asked, think he killed two people. People attack him all the time for the cases about Trump U. What'd be an unobjectionable way for him to deal with that subject? An unobjectionable way to deal with it would be not abuse his positional as presidential candidate to publicly slander a judge with 0 proof that is making unfavorable rulings in a case he is involved in. The correct way to deal with questions on the subject is "No comment". "No comment," when people use fraud allegations as an attack strategy on one of two candidates for the highest office on the planet? What do you think about his tax returns, can he say "no comment" on that? So the answer to fraud allegations from other people is to attack the one in charge of your trial. Who by the by is completely unrelated to said allegations and is just doing his job. Clever strategy, Except not really. I have a government security clearance so yes I've been through vetting processes and no they are not infallible. Its cute that you think the vetting process for you and me are the same.
It's cute that you think that I think the vetting process for you and me are the same.
|
On June 08 2016 09:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:03 SK.Testie wrote:On June 08 2016 08:55 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:44 SK.Testie wrote:
So you're against the Migrant crisis? Or perhaps at least a far more sensible solution to it. Not this mass migration that is coming from WAY more countries than just Syria. Do you think Republicans have a point in saying, "accept Christians and families please! Muslims, no thank you?" Of all the Muslims I talk to they tell me the only hopeful country in the region is Iran. And judging from my own readings it seems to be the only one.
So why would the left keep forcing mass immigration against our will?
What of Mexico? It's full of beautiful and awesome people I agree and I loved my visit there. But I was also robbed within one day of being there which hadn't happened to me once in all my days of being in the west. So maybe.. republicans can say.. BUILD THE WALL? Everyone is "against" the migrant crisis in the sense that they'd rather people were staying back home in a stable country with jobs and prospects etc, hell, I think even the migrants would agree on that. What people disagree with is what to do about it. I'd rather secure borders with camps outside of the EU for processing, screening and so forth and ideally for getting them back home when shit stops hitting the fan there. As for the Muslims coming to the US, no, I don't agree. The hysterical claims of millions of ISIS members crossing into America are false, we are talking small numbers of heavily screened individuals to the point that I feel no more threatened by knowing they're a Muslim than I do by anything else. If there was a murderous army waiting to destroy America and Obama wanted to invite them in I'd object to that policy. But that isn't the reality of the situation, that's a propaganda piece that the far right tell themselves. I work with handful of Muslims day to day from all over the Middle East (foreign students doing their PhDs mostly) and the reality of the situation is that once they get their doctorates they will probably be denied the right to stay in the US due to their backgrounds. Which is insane, they're overqualified for their home nations, they're bright and motivated young men and they're very happy to be in the US. Hell, half of them eat pork. But this is where we end up from fearing the Muslim. You left out the Mexico bit & The Great Wall of Trump. And the migrant crisis should be handled closer to what you say. We don't want inhumanity but right now you have a native population all over Europe feeling displaced and many feel they are being treated as second class citizens in their own country. Which is a little messed up. Though I would note that all of ISIS top guys are engineers or have PhD's ironically. But still it's about what the citizens of the country want, and to decry the 'parent' population to make it feel marginalized and displaced is a little messed up. But there was an article a little while ago about how some euro countries were building factories in North Africa. And the comments section was lined with, "if the countries are safe enough to build factories in, why the hell are we taking migrants from NA?!" + Show Spoiler + Most illegal immigrants don't cross the border from Mexico, they overstay visas. The wall is an overpriced and ineffective fuck you to one of America's closest trading partners and "making Mexico pay for it" is a disaster waiting to happen. It's a bad policy built on bad ideas, bad economics and bad diplomacy. Immigration reform is needed but that's not what the wall is. The wall is the lowest common denominator response to a failed immigration policy, it's the anti-immigration equivalent of "why don't we solve crime by banning all guns".
1. It's not going to block trade routes.
2. The Mexican government was complicit in sending people over (albeit in a nice way so they didn't die!) But it certainly encourages more people to come rather than enforcing that they should not come. As there is no penalty for trying.
3. The Mexican government is essentially giving the USA a big "fuck you" by being cartel country and a massive problem with drugs flooding in. The citizens WANT to give a fuck you back. Mexico isn't going to crash both the economies because people can no longer illegally walk across the border.
4. A fuck you is needed back. "Hey, we're still buds. But fuck this illegal immigration shit". Mexico and the USA still need each other. I think it will be effective, and 10bn-25bn is not going to bankrupt the USA when it's 20trn in debt. It's a drop in the bucket for the US. It's jobs. And hell if they make it pretty, it can even be a tourist attraction. "The great wall of Fuck You Mexico!"
5. What is Mexico going to do? Cut off trade that they rely on? No. No matter what 'relations' the two countries have $ trumps all. They will never lose a dime if they don't have to.
6. Throw these poor white bastards a bone. They don't feel at home in their home country anymore. Walk outside, hear Spanish, think, 'ISN'T THIS AMERICA?' Pandered to and lied to about a wall for decades and nothing. Hell even Hillary and Bill both said they'd do it. No results. They just want legal immigrants, that's it. Slow down the flow. Stop displacing the home population so fast.
7. Open borders is a retarded idea when the immigration flows one way. I'm not saying you're a proponent of it, but I just want to make that position clear.
I don't know about you but I'd feel very guilty if the whole population of Canada just up and moved to Japan because our economy was shit. And we just displaced a bunch of Japanese people and said, 'what, are you fucking racists? Respect our rights and religion and we're humans, faggots. P.S. Give healthcare, school, drivers license, scholarships, and welfare and we'll work below your minimum wage yet still collect welfare'. It's just not a nice thing to do to your neighbour to not respect their laws and customs. Displaced is also the wrong word but you get my drift. ;p
Does it not seem crazier when it happens to another country?
|
United States42017 Posts
On June 08 2016 09:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:30 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 09:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:12 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 09:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:55 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:44 SK.Testie wrote:
So you're against the Migrant crisis? Or perhaps at least a far more sensible solution to it. Not this mass migration that is coming from WAY more countries than just Syria. Do you think Republicans have a point in saying, "accept Christians and families please! Muslims, no thank you?" Of all the Muslims I talk to they tell me the only hopeful country in the region is Iran. And judging from my own readings it seems to be the only one.
So why would the left keep forcing mass immigration against our will?
What of Mexico? It's full of beautiful and awesome people I agree and I loved my visit there. But I was also robbed within one day of being there which hadn't happened to me once in all my days of being in the west. So maybe.. republicans can say.. BUILD THE WALL? Everyone is "against" the migrant crisis in the sense that they'd rather people were staying back home in a stable country with jobs and prospects etc, hell, I think even the migrants would agree on that. What people disagree with is what to do about it. I'd rather secure borders with camps outside of the EU for processing, screening and so forth and ideally for getting them back home when shit stops hitting the fan there. As for the Muslims coming to the US, no, I don't agree. The hysterical claims of millions of ISIS members crossing into America are false, we are talking small numbers of heavily screened individuals to the point that I feel no more threatened by knowing they're a Muslim than I do by anything else. If there was a murderous army waiting to destroy America and Obama wanted to invite them in I'd object to that policy. But that isn't the reality of the situation, that's a propaganda piece that the far right tell themselves. I work with handful of Muslims day to day from all over the Middle East (foreign students doing their PhDs mostly) and the reality of the situation is that once they get their doctorates they will probably be denied the right to stay in the US due to their backgrounds. Which is insane, they're overqualified for their home nations, they're bright and motivated young men and they're very happy to be in the US. Hell, half of them eat pork. But this is where we end up from fearing the Muslim. The entire argument isn't that there's millions of bloodthirsty radicals that want to hurt us. It's that we don't feel comfortable with our vetting process to guarantee the safety of any given refugee when there's millions of them out there at this point. Do you know what the vetting process is ? I do, Ive been through it. Its not easy. Not at fucking all. Im talking years of my life gone not able to commit to shit waiting for bureaucracy to work long. On June 08 2016 09:11 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 09:04 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 08:58 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:
[quote]
It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly.
It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen.
Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess If he has clearly states motivations for believing the trial is being conducted unfairly that do not rely on race why have his laywers not tried to have the judge replaced? Why did he take the argument to national tv by using his position as Presidential candidate instead? Is he going to make such statements about judges involved in his (former) business lawsuits when he is President? You keep asking this question, the reason is because standards in the legal system are different than someone's opinion, right? OJ Simpson is not legally a murderer, but a lot of people, when asked, think he killed two people. People attack him all the time for the cases about Trump U. What'd be an unobjectionable way for him to deal with that subject? An unobjectionable way to deal with it would be not abuse his positional as presidential candidate to publicly slander a judge with 0 proof that is making unfavorable rulings in a case he is involved in. The correct way to deal with questions on the subject is "No comment". "No comment," when people use fraud allegations as an attack strategy on one of two candidates for the highest office on the planet? What do you think about his tax returns, can he say "no comment" on that? So the answer to fraud allegations from other people is to attack the one in charge of your trial. Who by the by is completely unrelated to said allegations and is just doing his job. Clever strategy, Except not really. I have a government security clearance so yes I've been through vetting processes and no they are not infallible. Its cute that you think the vetting process for you and me are the same. It's cute that you think that I think the vetting process for you and me are the same.
Didn't you just use your experience with government security vetting processes to pass comment upon his experience immigrating into the US?
|
On June 08 2016 09:23 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:12 Rebs wrote:
So the answer to fraud allegations from other people is to attack the one in charge of your trial. Who by the by is completely unrelated to said allegations and is just doing his job.
Clever strategy, Except not really. I was asking for an alternative way for him to respond, have you not got one to present? Because the only other suggestion was "no comment," and that doesn't seem like a response at all to me. I'd like to see if people could imagine something Trump could say that they wouldn't object to. Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:16 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 09:11 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 09:04 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 08:58 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said.
You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does.
Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better. I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact. I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people. Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors. Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No. The MSM would have you believe it is though. It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly. It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen. Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess If he has clearly states motivations for believing the trial is being conducted unfairly that do not rely on race why have his laywers not tried to have the judge replaced? Why did he take the argument to national tv by using his position as Presidential candidate instead? Is he going to make such statements about judges involved in his (former) business lawsuits when he is President? You keep asking this question, the reason is because standards in the legal system are different than someone's opinion, right? OJ Simpson is not legally a murderer, but a lot of people, when asked, think he killed two people. People attack him all the time for the cases about Trump U. What'd be an unobjectionable way for him to deal with that subject? An unobjectionable way to deal with it would be not abuse his positional as presidential candidate to publicly slander a judge with 0 proof that is making unfavorable rulings in a case he is involved in. The correct way to deal with questions on the subject is "No comment". "No comment," when people use fraud allegations as an attack strategy on one of two candidates for the highest office on the planet? What do you think about his tax returns, can he say "no comment" on that? It is entirely normal for anyone to not comment on legal proceedings and leave such things to the lawyers. It is 'normal' for candidates to release their tax returns. There is no official rule so if he doesn't want to that sure, don't. You suffer the consequence in people's mind all the same. Just like opening his mouth may well have done Trump more damage then if he said "I don't comment on open legal cases, I leave that to my lawyers". Do you have a problem with the people who have been attacking him over Trump U for months, including HRC, they should be silent about that? It sounds to me like all you want to do is hamstring him. "No comment" is not a way to respond.
I would very much prefer if political debate remained purely in the realm of policy but America loves their drama and dirt so we have what we have.
We here in the Netherlands sometimes have courts cases of the state vs X and you know what ministers give as a reply when asked for comment? 9 out of 10 its "no comment". Because as a layman all your going to do is fuck things up for your lawyers.
Is it a great response? No, its not and its going to leave people talking without you defending yourself but it sure beats blabbing your mouth like Trump now did and the flak he is getting for it left, right and center shows it.
XDaunt is a lawyer no? If he wouldn't mind I would like to hear what he would have his client say if the press interviewed them about a case he was working (in general ofc, not this case specifically).
|
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
|
On June 08 2016 09:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:30 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 09:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:12 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 09:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:55 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:44 SK.Testie wrote:
So you're against the Migrant crisis? Or perhaps at least a far more sensible solution to it. Not this mass migration that is coming from WAY more countries than just Syria. Do you think Republicans have a point in saying, "accept Christians and families please! Muslims, no thank you?" Of all the Muslims I talk to they tell me the only hopeful country in the region is Iran. And judging from my own readings it seems to be the only one.
So why would the left keep forcing mass immigration against our will?
What of Mexico? It's full of beautiful and awesome people I agree and I loved my visit there. But I was also robbed within one day of being there which hadn't happened to me once in all my days of being in the west. So maybe.. republicans can say.. BUILD THE WALL? Everyone is "against" the migrant crisis in the sense that they'd rather people were staying back home in a stable country with jobs and prospects etc, hell, I think even the migrants would agree on that. What people disagree with is what to do about it. I'd rather secure borders with camps outside of the EU for processing, screening and so forth and ideally for getting them back home when shit stops hitting the fan there. As for the Muslims coming to the US, no, I don't agree. The hysterical claims of millions of ISIS members crossing into America are false, we are talking small numbers of heavily screened individuals to the point that I feel no more threatened by knowing they're a Muslim than I do by anything else. If there was a murderous army waiting to destroy America and Obama wanted to invite them in I'd object to that policy. But that isn't the reality of the situation, that's a propaganda piece that the far right tell themselves. I work with handful of Muslims day to day from all over the Middle East (foreign students doing their PhDs mostly) and the reality of the situation is that once they get their doctorates they will probably be denied the right to stay in the US due to their backgrounds. Which is insane, they're overqualified for their home nations, they're bright and motivated young men and they're very happy to be in the US. Hell, half of them eat pork. But this is where we end up from fearing the Muslim. The entire argument isn't that there's millions of bloodthirsty radicals that want to hurt us. It's that we don't feel comfortable with our vetting process to guarantee the safety of any given refugee when there's millions of them out there at this point. Do you know what the vetting process is ? I do, Ive been through it. Its not easy. Not at fucking all. Im talking years of my life gone not able to commit to shit waiting for bureaucracy to work long. On June 08 2016 09:11 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 09:04 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 08:58 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did .
He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success.
Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess If he has clearly states motivations for believing the trial is being conducted unfairly that do not rely on race why have his laywers not tried to have the judge replaced? Why did he take the argument to national tv by using his position as Presidential candidate instead? Is he going to make such statements about judges involved in his (former) business lawsuits when he is President? You keep asking this question, the reason is because standards in the legal system are different than someone's opinion, right? OJ Simpson is not legally a murderer, but a lot of people, when asked, think he killed two people. People attack him all the time for the cases about Trump U. What'd be an unobjectionable way for him to deal with that subject? An unobjectionable way to deal with it would be not abuse his positional as presidential candidate to publicly slander a judge with 0 proof that is making unfavorable rulings in a case he is involved in. The correct way to deal with questions on the subject is "No comment". "No comment," when people use fraud allegations as an attack strategy on one of two candidates for the highest office on the planet? What do you think about his tax returns, can he say "no comment" on that? So the answer to fraud allegations from other people is to attack the one in charge of your trial. Who by the by is completely unrelated to said allegations and is just doing his job. Clever strategy, Except not really. I have a government security clearance so yes I've been through vetting processes and no they are not infallible. Its cute that you think the vetting process for you and me are the same. It's cute that you think that I think the vetting process for you and me are the same. Didn't you just use your experience with government security vetting processes to pass comment upon his experience immigrating into the US?
Why is commenting on my experience with a vetting process as not being infallible being evidence that we cannot guarantee the safety in taking in refugees, especially when Hillary's plan is to take in an additional 700,000 or so, equivalent to saying that our vetting processes are the same?
|
On June 08 2016 09:29 Doodsmack wrote:
Turns out Trump's lawyer in the case is a Clinton donor, and donated the legal max to her in January 2016 LOL.
Let's hear the conservative arguments distinguishing between Trump's own lawyer and the judge w/r/t potential bias.
Fucking majestic. Perfect. 10/10.
|
On June 08 2016 09:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:24 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said.
You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does.
Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better. I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact. I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people. Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors. Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No. The MSM would have you believe it is though. It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly. It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen. Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning. Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. I have seen at least 2 people link you to factual quote of what Trump said when he first mentioned the judge and his bias. There is no interpretation to be had. His statement is entirely clear. Except for you it seems. I've seen it a dozen times. Nothing exists in a vacuum. You're sorely mistaken to think you can just take what he said and objectively call him a racist and extrapolate the meaning behind it as if you're not making an interpretation of values here. Facts are facts. Stating he said X is a fact. Stating him saying X means Y and that Y is racist and so he is a xenophobic racist for saying Y is a horrible interpretation given the alternative reasonable explanation that exists.
Sounds like you're revising your argument to admit that's what Trump actually said. Before, you were saying his reasoning depended on the groups. You were not saying "interpretation" only came in after establishing Trump's line of reasoning does not depend on the groups. You were using the word "interpretation" to say it would be wrong to construe Trump's reasoning as not depending on the groups.
But hey, you're not the only Trump apologist in this thread to have to revise your argument.
|
On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:05 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You do understand that your argument was that "the left call all white males racist, that means that if a white male is called a racist by the left then no matter what he has said or done, he must not be racist", right? An argument that incidentally also exonerates Hitler. Now I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, just that maybe instead of going "the left calls all white males racist" and dismissing it based on that, you should actually look at what Trump has said and done and base the decision upon that. Because otherwise we have to dismiss a lot of charges of racism and some of them will cover racists, like Hitler, and Trump. I have never made that conclusion. I'm sure some whites are dirty racists in our country but widespread or dangerous? I think not. Western white countries are literally the least racist countries in the world and that's not a racist thing to say that's a fact. How many refugees has the West taken in just from this Syrian conflict compared to actual Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi-Arabia or Bahrain or UAE? The west is so anti-racist places like the UK and Germany are literally passing authoritarian laws to censor any sort of criticism of immigration because they're too afraid of 'looking racist'. Nowhere else in the world would you get the amount of humanitarian aid and tolerance shown by Western countries. The whole 'radical conservative backwards racist conservative' hoax is literally white guilt indoctrination. You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said. You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does. Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better. I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact. I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people. Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors. Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No. The MSM would have you believe it is though. It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly. It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen. Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning. Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point.
You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper:
+ Show Spoiler +
If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly):
4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job."
5:07 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it."
5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..."
5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it."
Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it:
1. The judge is "Mexican"
2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico
3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him
|
On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
Get used to hearing this come November.
|
United States42017 Posts
On June 08 2016 09:32 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:08 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 09:03 SK.Testie wrote:On June 08 2016 08:55 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:44 SK.Testie wrote:
So you're against the Migrant crisis? Or perhaps at least a far more sensible solution to it. Not this mass migration that is coming from WAY more countries than just Syria. Do you think Republicans have a point in saying, "accept Christians and families please! Muslims, no thank you?" Of all the Muslims I talk to they tell me the only hopeful country in the region is Iran. And judging from my own readings it seems to be the only one.
So why would the left keep forcing mass immigration against our will?
What of Mexico? It's full of beautiful and awesome people I agree and I loved my visit there. But I was also robbed within one day of being there which hadn't happened to me once in all my days of being in the west. So maybe.. republicans can say.. BUILD THE WALL? Everyone is "against" the migrant crisis in the sense that they'd rather people were staying back home in a stable country with jobs and prospects etc, hell, I think even the migrants would agree on that. What people disagree with is what to do about it. I'd rather secure borders with camps outside of the EU for processing, screening and so forth and ideally for getting them back home when shit stops hitting the fan there. As for the Muslims coming to the US, no, I don't agree. The hysterical claims of millions of ISIS members crossing into America are false, we are talking small numbers of heavily screened individuals to the point that I feel no more threatened by knowing they're a Muslim than I do by anything else. If there was a murderous army waiting to destroy America and Obama wanted to invite them in I'd object to that policy. But that isn't the reality of the situation, that's a propaganda piece that the far right tell themselves. I work with handful of Muslims day to day from all over the Middle East (foreign students doing their PhDs mostly) and the reality of the situation is that once they get their doctorates they will probably be denied the right to stay in the US due to their backgrounds. Which is insane, they're overqualified for their home nations, they're bright and motivated young men and they're very happy to be in the US. Hell, half of them eat pork. But this is where we end up from fearing the Muslim. You left out the Mexico bit & The Great Wall of Trump. And the migrant crisis should be handled closer to what you say. We don't want inhumanity but right now you have a native population all over Europe feeling displaced and many feel they are being treated as second class citizens in their own country. Which is a little messed up. Though I would note that all of ISIS top guys are engineers or have PhD's ironically. But still it's about what the citizens of the country want, and to decry the 'parent' population to make it feel marginalized and displaced is a little messed up. But there was an article a little while ago about how some euro countries were building factories in North Africa. And the comments section was lined with, "if the countries are safe enough to build factories in, why the hell are we taking migrants from NA?!" + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJheODYpuEI Most illegal immigrants don't cross the border from Mexico, they overstay visas. The wall is an overpriced and ineffective fuck you to one of America's closest trading partners and "making Mexico pay for it" is a disaster waiting to happen. It's a bad policy built on bad ideas, bad economics and bad diplomacy. Immigration reform is needed but that's not what the wall is. The wall is the lowest common denominator response to a failed immigration policy, it's the anti-immigration equivalent of "why don't we solve crime by banning all guns". 1. It's not going to block trade routes. 2. The Mexican government was complicit in sending people over (albeit in a nice way so they didn't die!) But it certainly encourages more people to come rather than enforcing that they should not come. As there is no penalty for trying. 3. The Mexican government is essentially giving the USA a big "fuck you" by being cartel country and a massive problem with drugs flooding in. The citizens WANT to give a fuck you back. Mexico isn't going to crash both the economies because people can no longer illegally walk across the border. 4. A fuck you is needed back. "Hey, we're still buds. But fuck this illegal immigration shit". Mexico and the USA still need each other. I think it will be effective, and 10bn-25bn is not going to bankrupt the USA when it's 20trn in debt. It's a drop in the bucket for the US. It's jobs. And hell if they make it pretty, it can even be a tourist attraction. "The great wall of Fuck You Mexico!" 5. What is Mexico going to do? Cut off trade that they rely on? No. No matter what 'relations' the two countries have $ trumps all. They will never lose a dime if they don't have to. 6. Throw these poor white bastards a bone. They don't feel at home in their home country anymore. Walk outside, hear Spanish, think, 'ISN'T THIS AMERICA?' Pandered to and lied to about a wall for decades and nothing. Hell even Hillary and Bill both said they'd do it. No results. They just want legal immigrants, that's it. Slow down the flow. Stop displacing the home population so fast. 7. Open borders is a retarded idea when the immigration flows one way. I'm not saying you're a proponent of it, but I just want to make that position clear. I don't know about you but I'd feel very guilty if the whole population of Canada just up and moved to Japan because our economy was shit. And we just displaced a bunch of Japanese people and said, 'what, are you fucking racists? Respect our rights and religion and we're humans, faggots'. It's just not a nice thing to do to your neighbour to not respect their laws and customs.
My chief objection to it was that it does nothing to resolve the problem of illegal immigration. Your defence of it didn't address that but instead had points 2, 3 and 4 explaining why it's good policy for American to spend 25b on what is effectively a big stone middle finger pointing at what is still one of her closest trading partners because "what are they gonna do about it?".
I like immigration reform but the wall is really, really bad policy and has been executed even more poorly with the confrontational attitude towards Mexico. At the very least it's shitty diplomacy, he's not even been elected and the Mexican political establishment, with whom he will have to work to get changes, refuse to work with him. Throwing poor white bastards a bone is shitty politics if that bone costs you the ability to actually get something done.
|
On June 08 2016 09:38 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
Get used to hearing this come November.
This was a GOP primary. More remarkable. And awesome.
|
On June 08 2016 09:37 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:24 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact.
I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people.
Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors.
Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No.
The MSM would have you believe it is though. It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly. It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen. Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning. Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. I have seen at least 2 people link you to factual quote of what Trump said when he first mentioned the judge and his bias. There is no interpretation to be had. His statement is entirely clear. Except for you it seems. I've seen it a dozen times. Nothing exists in a vacuum. You're sorely mistaken to think you can just take what he said and objectively call him a racist and extrapolate the meaning behind it as if you're not making an interpretation of values here. Facts are facts. Stating he said X is a fact. Stating him saying X means Y and that Y is racist and so he is a xenophobic racist for saying Y is a horrible interpretation given the alternative reasonable explanation that exists. Sounds like you're revising your argument to admit that's what Trump actually said. Before, you were saying his reasoning depended on the groups. You were not saying "interpretation" only came in after establishing Trump's line of reasoning does not depend on the groups. You were using the word "interpretation" to say it would be wrong to construe Trump's reasoning as not depending on the groups. But hey, you're not the only Trump apologist in this thread to have to revise your argument.
I don't think I've revised my argument once I don't see where you get off saying I said that.
I don't even follow what you're trying to say I said. My position has been very consistent and I've tried to clearly convey that the entire time.
My judgment simply isn't being blinded by confirmation bias like yours in wanting to attribute the worst possible meaning to what he said as proof of your position that he is a racist.
I go into it abstaining from whether or not he is a racist, looked at what he said, discovered a rational explanation for why he said it that wasn't 'xenophobic racist hitlerbot 2.0', and argued that.
I can see if I worked under your assumption why I could easily make the interpretation you did.
The difference between us is I'm keeping an open minded while youre working under the assumption that he's a racist and then attributing 'evidence' to support the assumption after-the-fact. This is the literal definition of a bias.
I don't have to revise anything you're just wrong.
|
On June 08 2016 09:16 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:02 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Trump just totally walked back his whole statements. That is an admission he was wrong previously. Thus, your collective efforts to justify his old statements have been invalidated by the man himself. "I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial." http://qz.com/701711/watch-donald-trump-simultaneously-walk-back-and-double-down-on-his-racist-comments/A profile in cowardice. That is how you should have interpreted what he said to begin with. So many people here would benefit from application of the 'principle of charity' in judgment of the candidates this election. It's a shame people just one to pick one side as a hero and the other as an evil villain and take the worst meaning possible from everything they say and do.
have you considered that your own cognitive bias may be preventing you from seeing things? and if so how did you assess whether it was so or not?
|
On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I have never made that conclusion. I'm sure some whites are dirty racists in our country but widespread or dangerous? I think not.
Western white countries are literally the least racist countries in the world and that's not a racist thing to say that's a fact. How many refugees has the West taken in just from this Syrian conflict compared to actual Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi-Arabia or Bahrain or UAE? The west is so anti-racist places like the UK and Germany are literally passing authoritarian laws to censor any sort of criticism of immigration because they're too afraid of 'looking racist'.
Nowhere else in the world would you get the amount of humanitarian aid and tolerance shown by Western countries. The whole 'radical conservative backwards racist conservative' hoax is literally white guilt indoctrination. You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said. You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does. Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better. I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact. I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people. Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors. Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No. The MSM would have you believe it is though. It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly. It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen. Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning. Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him
If you're going to specify a timecode to watch, maybe you should pick 2 minutes, when he first gets the question and starts by talking for over a minute about the ways (whether you agree with him or not) he thinks the case has been handled unfairly. And then bold and underline that. You're ignoring that exchange and just mining. He also mentions the judge being a "member" of something in that clip.
|
On June 08 2016 09:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said.
You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does.
Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better. I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact. I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people. Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors. Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No. The MSM would have you believe it is though. It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly. It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen. Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning. Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him If you're going to specify a timecode to watch, maybe you should pick 2 minutes, when he first gets the question and starts by talking for over a minute about the ways (whether you agree with him or not) he thinks the case has been handled unfairly. And then bold and underline that. You're ignoring that exchange and just mining. He also mentions the judge being a "member" of something in that clip.
You're apparently missing the point completely, since nobody is arguing against the fact that Trump thinks he's being treated unfairly. The point is why he thinks he's being treated unfairly. Trump explains why as clearly as possible in the interview, and the reason he gives is that the judge is "Mexican". I refer you to the passage I quoted.
|
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has received his first un-endorsement as the firestorm expands over his racially-focused attacks on a federal judge.
Sen. Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, released a statement Tuesday saying that Trump lacks "the temperament" necessary for the Oval Office.
"After much consideration, I have concluded that Donald Trump has not demonstrated the temperament necessary to assume the greatest office in the world," Kirk said in a statement.
Kirk, who won President Barack Obama's seat, is running for re-election in a Democratic state in what is considered one of the most contested races in the country.
His opponent, Democratic Rep. Tammy Duckworth, had been criticizing Kirk for his silence over Trump's comments.
"What took so long?" Duckworth said in a statement.
Before Trump earned the nomination, Kirk said that he "certainly would" support him if he won the nomination.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-receives-his-first-un-endorsement-n587416
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is basically a microcosm of his presidency. dominated by his handlers and only useful for branding. it's more and more looking like reagan.
and no, that's not a good thing.
|
On June 08 2016 09:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said.
You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does.
Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better. I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact. I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people. Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors. Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No. The MSM would have you believe it is though. It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly. It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen. Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning. Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him If you're going to specify a timecode to watch, maybe you should pick 2 minutes, when he first gets the question and starts by talking for over a minute about the ways (whether you agree with him or not) he thinks the case has been handled unfairly. And then bold and underline that. You're ignoring that exchange and just mining. He also mentions the judge being a "member" of something in that clip.
Without seeing the clip I can only assume he is talking about a group called La Raza which is often a group Republicans like to hit hard.
All of today has been very weird though its like he is basically trying to pretend the things he was outright saying did not happen and we should pretend his version of reality is correct and everyone else did not understand that for example he just happened to mention he was "a mexican" (this is still wrong btw) and that he clearly meant nothing by it and was just pointing it out which just does not pass the laugh test to me.
|
On June 08 2016 09:51 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has received his first un-endorsement as the firestorm expands over his racially-focused attacks on a federal judge.
Sen. Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, released a statement Tuesday saying that Trump lacks "the temperament" necessary for the Oval Office.
"After much consideration, I have concluded that Donald Trump has not demonstrated the temperament necessary to assume the greatest office in the world," Kirk said in a statement.
Kirk, who won President Barack Obama's seat, is running for re-election in a Democratic state in what is considered one of the most contested races in the country.
His opponent, Democratic Rep. Tammy Duckworth, had been criticizing Kirk for his silence over Trump's comments.
"What took so long?" Duckworth said in a statement.
Before Trump earned the nomination, Kirk said that he "certainly would" support him if he won the nomination.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-receives-his-first-un-endorsement-n587416
To basically explain this to people who do not realize, Kirk is behind in his race in a blue state, so he basically has since about midway thru last year, decided to basically make a sudden pivot to the center and hope that he can make a miracle happen and protect that seat which is increasingly unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
