|
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 09:38 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 is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him
I watched the entire video.
This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here.
Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video.
He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy.
Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly.
Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case.
He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case.
Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing.
|
On June 08 2016 09:40 KwarK wrote:
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 09:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:32 SK.Testie wrote: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 + 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.
I'm of the opinion it will help a great deal with illegal immigration. I'm surprised that your chief argument is that it won't help. People are literally just walking across the desert, hitching a ride on trains, or fitting 30 people into a tiny van after all.
As if diplomatic relations are going to change. They need each other. All this pandering about, 'oh did he offend this world leader?' is clearly nonsense. The bottom line is always money. So long as there's money to be made, nothing will change. It will definitely have an effect on slowing the illegal immigrants down, give border patrol a better defense, and may cost far less than the other plans they were thinking of running with like a drone program. A great deal of Americans want the symbol.
Again, if it's pretty it's a tourist attraction. It's also jobs for a while, a public works project. That money is just going to go back into the economy anyway, it's not going to disappear. Pay your workers, they put it back into the economy anyway. Congrats, filled out some jobs for a while.
Pretty sure the Mexican people will understand, and if they don't understand that America doesn't like its laws broken, well, the wall will tell them how Americans feel about it and they'll just have to learn to forgive and forget.
Mexico and America have been screwing each other over for a while, they don't care about it. The bottom line is $. So long as they can make $ off each other, they will. If anything, race relations will ease a little because you don't have a white majority feeling like it's going to be a white minority even faster.
The # of border arrests speak are pretty astronomical, and I quite simply don't buy the articles that say more are leaving than coming in.
![[image loading]](http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/06/FT_15.06.25_hispanic_trend.png) Is this indicative of normal population growth? Canada was at 24 million in 1980 for reference. We're at 35 million now. Yet 14 to 55.5 million is.. normal? Not to mention the countless arrests / turn aways that just try try again. They're only catching a fraction of people and they keep saying that. The border is much too big for 16,500 patrol members.
Canadas beside it:
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pkJoz/3d1f4b0edf.png)
Saying a wall is a fuck you would also be saying a border patrol is a fuck you. Because that implies people are breaking the law and that their border needs to be patrolled. I can't see a real argument against the wall because I've seen begrudging articles that admit yes, it will work and the only factor is whether or not how well it will work. Will it slow illegal immigration down by 30%? or much more. That'll be seen. But a large portion of Americans want to see it through.
|
Worst-case scenario in all worlds - the judge actually is impartial and Trump is just a sore loser.
A racist though? No.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
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.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats.
gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella.
|
templar -> asserting that to be a worst-case scenario is unfounded; and shows your own extreme bias.
i'm sorry that you can't see your own bias; but that's a common problem with many people.
|
On June 08 2016 09:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:16 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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?
Yes. I've openly admitted if I assumed trump was a racist before-hand, it would be very easy to conclude all of the media scams as examples of his racism.
The problem is that's not how it works. You don't assume innocent until proven guilty.
In any sort of intellectual endeavor to uncover the truth, you avoid any assumption at all. You want to view the matter as unbiased as possible. That involves seeing it from Trump's perspective without assuming he is or isn't a racist.
To me it looks like one of two things are going on.
1. The judge is using his position to unfairly hinder Trump in the case to damage his campaign prospects. Trump is right, the judge has a stake in the case and cannot be an impartial judge.
2. The judge is being fair. Trump is being a sore loser.
In neither world is he motivated by hate or racism against mexico or Mexicans.
|
On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR 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 is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing.
Sorry, you can't get out of this one.
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."
Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is biased against him. End of story. No interpretation from me, only Trump's words.
|
On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem 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.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella.
Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them.
Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers."
The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light.
|
On June 08 2016 09:50 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:48 oBlade wrote: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:
[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. 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.
This is how you characterized Trump's reasoning:
1. The judge is "Mexican"
2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico
3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him
The point is you've got this backwards. If the guy's skin color necessitated that there was bias, Trump wouldn't need to start by establishing the unfair treatment which your timecodes skipped over. I'm saying it's dishonest for you to use words like "factually" and "wrong, end of story" and "exactly" and eschew "interpretation" if you want to get GGTeMpLaR to think differently.
|
On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[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. 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 I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 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." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story.
You're ignoring the relevance of what it means.
Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups.
The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open.
This is because of the judge's identity and values.
It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far.
|
your response and use of the term media scams pretty clearly you puts you in the camp of someone taking extreme bias. everyone likes to think of themselves as reasonable and unbiased and not making assumptions, but not so many actually are.
Whether Trump thinks he's being racist is quite different from the question of whether he is in fact being racist.
You don't respond to an assertion of cognitive bias by saying if you assumed he was racist it'd be an easy conclusion; that means you truly haven't considered your own bias adequately, and haven't considered the opposing viewpoint to a serious degree, but regard it as nonsense.
|
On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote: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.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light.
last I checked, the republicans have been moving right more than the democrats have been moving left. do you have sources for your claim? if so I'd like to assess them. if they're not handy, that's fine, no great import.
|
On June 08 2016 10:05 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:50 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:48 oBlade wrote: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:
[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 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. This is how you characterized Trump's reasoning: Show nested quote +1. The judge is "Mexican"
2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico
3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him The point is you've got this backwards. If the guy's skin color necessitated that there was bias, Trump wouldn't need to start by establishing the unfair treatment which your timecodes skipped over. I'm saying it's dishonest for you to use words like "factually" and "wrong, end of story" and "exactly" and eschew "interpretation" if you want to get GGTeMpLaR to think differently.
I do not have it backwards. The three points you just quoted are Trump's reasoning behind his idea that the judge his biased against him. He starts with the claim that the judged is biased against him, and proceeds to explain why he thinks that is as I described it. Perhaps you're simply confused about what is being discussed it. There's nothing "dishonest" about me reporting Trump's own words about what his reasoning is. I'm being factual, while you're jumping through hoops to try to obscure Trump's own statements regarding his own reasoning.
|
It's pretty clear to me. Everyone is a shill if they question or criticize Trump. Experts the media that praised him.
|
On June 08 2016 10:06 zlefin wrote:
your response and use of the term media scams pretty clearly you puts you in the camp of someone taking extreme bias. everyone likes to think of themselves as reasonable and unbiased and not making assumptions, but not so many actually are.
Whether Trump thinks he's being racist is quite different from the question of whether he is in fact being racist.
You don't respond to an assertion of cognitive bias by saying if you assumed he was racist it'd be an easy conclusion; that means you truly haven't considered your own bias adequately, and haven't considered the opposing viewpoint to a serious degree, but regard it as nonsense.
The media has done it multiple times. It's factual to point this out.
I've seen them do it a dozen fucking times and it's horrible. Still, I heard about this latest Trump scandal and went into it saying 'wow this looks pretty bad, I wonder what Trump has to actually say about it. Maybe he actually has lost his mind. Nope there's a rational explanation for it, it just isn't politically correct so the media's slamming him on it after baiting him into saying it. honest journalism right there'
It's a fact. If I assumed he was a racist I would come to the same conclusion as you. I see it clear as day. So I ask myself 'what if I went into it just trying to look at it from Trump's perspective as if I was Trump',
When I did that it became absurd and it's no wonder he flames the media so much. The reporter questioning him is a shill who is asking him under the assumption that what he said was racist just like you.
Remember when actual journalism was supposed to be about questions to discern the truth not paint a narrative?
I just don't understand why it's so hard to put yourself in his shoes. You're in a court case and you have a controversial platform as president that adversely affects the country of Mexico. You believe your case should have been dropped and have plenty of evidence that supports it's a farce. You find out your judge is of Mexican heritage and a part of pro-mexican descent. What do you believe?
1. i believe mexicans can't be judges because im racist against them and i hate mexico it's full of rapists
2. my judge has a stake in the outcome of my case and that's the only explanation for why it hasn't been dropped yet when plenty of legal experts and lawyers are telling me it should have already been dropped
Why is that such a hard choice?
|
On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[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 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 I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 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." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far.
This is what I find fascinating. Supposing it were all true, it would still be racism, I imagine.
|
On June 08 2016 10:11 Plansix wrote:
It's pretty clear to me. Everyone is a shill if they question or criticize Trump. Experts the media that praised him.
I don't think I've called anyone in this thread a shill. In fact the only person I've called a shill here is that blatantly bought-out reporter with a clear agenda of trying to paint Trump as a racist.
If you don't see it I got nothin for ya man
|
You're first point is that the judge is mexican and that implies racism by trump no doubt. However you fail to recognize his initial point is actually that he feels wronged by the judge, regardless of race or gender. He offers the judge's race as an explanation for why he feels wronged. This makes trump a sore loser at worst like templar said.
edit:
oops responding to kwiz argument
|
United States42578 Posts
On June 08 2016 09:57 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:40 KwarK wrote:
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. Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:40 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 09:32 SK.Testie wrote: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. I'm of the opinion it will help a great deal with illegal immigration. I'm surprised that your chief argument is that it won't help. People are literally just walking across the desert, hitching a ride on trains, or fitting 30 people into a tiny van after all. As if diplomatic relations are going to change. They need each other. All this pandering about, 'oh did he offend this world leader?' is clearly nonsense. The bottom line is always money. So long as there's money to be made, nothing will change. It will definitely have an effect on slowing the illegal immigrants down, give border patrol a better defense, and may cost far less than the other plans they were thinking of running with like a drone program. A great deal of Americans want the symbol. Again, if it's pretty it's a tourist attraction. It's also jobs for a while, a public works project. That money is just going to go back into the economy anyway, it's not going to disappear. Pay your workers, they put it back into the economy anyway. Congrats, filled out some jobs for a while. Pretty sure the Mexican people will understand, and if they don't understand that America doesn't like its laws broken, well, the wall will tell them how Americans feel about it and they'll just have to learn to forgive and forget. Mexico and America have been screwing each other over for a while, they don't care about it. The bottom line is $. So long as they can make $ off each other, they will. If anything, race relations will ease a little because you don't have a white majority feeling like it's going to be a white minority even faster. The # of border arrests speak are pretty astronomical, and I quite simply don't buy the articles that say more are leaving than coming in. Is this indicative of normal population growth? Canada was at 24 million in 1980 for reference. We're at 35 million now. Yet 14 to 55.5 million is.. normal? Not to mention the countless arrests / turn aways that just try try again. They're only catching a fraction of people and they keep saying that. The border is much too big for 16,500 patrol members. Canadas beside it: Saying a wall is a fuck you would also be saying a border patrol is a fuck you. Because that implies people are breaking the law and that their border needs to be patrolled. I can't see a real argument against the wall because I've seen begrudging articles that admit yes, it will work and the only factor is whether or not how well it will work. Will it slow illegal immigration down by 30%? or much more. That'll be seen. But a large portion of Americans want to see it through.
I argued that most illegal immigrants overstay visas rather than walking across the southern border so the wall wouldn't stop them and you show me total population increasing? It doesn't refute my objection.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote: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.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light.
most politicians are bounded rationality-esque frauds. don't really care.
as far as reconfiguring the democrats coalition. it's nearly impossible, but there is some possible world in which it becomes a viable path. depends on how crazy trump gets, how the moderate right behaves, and how effective democrats can contain the bad optics on the left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
