|
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 November 19 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 06:45 hunts wrote:On November 19 2016 06:41 biology]major wrote:On November 19 2016 06:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 19 2016 06:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 06:16 Nyxisto wrote: Milo also thinks that lesbians don't exist, why the fuck are we taking his personal experiences seriously again? Do you have something substantive to say about the charge that Bannon is a white-supremacist, anti-semite? I think that the main charges stem from the fact that he ran Breitbart, which is an explicit vessel for the racist/sexist/xenophobic beliefs of the Alt-Right. So you don't think there is differnce between that and him personally having those beliefs? Would he run a website dedicated to sexism, racism, xenophobia, and anti-semitism if he did not hold those beliefs? Do you think he doesn't believe any of that but just wanted to run a website that posted fake articles and blogs that were sexist, racist, xenophobic, and antisemitic just for fun while not believing any of it? Yes it's a niche market to make money using shock value. It's entirely possible, you're the one making assumptions.
Making assumptions on a very long history of hateful things said by him and those he employs? At some point you are no longer making assumptions but stating reality. Unless you have some concrete proof beyond "well he hired some people that aren't white." then we must believe what we can actually see, and that is the racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, antisemitism and just plain bigotry that he stands for as the leader of breitbart.
|
On November 19 2016 06:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 06:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 19 2016 06:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 06:16 Nyxisto wrote: Milo also thinks that lesbians don't exist, why the fuck are we taking his personal experiences seriously again? Do you have something substantive to say about the charge that Bannon is a white-supremacist, anti-semite? I think that the main charges stem from the fact that he ran Breitbart, which is an explicit vessel for the racist/sexist/xenophobic beliefs of the Alt-Right. That you think that Breitbart is an Alt-Right website shows how little you know about what Breitbart actually is and what they publish. Quit taking sensationalist garbage about your political opponents at face value and actually read what they have to say before deciding who they are. This really isn't hard. Are you actually going to respond to my post and can tell me if you agree whether this kind of journalism is white supremacism or are you just going to dodge given that you explicitly asked me? You do this all the time when you get called out. I already did. The answer is categorically no: it's not white supremacism, and that you think it is reeks of SJWism.
|
On November 19 2016 06:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 06:26 Nyxisto wrote:On November 19 2016 06:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 06:16 Nyxisto wrote: Milo also thinks that lesbians don't exist, why the fuck are we taking his personal experiences seriously again? Do you have something substantive to say about the charge that Bannon is a white-supremacist, anti-semite? Well he constantly says white supremacist things, I don't care how many Jews he hires. You can be an anti-semite and Jewish. How about stuff like this? http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/hoist-it-high-and-proud-the-confederate-flag-proclaims-a-glorious-heritage/"While your supporters are trashing the monuments and reputations of the forefathers of so many Americans, Barack, you might just want to remind us again which state of the Union, north or south, your ancestors resided in during the traumatic years 1861- 1865? Or did Kenya not have a dog in that fight?" Completely normal journalism, right? Let's bring back a post that I made a few pages ago about the poisonous effect of the SJW's: Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 02:53 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 02:51 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 02:47 Nebuchad wrote: The extremely few people I've heard identify themselves as SJWs were generally quite rational, much more than you would expect given the rep they get. I have no doubt that you can dig up a few stories where some of them do something irrational but most of the stories I've seen regarding universities are wilfully amplified to create a controversy. The notable exception is refusing right-wing speakers, that is actually fairly bad. You need look no further than the arguments that there have been with the SJW posters in this thread to see how toxic their perspective is. I don't really see who would be a SJW in this thread, who am I missing? I would have said I'm one of the closest. You are correct on the history zlefin. Plansix is the most notorious and consistent. But the real problem is that the SJW's rhetoric poisons political discourse overall by seeping into the arguments of the left, even if those the various persons on the left making those argument wouldn't consider themselves to be SJWs. We just saw a classic example of this a few posts ago: On November 19 2016 02:26 Doodsmack wrote:On November 19 2016 01:53 xDaunt wrote: My biggest hope is that he fixes our immigration system The key to Trump's support. Trump's main support comes in the form of the immigration vote. It's always the first thing they mention. Deep down, these people want less Mexicans and Muslims around. Let's not beat around the bush with abstract cultural decline arguments. None of the conservative posters around here are remotely surprised at Doodsmack's inability to accept or recognize that people who want to stop "fix immigration" -- or even stop illegal immigration -- have reasons for doing so that are unrelated to race. So instead of having a discussion on the merits of proper policy for the country, the discussion has devolved to crass identity politics. This is why I rail against SJWs and the regressive left. The liberal argument regarding the propriety of flying the Confederate falls right in line with what I am saying.
What's the argument, Social justice warriors are mean so you have to rehabilitate a racist symbol as a kind of counter-measure?
Obama deported more people than bush, if this is not race related, why do you actually think that 'liberals' do not want to 'fix' immigration? I can answer, because they don't do it while ranting about Mexicans and Muslims.
|
In the same vein that Breitbart hiring Jews isn't necessarily an end-all discussion counterexample to Bannon's anti-Semitism, that fact he headed an organization that regularly published discriminatory material doesn't necessarily immediately make him racist. He could for example, have a strong moral conviction that the right to free speech implies the continued existence of discriminatory platforms. Look for more supporting evidence.
Personally I think he is all the -ists he's been called. The way he uses the word Jew in his quotes seem much more hate fueled. I don't think this alone, out of context, 20 years ago, is discrediting, but in a better world I would prefer people who were more tolerant. However, I do find it oddly sickening that so many "nationalist" movement heads like Bannon.
Also personal bone to pick, people keep bringing up Hillary's KKK connection with Byrd. Byrd has repeatedly apologized for his past in the KKK and shown an explicit and consistent change in behavior from his racist past. Bannon has not disavowed the support of all these -ist supporters, and has not consistently acted in a way that suggests he's not (or trying not to be) -ist.
|
On November 19 2016 06:50 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 06:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 06:26 Nyxisto wrote:On November 19 2016 06:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 06:16 Nyxisto wrote: Milo also thinks that lesbians don't exist, why the fuck are we taking his personal experiences seriously again? Do you have something substantive to say about the charge that Bannon is a white-supremacist, anti-semite? Well he constantly says white supremacist things, I don't care how many Jews he hires. You can be an anti-semite and Jewish. How about stuff like this? http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/hoist-it-high-and-proud-the-confederate-flag-proclaims-a-glorious-heritage/"While your supporters are trashing the monuments and reputations of the forefathers of so many Americans, Barack, you might just want to remind us again which state of the Union, north or south, your ancestors resided in during the traumatic years 1861- 1865? Or did Kenya not have a dog in that fight?" Completely normal journalism, right? Let's bring back a post that I made a few pages ago about the poisonous effect of the SJW's: On November 19 2016 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 02:53 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 02:51 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 02:47 Nebuchad wrote: The extremely few people I've heard identify themselves as SJWs were generally quite rational, much more than you would expect given the rep they get. I have no doubt that you can dig up a few stories where some of them do something irrational but most of the stories I've seen regarding universities are wilfully amplified to create a controversy. The notable exception is refusing right-wing speakers, that is actually fairly bad. You need look no further than the arguments that there have been with the SJW posters in this thread to see how toxic their perspective is. I don't really see who would be a SJW in this thread, who am I missing? I would have said I'm one of the closest. You are correct on the history zlefin. Plansix is the most notorious and consistent. But the real problem is that the SJW's rhetoric poisons political discourse overall by seeping into the arguments of the left, even if those the various persons on the left making those argument wouldn't consider themselves to be SJWs. We just saw a classic example of this a few posts ago: On November 19 2016 02:26 Doodsmack wrote:On November 19 2016 01:53 xDaunt wrote: My biggest hope is that he fixes our immigration system The key to Trump's support. Trump's main support comes in the form of the immigration vote. It's always the first thing they mention. Deep down, these people want less Mexicans and Muslims around. Let's not beat around the bush with abstract cultural decline arguments. None of the conservative posters around here are remotely surprised at Doodsmack's inability to accept or recognize that people who want to stop "fix immigration" -- or even stop illegal immigration -- have reasons for doing so that are unrelated to race. So instead of having a discussion on the merits of proper policy for the country, the discussion has devolved to crass identity politics. This is why I rail against SJWs and the regressive left. The liberal argument regarding the propriety of flying the Confederate falls right in line with what I am saying. What's the argument, Social justice warriors are mean so you have to rehabilitate a racist symbol as a kind of counter-measure? Obama deported more people than bush, if this is not race related, why do you actually think that 'liberals' do not want to 'fix' immigration? I can answer, because they don't do it while ranting about Mexicans and Muslims. It's the typical SJW argument on everything: our opponents are a bunch of racists, so we have the moral high ground, so we win automatically.
|
But please answer the question, Obama has deported more people than any other president before, as far as I know his strategy was to foremost deport criminals. So given this fact, why are people somehow convinced that Obama is lax on illegal immigration or does not value American border security?
|
On November 19 2016 06:41 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 06:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 19 2016 06:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 06:16 Nyxisto wrote: Milo also thinks that lesbians don't exist, why the fuck are we taking his personal experiences seriously again? Do you have something substantive to say about the charge that Bannon is a white-supremacist, anti-semite? I think that the main charges stem from the fact that he ran Breitbart, which is an explicit vessel for the racist/sexist/xenophobic beliefs of the Alt-Right. So you don't think there is differnce between that and him personally having those beliefs? Personally, I acknowledge that there's a difference between actually being racist/anti-Semitic and simply playing host to them because it appeals to the crowd on your website. However, it's not a difference I care about, because playing host to actually racist/anti-Semitic writers solely for the sake of shock factor and page views is a generally shitty thing to do also. The distinction between "Bannon is a racist/anti-Semite" and "Bannon is not a racist/anti-Semite, he just puts up with them writing shit for his website" is not one that really improves my opinion of him very much. The discussion of whether Bannon is/isn't a racist is a semantic one that serves no purpose other than to distract from the more general discussion of people finding him to be a distasteful person to have associated with the US President or with any position of real influence.
We had a similar discussion about Jill Stein during the election as well. The difference between "Jill Stein is anti-science" and "Jill Stein is not anti-science but simply panders to anti-science people to get their vote" is pointless. Same deal here.
|
On November 19 2016 06:58 Nyxisto wrote: But please answer the question, Obama has deported more people than any other president before, as far as I know his strategy was to foremost deport criminals. So given this fact, why are people somehow convinced that Obama is lax on illegal immigration or does not value American border security? Which question? You keep moving around. And you still haven't posted anything remotely resembling compelling evidence that Bannon is a white-supremacist or anti-semite. And guess what? You're not going to be able to, because the allegation is simply untrue, no matter how hard you poor leftists wish it wasn't. The evil racist Bannon is a figment of your imagination. But hey, keep lecturing us on the right about how we're untethered from reality and the "facts."
As for your question about Obama being lax on illegal immigration, we need look no further than the tolerance and promotion of sanctuary cities, derision of wall building, and all of the executive orders that he wrote trying to pass amnesty by fiat. And don't even get me started on the constant derision that Obama and the democrats throw at the right for daring to suggest that we secure our borders. Yeah, Obama isn't even in Trump's league when it comes to border security.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 19 2016 06:58 Nyxisto wrote: But please answer the question, Obama has deported more people than any other president before, as far as I know his strategy was to foremost deport criminals. So given this fact, why are people somehow convinced that Obama is lax on illegal immigration or does not value American border security?
As with all statistics, if you aren't looking into methodology, the numbers are meaningless.
|
On November 19 2016 06:58 Nyxisto wrote: But please answer the question, Obama has deported more people than any other president before, as far as I know his strategy was to foremost deport criminals. So given this fact, why are people somehow convinced that Obama is lax on illegal immigration or does not value American border security? They changed the way deportation numbers are counted. It was about counting people who were turned away at the border while they weren't counted beforehand or something like that.
|
On November 19 2016 07:05 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 06:58 Nyxisto wrote: But please answer the question, Obama has deported more people than any other president before, as far as I know his strategy was to foremost deport criminals. So given this fact, why are people somehow convinced that Obama is lax on illegal immigration or does not value American border security? As with all statistics, if you aren't looking into methodology, the numbers are meaningless.
From 2012.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/
According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- the federal agency responsible for deportations -- Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that's fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million. But Bush’s number covers eight full years, which doesn’t allow an apples-to-apples comparison.
If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents.
We wondered whether there might have been a surge of undocumented immigrants that explained the increase, but there wasn’t. During the first two years of Obama’s tenure, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the illegal immigrant population nationwide at 11.2 million, compared to an average during Bush’s eight-year tenure of 10.6 million. And illegal immigration actually peaked late in Bush’s second term, at which point the recession hit and the numbers declined under Obama. Such patterns do not explain the 57 percent bump in monthly deportations that we found under Obama.
From 2016.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
Between 2009 and 2015 his [Obama's] administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
According to governmental data, the Obama administration has deported more people than any other president's administration in history.
...
In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century.
President George W. Bush's administration deported just over two million during his time in office; and Obama’s numbers don’t reflect his last year in office, for which data is not yet available.
...
President Obama directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to focus on criminals, not families, during his November 2014 executive action on immigration.
According to their website, "ICE has continued to increase its focus on identifying, arresting, and removing convicted criminals in prisons and jails, and also at-large arrests in the interior."
In fiscal year 2015, 91 percent of people removed from inside the U.S. were previously convicted of a crime.
The administration made the first priority "threats to national security, border security, and public safety." That includes gang members, convicted felons or charged with "aggravated felony" and anyone apprehended at the border trying to enter the country illegally.
In 2015, 81 percent, or 113,385, of the removals were the priority one removals.
Priority two includes "misdemeanants and new immigration violators."
That includes "aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses, other than minor traffic" violations, as well as those convicted of domestic violence, sexual abuse, burglary, DUIs or drug trafficking.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's deportation statistics.
The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.
...
Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics.
Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records.
I'm not sure who to believe right now, but I don't see anything necessarily good or bad about having higher or lower figures. Need more context. I agree with Obama's immigration/deportation changes. I have no clue what Trump wants to do because he has outlined basically jack shit on policy.
|
No need to worry guys it's all a hoax remember that...
Political people in the United States are watching the chaos in Washington in the moment. But some people in the science community are watching the chaos somewhere else — the Arctic. It’s polar night there now — the sun isn’t rising in much of the Arctic. That’s when the Arctic is supposed to get super-cold, when the sea ice that covers the vast Arctic Ocean is supposed to grow and thicken. But in fall of 2016 — which has been a zany year for the region, with multiple records set for low levels of monthly sea ice — something is totally off. The Arctic is super-hot, even as a vast area of cold polar air has been displaced over Siberia. At the same time, one of the key indicators of the state of the Arctic — the extent of sea ice covering the polar ocean — is at a record low. The ice is freezing up again, as it always does this time of year after reaching its September low, but it isn’t doing so as rapidly as usual. In fact, the ice’s area is even lower than it was during the record-low 2012: Twitter’s expert Arctic watchers also are stunned. Zack Labe, a PhD student at the University of California at Irvine who studies the Arctic, tweeted out an image on Wednesday from the Danish Meteorological Institute showing Arctic temperatures about 20 degrees Celsius higher than normal above 80 degrees North Latitude. “Today’s latest #Arctic mean temperature continues to move the wrong direction . . . up. Quite an anomalous spike!,” Labe wrote. Here’s the figure: ![[image loading]](https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2016/11/meanT_2016.png) “Despite onset of #PolarNight, temperatures near #NorthPole increasing. Extraordinary situation right now in #Arctic, w/record low #seaice,” added Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA. This is the second year in a row that temperatures near the North Pole have risen to freakishly warm levels. During 2015’s final days, the temperature near the Pole spiked to the melting point thanks to a massive storm that pumped warm air into the region. So what’s going on here? “It’s about 20C [36 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean, along with cold anomalies of about the same magnitude over north-central Asia,” Jennifer Francis, an Arctic specialist at Rutgers University, said by email Wednesday.
Source
|
Well xDaunt, it should strike you that while you are accusing people of dismissing claims using terms like "racism" to avoid answering, you are effectively dismissing claims using terms like "SJWs" to avoid answering.
I've never read Breitbart, I don't know what it's about. A lot of people in the media (my echo chamber) have told me that it can be qualified in certain ways. Clearly you have some other sources (your echo chamber?) that tell you that it's something else. Perhaps it's your experience reading Breitbart? I don't know if you read it or not.
One of these two claims is correct, the other is not. So far, it seems logical to assume that you are the one who is incorrect, simply because of Occam's razor: the alt-right seems to believe that, the media in general seems to believe that, most people seem to believe that. It's easier for you to be wrong than them, logically.
But if they're all wrong, then that's an interesting case to make. I would be interested in reading about that case. Much more interested than I would be in learning about how I'm to be dismissed because I'm a SJW and I have echo chambers.
|
On November 19 2016 07:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 06:58 Nyxisto wrote: But please answer the question, Obama has deported more people than any other president before, as far as I know his strategy was to foremost deport criminals. So given this fact, why are people somehow convinced that Obama is lax on illegal immigration or does not value American border security? Which question? You keep moving around. And you still haven't posted anything remotely resembling compelling evidence that Bannon is a white-supremacist or anti-semite. And guess what? You're not going to be able to, because the allegation is simply untrue, no matter how hard you poor leftists wish it wasn't. The evil racist Bannon is a figment of your imagination. But hey, keep lecturing us on the right about how we're untethered from reality and the "facts." As for your question about Obama being lax on illegal immigration, we need look no further than the tolerance and promotion of sanctuary cities, derision of wall building, and all of the executive orders that he wrote trying to pass amnesty by fiat. And don't even get me started on the constant derision that Obama and the democrats throw at the right for daring to suggest that we secure our borders. Yeah, Obama isn't even in Trump's league when it comes to border security.
I consider celebrating the confederate flag white supremacism, you don't. If that's not extreme enough for you there's nothing that will convince you that he is indeed a white supremacist.
And that Obama didn't try to build a wall is good. Most illegal immigration is visa overstays, it's not his business to strongarm cities either. Just like with terrorism the difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama has never politicised the justice system or war.
The Obama administration has gone to pretty great lengths to take a considerable amount of terrorists out, but he has never divided the population in the US or has turned it into a circus. Trump has not served in a public office for even a day and apparently he is tougher than Obama?
|
On November 19 2016 07:28 Nebuchad wrote: Well xDaunt, it should strike you that while you are accusing people of dismissing claims using terms like "racism" to avoid answering, you are effectively dismissing claims using terms like "SJWs" to avoid answering. I've answered everything, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
|
I mean, Trump said at the debates he's a big fan of Obama's immigration policy and that he was doing a great job. Trump just wants a wall on the whole border...for some reason.
|
On November 19 2016 07:46 TheTenthDoc wrote: I mean, Trump said at the debates he's a big fan of Obama's immigration policy and that he was doing a great job. Trump just wants a wall on the whole border...for some reason.
I'm not sure you should be questioning Trump on immigration, he got Sheriff Joe's endorsement.
|
On November 19 2016 07:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 07:28 Nebuchad wrote: Well xDaunt, it should strike you that while you are accusing people of dismissing claims using terms like "racism" to avoid answering, you are effectively dismissing claims using terms like "SJWs" to avoid answering. I've answered everything, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
And I described your answers as similar to someone saying that their opposition can be dismissed because it's racist. In the six to seven answers you've given, you've mentioned brainwashing, echo chambers, SJWisms, and SJWs (twice). We get the point. We should educate ourselves until we find out that you're right. We were just hoping that you would be the teacher.
|
Does this boil down to whether Bannon turning Breitbart into an alt-right newsground mean that Bannon is a white nationalist/supremist? How do you distinguish between the alt-right and white nationalism/supremism?
|
On November 19 2016 07:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 07:28 Nebuchad wrote: Well xDaunt, it should strike you that while you are accusing people of dismissing claims using terms like "racism" to avoid answering, you are effectively dismissing claims using terms like "SJWs" to avoid answering. I've answered everything, so I have no idea what you're talking about. And I described your answers as similar to someone saying that their opposition can be dismissed because it's racist. In the six to seven answers you've given, you've mentioned brainwashing, echo chambers, SJWisms, and SJWs (twice). We get the point. We should educate ourselves until we find out that you're right. We were just hoping that you would be the teacher. What do you want education on specifically? You folks are the ones who are asserting that Bannon is an anti-semite and white-supremacist, to which I responded show me the proof. I have yet to see it.
|
|
|
|