EPTIt turns out the BS probability tracker is just a tool they had to try to influence the decisions of the un-decided voters by faking the reality and making it seem like voting for Trump will be useless
I dislike Huffington Post but NYT is terrible.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6692
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
parkufarku
882 Posts
It turns out the BS probability tracker is just a tool they had to try to influence the decisions of the un-decided voters by faking the reality and making it seem like voting for Trump will be useless I dislike Huffington Post but NYT is terrible. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On January 30 2017 05:50 oBlade wrote: People keep circulating this thing about Giuliani without going into detail so I wanted to find a reference for us to catch his own words, because most of us don't have the TV on 24/7, and if we did it might not be on Fox: + Show Spoiler + What Guluanni says basically (11minish mark) is that Trump asked about how he could legally institute a Muslim specific ban. Guluanni and a bunch of other lawyers determined you couldn't base it on religion legally, so they went with "danger." Ofc that argument falls apart when you look at all the countries they did not ban. My, and many others, interpretation of this is that this is the closest Trump could get to a Muslim ban without outright doing it and without directly offending our few "allies" like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan. Or if you're more cynical, those off the list are to preserve his business interests there. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5304 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:00 On_Slaught wrote: What Guluanni says basically (11minish mark) is that Trump asked about how he could legally institute a Muslim specific ban. Guluanni and a bunch of other lawyers determined you couldn't base it on religion legally, so they went with "danger." Ofc that argument falls apart when you look at all the countries they did not ban. My, and many others, interpretation of this is that this is the closest Trump could get to a Muslim ban without outright doing it and without directly offending our few "allies" like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan. Or if your more cynical, those off the list are to preserve his business interests there. It's not a big coincidence that the Trump Organization doesn't have interests in countries that are terror hotbeds, instead having some businesses only in US allies. What countries would you want to see the order extended to based on risk? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21392 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:07 oBlade wrote: It's not a big coincidence that the Trump Organization doesn't have interests in countries that are terror hotbeds, instead having some businesses only in US allies. What countries would you want to see the order extended to based on risk? The biggest sponsor of terrorism in the region, Saudi Arabia for one? Lebanon? Pakistan? (note, I am not saying that they are missing because Trump has business there, they were often also missing from measures taken by previous administrations. Just naming some countries that should probably also be on such a list if you were to make one) | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
Or does Trump really believe that all the stewardesses, pilots etc who were working on flights to the US were in reality trying to either blow themselves up or somehow overstay their few hour stay there and become illegal immigrants? Or members of parliament who were on diplomatic exchanges... | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21392 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:13 mahrgell wrote: How about removing double passports of Central European allies? Especially as it is not only a ban on permanent immigration but a general travel ban. Or does Trump really believe that all the stewardesses, pilots etc who were working on flights to the US were in reality trying to either blow themselves up or somehow overstay their few hour stay there and become illegal immigrants? Or members of parliament who were on diplomatic exchanges... To avoid terrorists going to Europe. Apply as a refugee, get a passport and then go to the US for an attack. (don't agree with it, just stating why they would do it). | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote: To avoid terrorists going to Europe. Apply as a refugee, get a passport and then go to the US for an attack. (don't agree with it, just stating why they would do it). Hmmm... refugees do usually not suddenly get passports of their new host... | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On January 30 2017 05:57 parkufarku wrote: the way NYT handled this election / primaries made me quit going to their site. They are so biased that it's not even funny. I expected them to be more neutral as the biggest news source around. Maybe not completely neutral but still expected them to have some sort of neutral decency. Nope. Completely worked for the Establishment when zoning out Bernie and propping up Hillary. Then when general election comes, ignores all data and makes up some bullshit tracker on their front page that predicts Hillary will win 90% or something at the same exact day when another article on their front site specifically says it is predicted that Hillary won't do that well against Trump. It turns out the BS probability tracker is just a tool they had to try to influence the decisions of the un-decided voters by faking the reality and making it seem like voting for Trump will be useless I dislike Huffington Post but NYT is terrible. No evidence that the NYT predictions were rigged to inflate Hillary's chances, nor is there any evidence that favoring her in prediction algorithms would make her more likely to win. + Show Spoiler [offtopic re. Plansix] + Also, you're a spiteful person. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On January 30 2017 05:31 ZeromuS wrote: These people aren't new immigrants. They already have their green cards, they just happen to not be in the borders when a piece of paper was signed. I think being frozen from your assets for 3-4 months with no legal representation is inherently unjust. You are basically accepting that the US is selling out its fundamental legal and constitutional bedrock because of xenophobia. This is more than preventing new immigrants. If that was the case close borders to every single person in the world who doesnt have a valid visa/green card/citizenship. If you think the ideology behind this ban isn't a ban on muslims, then I don't know what to tell you. Even Rudy Guliani admitted to it on National American television. Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally. So I guess that's what we disagree on, you think it's an unfounded hate for muslim people, I don't (I'm an agnostic person, I think the world would be better without organized religion, but alas. That said, I think there's certain aims you can't achieve when people's beliefs are this divided by different religions, and in my eyes, the dislike for Muslim people has a genuine and legitimate argument, just not one that I agree with). On January 30 2017 06:23 TheYango wrote: It also excludes dual citizens, which makes that reasoning fundamentally ridiculous. If someone wanted to enter the US and do harm to US citizens, there would be better ways of going about it than "move to Germany as a refugee, stay for 15 years and go through the arduous process of becoming a citizen, then finally fly to the US". It will make it such that far fewer Muslim people make it to the US. In the eyes of some of the right, as much as 60% of the Muslim population are seen as a risk to Western society, if we're going to believe the research done that showed that some 50% or something Muslim people would prefer to have Sharia law in their countries, among other questions like stoning for adultery, etc. So it's not that 50% of Muslim people are going to try bombing US citizens, but it's 50% of Muslims support a shift closer to Islamic society, so they are all an indirect danger if you will. So it's not the cutting the bombing numbers down or whatever that is important (though that matters too), but it's about lowering the influx of Muslim people coming to your country. The US does want want to sabotage their relationships with every ally, so naturally and logically they wouldn't ban dual citizens from other countries from entering. I don't really know how you can fault the Trump administration for that. User was warned for this post | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28565 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote: Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally. So I guess that's what we disagree on, you think it's an unfounded hate for muslim people, I don't (I'm an agnostic person, I think the world would be better without organized religion, but alas. That said, I think there's certain aims you can't achieve when people's beliefs are this divided by different religions, and in my eyes, the dislike for Muslim people has a genuine and legitimate argument, just not one that I agree with). Iirc you were a fan of using race as a proxy for culture when talking about the US no longer being majority white as a problem. Worth asking, if an immigration policy were motivated by a belief that a higher population of brown people would be bad for the country, would you be prepared to write that off as xenophobic? Because if not wanting brown people around doesn't count as xenophobia I don't know what does. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5304 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote: The biggest sponsor of terrorism in the region, Saudi Arabia for one? Lebanon? Pakistan? (note, I am not saying that they are missing because Trump has business there, they were often also missing from measures taken by previous administrations. Just naming some countries that should probably also be on such a list if you were to make one) All I'm wanting to point out is if someone who believes what's going on is at the core a Muslim ban (covering countries with 134 million people of various religions compared to 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide), just a Muslim ban minus US allies like SA and Pakistan that we have complicated relationships (sell arms, one is a nuclear power, need oil) with and don't need to agitate randomly, it should be possible to recognize the possibility that the EO and goal here is not about religion/racism/etc., but about risk, minus those same countries for the exact same reasons. In other words, whether the root of the policy might be something you're for or against or ambivalent about, those other factors will always be there to consider. Also, the funneling of Wahhabi money to militant groups doesn't necessarily mean the US is facing the same risk from the pool of people going to the US from SA as from some other places. Everything might be fine on that front, in which case a travel ban would be more like a kind of sanction than a safety measure. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote: Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally. If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:28 ChristianS wrote: Iirc you were a fan of using race as a proxy for culture when talking about the US no longer being majority white as a problem. Worth asking, if an immigration policy were motivated by a belief that a higher population of brown people would be bad for the country, would you be prepared to write that off as xenophobic? Because if not wanting brown people around doesn't count as xenophobia I don't know what does. his dispute seems to be more about the colloquial definition of xenophobia (which is more general dislike of foreigners), vs the clinical definition (which is a phobia, an irrational fear by definition). the use of the phobia suffix has extended aways beyond it's clinical definition, so the confusion comes up some when people use different versions of the same word. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:28 ChristianS wrote: Iirc you were a fan of using race as a proxy for culture when talking about the US no longer being majority white as a problem. Worth asking, if an immigration policy were motivated by a belief that a higher population of brown people would be bad for the country, would you be prepared to write that off as xenophobic? Because if not wanting brown people around doesn't count as xenophobia I don't know what does. Look, it has very little to do with skin color, zero to do with skin color for me actually. It's all about the culture and way of life. Color and culture is merely a correlation, but often times it's one of the better measures we have... Since measuring things like loyalty or accountability can be difficult about people you know little about, especially when you're admitting hundreds of thousands of them a year, rather than say a hiring manager is getting 6 new employees this year. If a large population of brown people is lowering the happiness of the citizens of said country, then yeah sure, why not. But we try to make the people around us tolerant to things within reason, so if people are getting sad that there's a lot of brown people for that sole reason, then I think your country doesn't have the best people, but if that's what they want, then it's what they want. I know people here in Calgary that wont rent their houses to brown or native people, simply because the curry smell is hard to get rid of, and native people statistically trash the places more, I believe this is legal to do here. If the problems they were causing were greater than smelling up an apartment with food some people don't find appetizing, maybe you'd have an argument for not wanting any more of them. But anyway, xenophobic = irrational, if people just started hating on brown people tomorrow, yeah xenophobic, but if it was a build-up for genuine or perceived reasons, not xenophobic. It's no surprise we give preferential treatment to immigrants who follow our way of life, and when we bring immigrants from countries that are a bit different, often they need higher education standards, more money, etc. This is Canada btw. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17855 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote: To avoid terrorists going to Europe. Apply as a refugee, get a passport and then go to the US for an attack. (don't agree with it, just stating why they would do it). What you just blithely mentioned is a 10yr+ process. Pretty sure that even al quaeda didnt plan that far ahead for the twin towers... and they had their attackers get flying lessons to pull off the attack. | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote: It will make it such that far fewer Muslim people make it to the US. In the eyes of some of the right, as much as 60% of the Muslim population are seen as a risk to Western society, if we're going to believe the research done that showed that some 50% or something Muslim people would prefer to have Sharia law in their countries, among other questions like stoning for adultery, etc. So it's not that 50% of Muslim people are going to try bombing US citizens, but it's 50% of Muslims support a shift closer to Islamic society, so they are all an indirect danger if you will. So it's not the cutting the bombing numbers down or whatever that is important (though that matters too), but it's about lowering the influx of Muslim people coming to your country. The US does want want to sabotage their relationships with every ally, so naturally and logically they wouldn't ban dual citizens from other countries from entering. I don't really know how you can fault the Trump administration for that. So? A thought is not a crime. Having a preference is not a danger to society, so long as they've never acted on those preferences and it doesn't endanger my ability to hold my own beliefs. And a government willing to bar entry into its borders for people having certain thoughts or beliefs is a much greater danger to my ability to hold my own beliefs than any number of Muslims who think differently from me. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13379 Posts
On January 30 2017 05:31 ZeromuS wrote: These people aren't new immigrants. They already have their green cards, they just happen to not be in the borders when a piece of paper was signed. I think being frozen from your assets for 3-4 months with no legal representation is inherently unjust. You are basically accepting that the US is selling out its fundamental legal and constitutional bedrock because of xenophobia. This is more than preventing new immigrants. If that was the case close borders to every single person in the world who doesnt have a valid visa/green card/citizenship. If you think the ideology behind this ban isn't a ban on muslims, then I don't know what to tell you. Even Rudy Guliani admitted to it on National American television. Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally. So I guess that's what we disagree on, you think it's an unfounded hate for muslim people, I don't (I'm an agnostic person, I think the world would be better without organized religion, but alas. That said, I think there's certain aims you can't achieve when people's beliefs are this divided by different religions, and in my eyes, the dislike for Muslim people has a genuine and legitimate argument, just not one that I agree with). You are deflecting and pretending like the issue isn't xenophobia. You are pretending like xenophobia can only be irrational, but then cite that islam itself is bad for the country. Yes, actually blaming muslim majority countries that have no history of terrorism in the US as a reason to block them is highly irrational. You basically in your post that the hate for muslim people is founded, and that it justifies these actions. You've used flowery language and you are trying to sound like a smart and reasoned human being but you just said something horribly islamophobic. I basically consider those words racism. Your post here boils down to let me break this down and tell me if im wrong *but im not* Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally. -- High muslim populations are bad for America (the west) So I guess that's what we disagree on, you think it's an unfounded hate for muslim people, I don't -- Muslims are bad so its okay to hate them Then you throw in this gem in my eyes, the dislike for Muslim people has a genuine and legitimate argument, just not one that I agree with -- it is okay to hate muslims (after all you just described how muslims are bad for america and its okay to hate them) -- but I dont agree with it (way to deflect with a few words a hateful post) Now please tell me how I am supposed to interpret your words in a way different than you presented them? Because as far as I'm concerned you just dislike muslims, and as long as you aren't being targetted, and its the people you dislike because they happen to follow Islam then its okay. And I will call it what it is: racism/islamophobia/xenophobia/whatever fucking word you want to throw at it. Its hateful and its wrong and I'm sorry but whatever mental gymnastics you do for your own ego, I don't care. Its hate. Pure unadulterated hate. "But but islam isn't a race" - no its not but the word racism is a lot stronger than islamophobia. Anti-Islamite? Is that a term? Because I'm sure Anti-Semite is a terrible word that people instinctively don't want to be associated with. You don't want me to call you a racist I'm sure, or being an anti-islam individual so what other word do I apply to the hate you're throwing around here? | ||
| ||
