2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Chen
Posts: 5419
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:49 pm UTC

leady wrote:If judges were perfect AIs this view would be correct. In the real world judges are just people that make subjective judgements based on their own and prior interpretations of law and the validity and relevance of evidence provided. I look forward to you supporting a Texan Baptist judges views on the validity of abortion controls...


I'm pretty sure you can't get a judge to recuse themselves based on their religion or even what associations that belong (or belonged) to. More directed conflicts of interest seem to be necessary.

Also note a very key fact. The judge in this case had been hearing the case way before Trump talked about all his anti-Mexican issues. I'm also pretty sure you can't start performing behavior to try and make the judge suddenly have to recuse themselves. Consider the situation where you have a black judge residing over your trial and things aren't going well. You go decide to join the KKK and then call the judge biased so a new one needs to come in. You get a Jewish judge so you go join some Neo-Nazi group to again get them swapped out. You can't go shopping for judges like this.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:50 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Why on earth is that a problem?

Don't people, in general, believe that war should be engaged in because that decision will be better for their lives than otherwise? Why else would you engage in war? And what on earth is wrong with making money off of this activity, as opposed to any other?

Sure, people are routinely overly-optimistic over planning big projects such as wars, so their belief may be incorrect, but outside of error, why is this necessary function one that people shouldn't make money for?

And of course, it ends up being utterly non-actionable for us, the voters, even if you DO hate war somehow. It's not as if we have any options to vote for with a significantly different viewpoint.

Are you serious? Those who aren't pacifists generally see war as necessary in order to prevent a gross injustice (whether external to the country being warred upon or, depending on your viewpoint, internal to it), but there's a pretty solid consensus that going to war merely for economic enrichment is a vile thing and should be prevented. You seem to be taking the Genghis Khan perspective here.

I mean, your logic would imply that doctors should be poisoning and maiming people in order to get more patients.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10501
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:58 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:Are you serious? Those who aren't pacifists generally see war as necessary in order to prevent a gross injustice (whether external to the country being warred upon or, depending on your viewpoint, internal to it), but there's a pretty solid consensus that going to war merely for economic enrichment is a vile thing and should be prevented. You seem to be taking the Genghis Khan perspective here.

I mean, your logic would imply that doctors should be poisoning and maiming people in order to get more patients.


You've misunderstood the argument. The Genghis Khan model is not in any way realistic with modern militaries or war, and does not represent modern warfare whatsoever. It's irrelevant.

What seems to have you hot and bothered are that there is an industry which makes money off of war.

Yup. There is. There's an industry that makes money off of injury and illness. There's an industry for profiting off of disposing of corpses. Welcome to life. EVERY industry exists to make money. The fact that this particular one happens to make weapons is irrelevant.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:02 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:What seems to have you hot and bothered are that there is an industry which makes money off of war.

Not remotely – I have no objection to people making money in the business of war, sickness or any other social ill. The issue at hand is whether those people actively want more of that ill and advocate for it. As I indicated, MIC figures that help get hawkish politicians elected would seem perilously similar to a doctor or health insurer poisoning people for more business. Like Genghis Khan, you seem to think war for purely acquisitive purposes is a good thing.
Last edited by Lazar on Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10501
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:04 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:What seems to have you hot and bothered are that there is an industry which makes money off of war.

Not remotely. I have no objection to people making money in the business of war, illness or any other social ill. The issue at hand is whether those people actively want more of that ill and advocate for it. Like Genghis Khan, you seem to think war for purely acquisitive purposes is a good thing.


I have no idea how you are jumping to the last sentence.

I'm sure Lockheed Martin wants to sell a shitload of aircraft. To that end, they will gleefully promote their utility for all manner of conflict.

I'm sure they give roughly zero craps if they are used for wars of acquisition, wars of high minded morality, or what have you. It is, in the end, utterly irrelevant to them. The company isn't acquiring the land, why would they give a fig about it?

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:08 pm UTC

Dude, you just wrote this –

Don't people, in general, believe that war should be engaged in because that decision will be better for their lives than otherwise? Why else would you engage in war?

– in response to LaserGuy's point about people not merely making a living off war (which is only objectionable to a naif) but wanting it and, by implication, advocating for it. You appear to believe that any war is justified if those carrying it out can benefit from it and get away with it.

Again, someone in health care advocating for the utility of a drug or procedure is fine. Someone in health care advocating policies likely to injure or sicken people in order to sell that drug or procedure is not fine.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10501
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

I'm sure that doctors advocate for surgeries all the time. And why not? It's what they're good at. And it's often helpful. Someone should advocate for it, or we'd only hear the voices of those who advocate against.

Of *course* people advocate for things they profit off of. And they should. Their voices deserve to be heard. This includes advocating for war.

I note, however, that the thread of conspiratorial assumption of weapons manufacturers is amusing. The idea that they must somehow create war is hilarious. War has always been with us, long before any such corporate invention...and the number of deaths to war is actually falling at present. And yet, they can still sell *plenty* of equipment. It's almost like one doesn't need a war at all in order to sell the goods for one.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:23 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm sure that doctors advocate for surgeries all the time. And why not? It's what they're good at. And it's often helpful. Someone should advocate for it, or we'd only hear the voices of those who advocate against.

Of *course* people advocate for things they profit off of. And they should. Their voices deserve to be heard. This includes advocating for war.

Okay, you're being intentionally obtuse. I just said that advocating for the utility of a procedure or drug (analogous to military hardware) is not objectionable. But advocating for war, as a general position, is analogous to someone in health care advocating for sickness and injury, or for unnecessary surgeries or prescriptions. That's evil.

Making money in the business of suffering is not bad – it's even necessary – but it poses special ethical concerns which you seem to be aggressively dismissive of.
Exit the vampires' castle.

elasto
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:36 pm UTC

It's ironic in a laugh-lest-you-cry-way that in 1997 when Tony Blair's government was first elected they had as a core manifesto pledge to pursue an 'ethical foreign policy' in terms of ethical weapons trade and so forth.

...Cue the invasion of Iraq and perhaps the worst foreign policy disaster of the last half century...

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:58 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm sure that doctors advocate for surgeries all the time. And why not? It's what they're good at. And it's often helpful. Someone should advocate for it, or we'd only hear the voices of those who advocate against.

Of *course* people advocate for things they profit off of. And they should. Their voices deserve to be heard. This includes advocating for war.

Okay, you're being intentionally obtuse. I just said that advocating for the utility of a procedure or drug (analogous to military hardware) is not objectionable. But advocating for war, as a general position, is analogous to someone in health care advocating for sickness and injury, or for unnecessary surgeries or prescriptions. That's evil.


And should be expected behavior. Just because a doctor spent 10+ years in school doesn't change the fact that some of them are asshats. My sister worked for a doctor who knew about tons of unnecessary surgeries being conducted by his personal colleagues. Which is why the issue is about policy. What restrictions and laws do we write such that we are comfortable with these people in our country?

Selfish doctors will continue to exist after you and I die. Ditto with selfish people in general. Its why we have laws for insider trading and restrictions on political contributions.

In any case, the right for people to advertise their own services is part and parcel of free speech. So restrictions on that need to be levied carefully. The problem isn't in "people are being selfish" (at least, that's not a problem that anybody can correct). The problem needs to be in policy, the part of the equation that we actually can control.

See the Solar industry for supporting "green energy" but staying away from nuclear. They care less about actually solving the energy problem and more about incentives for their own industry (ex: net metering and anti-nuclear / anti-utility stances to cut out competition). That's fine, we just gotta keep it in mind while we're discussing politics with that group.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10501
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:22 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm sure that doctors advocate for surgeries all the time. And why not? It's what they're good at. And it's often helpful. Someone should advocate for it, or we'd only hear the voices of those who advocate against.

Of *course* people advocate for things they profit off of. And they should. Their voices deserve to be heard. This includes advocating for war.

Okay, you're being intentionally obtuse. I just said that advocating for the utility of a procedure or drug (analogous to military hardware) is not objectionable. But advocating for war, as a general position, is analogous to someone in health care advocating for sickness and injury, or for unnecessary surgeries or prescriptions. That's evil.

Making money in the business of suffering is not bad – it's even necessary – but it poses special ethical concerns which you seem to be aggressively dismissive of.


No. You're confusing your own analogy. War is not the equivalent of sickness. War is the equivalent of surgery. Potentially useful, potentially dangerous.

People totally can and do advocate for surgery and war. Sometimes, this includes when neither are warranted, because people. Medical professionals are as affected by incentives, error, and bias as everyone else. The man who makes scalpels is not intrinsically different from the man who makes bullets.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6153
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:36 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Gonna go out on a limb here and say that the military branches involved certainly benefit pretty directly from a successful warplane project.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say.... no. If the warplane is a naval warplane, and causes air force priorities to be... "altered" (because now we have this new naval warplane), and the air force generals miss promotions because they don't have the successful project they were pushing for in their own division, then the air force won't want the navy to get this warplane. They want their warplane funded. And the big expansion the army was hoping for, that won't be needed now that there's sufficient air cover from the navy (seen by the air force as inappropriately extending their reach), will cause the army to not benefit.

Even if the overall defense of the country is improved, the individual branches may not benefit, and some branches may suffer.

Also, this presupposes a successful warplane. The congressman's district benefits from an unsuccessful warplane just as much as (and perhaps more than) from a successful one. Why do it once when you can get paid to re-do it time and again? It's kind of like how you can make an entire career in Hollywood rewriting movie scripts that will never get made.

So, the congressman's definition of "success" is much different from the army's definition of "success", which is different from the people's definition of "success" (if the people even have a clue what's really going on).

Tyndmyr wrote:Definitions may not be entirely identical between involved people, but there's *got* to be pretty good agreement that the current state represents failure for all concerned.
Nope. And that's the cause of it.

Tyndmyr wrote:Don't people, in general, believe that war should be engaged in because that decision will be better for their lives than otherwise? Why else would you engage in war? And what on earth is wrong with making money off of this activity, as opposed to any other?
How is this different from armed robbery being justified by the same reasoning? People gotta make a living, and armed robbers simply make a living by waging war against individuals. In addition, they benefit society by providing employment for police...

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10501
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:58 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Don't people, in general, believe that war should be engaged in because that decision will be better for their lives than otherwise? Why else would you engage in war? And what on earth is wrong with making money off of this activity, as opposed to any other?
How is this different from armed robbery being justified by the same reasoning? People gotta make a living, and armed robbers simply make a living by waging war against individuals. In addition, they benefit society by providing employment for police...

Jose


Nonsense. Robbery is not war.

And the broken window fallacy is not the same as observing that nations do need defense.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6153
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Nonsense. Robbery is not war.
Sure it is. The fact that a gang of armed robbers targets a household does not make it substantially different than a gang of armed forces targeting a nation for plunder. And plunder is a time-honored reason for war.

It's the same, differing only in scale. The justification for going to war for pecuniary gain is the same.

What is different (which it seems might have been missed) is that there is a difference between citizens advocating that their nation conquer another (enriching the treasury), and arms manufacturers advocating that their nation go to war (drumming up business). In the one case, the citizens stand to benefit equally from the now enriched conquering nation, in the other, only the arms manufacturers stand to gain, directly through the act of war, and not through its resulting victory. And while I (and many others) don't object to arms manufacturers profiting from it, the objection comes when they begin profiteering from it.

That's the difference.

As to the broken windows, yes, I know (and was using) the fallacy to illuminate that advocating war for its own sake so that I can sell more arms and make more money, is pretty much the same reasoning that the window manufacturer might use to justify selling baseballs.

Jose
Last edited by ucim on Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:48 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:48 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:No. You're confusing your own analogy. War is not the equivalent of sickness. War is the equivalent of surgery. Potentially useful, potentially dangerous.

People totally can and do advocate for surgery and war. Sometimes, this includes when neither are warranted, because people. Medical professionals are as affected by incentives, error, and bias as everyone else. The man who makes scalpels is not intrinsically different from the man who makes bullets.

You're the one who's been confused, from the start. For the final time, the question at hand was about people who – all else being equal – want the country to be at war, purely because it benefits them. Now I'm not some huge dove, I don't believe the MIC on the whole is evil, and I think this particular argument verges too far on the academic – but you're the one who advanced the argument that blindly desiring war for personal gain is justifiable. This is unambiguously bad, just as a surgeon blindly desiring more surgery is bad. This isn't about advocating for a particular war or surgery (which is totally dependent on the cirumstances), but about literally desiring more suffering.

And yes, that's a lovely strawman you've constructed about bullet manufacturers. I, too, hate those nonexistent hippies who think that bullets need to be manufactured for free.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:59 pm UTC

Speaking of philosophical questions, what are we to make of Trump's overt racism? Is the GOP finally embracing overt racism over what used to be dog whistle racism? Or do we just blame Trump?
You know the old saying, a gaffe is when a politician stops lying to you.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:16 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Speaking of philosophical questions, what are we to make of Trump's overt racism? Is the GOP finally embracing overt racism over what used to be dog whistle racism? Or do we just blame Trump?


Rock and hard place. The consensus is that its better to support the nominee who was elected by the popular vote, rather than go against it with a 3rd party candidate. The options are limited. Attacking Trump means losing a ton of seats in the House. Supporting Trump means losing less seats in the House. So... no matter what... the GOP Leadership has to be in a position where they look like they're supporting Trump.

Its the reality of the situation: people attend Presidential elections to vote for the president. People kinda don't care about the rest of the ballot. Its a better political strategy to embrace Trump's supporters so that they vote Republican, rather than simply ceding everything to the Democrats.

The condemnation of Trump's comments has been swift and across the board. Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell... all condemned Trump's comments. There were even a few GOP Congressmen who retracted their endorsement.

The awkward "condemn the racist comments without condemning Trump himself" is sad to watch, but its the obvious political strategy given the situation.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:28 pm UTC

The MIC doesn't necessarily want to wage war. No matter what anybody here does, someone, somewhere, will wage wars. All the MIC have to do is make enough money from the US for R and D. Somebody will buy what they develop, somewhere. But once they make jobs somewhere in the US, nobody wants to kill those jobs. So it feeds itself. And as long as interventionists want to make the world a better place, we will have a large Military to feed the cycle. You don't need bad guys, just business people who are in business to make money.

sardia wrote:Speaking of philosophical questions, what are we to make of Trump's overt racism?
He is about ego more than racism. He is more like a Mugabe than a Hitler. He sees himself as someone who is destined to be President. Racism is just a convenient cudgel for him to wield. And if he can get there, he will be like Nixon on steroids, seeing enemies around every corner and using the bully pulpit to settle scores.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:37 pm UTC

But once they make jobs somewhere in the US, nobody wants to kill those jobs.


Is BRAC outside of people's memory already?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tr ... story.html

Its sometimes hard to close bases and stuff, especially because of their economic impact on rural America. But it happens all the time. Its probably easier to close a base in an urban area, where other jobs / corporations can step in and take over. But there's no real way to close the Sugar Grove base without screwing the town of Sugar Grove... since that town is so small.

But in the end, the wasteful spending ends eventually, so the base closes down.

DOD Secretary Ash Carter is asking Congress to authorize another BRAC round btw. So basically, the head of the military is asking for more bases to be closed (since the last BRAC was conducted over 10 years ago). Such is the current state of politics. (BRAC is good because of the process. BRAC commission gathers a list of bases. Congress / President can approve the entire list, or deny the whole list. They can't change the list. This removes pork from the equation... Congress can't play favorites with their own district. )

So... basically what I'm saying is... the issues of pork-barrel spending are well known, and processes have been invented to address them.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6153
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:20 am UTC

sardia wrote:Speaking of philosophical questions, what are we to make of Trump's overt racism?
He knows he can get away with it. He's playing us like a puppet master, and his phenomenal success says a lot about the American people. He's a symptom.

A very dangerous one, but a symptom nonetheless.

Americans are letting themselves be manipulated by their own anger, and letting Trump turn it into hatred, which is then used to quash the last semblance of rationality left. And political leaders are rallying round whatever center of power emerges. It's what they do. It's the difference between a politician and a statesman.

I'm not so worried about Trump 2016 as I am about Trump 2020.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:52 am UTC

Are there any examples as in quotes that can be shared? (Trump says a lot of things, but he's pretty careful with his words)

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1767
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: pew! pew! pew!

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:16 pm UTC

leady wrote:Are there any examples as in quotes that can be shared? (Trump says a lot of things, but he's pretty careful with his words)



"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Manhattan, June 16, 2015

“I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan. The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.”
Mexican border, 7/23/15

“total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” - written statement, 12/7/15

not a direct quote, but:
“And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” O’Donnell recalled Trump saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
(from a 1991 book by one of his former employees, who was a president at one of his hotels)

This is from less than 5 minutes of research.
"We have met the enemy, and we are they. Them? We is it. Whatever."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:29 pm UTC

From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:45 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Manhattan, June 16, 2015


Isn't racist

“I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan. The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.”
Mexican border, 7/23/15


Isn't racist

“total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” - written statement, 12/7/15


isn't racist

not a direct quote, but:
“And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” O’Donnell recalled Trump saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
(from a 1991 book by one of his former employees, who was a president at one of his hotels)


Is arguable hearsay of a mildly racial quip from over 20 years ago - and given what its relaying, i.e. Trumps actual hiring policies, kind of calls into question whether its racist.

This is from less than 5 minutes of research.


You see, this is kind of why Trump exists

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:30 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Fact checking from earlier:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/b ... ged-900689


I had no idea what that picture was aside from the fact that it was viral. Didn't even realize that was Trump-related. In any case, bloodied Trump supporters are a real thing due to asshats from about a week ago.

Image

Repost of a picture. It isn't superbloody, but its blood. On camera.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/201 ... upporters/

Yeah yeah, Breitbart or whatever. Doesn't change the fact that its camera evidence and supported by multiple media outlets. Breitbart just managed to get it all in one place, and as far as I can tell, the facts check out in this particular article.

-----------------

leady wrote:Are there any examples as in quotes that can be shared? (Trump says a lot of things, but he's pretty careful with his words)


I didn't realize what you were asking until eran_rathan posted.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/04/480714972 ... gainst-him

Calling a judge born in Indiana a "Mexican who should recuse himself from the case" is the textbook definition of racism (Paul Ryan's words)

Watch the full, uncut video as CNN Jake Tapper interviews Trump. Its very clear that Jake Tapper is basically saying "Dude, you're being racist. Lets give you... 23 more chances... for you to step back and realize you're being racist". The interview of Trump was outstandingly lenient on this guy.

Trump has been relatively careful with his words, saying racist-sounding things as opposed to actually racist things for a while. A Border Wall with Mexico isn't racist, its just insane border policy.

Spoiler:
A fence would do fine. And whatever you think about immigration, its unfair for illegals to cross the boarder while Asian / African / European immigrants are subject to more scrutiny. A wall also won't work to stop drug dealers or any of the problems in practice: the illegal children crossing the boarder last year wanted to be caught. They would have crossed at the gate. So the wall just... doesn't solve any fucking problem.

Mind you, Donald Trump has always said that the wall will come with a door. So its just an extremely expensive border fence.


I'll say his wall comments have been misconstrued as racist. But in recent days, this Judge Curiel crap is so clearly / overtly racist I dunno what the fuck Trump was thinking.

--------------

Oh yeah, as far as what Trump was doing that WAS racist of August or so last year... its.... any of the times he called protesters "Mexican" and "get them out of here". I can't find clips of this, its mostly from my memory as I listed to the rallies of the various candidates last year.

EDIT: Found it. I guess it was Feb of this year. My dates are getting mixed up.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:58 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10501
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:51 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:No. You're confusing your own analogy. War is not the equivalent of sickness. War is the equivalent of surgery. Potentially useful, potentially dangerous.

People totally can and do advocate for surgery and war. Sometimes, this includes when neither are warranted, because people. Medical professionals are as affected by incentives, error, and bias as everyone else. The man who makes scalpels is not intrinsically different from the man who makes bullets.

You're the one who's been confused, from the start. For the final time, the question at hand was about people who – all else being equal – want the country to be at war, purely because it benefits them. Now I'm not some huge dove, I don't believe the MIC on the whole is evil, and I think this particular argument verges too far on the academic – but you're the one who advanced the argument that blindly desiring war for personal gain is justifiable. This is unambiguously bad, just as a surgeon blindly desiring more surgery is bad. This isn't about advocating for a particular war or surgery (which is totally dependent on the cirumstances), but about literally desiring more suffering.


People are just going to be biased. The surgeon is going to look to fix problems with surgery if applicable. The guy who sells weapons is going to try to find an angle to sell weapons. People are always going to be biased towards their own self interest, particularly when it overlaps with their experience.

They do not "literally desire more suffering". To believe this is to fundamentally misunderstand how bias works. Yes, it may CAUSE that, but that's not the goal. The goal is to make money, along with genuinely believing they are solving problems. Which in some cases, may even be true.

ucim wrote:I'm not so worried about Trump 2016 as I am about Trump 2020.

Jose


Statistically speaking, winning a second term appears to be significantly easier than winning a first.

leady wrote:Are there any examples as in quotes that can be shared? (Trump says a lot of things, but he's pretty careful with his words)


I would not categorize him as pretty careful with his words. There's a plan there, to be sure, but it seems to include a great deal of saying whatever pops into his head. The unfiltered nature gets him credit for "honesty", and the "gaffes" only ensure continuing media attention, so it totally works, but he's not putting a lot of effort into consistency or coherency in details.

That said, the examples listed by Eran, while not very good policy, are probably not good evidence of Trump's racism. Discrimination by religion and/or nationality is not quite the same thing. And of course, the old hearsay isn't going to get you very far. Don't get me wrong, I believe that Trump *is* casually racist, but bringing up examples like this or treating the fact as obvious, and not worthy of justification makes it very easy for all such allegations to be casually dismissed.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:03 pm UTC

Surely you'd have to be a stringent "not one dropper" to suggest that Gonzalo Curiel is anything other than a white Spanish descendent?

I always figured "the wall" TM was a essentially a secure border fence, i.e. to stop people getting to the US side without having to traverse the no mans land of a border crossing and hence shut out most of the issue of people swimming the Rio Grande and climbing fences etc. Being British I do find land borders strangely fascinating :) (yes I have been in car and driven miles into Ireland from Londonderry, only realising once I noticed the road signs had changed)

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11262
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:04 pm UTC

Trump has been relatively careful with his words, saying racist-sounding things as opposed to actually racist things for a while.

The majesty of that sentence really made my morning.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:05 pm UTC

Here's the thing about Trump: he uses language like a racist. Because... as far as I can tell, he is a racist.

But that doesn't mean that all of his racist-sounding comments are racist. In fact, a lot of them are just racist sounding... using the language that racists jackasses use without actually crossing over the line.

A lot of Republicans, who do the 5-minute google search thing, will see Trump making a comment that is similar to that "racist sounding but not really racist comment". (IE: Border wall with Mexico. Discussion of immigration policy with liberals immediately gets you blasted as a racist).

So this goes back to the "left has been calling the right racist so much, that its become a boy cries wolf scenario". Republicans just don't believe it when liberal outlets call someone racist anymore. And most of the "racist sounding" things that Trump says aren't actually racist. It takes a good memory across multiple months to actually pick out the few things that were overtly racist from Trump.

leady wrote:Surely you'd have to be a stringent "not one dropper" to suggest that Gonzalo Curiel is anything other than a white Spanish descendent?


That's not the issue. Trump is calling for the judge to recuse himself. That the judge cannot effectively do his job because "He's of Mexican heritage" (Trump's interview with CNN, I linked earlier)

That's pretty fucking overt racism.

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Trump has been relatively careful with his words, saying racist-sounding things as opposed to actually racist things for a while.

The majesty of that sentence really made my morning.


Its a problem because non-racists do slip and make mistakes, saying racist-sounding things on occasion. Then they get blasted by the media for "getting close to racism" and usually they step back. Trump is clearly an overt racist. But I stand by what I said earlier. A lot of what he's talking about doesn't really cross the line into actual racism.

As I discussed earlier: most Trump supporters I talk to do not think Trump is racist. They think it is liberal propaganda. It takes a lot of effort for me to think up specific examples where Trump is clearly racist and to talk about them when I'm talking to Trump supporters.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:13 pm UTC

When rich white people can be racist towards other rich white people the term is being misused

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1767
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: pew! pew! pew!

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:18 pm UTC

I suppose the whole birther nonsense Trump was in the middle of doesn't count as racism either, eh?
"We have met the enemy, and we are they. Them? We is it. Whatever."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:19 pm UTC

leady wrote:When rich white people can be racist towards other rich white people the term is being misused


Are you seriously saying Trump's comments are not racist because Judge Curiel is whiter than a "mestizo" ?? Cause you're trolling quite hard right now. His parents were born in Mexico, he's a 2nd generation American. Trump's attacks vs him are pretty racist.

eran_rathan wrote:I suppose the whole birther nonsense Trump was in the middle of doesn't count as racism either, eh?


Lol, low hanging fruit. Too easy, I was going to pick something else. :oops: :oops: I should bring that up more in discussion though...
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10501
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:24 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Here's the thing about Trump: he uses language like a racist. Because... as far as I can tell, he is a racist.

But that doesn't mean that all of his racist-sounding comments are racist. In fact, a lot of them are just racist sounding... using the language that racists jackasses use without actually crossing over the line.

A lot of Republicans, who do the 5-minute google search thing, will see Trump making a comment that is similar to that "racist sounding but not really racist comment". (IE: Border wall with Mexico. Discussion of immigration policy with liberals immediately gets you blasted as a racist).

So this goes back to the "left has been calling the right racist so much, that its become a boy cries wolf scenario". Republicans just don't believe it when liberal outlets call someone racist anymore. And most of the "racist sounding" things that Trump says aren't actually racist. It takes a good memory across multiple months to actually pick out the few things that were overtly racist from Trump.


Precisely. All the arguing ends up around the things that are not, technically, racist. But still really stupid.

leady wrote:Surely you'd have to be a stringent "not one dropper" to suggest that Gonzalo Curiel is anything other than a white Spanish descendent?


That's not the issue. Trump is calling for the judge to recuse himself. That the judge cannot effectively do his job because "He's of Mexican heritage" (Trump's interview with CNN, I linked earlier)

That's pretty fucking overt racism.


No. Hispanic is racist, Mexican is a nationality. There's a very, very fine point here, and yes, one can extremely easily infer that someone making this argument is doing so as the thinnest of covers for racism, but *that* particular statement ends up being a poor example. (Rest assured that Trump has also made similar statements using the word "Hispanic". We're discussing the validity of this example, not his racism per se)

So, then people end up discussing the judge's memberships in ethnically based organizations, and discussing the judge, rather than Trump.

leady wrote:When rich white people can be racist towards other rich white people the term is being misused


Why? You can totally be racist against people of your own color. And wealth doesn't make you incapable of racism.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:28 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
leady wrote:When rich white people can be racist towards other rich white people the term is being misused


Are you seriously saying Trump's comments are not racist because Judge Curiel is whiter than a "mestizo" ?? Cause you're trolling quite hard right now. His parents were born in Mexico, he's a 2nd generation American. Trump's attacks vs him are pretty racist.


pretty much yeah and I'm not a particular "words have meaning" sort of person.

If a French politician advocating against Spain, had a Spanish descended Judge in a pro-spain social club ruling over a civil lawsuit, I suspect close to zero people would call it racist to highlight the potential conflict of interest.

DanD
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby DanD » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:46 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
No. Hispanic is racist, Mexican is a nationality. There's a very, very fine point here, and yes, one can extremely easily infer that someone making this argument is doing so as the thinnest of covers for racism, but *that* particular statement ends up being a poor example. (Rest assured that Trump has also made similar statements using the word "Hispanic". We're discussing the validity of this example, not his racism per se)


It's not actually a correct point, which makes it very fine. Race is a social concept, not a biological one. Therefore, it doesn't actually have hard and fast borders to say "this is a race, that isn't".

Given that (one of) the defintions is
2
a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
a nation of origin meets the criteria.

However, in this particular case, since Trump routinely uses "Mexican" interchangeably with "Hispanic", the comment is racist in the broadest sense as well.

And even bringing up this point is essentially like stating someone isn't a bank robber because they've only stolen from Credit Unions.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:54 pm UTC

leady wrote:When rich white people can be racist towards other rich white people the term is being misused

You're wrong because you're British and biased. You have an inherent conflict because of your heritage against seeing racism. You cannot make accurate judgements on how racist Trump is.
Leady, what's the definition of racism again?
Edit: ninja'd. :?

In related news, did anyone catch that Trump donated thousands of dollars to attorneys running for office and then the lawsuits the attorneys were in charge of against Trump mysteriously ended?
Last edited by sardia on Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:57 pm UTC

leady wrote:If a French politician advocating against Spain, had a Spanish descended Judge in a pro-spain social club ruling over a civil lawsuit, I suspect close to zero people would call it racist to highlight the potential conflict of interest.
Who knows. But his own party seems to think it was racist, as does a significant swath of the country. And in the end elections are about what the public thinks, not the truth of the matter, otherwise Trump wouldn't be the nominee. By that reasoning no Hispanic could be a Judge in that trial and Trump could put any judge of any ethnicity in the same position by taking an unpopular stand in any issue peculiar to that ethnicity. And has done so with Muslims. So what, maybe an Englishmen next? Or a Scot?

WaterToFire
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:09 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby WaterToFire » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:59 pm UTC

leady wrote:pretty much yeah and I'm not a particular "words have meaning" sort of person.

If a French politician advocating against Spain, had a Spanish descended Judge in a pro-spain social club ruling over a civil lawsuit, I suspect close to zero people would call it racist to highlight the potential conflict of interest.


Politicians (and people) advocate against all sorts of other groups all the time. This includes competitor nations, ethnic groups, socioeconomic classes, and industries, to name a few. It sounds like you're proposing that a conflict of interest emerges when a politician is to be judged by a judge who's a member of any group that said politician has spoken out against. Doesn't this incentivize politicians to say nasty stuff or propose antagonistic laws against groups that include the judge who's overseeing their case, if they want a different judge?

Remember, the case at hand is about Trump University. It has nothing to do with Mexico or the border wall or ethnicity. So if we say this is a conflict of interest requiring a recusal, it sounds like we have to outline a few more cases where recusals are necessary when overseeing politicians (or anyone?):

- Only white judges can oversee cases where the defendant has ever made a proposal or statement against minorities
- Only male judges can oversee cases where the defendant has ever made a misogynistic statement or proposal
- Only poor (?) judges can oversee cases where the defendant has ever made a statement against the rich or proposed higher taxes on the rich
- You can probably force a recusal by making any sort of statement against the judge's interest. Doesn't matter if it's related to the case, you just have to find out the judge's background and propose something nasty. Bam, conflict of interest.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:19 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You're wrong because you're British and biased. You have an inherent conflict because of your heritage against seeing racism. You cannot make accurate judgements on how racist Trump is.
Leady, what's the definition of racism again?


Well that's quite possible :)

Who knows. But his own party seems to think it was racist, as does a significant swath of the country. And in the end elections are about what the public thinks, not the truth of the matter, otherwise Trump wouldn't be the nominee. By that reasoning no Hispanic could be a Judge in that trial and Trump could put any judge of any ethnicity in the same position by taking an unpopular stand in any issue peculiar to that ethnicity. And has done so with Muslims. So what, maybe an Englishmen next? Or a Scot?


Oh I don't think that it should succeed as a gambit, but both as a legal "try it on" tactic and actually as political "pre-load my support base that outcome is biased" its quite clever, whilst only being a little underhanded. I mean its hardly a novel tactic in the legal system.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6098
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:21 pm UTC

Let's be more charitable with our argument. How about, Trump is blowing smoke, whining, etc etc and nothing he says is actionable. Why can't we condemn him and drop our endorsements?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests