2016 US Presidential Election

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:59 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Where has he self identified as a white supremacist?
I was talking about David Duke. Who I'm pretty sure literally calls himself a white supremacist.


Oh, probably. I missed the shift, and thought we were talking about Bannon.

The Great Hippo wrote:
zmic wrote:We've seen a few examples of this. Trump shoots of his mouth, gets burned, and then never does it again. He is a fast learner.
Nothing we've seen from Trump implies he's learning, nevermind learning "fast".

Are you familiar with Mark Twain's short story, "Luck"? Trump seems like a good candidate for that, except far more malevolent, and more an implication of the system that protected and rewarded his incompetence than a bizarre confluence of coincidences.

Trump's victory says very little about Trump; it says a *lot* about American politics.


Everyone learns. They simply often learn things that are not the lesson we were hoping they would learn. Trump, for instance, has likely learned that many things people say won't work, will. People around him, constantly saying "you can't say that" are over-cautious, apparently.

It's common to discount the opposition as idiots, but that's rarely true.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:04 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:What about a Muslim Registry, because when we interned Japanese during WW2 it was such a good idea?

I guess that's religionist, instead of racist though. But its certainly within the spirit of the white-nationalist movement.


Do you honestly believe there isn't a database yet with every single foreign Muslim currently residing in the USA?


Depends on what you mean by that.

The database of foreign travelers exists: its called the Visa system. (At least, every legal traveler is on the Visa database). But to discriminate them based on religion is a blatant disregard for the 1st Amendment, and as such, it wouldn't be based on the Muslim-ness of our visitors.

There are currently no programs to determine the religion of Visa holders. So no, there's certainly no program that documents foreign Muslims in this country. Only foreigners in general, where they're from, and their purpose of travel.

The First Amendment wrote:The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:07 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:05 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:
Lucrece wrote:I'm getting swamped with Godwins, and now strawman


Then three lines under

Lucrece wrote:It's impossible to argue against inaccurate criticism of Trump in this forum without being accused of wanting to launch the clown-elect into sainthood or shield him from deserved criticism.


Look at that glass house you've got there. It'd be a shame if something were to... happen to it.



Take a slav and a german and you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference.


:lol:
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:07 pm UTC

You know what they say, a context-less quotation and an emoticon are all you need to refute someone's argument.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:14 pm UTC

No, that was just me laughing at your idea that germans and slavs were visually indistinguishable. Guess I'll start calling Hindus/Indians African Americans by next week, since it's all "arbitrary designations" anyways.
Last edited by Lucrece on Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:16 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:14 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:You know what they say, a context-less quotation and an emoticon are all you need to refute someone's argument.


Lets hold up here, because there's a lot going on culturally that isn't getting communicated.

Depending on where you've come from on the internet, there are varying slants of racism that need to get discussed. Racialists, Racists, White Supremisists, Xenophobes, etc. etc. These labels define different actions. Perhaps if you squint enough they all look the same but... not really. There really is a difference.

Its really difficult to discuss these subtleties, and believe me... these subtleties matter... because some actions which look racist are really "Racialist" or perhaps "Xenophobic". These distinctions are made because there is a different amount of moral decay associated with each one. "Racism" and "Xenophobia" are universally despised, but Racialism is not.

Now to a lot of people, these subtleties don't matter. I think what I can say is Trump is definitely a Racialist, especially during his Judge Curiel incident.

But to actually call him racist requires you to bring forth evidence above and beyond just normal Racialism.

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

On the other hand: Lucrece needs to recognize that a lot of people don't give a damn about these subtleties, and that Racialism (for example) is all that is needed to prove someone is racist.

********

And that's the problem with this discussion in a nutshell.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7203
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:18 pm UTC

Also, since it was edited in:
Lucrece wrote: I already condemned him, yet all the reaction I'm getting is as if I'm actually defending his views.
I highly doubt anyone here thinks you're defending Trump. I also highly doubt anyone here thinks you believe Trump isn't guilty of plenty of racism.

Rather, the problem is that you're so deadset on criticizing and blaming the "bad" liberals for Trump that you'll take an absurdly obtuse position and defend it to the death just because it paints liberals who *aren't* you as pearl-clutching manufacturers of fake indignation.

You feel like the people who were more concerned with complaining about Trump on Facebook -- rather than going out and actually working to defeat this horseshit -- have put you and everyone else in jeopardy. We get it.

But if this "xenophobic" vs "racist" BS is the hill you want to die on, I don't think you're going to fair much better.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:24 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Also, since it was edited in:
Lucrece wrote: I already condemned him, yet all the reaction I'm getting is as if I'm actually defending his views.
I highly doubt anyone here thinks you're defending Trump. I also highly doubt anyone here thinks you believe Trump isn't guilty of plenty of racism.

Rather, the problem is that you're so deadset on criticizing and blaming the "bad" liberals for Trump that you'll take an absurdly obtuse position and defend it to the death just because it paints liberals who *aren't* you as pearl-clutching manufacturers of fake indignation.

You feel like the people who were more concerned with complaining about Trump on Facebook -- rather than going out and actually working to defeat this horseshit -- have put you and everyone else in jeopardy. We get it.

But if this "xenophobic" vs "racist" BS is the hill you want to die on, I don't think you're going to fair much better.


This is not about bad liberals. As it's been brought up, Paul Ryan seized on that opportunity to try and undermine Trump. I don't care who does it. It just doesn't help when they do because what you get in response is a bunch of vexed white people saying, for better or worse, that they hear racist brought up so much, that they're just inclined to dismiss charges related to it altogether.

Which is how you explain so many white women voting for a man who they believe is not a misogynist despite ample evidence, because the likes of Mitt Romney were pilloried over binders full of women (what a stupid distraction from his real misogynistic positions on abortion, for example).

And now that shit spreads to all political debates. MRA's fixate on misandry, aggrieved pro-Israelites call every opponent anti-Semitic, and people who criticize Christianity as a philosophy are bigots.
Last edited by Lucrece on Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:25 pm UTC

There are Trump-supporting extremists, like zmic, and then there are false-equivalence moderates, like Lucrece. They are about equally aggravating to interact with, albeit for different reasons. (The true Trump-supporters are more racist, for example, but the false-equivalence moderates somewhat make up for that with their superior to both smugness.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:27 pm UTC

And then there are snooty dipshits who become indignant and start splitting hairs to save face when a google search proves an accusation wrong. Forum posting is a taxing activity when everyone is a crusader of some sort.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby zmic » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:37 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The database of foreign travelers exists: its called the Visa system. (At least, every legal traveler is on the Visa database). But to discriminate them based on religion is a blatant disregard for the 1st Amendment, and as such, it wouldn't be based on the Muslim-ness of our visitors.

There are currently no programs to determine the religion of Visa holders. So no, there's certainly no program that documents foreign Muslims in this country. Only foreigners in general, where they're from, and their purpose of travel.


How can you be so sure of that? We don't know everything that NSA at allii are up to.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:39 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The database of foreign travelers exists: its called the Visa system. (At least, every legal traveler is on the Visa database). But to discriminate them based on religion is a blatant disregard for the 1st Amendment, and as such, it wouldn't be based on the Muslim-ness of our visitors.

There are currently no programs to determine the religion of Visa holders. So no, there's certainly no program that documents foreign Muslims in this country. Only foreigners in general, where they're from, and their purpose of travel.


How can you be so sure of that? We don't know everything that NSA at allii are up to.


Because we have a process of interviewing every foreigner that enters this country. Its called the State Department. Its not even secret.

I dunno how else to explain it to you. Why should we secretly be collecting data when we already have a public legal requirement to interview every single immigrant / visitor? Its just more efficient to handle that sort of stuff at the State Department, where those Visa interviews take place.

Unless you think its somehow feasible to secretly keep tabs on the millions of Visa holders? No, what happens is that the FBI (The Federal Police in charge of this stuff) whatever get tips from our allies with respect to which foreign travelers are at high risk, and then focus on spying on those individuals. But there's no specific targeting of religion going on.

Did you not look at the backlash of the Tsarnaev brothers? That was the FBI's problem, for ignoring the intelligence from Russia that the elder brother was a high-risk individual.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:46 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:44 pm UTC

(For some reason, an hour or so of messages racked betwixt the point I started this message, in reply to the latest message on the thread by I-don't-know-who-now and eventually posted. I don't know where the time went! Maybe too much (unreferenced) side-research on another tab.)

'Race' is a nonsensical term predicated upon a historic misunderstanding that humans come in distinct and separable forms primarily based upon a skin-colour that is immutable* that there has never been a legitimate offspring from a mixed-'race' coupling (where the most charitable views instead accept it happens but subscribe to the "not one drop" exclusivity of the "white" race) and disavows that the mediteranean Europeans can have darker 'light skins' than various Africans who have lighter 'dark skins' (never mind tanning salons in the UK and skin-bleachers in India both acting to artificially raise their customer's self/societally-perceived 'class' in opposing and overlapping ways).

Race is, really, just a classification based upon first impressions and sustained by traditions, and I don't see any evidence why the sound of a strong Polish accent cannot (as it has been) trigger a feeling of 'other race'ness towards a practically identical looking so-called-Caucasian person and be called racism and xenophobia.

Not that I expect it to be simple. Across the Catholic/Protestant divide in Belfast there might be an ethnocentric prejudice that can be termed xenophobic, for example, even if there has been actually less genetic mixing than between (say) afro-asian Bangladeshi and asian-african Ugandan nth-generation immigrants now polarising in inter-gang conflicts in some part or other of London.


* Except when it isn't, because of when educating native african children has made them 'whiter' in the missionary educator's eyes.
Last edited by Soupspoon on Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:51 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:47 pm UTC

Problem is you couldn't even track religion if you wanted to as there's no reasonable way to gauge religiosity accurately anyways. The moment people catch wind of profiling, they'll just adjust their public displays into mere theater to feign the religions that don't get you in trouble.

Sort of how Santeria took root in much of Latin America as a way for African slaves to preserve their religious roots under the veneer of Christianity.

Profiling Muslims is a Sisyphean task. It's just one more of the campaign promises Trump won't be able to make good on. If he tries a blanket ban on Syrian refuges or zones with large Muslim populations, he runs the risk of being accused of turning away Christian refugees (who flee sectarian persecution to which Republicans are keen to exploit), which wouldn't play well with his base.

Just like that wall. I imagine when he realizes how costly/useless a wall is, he's just gonna talk his way out of it by simply hiring more officers to enforce border control.
Last edited by Lucrece on Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:51 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:48 pm UTC

People keep acting like the idea of strict scrutiny of immigrants, visitors, etc is a new thing. Not, yknow, business as usual.

It's baffling.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7203
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:50 pm UTC

I'd just say that race is super-complicated, and hair-splitting between xenophobia and racism -- something I highly doubt proponents of racism would even bother to do themselves -- only increases that complexity while providing little to no real gain.

edit: Meant as a reply to Soupspoon.

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:58 pm UTC

zmic wrote:Do you honestly believe there isn't a database yet with every single foreign Muslim currently residing in the USA?

Ah. It's the 'he (probably) did it first!' defence.

If and when Obama or anyone else acts unconstitutionally, immorally or whatever else, you'll notice us here especially jump on it like a ton of bricks. eg. the various wikileaks revelations.

Obama has been a huge disappointment in many ways. That is not a good reason to go for someone not simply worse but proud of it.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11092
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:06 pm UTC

Yes, you can be racist by thinking that Irish are all inheritly scum or inferior to the British. That is racism.

Racism in the USA that is anti-Black has a richer history than other forms of racism. But anti-irish racism, anti-slavic racism, anti-japanese racism, anti-oriental racism, and anti-hispanic racism are all other kinds of racism.

However, if your point is "I define racism one particular way, and the kind of ethnic xenophobia Trump explicitly supports and talks about does not align with it perfectly (just, ya know, mostly), as such Trump is not a racist", I really don't care.

---

Again, zmic, can you give specific policies that Trump has advocated for that would qualify as racist? How about some ethic xenophobic ones that would not qualify as racist, just ethnically xenophobic?

It is your position that, if Trump went and took a bunch of proud KKK members and gave them control of the government, this would be zero evidence that Trump himself was racist?

Again, if Trump went and said he was going to do some explicitly racist action (I'm not sure what would qualify for you!), that wouldn't count, because it would just be talk?

Can give a single example of something that Trump could do that would actually be evidence of racism to you?
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:14 pm UTC

Hispanics: Analysis focuses on the “fast-growing” Hispanic vote, but the Hispanic share of the electorate has actually increased glacially. It was 8 percent of the electorate in 2004, 9 percent in 2008, 10 percent in 2012, and 11 percent in 2016. If we rely on the census data for the electorate, it has been even smaller. The fact that Hispanics are increasingly adopting a “white” identity (what Reihan Salam calls “racial attrition”) may blunt this growth in the future.

Moreover, I’ve long believed that analysis of what motivates Hispanic voters misses the mark. White and liberal analysts are far too reductionist when it comes to these voters, and for some reason have decided that immigration reform is a make-or-break issue for them. This ignores an awful lot of contrary evidence, such as the fact that a majority of Hispanic voters told exit pollsters in 2008 that immigration reform wasn’t important to them, or voted Republican anyway. It ignores the fact that sizeable minorities of Hispanics voted for anti-illegal immigration candidates such as Jan Brewer and Sharron Angle. It ignores the fact that a large number of Hispanic voters backed Propositions 187 and 209 in California, and so forth.

I was always skeptical (though not entirely dismissive) of the idea that Hispanic voters were on their way to voting like African-American voters. Given that Donald Trump has likely out-performed Mitt Romney among Hispanics, I think it is safe to say that 27 percent represents something of a floor for Republicans. It could be the case that Republicans will suffer further erosion here over time, but given that, over the long term, the Hispanic vote has gradually become more Republican (Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter and George McGovern all won larger shares of the Hispanic vote than Obama did in 2012), and that Hispanics become more Republican as they move from the border to the burbs, and that Hispanic immigration has for now leveled off, it may also be the case that the Republican share of this vote will grow.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 32363.html

Thought it relevant because earlier someone brought out the idea that minorities don't vote as much as whites, and the article discusses that by adjusting for socioeconomic status, African Americans voted just as often if not more than whites.

African American turn out did not cost Hillary the elections. We can't even say she had a minority to problem, because the trend for Hispanics to lean Republican more and more as they assimilate has been an issue for a while. Can't scapegoat minority turnout; it just so happens that more of that minority turnout is diversifying while low class whites have become even more polarized.
Last edited by Lucrece on Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:16 pm UTC

A big issue is that the "Hispanic vote" is not monolithic. An ex-Cuban is different from an immigrant from Mexico in many ways. It's not a particularly sound identifier. Yeah, you can categorize them that way, but a single explanation for all of them is...rough at best.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:20 pm UTC

Cubans are a heavy part of what tilted Trump to victory and that lazy bum Marco Rubio to re-election (despite being blatantly negligent with the dereliction of his legislative duties) in Florida. Obama chose the worst time possible with US-Cuba relations to inflame the Cuban exile population. He and other Democrats essentially sabotaged Florida for Hillary.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7516
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:22 pm UTC

Problem is you couldn't even track religion if you wanted to as there's no reasonable way to gauge religiosity accurately anyways

That's true if you are worried about false positives in your database. But by the time you want to a database of all Muslims because they might be terrorists, it's safe to say that false positives are not high on the worry list anymore. You just put in all practising Muslims, plus all formerly practising Muslims, plus the children and partners of such, and practitioners of religions that look suspiciously like Islam, etc.

Edit: the previous version of the database just tracked every man over 16 from a set of mostly-muslim countries.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:32 pm UTC

That's true, but the many ways to game that database if you want to keep that database up to date as a real snapshot of who's in the country at the time you're making policy decisions makes the effort so inefficient. How do you go from distinguishing practicing Muslims who are secularized enough that they wear no religious paraphernalia and practice privately? What about western recruits who convert inside the country without an entry interview?

You'd be catching the more orthodox ones, which I suppose is good enough for people who think that the overt practitioners are more likely to radicalize than occult/secular ones. It's a questionable dedication of manpower when there is already venues for detecting radicalization as despite Trump's claims, Muslims do report other Muslims to the authorities when they notice something's gone wrong. Liaisons to the communities seem far more useful and less likely to invite political outrage and partisan obstruction.
Last edited by Lucrece on Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:34 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Problem is you couldn't even track religion if you wanted to as there's no reasonable way to gauge religiosity accurately anyways

That's true if you are worried about false positives in your database. But by the time you want to a database of all Muslims because they might be terrorists, it's safe to say that false positives are not high on the worry list anymore. You just put in all practising Muslims, plus all formerly practising Muslims, plus the children and partners of such, and practitioners of religions that look suspiciously like Islam, etc.

Edit: the previous version of the database just tracked every man over 16 from a set of mostly-muslim countries.


At that point, you're discriminating on gender and nationality, not religion, really.

I wonder how much predictive power it had. I mean, the male thing...probably decent correlation there.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby zmic » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:40 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Again, zmic, can you give specific policies that Trump has advocated for that would qualify as racist? How about some ethic xenophobic ones that would not qualify as racist, just ethnically xenophobic?

It is your position that, if Trump went and took a bunch of proud KKK members and gave them control of the government, this would be zero evidence that Trump himself was racist?


Assuming that said KKK members then proceed to do racist stuff, yes that would be racist. Trump is responsible for what his government does. He is not responsible for whatever his cabinet members think, or said in the past.

Again, if Trump went and said he was going to do some explicitly racist action (I'm not sure what would qualify for you!), that wouldn't count, because it would just be talk?


It would count as racist talk. And if someone talks racist all the time, I would consider that person a racist.

Can give a single example of something that Trump could do that would actually be evidence of racism to you?


Anything that is generally accepted as racist.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11092
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

But, promoting and complementing and giving power to people whose claim to fame is being racist is generally accepted as racist. I mean, there are people who disagree, but there are people who would

"That KKK leader is a great guy, I trust his judgement, he'll be in charge of education policy for me."

Yet you don't seem to agree. That, to you, is neutral with regards to being racist.

So be specific. Describe actual actions you'd view as racist. Kicking black people out of buildings he owns? Saying that people of a particular ethnicity, or a subgroup of such, are rapists, despite the fact that as far as we can tell they are less likely to? Picking a religion with few white followers and arranging for a national registration be developed for it?
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby zmic » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:09 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:But, promoting and complementing and giving power to people whose claim to fame is being racist is generally accepted as racist. I mean, there are people who disagree, but there are people who would

"That KKK leader is a great guy, I trust his judgement, he'll be in charge of education policy for me."

Yet you don't seem to agree. That, to you, is neutral with regards to being racist.


Yes. In general, I believe that racists should be given more opportunities, rather than less. The more people are allowed to develop as human beings, the less likely they are to be racist. Love trumps hate.

So be specific. Describe actual actions you'd view as racist. Kicking black people out of buildings he owns? Saying that people of a particular ethnicity, or a subgroup of such, are rapists, despite the fact that as far as we can tell they are less likely to? Picking a religion with few white followers and arranging for a national registration be developed for it?


Yes, all those things would qualify as racist. Trump did the first thing, in the 1970s. He said the second thing, once. He will probably not do the third.
Last edited by zmic on Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:11 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7516
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:10 pm UTC

[quote]
You'd be catching the more orthodox ones, which I suppose is good enough for people who think that the overt practitioners are more likely to radicalize than occult or secular ones. It's a questionable dedication of manpower when there is already venues for detecting radicalization as despite Trump's claims, Muslims do report other Muslims to the authorities when they notice something's gone wrong. Liaisons to the communities seem far more useful and less likely to invite political outrage and partisan obstruction.[/quote]
Sure, but the worrisome part about wide lists is exactly that they might be less about effectiveness, and more about collective punishment. Making life harder for foreign Muslims in the US was not necessarily seen as a downside of the list, by many people involved.

You see the echos in Trump's stories about New Jersey Muslims who cheered for 9/11.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8285
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:16 pm UTC

zmic wrote:Yes. In general, I believe that racists should be given more opportunities, rather than less. The more people are allowed to develop as human beings, the less likely they are to be racist. Love trumps hate.

You do realize that appointing governing officials is a zero-sum game, right? Like, you choose to give a racist person a position of power and hoping for the best, that means you're not giving that position to someone who's not an asshole. This has to be you trolling, right?

Also, like, maybe? Maybe I'll give some racists the benefit of the doubt? But that doesn't mean "control of the government". Like, let them write a nice, apologetic blog post, and spend a few years proving they're not hateful dicks.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5825
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:19 pm UTC

I mean, a lot of my family in the Deep South is racist. They seem pretty nice when interacting with me and even accepted my mixed race mother (though she's half-Indian origin rather than black which made all the difference). They are not that lacking in opportunity.

I don't think giving racists more of a platform from which they can reinforce systemic racism is a neutral act.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:28 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
So be specific. Describe actual actions you'd view as racist. Kicking black people out of buildings he owns? Saying that people of a particular ethnicity, or a subgroup of such, are rapists, despite the fact that as far as we can tell they are less likely to? Picking a religion with few white followers and arranging for a national registration be developed for it?


Yes, all those things would qualify as racist. Trump did the first thing, in the 1970s. He said the second thing, once. He will probably not do the third.


He better not do the third, except its a freaking campaign promise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sz0KY-3PbQ
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:30 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby zmic » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:28 pm UTC

Trump posted what he wants to do in his first 100 days:

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landin ... actv02.pdf

It's highly doubtful that he will be able to accomplish all this. But you cannot call this a racist agenda.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:31 pm UTC

zmic wrote:Trump posted what he wants to do in his first 100 days:

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landin ... actv02.pdf

It's highly doubtful that he will be able to accomplish all this. But you cannot call this a racist agenda.


And we just ignore how Trump spoke last year and the fact that he's appointing proven racists to his White House staff?

But sure, I'll play your game.

FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.”


Right. Do you know the history of why he's speaking this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sz0KY-3PbQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu6_2hFTw74

I'm not like the other posters. I directly quote Donald Trump and his speeches without any bias at all. Because Donald Trump speaks for himself. Furthermore, I have ensured that my opinion is formed directly by my experience listening to Donald Trump, so that I wouldn't be biased by anybody else while forming my opinion.

I listened to these speeches roughly every couple of days directly from Trump for the past year. I can safely say that Trump is a racist asshole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUT6Nv9VFuw
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby zmic » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:44 pm UTC

The thing about Trump-the-politician is that invents himself as he goes along. Meaning that he pretty much throws up any idea and sees what sticks. I'm sure he judges the reactions from the left for their validity. He learned that calling Mexican immigrants rapists is not a good idea. He never did it again. At some point you got to stop having a heart attack every time Trump opens his big mouth. He's literally trolling you.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:47 pm UTC

zmic wrote:He's literally trolling you.
In addition to the fact that this is a serious problem in and of itself, it reminds me of the way Republicans complained in 2008 that they couldn't trust Obama because he 'waffled'.

At some point in time the Republican party is going to have to acknowledge the fact that they're alarmingly hypocritical, and they've now elected a candidate that along with them, is guilty of everything they've complained about, sometimes just WEEKS ago.

Or, you know no one cares and it doesn't matter, because the party itself has no integrity. #WhyNotBoth
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:48 pm UTC

zmic wrote:The thing about Trump-the-politician is that invents himself as he goes along. Meaning that he pretty much throws up any idea and sees what sticks. I'm sure he judges the reactions from the left for their validity. He learned that calling Mexican immigrants rapists is not a good idea. He never did it again. At some point you got to stop having a heart attack every time Trump opens his big mouth. He's literally trolling you.


Why is the Muslim Ban #5 on his list of things to do in the first 100 days?

Trump still wants to ban Muslims from this country. He just learned how to hide the language so that people don't freak out as much. You don't even have to go very far to see that Trump plans to implement racist policies as soon as possible.

-----------


And what is so "trolling" about literally appointing a racist to the Chief of White House staff? Trump has already begun to implement his racist agenda.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:51 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8285
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:49 pm UTC

So you're basically saying we should trust Trump because nothing we know about him is true? So why should we hope he turns out nice? This is the exact same argument as "he doesn't mean what he says" - so what do people base their votes for him on?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:04 pm UTC

zmic wrote:The thing about Trump-the-politician is that invents himself as he goes along. Meaning that he pretty much throws up any idea and sees what sticks. I'm sure he judges the reactions from the left for their validity. He learned that calling Mexican immigrants rapists is not a good idea. He never did it again. At some point you got to stop having a heart attack every time Trump opens his big mouth. He's literally trolling you.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

Also: it doesn't matter if Trump is trolling or not. Trump's actions are energizing the KKK and other white supremacists. That's a simple fact.

If you want to call that "political ingenuity", be my guest. But I prefer it if my politicians didn't make their beds with the KKK.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:09 pm UTC

Mostly I'm less worried by Trump, who's just gonna hump the spotlight and leave the gruntwork to his appointments.

1) Bannon. Clearly given job as a favor for the Breitbart propaganda machine. When hardline conservatives like Ben Shapiro say Bannon is a horribly vindictive man, you know we're talking about a guy in such a high position being capable to push horrendous policy. He was the head of Breitbart; I certainly wouldn't want the head of Gawker or DailyKos taking positions of significance in government.

2) Carson. He's a callous religious nut. Every time any of his positions were challenged in a media interview, his disdain for being challenged was so obvious, and now this guy who managed to wriggle his way into becoming an acclaimed neurosurgeon is put in the position to dictate education policy. Rabidly anti-abortion, severely anti-gay, how the hell will he create a climate in schools that don't shame and marginalize young girls and gay boys?

3) Supreme court pick. He better lose the re-election and we better hope the current justices can stay alive for more than 3 years, because if not we're going to end up with more than one replacement in a court that narrowly decided Citizens United and OBERGEFELL v. HODGES.


I'm seriously hoping Ivanka and Peter Thiel can anchor some of the more extreme directions those horrible picks Trump made might take.
Last edited by Lucrece on Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:19 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:13 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:2) Carson. He's a callous religious nut. Every time any of his positions were challenged in a media interview, his disdain for being challenged was so obvious, and now this guy who managed to wriggle his way into becoming an acclaimed neurosurgeon is put in the position to dictate education policy. Rabidly anti-abortion, severely anti-gay, how the hell will he create a climate in schools that don't shame and marginalize young girls and gay boys?


Carson self-removed himself from the picks.

Carson knows what areas of policy he'd be good at, and Department of Education ain't one of them. We might see his name pop up elsewhere, but it seems like Carson is a moral individual.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sizik and 21 guests