The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

>assuming he has some sort of [being black as a] direct connection with them

"Don't pull a sound byte". *pulls a tweet which everyone knows is limited to like 50 characters or something*

Also, he can't call a demographic he never specified by race, a thug, but Hillary can a Superpredator? Yeah, that's exactly what it feels like to use soundbytes, tatsu. Either neither are racist, or both are racist, and I'm telling you, it's looking awfully convincing that Hillary is racist, or at least Democrat politicians in general.

There has never been a doubt in my mind. The morons call attention to niche cases of racial discrimination that, in most instances, have nothing to do with race. Trump's statements, when considered in context, are not racially charged. Period.

Tatsu:
I find it hilarious that you pull that tweet, because it's not racist to point out that a black president is presiding over the worst riots in in Baltimore's history, caused primarily by black folk shuttled in from out of state. Seriously, are you daft or just trying to rationalize your absolutely broken position? I mean, you ranted in your last post about how the left is a bunch of tolerant, loving individuals. The leftist agenda is a collectivist agenda - the exact opposite of tolerant and loving individuals.

And yeah,you are right - its natural to be offended when someone calls you a racist. Especially when they can't present an argument stronger than a comedian on a late night talk show.

Ultimately, if someone's offended that you're calling them racist, is telling you they are not racist, and is telling you that they believe all races are equal people and individuals are based on how they act, and that there are bad people among any group... then I dare say, maybe they aren't racist, you're needlessly insulting them, and simply want to piss them off with false claims against their character?

Also...

Actually no. You can be offended for being called what you are. Some people just don't like the truth of what their behavior makes them.

That being said, calling all Trump supporters racist IS a mistake and unfair towards them, I've been making them mistake in the past too. People most likely did vote for him for all sorts of reasons and many of those reasons have nothing to do with racism. And it is a mistake, as alienating Trump supporters won't do any good any way. The whole situation is stuck when people just keep pointing fingers at each other.

But you still refuse to admit that Trump's policies and speeches were not racially charged and were skewed by the media to seem that way. Nice dodge.

Actually I am not dodging anything. The logic is pretty sound:

Trumps speeches tend to be racially charged. This is my view based on raw words out of Trumps mouth. No media interpretation involved.
=>
Some people, whom I don't believe are racists, do not think they are racially charged. It seems they don't fully recognize what forms racism can take.
=>
It isn't right to call people racist based on supporting Trump, as it seems some people support him for different reasons and just fail to see the racist implications of Trumps agenda. Not understanding racism doesn't make people racists after all.

Specific. Examples. Don't bullshit.

Around here I've had a very detailed discussion with Elodea about exact statements from Trump.
The short conclusion: It seems our views of reality are not compatible. I've given up on that discussion however. If you don't want to see reality you won't see it and hide behind "Trump just isn't very good at talking, you have to interpret him like I say you should".

He specifically said that majority of Mexicans that came to America were the worst of Mexican society.

Like, he literally said that.

But, like colin said, we've done this particular dance before. Take your own advice, just cut all the <expletives>, you know? Either accept reality as it is depicted, or just stop posting online for the apparent sole purpose of playing "gotcha" with people you consider liberal or progressive. Or continue posting, but don't get mad when people say they aren't obligated to jump through your little hoops.

You aren't owed any responses.

That goes for trophy, too. For all your brilliant posts about PA, it's a shame you've fallen to this level.

He was speaking of illegal immigrants from Mexico - who we should be skeptical of, because they're illegal immigrants, first and foremost. And also because there is a crap load of crime caused by these same illegals in the southern parts of new mexico, arizona, and california.
I'm not owed a response, Gorbles. I expect those who respond to this thread to at least attempt to defend their point of view. Whining about how they don't *have to respond* gives the distinct impression you don't want the question answered because answering it would destroy your point. Which, in Colin's case, it has blown up in his face. He referenced a post that Elodea already picked him apart on. I'll not do it again. Ya'll can read just as well as I can.

Your position is absolutely indefensible. The effect of an open-borders, socialist society will destroy every country from the inside out until they are rotten hulks of what they once were. There is no other route for a collectivist society. It is not tolerant, Tatsu. It is not logical, Colin. And it is not the best option for humanity. It is the worst option.

I also find it amusing that people think I'm mad all the time. Nope. I just get annoyed when I have to deal with incompetence, both in myself and others. If I'm short with you guys, it's because what Elodea, Kiwi, and I have explained is plain to see in both the history books and our present day. The fact that you people keep ignoring that is either scary (brainwashed so much you can't think outside your perspective) or sad (clinging to this utopian view of the universe because you 'need' it).

Most people find what he says to be ignorant as ****. It was literally the only option for any semblance of border control or spiraling healthcare insurance costs though. Apparently, he and "all of his followers" be damned, but they apparently have enough voting power to win as long as democrats are nominating garbage their own party won't back. That is the truth we have today.

The reality, is that the democrats would rather lose elections, than elect someone not stiff enough for them, and then blame it on others and incite name-calling and deeply-hateful divisions, which only drives more people away and is the worst thing to do when people having been driven away was the problem in the first place.

indeed, indeed

The development of post war Germany disagrees.

Just a quick poll here:

Does anyone actually enjoy being in this thread? It's still just snarking back and forth and i'm absolutely amazed this is still going.

Haha most of the time political discussions turn into this :/

I re-entered because I found the defense of Trump's characterisation of Mexicans / foreigners in general appalling.

Nevermind the fact we'd already argued about it earlier in the thread.

But I guess there's little point trying for reasonable debate when the bolded text is the core motivation of the poster.

How open were America's borders when the English settlers arrived on its shores and systematically exterminated the locals? Or are open borders only relevant in the modern age because you're scared of someone repeating history to you, @mered4?

I doubt any modern country can manage the carnage that the British Empire managed at its height (the same goes for most empires of history; collectively, there was a lot of killing in the name of monarch and country). Even IS' casualties by the numbers are less, because the ability to kill that amount of people doesn't really exist anymore.

I mean, you're the one who raised the example of history books, so I hope you don't bring out the tired conservative defense of "why should I care about history, I'm not responsible for that". If you actually read history books, you'd know that the USA doesn't really operate on any kind of socialist scale at all. People are currently celebrating the removal of the Affordable Care Act, which in of itself isn't even that socialist, but it's left-of-the-centre enough for people to paint it as daemonic.

There is no left-wing in America (politically). And as politics enacts law, it follows suit that not much law is left-wing either. The closest thing to that was Sanders, and even he wasn't perfect.

Points are usually defensible. Even points steeped in racism are defensible, because the defense is the person in question is a racist. Your accusation of my position being indefensible is, linguistically, a non-starter. A cheap trick to make something that sounds like a fact out of my set of opinions. Try harder

100th page !!! : D so proud of us !
it's time to PARTYYYYYYYYY

I guess by this that you both agree on open borders being a bad thing. As you said their "open borders" policy (or their ignorance about the overseas threat) was the doom of many american peoples.
It was relevant then and it's relevant now.

By the way, what do you think about Obama's end to wet foot, dry foot? Weren't cubans going to US political refugees running away from an impoverished dictatorship to a neighbor country?

@mered4, @thetrophysystem, @cola_colin and @tatsujb having read through the last few pages (and after writing a 2000 word essay style response and then thinking better of it)... the issue with your discussion is that it is focused on one thing (or specifically a who- Trump), but the *actual crux of the argument* is in fact around the philosophy and frankly Trump has little to do with it.

I think we could do with a new thread to discuss the merits / problems of different political philosophies- which is what you are all really doing. Trump is a red herring in this discussion because from what I've seen / heard he's somewhat difficult to define neatly into one camp or another, and I don't think we'll be able to definitively say what he really stands for until he's been in office for a while and we get to see what policies he pushes for. He may be the Republican party candidate but a classic republican he is not.