U.S. Politics- Why We Can't Have Nice Things

[Kelli Fury]

Helpful hint- we don't say "illegals" because it is a slur. Illegal immigrants is a descriptor, undocumented workers is a descriptor, use a descriptor instead of a pejorative and we might make it to 400 this time

[Fez]

According to the AP style guide, "illegal immigrants" is incorrect as well because while the action they are taking is illegal its impossible for a person themselves to be illegal. So its undocumented immigrants all around.

 

Illegal immigration can be used, because immigration is an act that can be illegal.

[Hayyoth]

I was hoping Trump was going to be in the title of this thread, as in 'US Politics- The Rise Of Trump Nation' or 'US Politics- Trumpinator 2, the revenge of the Donald'. Fuck it, I'll make a point to jump in and start the next thread assuming I'm not banned by then.

[DanteGabriel]

I was hoping Trump was going to be in the title of this thread, as in 'US Politics- The Rise Of Trump Nation' or 'US Politics- Trumpinator 2, the revenge of the Donald'. Fuck it, I'll make a point to jump in and start the next thread assuming I'm not banned by then.

 

I am certainly curious about what kind of dopey code words you'll start using in order to avoid "censorship" the next time people ask you to stop using slurs.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I assume we are also going to stop referring to people as rapists, murderers, extortionists, thieves, sexists, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, etc. and so on since all of these, when used as nouns, reduce people merely to particular acts that they've done. 

 

The real difference between calling someone a "rapist" to mean "one who has engaged in rape" and an "illegal" to mean "one who has immigrated to the country illegally" is the political judgment that some people don't like the latter and only rapists and falsely accused rapists don't like the former.

 

Similarly, the only real difference between a "slur" and a "descriptor" is that a slur is a type of descriptor that you don't like.

 

Now I have no problem taking the position that I think it's unkind to call people "illegals." I don't use the term myself and find it to be in incredibly poor taste. I think people can acknowledge that and object to that on those grounds. But I think it's pretty foolish to present it as an objective 'stylistic' issue when you are not bound, say, to the ethical strictures of a particular field - say journalism. 

[Hayyoth]

Anyway back to Trump

 

Donald Trump has signed the pledge.

The Republican presidential front-runner met privately with Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus Thursday afternoon, and soon after, came out to the lobby of Trump Tower to declare that he has signed a loyalty pledge. This means Trump has promised to support the party's eventual nominee -- whoever that may be -- and that he will not run as a third-party candidate.

"The best way for the Republicans to win is if I win the nomination and go directly against whoever they happen to put up. And for that reason, I have signed the pledge," Trump said, holding up the paper. "So I will be totally pledging my allegiance to the Republican Party and for the conservative principles for which it stands."

 

Take away: Priebus arrives as supplicant to the Donald and magnanimous gesture is announced. I imagine the deal will be that the RNC won't actively look to destroy his campaign as long as he doesn't run as a 3rd party candidate.

 

The only way I can see Trump losing is if the establishment contenders drop out and transfer their support and money to one main candidate. The RNC still seem fixated on Jeb, even though he's demonstably a terrible campaigner. If there are actual adults in the Repub leadership then someone needs to invite Jeb over for a long heartfelt sit down. I still think Walker is our go to guy here but clearly he's not exactly been a bright shining light either, and he has no idea on how to deal with the Trump phenomena besides spewing out stupid shit he thinks the base might like. So maybe Rubio? Whatever they decide they better hurry up. Trump is utterly unique in that he doesn't need money, or Super PACs or white knighting media to get oxygen, he just needs to open his big fat mouth and every TV station, newspaper and website in the country reports it. He won't be stopped by squeezing his donors so at best we'll end up with a long war of attrition.

[Fez]

I assume we are also going to stop referring to people as rapists, murderers, extortionists, thieves, sexists, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, etc. and so on since all of these, when used as nouns, reduce people merely to particular acts that they've done. 

 

The real difference between calling someone a "rapist" to mean "one who has engaged in rape" and an "illegal" to mean "one who has immigrated to the country illegally" is the political judgment that some people don't like the latter and only rapists and falsely accused rapists don't like the former.

 

Similarly, the only real difference between a "slur" and a "descriptor" is that a slur is a type of descriptor that you don't like.

 

Now I have no problem taking the position that I think it's unkind to call people "illegals." I don't use the term myself and find it to be in incredibly poor taste. I think people can acknowledge that and object to that on those grounds. But I think it's pretty foolish to present it as an objective 'stylistic' issue when you are not bound, say, to the ethical strictures of a particular field - say journalism. 

 

Not at all. The term rapist et al. is a descriptor noun of what the person in question did. The issue is that "illegal" is an adjective and its not an adjective that can be applied to a person. As far as I know, there is no similar noun for immigrants, other than 'immigrant' itself, which obviously doesn't work in this case.

 

But from a grammatical point of view, it would be better to use a one-word noun slur rather than "illegal immigrant." Not that I would really advocate that course.

 

ETA: At least, that's what the AP says. Its been a hella long time since I've looked at grammar rules.

[TrackerNeil]

Do let's debate over terms and not the issue.  :rolleyes: If the term "undocumented worker" offends people, then let's just make up a damned word and use that. Or just substitute "hobbit."

[BloodRider]

Trump has pledged to support the eventual Republican nominee if it's not him, and forego a third-party run:

http://www.slate.com...ends_third.html

I assume this is fundamentally meaningless, since he can say anytime he wants, with or without evidence, that the GOP has failed to abide by its pledge to treat him fairly and that he's no longer bound by it as a result. But he definitely isn't going to win a third-party run, especially if he winds up too unpopular in the GOP to win a primary (who would make up the difference? Democrats?), so I don't think he's really giving up much.

And he freely admits he got nothing in return. IS THIS HOW YOU ARE GOING TO NEGOTIATE WITH CHINA, TRUMP?

He is such a "Lousir".

So did anyone catch Fresh Air last night? Seems that Trump is a big hit with white nationalists.  Note to those who cry when called a white supremacist; the author does take the time to delineate the difference between a white nationalist and a white supremacist.  And the difference is?  Marketing, pretty much.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

 

Not at all. The term rapist et al. is a descriptor noun of what the person in question did. The issue is that "illegal" is an adjective and its not an adjective that can be applied to a person. As far as I know, there is no similar noun for immigrants, other than 'immigrant' itself, which obviously doesn't work in this case.

 

But from a grammatical point of view, it would be better to use a one-word noun slur rather than "illegal immigrant." Not that I would really advocate that course.

 

ETA: At least, that's what the AP says. Its been a hella long time since I've looked at grammar rules.

 

When people refer to illegal immigrants slash undocumented immigrants slash illegal alien as "illegals" they are doing precisely what someone does when they call someone a rapist - they are using "illegal" as a descriptor of what the person did - ie: that they immigrated illegally to the United States. It is very clear based on usage that illegal is being used as a noun. 

 

When you say "as far as I know, there is no similar noun for immigrants" what you are actually saying is "I reject the use of illegals as a noun to refer to immigrants who are here in violation of immigration law." 

 

There is a term. Even if you disagree with the term, it is clearly in widespread enough use that you know exactly what people are talking about when they use it. A number of dictionaries have recognized this use, although in all fairness, they recognize it as a derogatory term, which it is by design. 

[sologdin]

According to the AP style guide, "illegal immigrants" is incorrect as well because while the action they are taking is illegal its impossible for a person themselves to be illegal. So its undocumented immigrants all around.
 
Illegal immigration can be used, because immigration is an act that can be illegal.

more important is that the applicable US statute defines 'immigrant' such that it is always already lawful. similarly, 'non-immigrant' is always already lawful. if a person is present in the US unlawfully, we can speak of that person as an 'unlawful alien' or as having committed an 'unlawful entry' or of having become removable after a lawful entry and therefore accruing 'unlawful presence.' by contrast, it is legally insignificant to accuse someone of being an 'illegal immigrant,' though this appears to be a popular term of opprobrium among right populist laypersons. don't be a right populist layperson; use the correct terms.

and just to amend one of the other fuck ups from the prior thread: a visa in the united states is not what allows one to enter the US, but is rather what allows one to present oneself at a port of entry for admission. no visa means not permitted to even ask to come in, unless under the refugee convention, perhaps. exception: the visa waiver program is an international agreement that allows nationals of certain states to present themselves without a visa for admission. a US passport holder, for instance, might on a whim request admission to canada or holland, say. when our courageous reciprocal traveler from canadia-land seeks entry to the united states, same will upon admission receive a 'status,' either immigrant or non-immigrant.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

 

The moderating team here considers the use of the term "illegal" to refer to people who are undocumented workers or who enter the United States unlawfully to be unacceptable. That is the end of the discussion on this point. Follow the rules, or don't. But it's not up for debate.

 

 

[/mod hat]

[All-for-Joffrey]

So turns out Trump doesn't actually know anything about the Middle East, except that Iraq has oil. Shocker.

 

But hey, asking him about policy details and about what his relationship with various actors in the region would look like is "gotcha" journalism, even when it's asked by a conservative radio host:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/03/donald-trump-stumbles-and-bristles-during-foreign-policy-question/?_r=0

 

 

 

Donald J. Trump revealed gaps in his mastery of international affairs during a radio interview on Thursday, appearing to mistake the Quds Force, an Iranian military group, for the Kurds, a Middle Eastern people, and growing testy over questions about foreign leaders.

“You’re asking me names that — I think it’s somewhat ridiculous,” Mr. Trump told Hugh Hewitt, a popular conservative radio show host. “As far as the individual players, of course I don’t know them. I’ve never met them. I haven’t been, you know, in a position to meet them.”

At one point, according to the interview’s transcript, Mr. Hewitt asked Mr. Trump if he was familiar with Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the shadowy commander of Iran’s paramilitary Quds Force.

“Yes, but go ahead, give me a little, go ahead, tell me,” Mr. Trump replied.

“He runs the Quds Forces,” Mr. Hewitt said.

“Yes, O.K., right,” Mr. Trump said.

But Mr. Trump seemed to think Mr. Hewitt was referring to the Kurds, a group with its own language and culture.

Mr. Trump asserted that “the Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated.”

Mr. Hewitt interrupted. “No, not the Kurds, the Quds Forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Forces.”

Mr. Trump tried to recover from the live, on-air tutorial. “Yes, yes,” he said.

He added, “Oh, I thought you said Kurds, Kurds.”

 

Mr. Hewitt said he was not interested in “gotcha” questions but wanted to be sure Mr. Trump had a baseline of knowledge about foreign leaders.

“On the front of Islamist terrorism, I’m looking for the next commander in chief to know who Hassan Nasrallah is, and Zawahri, and al-Julani, and al-Baghdadi. Do you know the players without a scorecard, yet, Donald Trump?” Mr. Hewitt asked.

Mr. Trump’s answer was strikingly dismissive. “No, you know, I’ll tell you honestly, I think by the time we get to office, they’ll all be changed. They’ll be all gone.”

*waits for Hayyoth to defend obvious and blatant political ignorance from a presidential contender

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

So turns out Trump doesn't actually know anything about the Middle East, except that Iraq has oil. Shocker.

 

But hey, asking him about policy details and about what his relationship with various actors in the region would look like is "gotcha" journalism, even when it's asked by a conservative radio host:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/03/donald-trump-stumbles-and-bristles-during-foreign-policy-question/?_r=0

 

 

*waits for Hayyoth to defend obvious and blatant political ignorance from a presidential contender

 

I am pretty sure that the link in the article to the transcript of the interview is a link to the wrong transcript. Because none of what they've quoted is in the linked interview and it looks like that interview took place a month ago. 

 

Edited: Found it. 

 

Here's a link to the correct transcript. 

[Hayyoth]

So turns out Trump doesn't actually know anything about the Middle East, except that Iraq has oil. Shocker.

 

But hey, asking him about policy details and about what his relationship with various actors in the region would look like is "gotcha" journalism, even when it's asked by a conservative radio host:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/03/donald-trump-stumbles-and-bristles-during-foreign-policy-question/?_r=0

 

 

 

 

 

 

*waits for Hayyoth to defend obvious and blatant political ignorance from a presidential contender

Look first of all I'm not a Trump supporter. I don't know why you think I am a Trump supporter as I've repeated numerous times that I'm not and I'd actually likely vote for Hillary rather than him, but anyway let's leave all that aside for a sec and consider your piece on it's merits.

 

So never one to disappoint, do I think it's a deal breaker that a Presidential candidate doesn't know who the leader of the Iranian Quds Force is? Um no not really. And I'll be honest this is the problem with a lot of the criticism of Trump, it comes across as condescending and frankly slightly servile.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Apologies for mislabelling you.

 

So never one to disappoint, do I think it's a deal breaker that a Presidential candidate doesn't know who the leader of the Iranian Quds Force is? Um no not really. And I'll be honest this is the problem with a lot of the criticism of Trump, it comes across as condescending and frankly slightly servile.

 

It's not just that he doesn't know who Sulemani is -- he doesn't even know what the hell the Quds force is in the first place and probably a shitload of other players/entities in the Middle East going by this transcript. And if a candidate is railing against the Iran deal, then yes, it absolutely should be a deal breaker that he or she doesn't know who Sulemani is, let alone the Quds force as the IRGC is one of the most important players in Iran. On top of that, one of the key idiotic arguments against the deal is that sanctions relief will give Iran $56 billion in its own assets (although the deal's detractors disingenously frame this as somehow the west giving money to Iran) and that said assets will be used to support Iranian proxies in the region (despite evidence and common sense that most of this will go toward domestic use). If you believe that argument, the the IRGC, paticularly the Quds force, is the primary driver of finaincing/funding Iranian proxies. (And yes, it's a deal breaker if a presidnetial contender doesn't know how Iran supports its proxies irrespective of the deal, which Trump doesn't seem to know).

[Hayyoth]

 

I am pretty sure that the link in the article to the transcript of the interview is a link to the wrong transcript. Because none of what they've quoted is in the linked interview and it looks like that interview took place a month ago. 

 

Edited: Found it. 

 

Here's a link to the correct transcript. 

Trump really likes Douglas MacArthur, I mean like really likes him. How many name checks of a WW2 General can you fit into one interview? I'm not sure if a President getting his foreign policy from the History Channel is a good thing or not?

[Hayyoth]

Apologies for mislabelling you.

 

 

 

 

It's not just that he doesn't know who Sulemani is -- he doesn't even know what the hell the Quds force is in the first place and probably a shitload of other players/entities in the Middle East going by this transcript. And if a candidate is railing against the Iran deal, then yes, it absolutely should be a deal breaker that he or she doesn't know who Sulemani is, let alone the Quds force as the IRGC is one of the most important players in Iran. On top of that, one of the key idiotic arguments against the deal is that sanctions relief will give Iran $56 billion in its own assets (although the deal's detractors disingenously frame this as somehow the west giving money to Iran) and that said assets will be used to support Iranian proxies in the region (despite evidence and common sense that most of this will go toward domestic use). If you believe that argument, the the IRGC, paticularly the Quds force, is the primary driver of finaincing/funding Iranian proxies. (And yes, it's a deal breaker if a presidnetial contender doesn't know how Iran supports its proxies irrespective of the deal, which Trump doesn't seem to know).

The folks supporting Trump, hell the vast majority of the country, have no idea who the Quds Force are. How this works is, you call Trump dumb for not knowing the leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what folks hear is you're calling them dumb for not knowing it. The optics are terrible and it's really not the right way to take him on. Trump is not a dumbass, I keep hearing people trying to paint him as one, but he's not. He's a vain loudmouth and an ignoramous but he's not stupid. I'm coming at this from a Republican angle, and I'm thinking you're not, so what I want to see is a Republican candidate who'll take Trump on by changing the narrative not by trying to imitate him (which is impossible) or by defaming him which is counterproductive.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Trump really likes Douglas MacArthur, I mean like really likes him. How many name checks of a WW2 General can you fit into one interview? I'm not sure if a President getting his foreign policy from the History Channel is a good thing or not?

 

You'd think Patton would be more his style......then again, McArthur was also given to some grandiose and bombastic proclamations and theories on how to solve wars.

[Disturber of Peace]

Do let's debate over terms and not the issue.  :rolleyes: If the term "undocumented worker" offends people, then let's just make up a damned word and use that. Or just substitute "hobbit."

Last Hobbit i checked documented his woek.