Kalbear Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Apparently the shakeup is also making it more likely that the RNC diverts money from trump to house and Senate races. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 14 hours ago, TerraPrime said: Hey guys, the current form to apply to become a U.S. citizen already asked these things, and more. You can check out Form N400 from www.uscis.gov. Look for section 12, questions 1 to 50, starting at page 11 of the form. Further, I think asserting that equality for gays and women is the central core value of the U.S. is presumptuous. Both are hot points of contention within this country, with the significant portion of the populace disagreeing with some of these tenets. I agree that any country can set the rules on whom to accept and whom not to accept as immigrants, but saying that these are core values of the country and thus merit being enforced as immigration screening criteria is breathtakingly arrogant. 1. The Form N400 does not ask any of the three questions I posed. 2. Neither I, nor anybody else in this thread, asserted that "equality for gays and women" are central core values of the US. My proposed questions don't hinge on abstract notions of equality. I'm not suggesting we ask potential citizens about their stance on gay marriage or the wage gap between men and women. I'm asking very base, fundamental questions about things like whether or not it's considered acceptable to murder people because of their sexuality, or cut the clitorises off of little girls. These are very basic questions of morality. I'm not looking to screen out every immigrant that isn't progressive - I'm talking about setting a "floor" on heinous beliefs - and determining that some beliefs are so base and so heinous that we shouldn't voluntarily allow people who hold them to become members of our body politic. I certainly don't think that it's "breathtakingly arrogant" to want to protect members of disadvantaged communities in the US by keeping out those who actively believe they should be subject to harm - and I'm quite surprised that you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 9 hours ago, James Arryn said: There is no way any sentence that starts like this can be used to discuss actual policy. Demonstrably false, as I've done it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 16 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: I guess it's a good thing that I said what I said and not what you misquoted me as saying? I mean, words matter. I chose my words carefully. To go in and then swap out my word with another word I didn't use, and completely change my position, is just not a legitimate way of disputing something someone said. I feel like this is begging to be identified as an informal logical fallacy. The Mad Libs fallacy, perhaps? So you're claiming that beliefs do not include religious beliefs? I'm confused now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 14 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: The problem though is that you only agree with the proposal because the proposal seeks to weed out people who have ideas that you find objectionable. If thought policing for immigration is established as a precedent then it opens the door to weeding out people who have ideas that you support. What then? Will you still agree to this thought police policy for immigration? What if one of the questions is are you pro-life or pro-choice (and the "right" answer is pro-life)? What about a question like Are you for or against increased gun control? Is that a legitimate question? And will the correct answer to that question be entirely dependant on who is in the White House at the time? Would a President Cruz retain the gay rights question, or would he change which answer is the correct answer? There are already numerous restrictions on immigration in place, and people are routinely denied citizenship, or denied the ability to enter the country, based on all sorts of things that I do and do not agree with, including things like country of origin (a huge one, as our system is, in large part, a quota system), relationship to people already in the US, profession and educational training, past criminal or violent conduct, association with terrorist groups or disfavored political groups (Communists, still). I don't have to defend all the theoretical restrictions that I might not like in order to propose the restrictions that I WOULD like to see. Additionally, I have very deliberately picked questions of morality with clear and obvious answers around which I think there is, more or less, a national consensus. Contrary to what's being mis-represented here by you and others, I'm not screening for liberals. I'm not screening for people who believe in gay marriage. I'm talking about things like not murdering gays, not mutilating the genitals of little girls, and not being allowed to rape women merely because you are married to them - you know, things which are ALREADY illegal and have been for a long, long time (less long in the case of marital rape exceptions). If some politician wants to make the case for screening people based on their Second Amendment beliefs - good luck to them, because that is currently a hot-button, divisive political issue. Female genital mutilation? Stoning gays to death? Not so much. These are issues about which there is wide-spread political agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 If you're curious who Bannon is, Bloomberg published a big article last year. It's long, but in it you can see some of the things trump has been talking about recently and why - the Russian links Clinton has, the odd referenced to the foundation, etc. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, aceluby said: So you're claiming that beliefs do not include religious beliefs? I'm confused now. I never claimed that at all. If you want to make an argument, I would encourage you to just make it, in the clearest and most concise way that you can. What you should not do is misquote me, deliberately change the words I've used, and then cryptically comment that I sound just like Trump. Because that's not an actual argument. That's just a weird form of poisoning the well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 I'm guessing the elevation of a Breitbart hack spells the end of any attempt to "pivot" to presidential behavior. Also assume Trump will skip at least one of the scheduled debates, if not all three. But I wonder if Manafort's Russian ties have anything to do with his demotion. His shady history with Ukraine in particular seems to get worse by the day: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/paul-manafort-undisclosed-foreign-lobbying-ap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 15 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: If some politician wants to make the case for screening people based on their Second Amendment beliefs - good luck to them, because that is currently a hot-button, divisive political issue. Female genital mutilation? Stoning gays to death? Not so much. These are issues about which there is wide-spread political agreement. And as someone who is gay himself, I think "wide-spread political agreement" is an utterly reprehensible standard for coming up with such questions, given how recently there was "wide-spread political agreement" on the evils of homosexuality in this country. I just ran across part of a documentary on PBS last night about Florida's "Johns Committee", which targeted gays and lesbians at state universities -- not just professors, but students as well, who were expelled if found guilty of "moral turpitude". That happened in the early 1960s, which since I was born in 1951 doesn't sound like ancient history to me. Not to mention that my teaching a college level course on human sexuality for years has led me to believe that the kneejerk Western reaction against female genital cutting usually goes along with a profound ignorance of both the motivations of most cultures who practice it and the huge variations that exist in exactly what it entails. Getting in to any more details on that should not be part of this thread -- but there is less agreement among experts on that one than most people think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Thought control is such an odious concept I can't believe anyone on this forum is actually saying it's a good idea. It is not the way to make a country and society safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 31 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: I never claimed that at all. If you want to make an argument, I would encourage you to just make it, in the clearest and most concise way that you can. What you should not do is misquote me, deliberately change the words I've used, and then cryptically comment that I sound just like Trump. Because that's not an actual argument. That's just a weird form of poisoning the well. My argument is that what you're saying, banning people for their beliefs despite never having acted upon those beliefs, is very close to banning people for their religious beliefs that they have never acted upon. I take issue with that because despite what the Supreme Court has ruled, I actually do believe being able to hold beliefs, even reprehensible ones, is an unalienable right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 kids, the INA excludes people for matters of belief already. nestor's position is the very mild suggestion that the act be amended to exclude three further classes of person. as FGM, stoning people, and marital rape are crimes of violence under the act, persons who have been convicted thereof are already excluded. nestor's amendments would prevent those who think such acts are not criminal from entering the US, and thereby proscribe persons likely to commit those offenses and vote to amend statutes that render them criminal. the rationale is similar to statutes that outlaw pornography involving juveniles, as the existence of such materials is assumed to incite further acts of violence against minors; will there be a demand to protect same on the basis of freedom of expression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 This is one of the few times I am happy for the length of the US election cycle. One thing is abundantly clear, Trump does not have patience (among a lot of other things). The longer a campaign, the more likely he is to off-message, whatever limited coherent message he has. He is also a narcissistic buffoon who can be goaded easily, so we got 3 more month of thin-skinned responses to look forward to (and the debates). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: This is one of the few times I am happy for the length of the US election cycle. One thing is abundantly clear, Trump does not have patience (among a lot of other things). The longer a campaign, the more likely he is to off-message, whatever limited coherent message he has. He is also a narcissistic buffoon who can be goaded easily, so we got 3 more month of thin-skinned responses to look forward to (and the debates). I think I'd prefer we just had the election tomorrow and get it over with. Trump would almost certainly lose if the election were tomorrow, but a lot can happen in 3 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 12 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: This is one of the few times I am happy for the length of the US election cycle. One thing is abundantly clear, Trump does not have patience (among a lot of other things). The longer a campaign, the more likely he is to off-message, whatever limited coherent message he has. He is also a narcissistic buffoon who can be goaded easily, so we got 3 more month of thin-skinned responses to look forward to (and the debates). I am not so sure the debates are something to look forward to. I would have enjoyed a rough battle with two candidates not pulling punches, something like Biden vs. Christie. But a Trump debate. You saw him onstage against little Marco and lying Ted talking about the size of his dick for crying out loud. And I somewhat dread the things to come on the big stage. With words coming out of Default Donald's whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 1 hour ago, sologdin said: kids, the INA excludes people for matters of belief already. nestor's position is the very mild suggestion that the act be amended to exclude three further classes of person. as FGM, stoning people, and marital rape are crimes of violence under the act, persons who have been convicted thereof are already excluded. nestor's amendments would prevent those who think such acts are not criminal from entering the US, and thereby proscribe persons likely to commit those offenses and vote to amend statutes that render them criminal. the rationale is similar to statutes that outlaw pornography involving juveniles, as the existence of such materials is assumed to incite further acts of violence against minors; will there be a demand to protect same on the basis of freedom of expression? Not really a fair representation. There's a substantial difference in principle between banning someone because they've done something, and banning them because they don't believe that same thing is wrong. I think you'll want to check the accuracy of your comparator, as well. Not that I'm necessarily opposed to banning someone for their beliefs: I'd be willing to listen to a case for it. But as I've already said, Trump's proposal isn't really about that. That's the excuse: the real purpose is that this idea allows him to continue a racist narrative about Muslim incompatibility with Western society under a thin and insincere veneer of concern for people he doesn't actually give a shit about. We shouldn't be tempted to obscure that reality by taking this as a serious proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Ormond said: Not to mention that my teaching a college level course on human sexuality for years has led me to believe that the kneejerk Western reaction against female genital cutting usually goes along with a profound ignorance of both the motivations of most cultures who practice it and the huge variations that exist in exactly what it entails. Getting in to any more details on that should not be part of this thread -- but there is less agreement among experts on that one than most people think. Ohhhh. I find this terribly fascinating. If I start a separate thread on female genital cutting, are you offering some kind of a substantive defense of the practice? Because if so, that's an offer I definitely intend on accepting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 32 minutes ago, mormont said: Not that I'm necessarily opposed to banning someone for their beliefs: I'd be willing to listen to a case for it. But as I've already said, Trump's proposal isn't really about that. That's the excuse: the real purpose is that this idea allows him to continue a racist narrative about Muslim incompatibility with Western society under a thin and insincere veneer of concern for people he doesn't actually give a shit about. We shouldn't be tempted to obscure that reality by taking this as a serious proposal. To be clear, I am not taking anything Trump said as a "serious proposal." I'm not even sure it's accurate to say that Trump has offered anything that one could meaningfully analyze as a "proposal." I said in my first post about this that I even disagree with how Trump is framing the idea of screening - as an anti-terrorism tool - which I think makes little to no sense, and that I disagreed with the idea that it should be targeted towards Muslims or towards people from countries impacted by Islamic terrorism, which is many places at this point. I'm just using Trump's idea as a launching point for discussing a similar idea that I raised here not that long ago. Despite the almost instinctual pushback you've given to me for floating the idea, I suspect we are rather closer in agreement than you are letting on. People from European traditions, Australians included I think, tend to be much less supportive of the broad First Amendment protections that Americans have come to expect. It's also no surprise to me that I've already won over Solo - as surely he views these kinds of sensitivities over "thought crimes" to be nothing more than bourgeois affectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Trump campaign buys Clinton/Kaine.com from domain squatter for 15k... http://www.npr.org/2016/08/17/490314006/clintonkaine-com-pays-off-for-domain-squatter?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark /Seems kind of odd. Not sure what you gain by doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Trump campaign buys Clinton/Kaine.com from domain squatter for 15k... http://www.npr.org/2016/08/17/490314006/clintonkaine-com-pays-off-for-domain-squatter?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark /Seems kind of odd. Not sure what you gain by doing this. onion-style fake press releases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.