U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

[Vin]

15 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

Here's the thing: being a racist isn't a binary condition. 

Prejudice has degrees to it, like most personality traits. The only reason to insist on setting boundaries like this is because you deny that something someone has done is racist in any degree, and the most effective way to do that is to pretend that there's a clear dividing line that one the one hand has flaming crosses and on the other has perfectly blameless people.

 true . But to raise an interesting tangent that I'm both curious and undecided on, If racism is  in degrees(and I think we both agree it is ) shouldn't the response (outrage and indignation) we show also be in appropriate degrees to the specific incidents and individuals of said racism not just an on/off controller that either goes full power or zero ? 

[Week]

7 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Yes. That's the point. Many people voted for Trump despite the racism, not because of it. To say that all those 63 million people support racism is nonsensical.

This isn't a salad bar. There is no nuance to a vote. You don't get to pick and choose. His racism, Islamophobia, and misogyny were - and are to those who still support him - OK. 

You can't vote for (example) David Duke because you agree with his non-interventionist platform and then pretend that you didn't vote for a virulent racist. 

Just now, Vin said:

 true . But to raise an interesting tangent that I'm both curious and undecided on, If racism is  in degrees(and I think we both agree it is ) shouldn't the response (outrage and indignation) we show also be in appropriate degrees to the specific incidents and individuals of said racism not just an on/off controller that either goes full power or zero ? 

Your fascination with policing debate is not as interesting or revelatory as you think. Especially coupled with an extremely limited understanding of racism.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

This isn't a salad bar. There is no nuance to a vote. You don't get to pick and choose. His racism, Islamophobia, and misogyny were - and are to those who still support him - OK. 

You can't vote for (example) David Duke because you agree with his non-interventionist platform and then pretend that you didn't vote for a virulent racist. 

Who is David Duke? I've never heard of David Duke. I know nothing about White Supremacy.

[Week]

1 minute ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Who is David Duke? I've never heard of David Duke. I know nothing about White Supremacy.

I'm waiting for it -- I've got my fingies crossed. 

[SweetPea]

2 minutes ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

This isn't a salad bar. There is no nuance to a vote. You don't get to pick and choose. His racism, Islamophobia, and misogyny were - and are to those who still support him - OK. 

You can't vote for (example) David Duke because you agree with his non-interventionist platform and then pretend that you didn't vote for a virulent racist. 

Voting for someone doesn't mean you support all of their views. I really don't understand what's so hard to understand about this. 

[Tywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Duh. Ain't just the legislature, the whole damn country's busted. I just said it was one of the ways I could 'imagine' congress doing work. Didn't say it was realistic.

Bam! Outflanked!

An Icelandic woman such as yourself could never outflank an Englishman like me you silly sugar cube you. Now go melt in some pony’s mouth.

[mormont]

14 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Yes. That's the point. Many people voted for Trump despite the racism, not because of it. To say that all those 63 million people support racism is nonsensical.

No, it really isn't. If you support a candidate who is racist, who has racist policies and who says racist things, to say that they don't support racism would be nonsensical. It would literally make no sense: it would defy the meaning of the word 'racism'. 

14 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Completely missed my point. That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

No, I really didn't and yes, it is. You want to exclude people who voted to support a racist candidate from the label 'racist' because you don't see that behaviour as crossing the threshold you've set for 'racist'. 

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

I'm waiting for it -- I've got my fingies crossed. 

I denounce him, ok? I denounce them. Whoever he is, who I specifically lamented in 1999, I denounce him.

[Vin]

5 minutes ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

Racism and prejudice are two different terms. Racism implies a power dynamic wherein - yes - racism is caused by white people. Reverse racism is not a term with any actually meaning despite protestations to the contrary.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-men-project/why-its-so-hard-to-talk-to-white-people-about-racism_b_7183710.html

https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2017/05/the-100-year-old-penalty-for-being-black/526731/

There are very real consequences that millions of our fellow citizens still suffer -- your lack of sympathy and understanding is not something to be proud of. It's either ignorance or arrogance and you ought to unpack that.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m6yf0wjn2tp6ij3/SURJ Talking White Supremacy Flyer.pdf?dl=0

https://collectiveliberation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/What_Is_White_Supremacy_Martinez.pdf

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/17/1690658/-The-sweet-lull-of-white-supremacy-or-why-white-people-hate-to-be-called-white

Our nation is built upon white supremacy. 

Yeah nope. Most of that are just straight up opinion pieces that are trying to talk down and tell people how to think so no thanks .

I feel bad that the effects of slavery can still be felt today but to say that I as a white person am somehow complicit and guilty in that by virtue of simply being white is ludicrous. Collective guilt is a deadly and heinous concept and is the same one used to against the Jewish people and I utterly refuse it .you're free to embrace it.

 

Redefining terms to suit your argument is wrong.

 

racism

ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/

noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

    

[Week]

4 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Voting for someone doesn't mean you support all of their views. I really don't understand what's so hard to understand about this. 

Not finding the racism, Islamophobia, and misogyny to be deal-breakers -- then yes, you've determined that negative qualities are outweighed by positive qualities. This is all beside the point -- Trump voters are, by and large, supportive of his racism and misogyny.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/4/14160956/trump-racism-sexism-economy-study

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/15/16781222/trump-racism-economic-anxiety-study

[lessthanluke]

54 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

That doesn't make them racists.

This is where we disagree.

[Vin]

15 minutes ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

 

Your fascination with policing debate is not as interesting or revelatory as you think. Especially coupled with an extremely limited understanding of racism.

Cool , you're completely entitled to your opinion, and we can agree to disagree .

[Week]

1 minute ago, Vin said:

Yeah nope. Most of that are just straight up opinion pieces that are trying to talk down and tell people how to think so no thanks .

Your lack of intellectual curiosity and rigor is - unsurprising.

1 minute ago, Vin said:

I feel bad that the effects of slavery can still be felt today but to say that I as a white person am somehow complicit and guilty in that by virtue of simply being white is ludicrous. Collective guilt is a deadly and heinous concept and is the same one used to against the Jewish people and I utterly refuse it .you're free to embrace it.

Weren't you the one crying foul about Godwinning? 

You, and I [fellow white person], are complicit in the ongoing oppression and subjugation of institutional racism of whites against people of color.

1 minute ago, Vin said:

Redefining terms to suit your argument is wrong.

Welcome to decades ago of writing and thinking about race [to be clear -- not referring to myself]. 

 

Anyways, the remainder of the discussion probably ought to go to another thread to avoid threadjacking any further. 

[Martell Spy]

Trump Administration Now Looking to Build Tent Cities to House Immigrant Children Separated From Their Parents

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/trump-administration-now-looking-to-build-tent-cities-to-house-immigrant-children-its-separated-from-their-parents.html

Quote

Now, McClatchy reported Tuesday, the Trump White House is progressing with that plan and is looking to build tent cities at military bases to alleviate the strain on Department of Health and Human Services shelters which are now at 95 percent of capacity, home to 10,0000 children.

 

[TheKitttenGuard]

So Tom Cotton just declare to all nations that you better have Nuclear Weapons with a delivery system to negotiate with the 

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's triumphant assertions about the success of the unprecedented Singapore summit are being met with skepticism and outright derision from critics seizing on the contradiction between his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and his willingness to accept vague pledges from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

White House officials have repeatedly stressed that this week's meeting in Singapore is the beginning, not the end, of a process that Trump's team argues could have only been jump-started with the face-to-face meeting.

The Singapore summit set out broad goals to be met in the coming months while the Iran deal, signed by President Barack Obama in 2015 and approved by seven nations, was an imperfect end to 18 months of negotiations, they say.

Criticism that Tuesday's commitment does not include specifics on denuclearization and verification is too early, they argue.

"While I am glad the president and Kim Jong Un were able to meet, it is difficult to determine what of concrete nature has occurred," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said he wanted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who will lead the follow-on negotiations, to explain details of what the administration has in mind.

The top Democrat on that panel, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who also opposed the Iran deal, took issue with Trump's zeal as well as his announcement of the suspension of U.S.-South Korea military exercises.

"In exchange for selfies in Singapore, we have undermined our maximum pressure policy and sanctions," Menendez said.

For Iran deal proponents, though, the Singapore summit was evidence of Trump's lack of preparedness and poor negotiating skills. Iran deal opponents, meanwhile, seemed willing to wait and see.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., a Trump advocate and fervent Iran deal foe, urged patience and sought to dispel suggestions that the president had unwisely plunged into a meeting with a dictator after having withdrawn from the accord with Tehran. He noted, as did other Trump allies, that North Korea already had nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them whereas Iran did not.

"There is a school of thought that ... the United States president should not sit down with two-bit dictators," Cotton told conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt. "I think there's some validity to that school of thought with the exception (of) once those dictators have nuclear weapons."

"You know, countries like Iran and Cuba and other two-bit rogue regimes don't have nuclear weapons, yet," he said. "They can't threaten the United States in that way. Once they have missiles that can deliver them to use, I would liken it to past presidents sitting down with Soviet dictators."

http://www.omaha.com/news/nation/iran-deal-comparisons-cloud-trump-s-north-korean-summit/article_b4c6a7e2-a116-551a-8b72-89c52e14358d.html

You hear that Tehran, you are fools to try to have a deal without Nukes.

[Tywin et al.]

3 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

When you're saying "not racist," are you treating euphemisms like "culturally anxious" as a separate category not under the umbrella of racism?   This is a genuine question.   I'm admittedly in a very blue area, but know a fair number of Trump voters and continued supporters.  Even those who are "good people"-- people who are incredibly decent and kind when it comes to those in their "in-groups," including, for example, neighbors who aren't white-- are super racist once you scratch the surface a little in my experience, though they'd get indignant at being told their beliefs are racist.   Others I know are more garden variety Republicans who just voted for the R, but even they are pretty "culturally anxious" once you start asking pointed questions.  In my experience, even in the most charitable cases, they are wholly indifferent to people who don't belong to one of their in groups.

I mean, it's not just racism, but also misogyny, homophobia, nativism-- kind of like all these people are convinced that these "others" are hostile and taking resources, attention and specialness away from them or something.  They feel like victims, and it seems to strengthen their sense of in group sensibility, as well as sense of who's "out."  But, again, I think when you scratch the surface of that, it's bigotry.   I could be wrong.   What's your take on what motivates them other than racism (or bigotry in general)?

This is my experience as well. A majority of Trump supporters aren’t out and out racists, but his core supporters are, and I’d say that’s at least 1/3 of his base. However, most of his supporters, when pressed, reveal that they hold some if not many bigoted views, and unfortunately as we get more tribal, group think takes over and they retreat to their corners and increasingly embrace the bigotry.

[butterbumps!]

49 minutes ago, Vin said:

Well I thought about replying to said user's post but while I felt the content was aimed at me it did seem a bit baity ? I dunno , maybe I'm assuming the worst of them for which I apologize .

No that wasn't bait, or an oblique way to get to your post.  I'm genuinely curious what DMC thinks on that issue.

30 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Yes. That's the point. Many people voted for Trump despite the racism, not because of it. To say that all those 63 million people support racism is nonsensical.

Completely missed my point. That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

 

Let's assume that some Trump voters really did vote for reasons totally devoid of bigotry (or even "economic anxiety"), as you suggest (which I still find debatable, but I'm rolling with this).  They still bought the "Racism Boxed Set," so to speak.   Even if you bought the set because you really liked the first 5 albums but not the shitty live cover album sold with it, you still bought the shitty live cover album.   A vote for Trump is a vote for racism, even if it's not the primary motivation you feel in the pit of your heart.   You're supporting a racist regime.  I guess I don't understand why there's a disconnect.

[Vin]

12 minutes ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

Your lack of intellectual curiosity and rigor is - unsurprising.

Weren't you the one crying foul about Godwinning? 

You, and I [fellow white person], are complicit in the ongoing oppression and subjugation of institutional racism of whites against people of color.

Welcome to decades ago of writing and thinking about race [to be clear -- not referring to myself]. 

 

Anyways, the remainder of the discussion probably ought to go to another thread to avoid threadjacking any further. 

Sorry I guess but ...meh.

That's fair , I'll grant you that , Godwinning is dumb and I was tempted lol 

Sorry , but collective guilt is an impasse for me . I can never and will never accept it . I consider it utterly reprehensible .so I'm guessing this means no more discussion on the topic but I appreciate the opportunity for a different perspective

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I really think Trump sees the Presidency of the US as, primarily, a money making opportunity for him.  He's talking real estate with world leaders.  He can't change his frame of reference to allow him to act as a head of state not a "head of business".  I think it's part of the reason he continues to come off like a mafia don.

He comes off like a mafia don because he appears to have numerous ties to the mob. There are several articles that detail his connections, including some of his mentors. Furthermore, there several more articles about how it’s next to impossible to avoid dealing with the mob while working in real estate in NYC. I still firmly believe that Trump never expected to win and that he initially ran as a lark cause he was bored. Once he realized his draw I think he hoped to finish second and parley that into other business opportunities, primarily some new form of media. And then once he won he recognized that there were so many more ways to profit off the presidency and that his base wouldn’t care about his corrupt behavior. Like honestly, does any sane person think he’s not talking to his kids about his business or with his wealthy friends about how they can all make a fortune together? You’d have to be naive to think they aren’t.

[Vin]

5 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

No that wasn't bait, or an oblique way to get to your post.  I'm genuinely curious what DMC thinks on that issue.

.

Well ,then I apologize for not giving you the benefit of the doubt . No hard feelings I hope