US Politics III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did I or anyone here ever say that Donald Trump is comparable to Hitler?
I think it is strongly inferred that when you claim a national leader is stirring up "white supremacists" with the goal of a fascist state, then yeah, you are comparing such a man to Hitler.

Is that where your mind goes when someone is accused of being racist - that they're being accused of being Hitler?
No, see above

Let me ask you something: why Trump? Why continually defend a man with such a long history of narcissism, pettiness, vindictiveness, sexism, racism and greed? What great American values does Trump represent?
Please review my comments in the last two threads. Have I really defended Trump that much? I think most of my comments have been exposing the hypocrisy of the Left in their criticism of him and his policies (that are not nearly as extreme as presented here and they are often the same policies proposed and endorsed by Democrats). That's not quite the same as defending him. The other comments are antiantifa
 
Last edited:
What was the purpose of you asking her to give you the context of the racism directed towards her?
I'm a white man, so I need all social issues X-plained to me...

Honestly, I was trying to play the scene out in my head - because I'm not young anymore, and having spent a good part of my life in Southern California - I haven't seen one instance of someone yelling, "Go back to Mexico!" I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm not saying I haven't heard racist comments - this point just seemed odd to me - so I asked for context. Is that not allowed?
 
“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts,” Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, said in the statement. “The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.” Nancy Pelosi...yes, Nancy-frikin-Pelosi speaking out against antifa...

I think it is now safe to say, antifa is officially done. Without the press, the Democrats, or an actual army (which is easily 80 percent conservative)...they are done as a "force" in politics. That's good news ...

source: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/30/nancy-pelosi-condemns-antifa-violence-in-berkeley/
 
Last edited:
“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts,” Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, said in the statement. “The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.” Nancy Pelosi...yes, Nancy-frikin-Pelosi speaking out against antifa...

I think it is now safe to say, antifa is officially done. Without the press, the Democrats, or an actual army (which is easily 80 percent conservative)...they are done as a "force" in politics. That's good news ...

source: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/30/nancy-pelosi-condemns-antifa-violence-in-berkeley/



Well I think you were the only person here that ever believed them to be a force politically. Hannity, Breitbart, and unite the righters only spoke about them because they were low hanging fruit.
 
Why is what Pelosi said even particularly surprising? She's hardly very left leaning, she's not someone leftists have much admiration for.
 
Nancy Pelosi...yes, Nancy-frikin-Pelosi speaking out against antifa...

We're still waiting for the same sort of specificity coming from your dear leader Trump about the white supremacists.

Please don't provide that one quote on which he backpedaled the next day.

I didn't notice "very fine people on BOTH SIDES" coming from Nancy.

It's your hypocrisy that you should be worried about, not the forum's.
 
I'm a white man, so I need all social issues X-plained to me...

Honestly, I was trying to play the scene out in my head - because I'm not young anymore, and having spent a good part of my life in Southern California - I haven't seen one instance of someone yelling, "Go back to Mexico!" I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm not saying I haven't heard racist comments - this point just seemed odd to me - so I asked for context. Is that not allowed?

Have you that maybe, just maybe, as a white man you see things differently and have different experience than a woman of a different ethnicity? Just because you do not see these things, does not mean they do not exist. Do you really context to explain away racism? Is that it, that with context you can provide reason and hence defend/explain it away?

And, what did you mean by saying 'Oh I live somewhere where until recently, it was mostly people of European descent' ?
 
Except that these people are academics who you know, actually study this stuff

what then do these academics say about their definition of racism?
And which academics are we talking about. I've listened many times for years to Professors West, Glover Jr, Dyson & Alexander. I don't recall a difference in how they apply what racism is- but these may not the people you are referring to.

Growing up partly in "The 60's" we used the word -racism to apply to an individual (and also the word bigot), and then- institutional racism to apply to an organization, a business, the government (which ever level) that discriminates against people of color.


If you answered this later in the thread I'll find it today or tomorrow. (playing catching up)


Adding>
Ah, I found it (definition, per we on p5)
If I wasn't clear for myself - institutional racism is all about excreting power over people of color in various ways that can affect their lives in so many ways.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone ever notice that once the Hitler comparison is invoked there's really no where else for the conversation to go? It's like once absolute evil is summoned, there is a black void of suck where movement is no longer possible?
On a positive note, I get to go to Detroit today and hear JT II again! I'm loving my life right now!
 
Heh. Pretty much sums it up.

Ugh, I hate this whole situation. I do not want nor would I support an actual war over there, for a whole host of reasons. I know full well that's way too risky an option, and I don't want the lives of the citizens of either South Korea or North Korea (lord knows they're already going through enough hell as it is) put at risk.

But man, if somebody, whoever it is, could find some way to quietly get Kim Jong-Un out of power, and put somebody relatively more stable in charge instead...that would be so great. I don't know how feasible that option is, I don't know who would be an ideal sort to put in charge of that country, if any such person even exists, but if there is indeed a way...

I figure, too, that if that does happen, it would be more South Korea's, Japan's, or possibly China's, if they choose to get involved, decision to make? I dunno. If any of them have or come up with a good plan to deal with him once and for all, though, I'm all for it.
 
As terrifying as nuclear weapons are, I just don't see NK having and motivation to use them for anything more than deterrence/show of strength to its citizenry etc.
If they use them unprovoked, the current political entity that is NK dies. Completely, I'd suspect. As would a large number of its citizens.
And what do they get in return? What is the goal for them? Are they trying to invade somewhere for more land or resources? I haven't heard that they are.
So yeah, scary that they've got nuclear weapons and are testing them and have an unstable leader.
But then that's not a situation unique to NK is it..
 
Is he that unstable ? No more than Trump.

And he's putting the pressure on Trump. He has to negotiate with China, Russia, And keep SK and Japan happy.

Remember when Obama was a pussy for his red line comment ? How many times now has NK pushed Trump and all he's done is talk shit.

Obviously want cooler heads to prevail but I just can't see this same script had Clinton been in charge. At least don't see NK being as aggressive as they've ever been
 
Does anyone ever notice that once the Hitler comparison is invoked there's really no where else for the conversation to go? It's like once absolute evil is summoned, there is a black void of suck where movement is no longer possible?
Agreed...so why does the Left keep invoking Reductio ad Hitlerum and Reductio ad Nazium ?
 
I thought of posting that exact same tweet, you can't really claim Godwin's Law on this when Godwin himself says it's legitimate.
 
Heh. Pretty much sums it up.

Ugh, I hate this whole situation. I do not want nor would I support an actual war over there, for a whole host of reasons. I know full well that's way too risky an option, and I don't want the lives of the citizens of either South Korea or North Korea (lord knows they're already going through enough hell as it is) put at risk.

But man, if somebody, whoever it is, could find some way to quietly get Kim Jong-Un out of power, and put somebody relatively more stable in charge instead...that would be so great. I don't know how feasible that option is, I don't know who would be an ideal sort to put in charge of that country, if any such person even exists, but if there is indeed a way...

I figure, too, that if that does happen, it would be more South Korea's, Japan's, or possibly China's, if they choose to get involved, decision to make? I dunno. If any of them have or come up with a good plan to deal with him once and for all, though, I'm all for it.
I agree, a war there would actually be impossible. There is no way (that I can see) China allowing US troops in North Korea. There is the possibility of a Chinese backdoor endorsement of a surgical strike, but that seems unlikely because China uses the North Korean erratic leader (and his new nukes) as a bargaining chip in international trade negotiations.

I'm very concerned that South Korea and Japan are putting pressure on the US the eliminate this constant wild card threat. China should be taking lead here - as their economy is so entwined with all of the others. A rogue nuke strike against Japan or S Koreas will kill tens of thousands instantly - but the global economy will certainly tank hard (that is, it doesn't escalate to nuclear holocaust)...this includes China.
 
I thought of posting that exact same tweet, you can't really claim Godwin's Law on this when Godwin himself says it's legitimate.
lol - how's that not circular reasoning...?

And I didn't quote Goodwin's Law for that reason.

wikipedia: "Coined by Leo Strauss in 1951, reductio ad Hitlerum borrows its name from the term used in logic, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd). According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem, ad misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler and Nazism have been condemned in the modern world."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
 
Nazism has been condemned in the modern world, except when people think Nazis should be able to hold rallies and espouse their hateful ideology in the public sphere, and portray those who oppose them as the real perpetrators of violence.
 
Have you that maybe, just maybe, as a white man you see things differently and have different experience than a woman of a different ethnicity? Just because you do not see these things, does not mean they do not exist. Do you really context to explain away racism? Is that it, that with context you can provide reason and hence defend/explain it away?

How much do you empathize/sympathize with white males?

And, what did you mean by saying 'Oh I live somewhere where until recently, it was mostly people of European descent' ?

White.
 
Nazism has been condemned in the modern world, except when people think Nazis should be able to hold rallies and espouse their hateful ideology in the public sphere, and portray those who oppose them as the real perpetrators of violence.
Diemen, I am asking you take your view on the subject one level higher (not from a superiority ranking, but from the specific groups involved). If we ban one group, then that opens the door to banning others. And how could we govern such ban? If we banned a group named "The Zerg" and their symbols - then they can just rename their group the "The Zorg" and slightly alter their symbols just enough to make them legal.

America (and the rest of Western Civilization) relies on the freedom of speech to keep evolving. That mean, some ideas will be expressed that you or I disagree with. - and we must allow it so that good ones all come forward. I think that the Civil Rights movement and Gay Rights movement are recent victories of free speech. The KKK, despite having so much power in the early 20th century, are non-existent as a real political force because of their defeats in the arena public perception (and their violence was not only illegal, it went against the very spirit of free speech since they were suppressing their opponents with intimidation and murder).
 
Again, that's a completely vapid thing to say. They go hand in hand mate. And it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

By Amber Phillips June 19, 2015, Washington Post

The Supreme Court released a decision ruling against a Confederate veterans group that wanted the state of Texas to approve a specialty license plate with the Confederate flag. The state denied the plate, and the veterans group sued Texas for violating its free speech.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices said the license plate was government property and therefore not subject to free speech protections.

The Confederate Veterans group wasn't happy about the way the case turned out. Neither was the American Civil Liberties Union. Its legal director, Steven R. Shapiro, issued a stern statement in response to the decision:

"By allowing states to censor private speech they deem offensive, today's decision is a step backwards for the First Amendment."



SOURCE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...and-rush-limbaugh/?utm_term=.afd8450ec6bcmore often than not.
 
To truly understand why most of the support for Trump is based on economics and not race: 1) re-watch the Michael Moore video I posted (who predicted and understand Trump's election, but obviously did not endorse him because...it was her turn!) and 2) stories like THIS:

There is a strong correlation between immigration—particularly illegal immigration—and wages. This should be obvious to anyone familiar with the fundamental principle of supply and demand: more supply (workers) means lower prices (wages), and vice versa...

According to the National Association of Home Builders, more than 56% of America’s developers are reporting labor shortages, which is forcing them to increases wages and improve working conditions to attract new talent.

In fact, according to Ted Wilson of Residential Strategies Inc. construction costs have risen by 30% this year—the majority of which is due to higher wages and increased overtime pay. That is, companies are being forced to hire American workers, and pay wages at fair market value.

Why?

Because President Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration is preventing them from hiring illegal aliens, who undercut the labor market, shortchanging American workers. The impact of this (while often ignored) is significant.

SOURCE: https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/08/06/shortage-illegal-labor-wage-increases/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom