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.
Again with pointing to Hillary Clinton as if she's the arbiter of truth for anyone on the left.

Pro-tip: she's not.

To say nothing of the fact that if a politician with the kind of experience of Clinton or Obama or other people of that sort comes up with a proposal to secure our borders or deal with illegal immigration, they're actually taking the time to plan this stuff out and focus on the necessary details. They'd take into account funding concerns and would talk to various leaders both in the border states and in Mexico to sort out any potential issues, and so on. Whatever one's personal feelings on the immigration and border issues themselves, at least we could be reasonably assured that there's some actual thought of some kind going into those politicians' plans.

Trump? Not so much. He seems to think that he can just decree something on Twitter and it's suddenly law, and doesn't seem to really understand or care how the legislative process works. He also keeps trying to insist that Mexico will pay for the border wall despite the fact that that's not even remotely likely to happen. His policy thus far seems to be based off of nothing more than, "Obama liked/supported it? Then it's gone." That's it. Not exactly grounds for trusting him with such important issues like immigration or border control (let alone anything else).
 
To say nothing of the fact that if a politician with the kind of experience of Clinton or Obama or other people of that sort comes up with a proposal to secure our borders or deal with illegal immigration, they're actually taking the time to plan this stuff out and focus on the necessary details. They'd take into account funding concerns and would talk to various leaders both in the border states and in Mexico to sort out any potential issues, and so on. Whatever one's personal feelings on the immigration and border issues themselves, at least we could be reasonably assured that there's some actual thought of some kind going into those politicians' plans.

Trump? Not so much. He seems to think that he can just decree something on Twitter and it's suddenly law, and doesn't seem to really understand or care how the legislative process works.

Moonlit, I'm confused if you want legislation, or more executive orders.
 
I just want people who are actually prepared for and understand the complexities of the job they're doing, that's the main point I'm making. Whether they go through the legislative means or go with an executive order, I want to know they've actually put some thought into either option when they're trying to pass something or change laws or whatnot. My argument is that I don't get the feeling Trump ever puts any sort of actual thought into any of the stuff he tries to do, which is a large part of the reason why we're especially critical of him, even if and when other politicians propose similar plans.
 
Last edited:
Again with pointing to Hillary Clinton as if she's the arbiter of truth for anyone on the left.

Pro-tip: she's not.

True. But she was the Democratic Presidential candidate and her views on illegal immigration are essentially the same as President Trump (building a physical barrier, returning the children of illegal immigrants to their homes). Yet, many on the Left (including our dear Bono) didn't really single her out for this...
 
True. But she was the Democratic Presidential candidate and her views on illegal immigration are essentially the same as President Trump (building a physical barrier, returning the children of illegal immigrants to their homes). Yet, many on the Left (including our dear Bono) didn't really single her out for this...



Because maybe their comprehension skills allowed them to realize they are not essentially the same.

Why are you so desperately trying to sell this lie?
 
Because maybe their comprehension skills allowed them to realize they are not essentially the same.

Why are you so desperately trying to sell this lie?

Okay, then - please help me comprehend where they differ?
 
Okay, then - please help me comprehend where they differ?



She wasn't talking about daca in that clip. She wasn't calling for idiotic chants for a wall. She had a comprehensive plan. She wasn't blaming rape, murder, and loss of jobs on Mexicans.

Let's just start there, shall we?
 
I'm quite sure that Hillary wouldn't have deported the Dreamers. I understood her emphasis to be helping those who are here find a path to citizenship and then creating future plans for sustainable levels of immigration.
 
True. But she was the Democratic Presidential candidate and her views on illegal immigration are essentially the same as President Trump (building a physical barrier, returning the children of illegal immigrants to their homes). Yet, many on the Left (including our dear Bono) didn't really single her out for this...

If you can't see the difference between Clinton's position and Trump's, then I don't know what to tell you. I don't find that to be an intellectually honest position to take.
 
If you can't see the difference between Clinton's position and Trump's, then I don't know what to tell you. I don't find that to be an intellectually honest position to take.
The only real difference is the rhetoric - the "action items" are strikingly similar.
 
She wasn't calling for idiotic chants for a wall. She had a comprehensive plan. She wasn't blaming rape, murder, and loss of jobs on Mexicans.

Let's just start there, shall we?
All example of rhetoric, not action.
 
I'm quite sure that Hillary wouldn't have deported the Dreamers. I understood her emphasis to be helping those who are here find a path to citizenship and then creating future plans for sustainable levels of immigration.

You're right, she would not have allowed such a thing a DACA exist in the first place. However, let's assume she inherited it as President Trump did - her staff would have done some polling and they would have concluded that it would be "unpopular" to end DACA (despite the law) -
and then she would have supported it (changing her 2014 position).

She is always with the prevailing wind (or thinks she is)...
 
I just don't get this. Let's say for the sake of argument that Hillary supported the exact same policies as trumpy. So what? How does this make your argument? 'Oh hey look, I found someone on 'your side' that agrees with me'. This 'my side'/'your side' bullshit is all that's wrong in today's US politics.
 
I just don't get this. Let's say for the sake of argument that Hillary supported the exact same policies as trumpy. So what? How does this make your argument? 'Oh hey look, I found someone on 'your side' that agrees with me'. This 'my side'/'your side' bullshit is all that's wrong in today's US politics.

I'm pointing this out because the outrage against President Trump is unwarranted on an intellectual basis.
 
All example of rhetoric, not action.



If you're this desperate to hold on to your world view then have at it.

But take note that several of us tried to actually engage with you, and you refused. So don't ever come in here play victim and accuse people of trying to silence you.
 
If you're this desperate to hold on to your world view then have at it.
So...those are not examples of rhetoric?

But take note that several of us tried to actually engage with you, and you refused.
Dude, you've been calling me a blatant liar and telling me to f*ck off, yet I still answered your questions and engaged with you...

So don't ever come in here play victim and accuse people of trying to silence you.
Amitram and I came to a place where we respectfully "agreed to disagree" on the Free Speech topic. Vincent Vega offered an amazing post on Europe's view of Free Speech and the Refugee issues...No, I don't feel silenced - I feel challenged, and that's a good thing.
 
If you're this desperate to hold on to your world view then have at it..

I have many opinions, but very few convictions. My opinions can certainly change with new data or a properly constructed argument.

If you are trying to persuade me with: "it's complicated" or "it's nuanced" -without actually demonstrating the complications or the nuances...it's unlikely to succeed.
 
I have many opinions, but very few convictions. My opinions can certainly change with new data or a properly constructed argument.



If you are trying to persuade me with: "it's complicated" or "it's nuanced" -without actually demonstrating the complications or the nuances...it's unlikely to succeed.



Ok, then let's start with jobs?

Did they steal them?

Are they gone?

Are they working harder and earning less?

Let's have an honest discussion about the rust belt.
 
Ok, then let's start with jobs?

Did they steal them?

Are they gone?

Are they working harder and earning less?

Let's have an honest discussion about the rust belt.

Challenge accepted.

It's a bit late, but I look forward to this discussion. I think we will both come away better for it.

Thank you. Take Care.

(going to listen to U2's new single again before I go to bed...man, it's really catchy!)
 
Make sure you work super hard on voter ID laws. Even those can only stem the tide for so long.


Please correct me if I am misinterpreting - are you suggesting that America would be "better" if it was less white? If so, please inform us what is inherently wrong about being white (given, as suggested, America would be better if we had less of it)
 
Last edited:
Please correct me if I am misinterpreting - are you suggesting that America would be "better" if it was less white? If so, please inform us what is inherently wrong about being white (given, as suggested, America would be better if we had less of it)

I'm absolutely not speaking for Anitram here, but I'll offer my own answer to this if you don't mind...
Yes. I think America would be better if it were less white.

Why?

Diversity is essential for successful evolution. And my take on life at the ripe age of 38 is that evolution is everything. How we evolve as people, as parents, as lawmakers, nations, etc - as well as a species.

Evolution needs diversity as when new and challenging circumstances arise, a diverse population can succeed - even if it's only a small portion of that population. The successful portion can then take the rest with them.

Politically/nationhood-wise, I think this is becoming ever more important. Jet airliners. Internet. Cell phones. International trade. Science marching forwards, answering question after question. All this shrinks the 'world' in a political sense.
As the world shrinks, more and more diverse views, ideas, systems, problems, solutions etc etc are thrust in the face of all of us.

There are opportunities - both good and bad - with this, but if America isn't taking the positive opportunities and other nations are, America will lose some of its political capital. It will essentially go backwards.
It might be a growing level of unrest on American soil, as traditionalists struggle to accept/understand new people/ideas. It might mean dropping productivity if the American economy fails to adapt to changing ways of manufacturing. It might mean environmental issues that become increasingly worse if left unchecked, while other countries deal with them earlier and prosper accordingly.

So I believe America needs to embrace diversity.

But less white? Well, yes. Less white.

'White man' comes from, geographically at least, a relatively small portion of the world. Most 'white' people come from similar nations, similar cultures, similar climates, similar religions. Of course there is massive diversity there. But I would argue there is less diversity there than a 'boatload' of immigrants from other ethnicities. Someone from India, a thousandth generation Indian, will bring different perspectives. Likewise someone from Ghana, or Indonesia, or Vietnam. Or Mexico.

Diversity will spread the risk, increase your options re adaptability, help educate and open the minds of conservative Americans to the world outside their borders, and make the country generally stronger.

Now, Aeon, please don't go off on a straw man argument, or any other logical fallacy, and defend white people. I'm not comparing white or yellow or green or striped people. I am not saying white people are any less, more, better, worse. I'm just saying diversity trumps uniformity.

Yes, the USA was largely dreamed up and constructed by white people. Never mind the magnificent civilisations that existed there for thousands of years prior to that. But yes, the USA of today is to an extent a product of white people.

But jet airliners, internet, satellite tv, etc etc, mean the world is a different place than it was in 1865.

So yes, I think America would be better in the future if the 'white' population was proportionally smaller than it is today.
 
So yes, I think America would be better in the future if the 'white' population was proportionally smaller than it is today.

Fair enough....so, if I follow you correctly, If America, built by white people (as you pointed out) was less white...it would be "better." So, according to the exact same logic, Africa (or African nations) would be better if it was... less black? Or South America (or South American nations) would be better if was... less brown? Because of jet liners and the Internet and such...they need more whites...as much as white America needs more blacks and browns....

Or, does "diversity" always mean less white people? Is it possible, in currently non-white countries...that "diversity" can mean more white people? If so, should white people start massively emigrating to those countries? (we would probably need to force them to go, the opposite problem of the US and Western Europe)

If not, why not? Why is it always "good" for nations to become less-white, but never good for nations to become more-white?
 
Last edited:
Vincent Vega, that mammoth post... That would have taken some time to write. And the experiences, knowledge, perspectives are jolting.
You just broadened my mind and, I think, improved me.
Thank you.

Thanks. It turned out longer than I anticipated, but I wouldn't to give each point some merit.

That's a hell of a post and a lot to take in. Thank you for being so patient and thoughtful. Your knowledge on the immigration crisis is obvious, and your personal experience certainly adds credibility to your response.

There is nothing you have posted here that I can really respond to - some of it is new information, some of it I simply agree with, and some of it (very little) is opinion that we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

I did make some assumptions, as we all do, in order to even have a discourse in anything outside one's career. I have always assumed antisemitism was found in the ultra-right end of the political spectrum (nationalism gone too far)...

And I do agree, especially in America, we tend to quickly put things into the either/or camp (left/right; liberal/conservative; Democrat/Republican). I also have many views that would be considered "liberal" - but I generally only engage on topics I disagree with in here - for no other reason than it is boring.

Again, thank you for the wonderful, informative post. Take Care.

Thanks for responding. I'm glad my perspective on those issues was worthwhile.
 
Or, does "diversity" always mean less white people? Is it possible, in currently non-white countries...that "diversity" can mean more white people? If so, should white people start massively emigrating to those countries?

Diversity means diversity.

Mugabe went for the whole uniformity thing, kicking the white farmers off the land - I don't know a hell of a lot about Zimbabwe but the consensus seems to be that it was a negative move on several levels.

But to cut through the bullshit, and bearing in mind you like to argue (your words), I figure what you're really getting at here is, white-people-world is 'nicer' or 'better' than darker-people-world, therefore diversity only really flows/goes one way because, when it comes down to it, diversity is a term laced with condescending connotations. Is that the gist of it?

And yeah, I see that. But like BVS has said a number of times, you're shifting the goalposts here man. I responded to your question to Anitram, which was about America. I'm not arguing equivalencies, or moralities. I'm answering your question (to Anitram) - yeah, I think the USA would benefit, now and in the future, from being more ethnically diverse.

Do you?
 
What a concise summary of Trump by David Simon:

“Growing up is a phrase I would not use about the president of the United States. I don’t know where he grew up. I have no explanation, I have a million explanations, for this man and what he lacks as a human being. Certainly he’s misogynist and his understanding of sexual equality is minimal and he’s drawn to him an incredible reservoir of anger against women and against people of colour. There’s a lot of anger out there in American society; he’s drawn all of it to him and he’s weaponised it. It’s interesting.”

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...ornography-drama-interview-the-wire?CMP=fb_gu
 
I just want people who are actually prepared for and understand the complexities of the job they're doing, that's the main point I'm making. Whether they go through the legislative means or go with an executive order, I want to know they've actually put some thought into either option when they're trying to pass something or change laws or whatnot.

:up:

And the constant tweeting doesn't help fix what you just described. On DACA, though, the president is trying to force some legislation.
 
But to cut through the bullshit, and bearing in mind you like to argue (your words), I figure what you're really getting at here is, white-people-world is 'nicer' or 'better' than darker-people-world, therefore diversity only really flows/goes one way because, when it comes down to it, diversity is a term laced with condescending connotations. Is that the gist of it?
I am not personally saying that "white-people-world" is better, the migration patterns of humans are suggesting that. And there are many who seem to be suggesting that it is not only desirable, but an actual human right for those currently living in"darker-people-world" to relocate to "white-people-world" (and in turn change "white-people-world" into '"darker-people-world"...this is the coming "tide" I think Amitram was referring to, taking over the voting numbers)

Is it racist for any race to not want to be displaced? I think this is a valid question.

- yeah, I think the USA would benefit, now and in the future, from being more ethnically diverse.

Do you?
To some degree yes. I'm not sure how much though. I love our European heritage. I love that we have inherited the philosophical DNA of Athens, Sparta, Rome, Byzantium, and England. While I do find other cultures fascinating and interesting, to me - Western Civilization is what I'm drawn to (and apparently, so are a great many non-Westerners)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom