[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258279]Donald Trump has not been chosen over Clinton, Donald Trump has been chosen over Ted Cruz. The Republicans have sat around doing fuckall for the last 6 years and the blue collar people conservatives of this country (who are a little more racist than the party insiders) are upset with them. They weren't going to vote for Clinton or even Bernie sanders anyways. If it came down to Ted Cruz vs. Clinton or even Sanders vs. Cruz, they'd really just have not voted at all. Trump reflects poorly on the republican party, not on Clinton
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
And Trump is a racist who wants to build a wall for the express purpose of keeping Mexicans (whom he believes are rapists) out and also wants to ban Muslims from entering the country. He's a demagogue who appeals to the lowest elements of society by inciting hatred against foreigners and Asia by blaming every problem America has on China, Japan, and Korea.
What about that?[/QUOTE]
I dont know how that is racist. China, Japan, and Korea have strict immigration controls, where you must be of their heritage to become a citizen, and no one calls them racist for that. Shouldn't you be really mad at them for being so racist? Aren't you a citizen of the world? Maybe you should like Trump cause he's being mean to them.
I guess Im a racist cause I dont want the third world who want to murder all homosexuals to become citizens here.
[QUOTE=srobins;50258296]I never said anything indicating otherwise.. My comment was about Trump being chosen as the Republican nominee, though it's worth noting there are plenty of independents who will side with Trump over Clinton for the same reasons that conservatives sided with him over the Republican establishment. Clinton represents a stable status quo and Trump represents the possibility for change, which does in a way reflect poorly on Clinton. Adding to this though, if you're so sure that Trump will not be chosen over Clinton, why would you suggest the Republican party needs to implement something as anti-democratic as super delegates just to block him from receiving the nomination?
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
Can somebody list some racist things Trump has said or done besides wanting to secure the border? I've asked this before and didn't get a response. The ban on Muslims is ignorant and naive but not entirely without reason (just horribly misguided) and I don't think qualifies as racism.[/QUOTE]
I think that Bernie sanders has advanced left wing political dialogue by 20 years. We're talking about socialized healthcare, legalization of Marijuana, income inequality, and other ideas that would have taken 20 years for us to reach without him on a national, even presidential stage.
Trump, however, has set right wing political dialogue back 20 years. He's essentially told all the racists who didn't vote before: "it's okay to be racist, come on out and be proud of who you are".
I think that by giving Trump the legitimacy of his vicious shit, we may have harmed political speech for the next few years. We [I]actually[/I] considered banning muslims from the US.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258329]I think that Bernie sanders has advanced left wing political dialogue by 20 years. We're talking about socialized healthcare, legalization of Marijuana, income inequality, and other ideas that would have taken 20 years for us to reach without him on a national, even presidential stage.
Trump, however, has set right wing political dialogue back 20 years. He's essentially told all the racists who didn't vote before: "it's okay to be racist, come on out and be proud of who you are".
I think that by giving Trump the legitimacy of his vicious shit, we may have harmed political speech for the next few years. We [I]actually[/I] considered banning muslims from the US.[/QUOTE]
How has he told racists that it's okay to be racist?
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258321]I dont know how that is racist. China, Japan, and Korea have strict immigration controls, where you must be of their heritage to become a citizen, and no one calls them racist for that. Shouldn't you be really mad at them for being so racist? Aren't you a citizen of the world? Maybe you should like Trump cause he's being mean to them.
I guess Im a racist cause I dont want the third world who want to murder all homosexuals to become citizens here.[/QUOTE]
It is definitely possible to emigrate to Japan, China, or Korea. People do it all the time. People from South and South East Asia emigrate to these countries, and citizenship is not granted on a racial basis. These countries are simply strict on immigration.
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=srobins;50258355]How has he told racists that it's okay to be racist?[/QUOTE]
The official republican stance on muslims [I]used[/I] to be "Islam is a great world religion which has been perverted by radicals who don't represent the true followers of that peaceful religion". Now, because trump is in the lead it's "We should put a temporary ban on muslims entering the United States"
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258359]The official republican stance on muslims [I]used[/I] to be "Islam is a great world religion which has been perverted by radicals who don't represent the true followers of that peaceful religion". Now, because trump is in the lead it's "We should put a temporary ban on muslims entering the United States"[/QUOTE]
Um, okay, ignoring the fact that that isn't the official stance of the Republican party and he was heavily, heavily criticized for suggesting that policy.. That isn't racist. It was a kneejerk reaction to the continued rise of Islamic terrorism around the world and the threat that it poses to the United States.
[QUOTE=srobins;50258377]Um, okay, ignoring the fact that that isn't the official stance of the Republican party and he was heavily, heavily criticized for suggesting that policy.. That isn't racist. It was a kneejerk reaction to the continued rise of Islamic terrorism around the world and the threat that it poses to the United States.[/QUOTE]
Lemme give you 2 situations:
1. Black guy blows up a supermarket. "We should ban blacks from entering the United States!" Everyone calls him a racist
2. Muslim guy shoots up Paris. "We should ban muslims from entering the United States!" People comes out of the wood work and say "FINALLY someone says it!"
Sure, Muslims aren't a race, but I don't think that all the blue collar guys in Iowa are thinking of a white ginger when they think of a Muslim, are they?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258359]It is definitely possible to emigrate to Japan, China, or Korea. People do it all the time. People from South and South East Asia emigrate to these countries, and citizenship is not granted on a racial basis. These countries are simply strict on immigration.
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
The official republican stance on muslims [I]used[/I] to be "Islam is a great world religion which has been perverted by radicals who don't represent the true followers of that peaceful religion". Now, because trump is in the lead it's "We should put a temporary ban on muslims entering the United States"[/QUOTE]
I want to put a permanent ban on them at this point. At least for 20 years, and reevaluate after that.
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258401]I want to put a permanent ban on them at this point. At least for 20 years, and reevaluate after that.[/QUOTE]
Why? Are all muslims violent?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258384]Lemme give you 2 situations:
1. Black guy blows up a supermarket. "We should ban blacks from entering the United States!" Everyone calls him a racist
2. Muslim guy shoots up Paris. "We should ban muslims from entering the United States!" People comes out of the wood work and say "FINALLY someone says it!"
Sure, Muslims aren't a race, but I don't think that all the blue collar guys in Iowa are thinking of a white ginger when they think of a Muslim, are they?[/QUOTE]
Being black isn't an ideology just as much as being Muslim isn't a race. Despite the fact that Islam is distinct from Islamism, ISIS exists and has already carried out attacks in the West by sending their fighters through immigration and refugee channels. A ban on Muslims is naive and shortsighted but not racist, it's a misguided attempt at preventing radical [I]Muslims[/I] from entering the United States. Stupid, but not racist.
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258401]I want to put a permanent ban on them at this point. At least for 20 years, and reevaluate after that.[/QUOTE]
please tell me how you'll ban muslims from the country
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258266]Really he's not. Clinton is the worst. She is a corrupt politician who is so cold, she laughed when speaking about defending a guilty child rapist in court in her lawyer days.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck are you on about? You want to provide evidence, or did you just read that off of /pol/?
[QUOTE=srobins;50258377]That isn't racist. It was a kneejerk reaction to the continued rise of Islamic terrorism around the world and the threat that it poses to the United States.[/QUOTE]
Non sequitur. Something being a knee-jerk reaction has no bearing on whether it is or is not racist.
"Ban all members of Group X from the country" is always discriminatory. That means it's always racist when Group X is a race, always sexist when Group X is a sex, always classist when Group X is a class, etc.
Not that discrimination is always a bad thing. "Ban all members of ISIS from the country" is a perfectly reasonable and supportable position, even though that is still a form of discrimination. Discrimination that serves a positive goal is positive. It ultimately comes down to evidence and choice - if you're discriminating based on something people can't choose, like race or gender, you're never going to serve a positive purpose.
Religion is a weird case where it actually *is* a choice, but it's such a hard choice to change that it may as well not be. But we can look deeper, and see what effect it has - if it has no positive effect, it doesn't matter if it's actually a choice or not, if it gives bad results it's a bad idea anyways. What we *want* to do is discriminate against terrorists. However, muslims already in this country are within margin of error for being terrorists, compared to both christians and atheists, so discriminating based on religion at that broad level is not an effective filter. Perhaps a very specific ban would work - something equivalent to banning the Westboro Baptist Church, but for whichever sub-branch of Islam is more violent (this would necessarily have to be more specific than "Wahhabi Islam", since for legal reasons everyone in Saudi Arabia must publicly claim to be such). But then again, perhaps not - unlike race, there's no objective test for religion. A terrorist could easily claim to be from a "safe" branch of Islam, or to belong to any other religion, and then completely bypass the ban.
In short: even if it weren't evil, it wouldn't even work.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50258463]Non sequitur. Something being a knee-jerk reaction has no bearing on whether it is or is not racist.
"Ban all members of Group X from the country" is always discriminatory. That means it's always racist when Group X is a race, always sexist when Group X is a sex, always classist when Group X is a class, etc.
Not that discrimination is always a bad thing. "Ban all members of ISIS from the country" is a perfectly reasonable and supportable position, even though that is still a form of discrimination. Discrimination that serves a positive goal is positive. It ultimately comes down to evidence and choice - if you're discriminating based on something people can't choose, like race or gender, you're never going to serve a positive purpose.
Religion is a weird case where it actually *is* a choice, but it's such a hard choice to change that it may as well not be. But we can look deeper, and see what effect it has - if it has no positive effect, it doesn't matter if it's actually a choice or not, if it gives bad results it's a bad idea anyways. What we *want* to do is discriminate against terrorists. However, muslims already in this country are within margin of error for being terrorists, compared to both christians and atheists, so discriminating based on religion at that broad level is not an effective filter. Perhaps a very specific ban would work - something equivalent to banning the Westboro Baptist Church, but for whichever sub-branch of Islam is more violent (this would necessarily have to be more specific than "Wahhabi Islam", since for legal reasons everyone in Saudi Arabia must publicly claim to be such). But then again, perhaps not - unlike race, there's no objective test for religion. A terrorist could easily claim to be from a "safe" branch of Islam, or to belong to any other religion, and then completely bypass the ban.
In short: even if it weren't evil, it wouldn't even work.[/QUOTE]
Well said and fair point, I'm more in objection to the idea that Trump is racist and hates _____ demographic based on these policy suggestions though. Even if you concede that the Muslim ban is reasonably classified as a racist policy, I don't see it as being a meaningful indicator that Trump is a racist person.
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
Also, I'm not in support of the Muslim ban. I agree that it's meaningless and can be bypassed as easily as saying "no, I'm Christian". I'm just arguing against classifying Trump as a racist based on that policy. I've asked before for evidence of Trump being an actual racist and haven't yet been shown anything that really convinces me the guy hates any group of people.
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258401]I want to put a permanent ban on them at this point. At least for 20 years, and reevaluate after that.[/QUOTE]
this mentality blows me away. i find it incredulous that there are real people who advocate the outright banning and removal of an entire religion from the country. where is the practicality in this? it's not even a feasible concept. yes lets ban an entire religion with 3+ million active practicers in this country alone until we "figure this out". what do you need to figure out still? banning Muslims does not make ISIS disappear, nor does it make this country any safer
[QUOTE=srobins;50258503]Well said and fair point, I'm more in objection to the idea that Trump is racist and hates _____ demographic based on these policy suggestions though. Even if you concede that the Muslim ban is reasonably classified as a racist policy, I don't see it as being a meaningful indicator that Trump is a racist person.
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
Also, I'm not in support of the Muslim ban. I agree that it's meaningless and can be bypassed as easily as saying "no, I'm Christian". I'm just arguing against classifying Trump as a racist based on that policy. I've asked before for evidence of Trump being an actual racist and haven't yet been shown anything that really convinces me the guy hates any group of people.[/QUOTE]
Are you familiar with the difference between strong evidence and weak evidence (sometimes called hard/soft evidence)? Strong evidence is that which could only be true if the thing it is being used as evidence for is true (or vice versa for strong evidence against) - a true outline of Trump's hands measured against the average would be [I]strong evidence[/I] that he has small hands. Weak evidence is that which has a measurable correlation with that which it is being used as evidence for/against.
Trump's policy proposal for banning muslims is weak evidence that he is racist (or actually, a religious bigot, but we lack a single word for that, and people tend to equate muslim=arab even though that's wrong on several levels, so I'll just continue to use "racist" for consistency). It is an idea that is distinctly more common with racists than with non-racists, and while it is not unheard of for non-racists to support it, it is substantially less common. Based on that policy proposal, it is logical to estimate Trump has a higher chance of being racist than the average American.
Further, as a provably impractical and ineffective idea, it is very likely he has an unstated motive to support it, and "he is personally racist" is one of them. However, as weak evidence it also supports several alternatives, such as "he isn't racist but will say anything to get a vote", or "he is unable to distinguish practical from impractical ideas", or even "he has some unknown business interest that would benefit from banning muslims".
So that's where I end up. Combined with other [I]weak[/I] evidence - a higher-than-background-level number of racists among his supporters, the Mexican Wall proposal, his statements about BLM and other race-equality movements - I estimate Trump is racist with about 70% confidence, and estimate that he doesn't see "being racist" as a problem (distinct but related to personally being a racist) with 95% confidence.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258405]Why? Are all muslims violent?[/QUOTE]
There is a multitude of reasons:
-They sometimes commit terrorist acts.
-They use a ton of social services.
-They commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
-They dont assimilate, they keep their backwards culture, and lessen my culture's leadership role in society.
-They vote for bigger government.
-They believe in crazy barbaric stuff that affects my people like the stoning of homosexuals to death.
These are generalizations mind you, but given a random muslim migrant, I'm sure you'd find a few of these facts to be true about them.
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50258440]What the fuck are you on about? You want to provide evidence, or did you just read that off of /pol/?[/QUOTE]
Here is the actual recording that verifies exactly what I said:
[video=youtube;e2f13f2awK4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4[/video]
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258741]There is a multitude of reasons:
-They sometimes commit terrorist acts.
-They use a ton of social services.
-They commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
-They dont assimilate, they keep their backwards culture, and lessen my culture's leadership role in society.
-They vote for bigger government.
-They believe in crazy barbaric stuff that affects my people like the stoning of homosexuals to death.
These are generalizations mind you, but given a random muslim migrant, I'm sure you'd find a few of these facts to be true about them.[/QUOTE]
-White people/christians sometimes commit terrorist attacks
-White people/christians use a ton of social services
-[Citation Needed]
-[Citation Needed] (Also maybe your culture sucks)
-[Citation Needed] (Do you also want to ban democrats from the United States?)
-[Citation Needed] (I'd like to see the research which suggests that all American Muslims believe this)
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258741]There is a multitude of reasons:
-They sometimes commit terrorist acts.
-They use a ton of social services.
-They commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
-They dont assimilate, they keep their backwards culture, and lessen my culture's leadership role in society.
-They vote for bigger government.
-They believe in crazy barbaric stuff that affects my people like the stoning of homosexuals to death.
These are generalizations mind you, but given a random muslim migrant, I'm sure you'd find a few of these facts to be true about them.
[/QUOTE]
have you actually met a muslim or do you only read about them in the news
you could make most of these generalizations about any multitude of minority groups and even majority groups in this country and any other in the world. your stereotyped and bizarre list of grievances does not and should not equate to the banning and removal of an entire religious group
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258741]There is a multitude of reasons:
-They sometimes commit terrorist acts.
-They use a ton of social services.
-They commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
-They dont assimilate, they keep their backwards culture, and lessen my culture's leadership role in society.
-They vote for bigger government.
-They believe in crazy barbaric stuff that affects my people like the stoning of homosexuals to death.
These are generalizations mind you, but given a random muslim migrant, I'm sure you'd find a few of these facts to be true about them.[/QUOTE]
This kind of thinking is incredibly dangerous, and demonstrates a critical lack of introspection and hindsight on the history of humanity as a whole.
The very fact that you admitted it was a generalization, and then went ahead and tried to use it as a valid argument anyways, says a lot.
I don't wish to insult you here, but step outside of the box for a moment, stop drinking the kool-aid, and you'll see that Trump's plan is one or both of these things
A.) Purely to get him votes (most likely)
and
B.) So woefully ineffective that it would not only be a huge step backwards in American civil rights, but also be yet another huge drain on our already hemorrhaging budget.
Banning a religion from the U.S. is pointless and border-line retarded, are we just going to ship upwards of 3 million Americans straight out of the country? How do you even know if someone is Muslim, do you check how brown they happen to be? What stops an underground Muslim religious practice (filled with disenfranchised muslims who would have otherwise done nothing) from forming in the U.S. and possibly becoming an actual legitimate threat?
If Christianity was banned tomorrow, do you think that would end peacefully or end with blood on the streets, be truthful.
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258741]-They sometimes commit terrorist acts.[/QUOTE]
True, but terrorism is not exclusive to muslims. In the past three decades, we've seen major attacks by white supremacists, pro-lifers, environmentalists, and anarchists.
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258741]-They use a ton of social services.[/QUOTE]
Citation? I've not seen any evidence either way on use of social services. Would be interesting if true, and at first thought it's at least plausible.
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258741]-They commit a disproportionate amount of crime.[/QUOTE]
Citation? I haven't seen evidence on crime rates by religion, but I've seen substantial evidence that first-generation immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born, and I can't see any a priori reasons to expect that to be different because of religion.
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258741]-They dont assimilate, they keep their backwards culture, and lessen my culture's leadership role in society.[/QUOTE]
"Your culture's leadership role" is not a valid reason to want to bar people from your country. I don't know what you mean by "your culture" but I suspect I won't want it in charge.
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258741]-They vote for bigger government.[/QUOTE]
So do you want to ban Europeans, too? Or socialists? If that is an actual reason, in order to be consistent you should want bans on all other groups likely to want a bigger government.
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258741]-They believe in crazy barbaric stuff that affects my people like the stoning of homosexuals to death.[/QUOTE]
Even though that's quite untrue of many muslims (pro-tip: moderate, civilized muslims are exactly the ones most likely to want to migrate to a moderate, civilized country), I don't even need you to believe that in order to prove this point wrong. As before, you are inconsistent: the Book of Leviticus calls for the stoning of homosexuals, and so you should also call for a ban on jews and christians from entering the country.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258769]-White people/christians sometimes commit terrorist attacks
-White people/christians use a ton of social services
-[Citation Needed]
-[Citation Needed] (Also maybe your culture sucks)
-[Citation Needed] (Do you also want to ban democrats from the United States?)
-[Citation Needed] (I'd like to see the research which suggests that all American Muslims believe this)[/QUOTE]
-My culture does not suck. Look at the hockey stick of human prosperity all emitting from England in the Industrial Revolution.
-If I could ban leftists, I would.
-I never said all, if you look at Pew Research its about 50% of American muslims that believe in Sharia law.
How do you go about determining who is of islamic faith?
Do you appoint someone or a group of people to judge each American and label them accordingly? Who decided who these people are?
Or do you just ask each and every american to self identify their religious affiliation to the government?
I cant see either of these methods working
[QUOTE=matt_caster;50258741]There is a multitude of reasons:
-They sometimes commit terrorist acts.
-They use a ton of social services.
-They commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
-They dont assimilate, they keep their backwards culture, and lessen my culture's leadership role in society.
-They vote for bigger government.
-They believe in crazy barbaric stuff that affects my people like the stoning of homosexuals to death.
These are generalizations mind you, but given a random muslim migrant, I'm sure you'd find a few of these facts to be true about them.
[editline]4th May 2016[/editline]
[/QUOTE]
this is legitimately scary
[QUOTE=elitehakor;50258432]please tell me how you'll ban muslims from the country[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=cody8295;50259395]How do you go about determining who is of islamic faith?
Do you appoint someone or a group of people to judge each American and label them accordingly? Who decided who these people are?
Or do you just ask each and every american to self identify their religious affiliation to the government?
I cant see either of these methods working[/QUOTE]
nobody wants to ban a religion from anywhere, and anyone saying that (even trump himself) is referring to the already instituted legal processes that can legally be used to bar people from certain countries (eg: syria) from immigrating to the country.
many presidents have done this. trump certainly isn't the first.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50260242]nobody wants to ban a religion from anywhere, and anyone saying that (even trump himself) is referring to the already instituted legal processes that can legally be used to bar people from certain countries (eg: syria) from immigrating to the country.
many presidents have done this. trump certainly isn't the first.[/QUOTE]
I have never seen Trump's position stated as "ban people from certain countries". Every single time, it has been "ban muslims" (my first search results brought me [url=http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/07/donald-trump-ban-all-muslims-entering-us-san-bernardino-shooting]here[/url], where a video of Trump himself saying "total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the United States").
Do you have anything directly from Trump or his campaign - ie. not someone interpreting what he said, but what he [I]actually said[/I] - that supports your reading?
God, we are so fucked.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50260242]nobody wants to ban a religion from anywhere, and anyone saying that (even trump himself) is referring to the already instituted legal processes that can legally be used to bar people from certain countries (eg: syria) from immigrating to the country.
many presidents have done this. trump certainly isn't the first.[/QUOTE]
I fucking love it when supporters of these candidates can't even get their own dudes policies right. Cody tells me Sanders is pro-nuclear now Monkeh is telling me Trump doesn't want to ban Muslims.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50258086]It actually really is, Trump won't win any state with a large minority population, and he won't win any state with a large liberal population either[/QUOTE]
Him and the GOP are pretty screwed unless something drastic happens, he has to carry Flordia which has a large minority population to win, on top of that its questionable if they can even carry the typical GOP states because of how much hes pissed people off. Its no wonder why Cruz and Kasich are getting out of this shit now. Trump is probably going to be the scapegoat even though the typical GOP is failing to remain relevant outside the older generation.
You can read more about how bleak it looks here and feel a little better that the lesser evil will probably win
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/04/upshot/electoral-map-trump-clinton.html[/URL]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
