Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Squirrel

What is trump actually doing wrong? What did Obama ever do to unite ra

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Howsithangin

Apparently you missed the point where the left redefined racism last year. Racism no longer means prejudice and generalization or resultant mistreatment based on race. They've since added a "power" component. That way only whites are racist and minorities are unable to be racist.

 

yes, I have been seeing that recently.

 

On the plate for the next year The Left will redefine "bad", "crime", "mean", "hateful", "bigot/bigoted", "wrong", "incorrect" and "discrimination" to also allow designated Oppressed PeoplesTM to weasel through.

 

Newspeak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

How is it a lie?

 

Trump wasn’t president in 2015. He wasn’t president-elect in 2015. He wasn’t even the party candidate at that point, just a guy thinking about running.

 

Trump modified it enough to create legal plausible deniability to deceive those who wish to be deceived. He got as close enough to it as he could get away with.

 

I have no idea what you’re talking about. “Deceive those who wish to be deceived?”, what kind of Jedi mind tricks are referring to? And “get away with” what, exactly? Legal plausible deniability? Are we talking about 0-bama here? I remember a time when you supported the Executive Order...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

Good Gawd.

 

"...the common attitudes of most white people..."??? What an incredibly racist thing to say. Tell me something: Just how many of those "most white people" did you know back in those days?

White guilt, white people ashamed of their heritage is an awful thing to witness. Above just about all other things, this is what I loathe most about The Left, and why I'd vote for Saatan twice before I'd vote democrat

 

 

 

Oh that's right, you weren't born yet. So you're going purely by the indoctrination you received in school, and not through actual experience or knowledge or firsthand interaction in real life.

 

In one pithy statement you have just summarized Timothy's entire mindset and reason for the way he is. Sadly, it applies to tens of millions of other members of that generational plague known as Millennials

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

White guilt, white people ashamed of their heritage is an awful thing to witness. Above just about all other things, this is what I loathe most about The Left, and why I'd vote for Saatan twice before I'd vote democrat

 

 

In one pithy statement you have just summarized Timothy's entire mindset and reason for the way he is. Sadly, it applies to tens of millions of other members of that generational plague known as Millennials

 

Agreed in both cases.

 

1 - Unless the Democrats drastically change their destructive anti-American policies and do a full U-turn; turning back towards America and pro-American policies and mindsets, no honest, intelligent, open-minded person could ever vote for them.

 

and 2 - Yes, it's both heartbreaking and infuriating. I don't consider Timothy a "bad" person, but there's just no escaping the obvious fact that he's been sorely indoctrinated and brainwashed somewhere along the line. Most likely in school.

 

Truly sad.

 

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones

 

What you "are being told" has little to do with MY position. Yes there is overlap on these issues. But people are trying to change the subject to illegal immigration in order to avoid having to address the refugee issue directly. I'm not going to fall for that trap.

 

Normally, that would be a fair statement. However, in the context of the discussion these days, "refugee" means "illegal alien." If you are only concerned about actual refugees, then it's a lot like saying that water is wet, etc. I don't think this country has ever barred actual refugees from political oppression access to asylum protocols.

 

I didn't say anything about racism when it comes to immigration. It seems to me that you're coming from a defensive position and framing. You don't like any implication that your position might be "racist" and you're pushing any mention of the issue into that narrative. Which is why you often object when I bring motives into it.

 

No, I don't think you are reading me correctly. In the context of the larger discussion, the message that conservatives don't want open borders is strongly framed in racist tenets. Apparently, none of us like brown people. Now if your own position doesn't reflect this, then good on you. But I'm interested in having a discussion on the bigger issue. How do you feel about it when pro-open borders folks assign racist motives to those of us who have none but still want to keep illegal aliens out of the country?

 

 

It's fair to say that there are reasons why people might have a conservative/restrictive position on various immigration issues that don't come from a bad motive. I've acknowledged that every time you've brought it up.

 

That might be true, but the last time we discussed this matter, my take away was that you believe we should let them in because it's morally correct. Was I misinterpreting you?

 

 

But what you haven't acknowledged is that there ARE strains of racism and/or nativism and/or fear-mongering that are influencing a significant number of people on the right on this issue. Including Trump. You have yet to acknowledge that there is any reasonable reason why anyone who generally takes a more welcoming attitude towards refugees might find any significant amount of the rhetoric and actions coming from elements of the right objectionable.

 

Have you got anything to support that, or is that just a generalized observation?

 

 

Rather than automatically being defensive, why don't you engage that point beyond the idea of if it applies to you or not?

 

What leads you to believe I am being defensive? And illegal immigration does apply to me because my state of Missouri is using about $32 billion dollars a year to support it.

 

I think you're genuinely trying to have an honest and decent conversation on the issue and I'm trying to do the same in return. Yes, my original post was kind of harsh. I'd mention this: I nearly always try to separate discussion of ideas, actions, and people. People are rarely black and white and have a mix of both good and bad impulses, motives, and characteristics. The same applies to their actions. My original post didn't separate that out. But I will stand by this: very broadly speaking, the most prevalent Republican positions on the issue of refugees are mostly driven from a position of fear and mostly ignore the impulses most versions of Christianity teach about loving other people unconditionally, charity, and treating people like you would want to be treated.

 

I am trying to have a decent conversation. You are about the only liberal or progressive left on this board that is willing to have one. The rest are interested in going down rabbit holes and executing drive bys. I do appreciate the fact that you put some time and effort into your replies.

 

As for making the statement that the conservative position is fear driven, you might be right. I am afraid of the country fracturing and breaking up from outside forces. We are already sharply divided and paying a lot of money supporting people who haven't got the right to be here does little for national cohesion. If your statement about our position being fear driven is because we are afraid of people who are different just because they are "not white," then I'd like to know what you've got supporting that belief.

 

And bringing up Christian principles and the associated hypocrisy that you seem to be suggesting, I do not see how progressives can expect us to legislate morality in one case, while abandoning it in the other. I am of course speaking about abortion. It is a well known fact that conservative Christians give more to charity than progressive liberals do, so I don't see your argument on this point carrying weight. But while we may give to many causes, it doesn't mean that we want to have government force us into which causes we will support and which ones we don't.

 

Besides, either we are going to live by law or we are not. And if we are not, then we will get a tyranny for our trouble because what the government does in the future is only up to the people in charge and their whims.

 

I would like to know if you can answer this: Are democrats interested in open borders so that they can change the voting landscape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

But what you haven't acknowledged is that there ARE strains of racism and/or nativism and/or fear-mongering that are influencing a significant number of people on the right on this issue. Including Trump. You have yet to acknowledge that there is any reasonable reason why anyone who generally takes a more welcoming attitude towards refugees might find any significant amount of the rhetoric and actions coming from elements of the right objectionable.

 

Have you got anything to support that, or is that just a generalized observation?

 

There is nothing to support it. I don't mean to say there are "no" racists. Of course there are. Among all races. But the suggestion a "significant number" of people ("including Trump") who want the border protected and immigration laws strictly enforced are "influenced" by strains of "racism and/or nativism and/or fear-mongering" is pure horsesh*t.

 

 

As for making the statement that the conservative position is fear driven, you might be right. I am afraid of the country fracturing and breaking up from outside forces. We are already sharply divided and paying a lot of money supporting people who haven't got the right to be here does little for national cohesion. If your statement about our position being fear driven is because we are afraid of people who are different just because they are "not white," then I'd like to know what you've got supporting that belief.

 

Again, like above, there is no honest support for any belief that opposition to illegal aliens overwhelming our borders and immigration system is somehow based on the illegals being "not white". Pure horsesh*t. Everybody knows (even Timothy) that if we had 20 million illegal Swedes overwhelming our country's systems, schools, courts, welfare rolls, etc etc etc, and thousands more sneaking in virtually every day, we'd be equally outraged and opposed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with race or ethnicity or creed or color or anything else along such lines.

 

Just like all the rest of left's accusations about "racism", it demonstrates they have no real arguments, and are just resorting to the same kind of crap they always resort to when they can't produce a real argument.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

There is nothing to support it. I don't mean to say there are "no" racists. Of course there are. Among all races. But the suggestion a "significant number" of people ("including Trump") who want the border protected and immigration laws strictly enforced are "influenced" by strains of "racism and/or nativism and/or fear-mongering" is pure horsesh*t.

 

 

 

 

Again, like above, there is no honest support for any belief that opposition to illegal aliens overwhelming our borders and immigration system is somehow based on the illegals being "not white". Pure horsesh*t. Everybody knows (even Timothy) that if we had 20 million illegal Swedes overwhelming our country's systems, schools, courts, welfare rolls, etc etc etc, and thousands more sneaking in virtually every day, we'd be equally outraged and opposed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with race or ethnicity or creed or color or anything else along such lines.

 

Just like all the rest of left's accusations about "racism", it demonstrates they have no real arguments, and are just resorting to the same kind of crap they always resort to when they can't produce a real argument.

 

B)

Well, there's no point in my commenting significantly on what he said bc I cannot improve on the above. :welldone: I would only ask that Timothy find an example or two to back up his claim. And I don't mean some isolated nut job. Anyways, Monty please, do continue. I'll just comment vicariously through you. :P

Edited by Howsithangin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

I actually need Timothy to prove that HE is not a racist. The left always starts from a position of assumed superiority and guiltlessness. In reality, their writings generally prove the opposite - which I’m seeing evidence for right here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Well, there's no point in my commenting significantly on what he said bc I cannot improve on the above. :welldone: I would only ask that Timothy find an example or two to back up his claim. And I don't mean some isolated nut job. Anyways, Monty please, do continue. I'll just comment vicariously through you. :P

 

With the political left there's a mental block against ever simply acknowledging being wrong about anything. If they can't come up with an honest, objective argument and the perp is white, then there's "something wrong" with the law itself or the police's application of that law. If they can't come up with an honest, objective argument and the perp is not-white, then it's "racism". It can never boil down to "...maybe I was wrong..."

 

:rolleyes:

 

(And again, just for the looky-loos, I'm NOT suggesting there's "no such thing" as racism or dishonest cops. Of course there are. I'm simply talking about the horsesh*t assertion it's a "significant number".)

 

 

I actually need Timothy to prove that HE is not a racist. The left always starts from a position of assumed superiority and guiltlessness. In reality, their writings generally prove the opposite - which I’m seeing evidence for right here.

 

Any honest, objective, intelligent observer cannot help being aware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of racism these days resides on the political left, not the right.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

With the political left there's a mental block against ever simply acknowledging being wrong about anything. If they can't come up with an honest, objective argument and the perp is white, then there's "something wrong" with the law itself or the police's application of that law. If they can't come up with an honest, objective argument and the perp is not-white, then it's "racism". It can never boil down to "...maybe I was wrong..."

 

:rolleyes:

 

(And again, just for the looky-loos, I'm NOT suggesting there's "no such thing" as racism or dishonest cops. Of course there are. I'm simply talking about the horsesh*t assertion it's a "significant number".)

 

 

 

 

Any honest, objective, intelligent observer cannot help being aware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of racism these days resides on the political left, not the right.

 

B)

Yup :thumbsup: .

 

And when you talk about quantities and numbers, you’re absolutely right on, the left has the majority of racists, misogynists and bigots. And that’s being proven by the left themselves every day when they share their opinions about other people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

With the political left there's a mental block against ever simply acknowledging being wrong about anything. If they can't come up with an honest, objective argument and the perp is white, then there's "something wrong" with the law itself or the police's application of that law. If they can't come up with an honest, objective argument and the perp is not-white, then it's "racism". It can never boil down to "...maybe I was wrong..."

 

:thumbsup:

 

PJ O'Rourke nailed it when he saw:

 

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

:thumbsup:

 

PJ O'Rourke nailed it when he saw:

 

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

 

Well as always, I object to O'Rourke's misapplication of the term "liberal(ism)". He's talking about leftists (also known as "Democrats", "progressives", etc) NOT true liberals (like myself).

 

But that point aside, he's absolutely correct.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tikk

With the political left there's a mental block against ever simply acknowledging being wrong about anything. If they can't come up with an honest, objective argument and the perp is white, then there's "something wrong" with the law itself or the police's application of that law. If they can't come up with an honest, objective argument and the perp is not-white, then it's "racism". It can never boil down to "...maybe I was wrong..."

 

:rolleyes:

 

(And again, just for the looky-loos, I'm NOT suggesting there's "no such thing" as racism or dishonest cops. Of course there are. I'm simply talking about the horsesh*t assertion it's a "significant number".)

 

 

 

 

Any honest, objective, intelligent observer cannot help being aware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of racism these days resides on the political left, not the right.

 

B)

 

 

Generally, if you want to know what the Left is guilty of. Look at what they are accusing you of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Generally, if you want to know what the Left is guilty of. Look at what they are accusing you of.

 

Yup, that's a good rule of thumb. It might not "always" be applicable, but it's "usually" applicable.

 

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

I’m still waiting for our left members to mention a few of what Obama did right and his accomplishments. Can we discuss all his achievements ? There has to be a few our left members believe he achieved and can list? Then talk about and debate,,,, anyone,,,,anyone?

Edited by Squirrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

Anyone’s health insurance drop 2500$

 

My insurance premiums went from ~$2000 a year to nearly $10,000.

 

Thanks Obama!

 

Greatest. President. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

My insurance premiums went from ~$2000 a year to nearly $10,000.

 

Thanks Obama!

 

Greatest. President. Ever.

As I said it’s sad not one left member wants to list one thing he acomplishef or debate it. My insurance cost went down 30%. But oh I used to have family epo and a straight co pay. It’s down 30 % but my wife can’t be on it because here company offers insurance. So it’s actually up 20%. Copay for meds now is 50$ instead of 25, more if there isn’t a generic. Doctors cost first 4000$ now straight out of pocket. So unless I can afford full doctor bill I won’t go, much better then the old 20$ copay. Also it has to be an in network approved doctor. In dallas it took me 2 hrs on the phone with hr to find a doctor 20 miles away that takes the insurance. Yeah that Obama care was a win and promise kept. But there has to be something good he did,,, come on left members....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

My insurance premiums went from ~$2000 a year to nearly $10,000.

 

Thanks Obama!

 

Greatest. President. Ever.

 

conjecture, outlier, anecdotal

 

I believe that's what we're told when we provide specific, personal, real-life examples. You see the only acceptable data are studies (with charts & graphs, of course), from peer-reviewedTM journals or approved government agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

Well ok no one wants to defend that achievement, are there some others we can discuss? I mean there had to be a few accomplishments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

Good Gawd.

 

"...the common attitudes of most white people..."??? What an incredibly racist thing to say. Tell me something: Just how many of those "most white people" did you know back in those days?

 

Oh that's right, you weren't born yet. So you're going purely by the indoctrination you received in school, and not through actual experience or knowledge or firsthand interaction in real life.

I known plenty of people who lived through it and can corroborate it.

 

Then I must simply *sigh* and point out again that you clearly never experienced any of these things in real life, and are clearly not paying attention even now, during the period when you are alive and could be learning by honest, objective observation instead of mindlessly spouting leftist boilerplate. Sorry, but it's just plain stupid and ignorant to pretend that pointing out the ruinous destruction Obama has done to race relations somehow "trivializes" Jim Crow.

 

:rolleyes:

You're moving the goal posts. You specifically said:

"You beat me to it, MR. Timothy isn't old enough to have experienced or learned from the real racial struggles and gains and accomplishments that took place during the late 50's and 60's. Well I am and I did. To see all that gain and advancement and accomplishment destroyed by Obama in 8 short years was heartbreaking and infuriating. "

 

You are specifically saying that Obama destroyed "all that gain and advancement" for a period that included the dismantling of Jim Crow.

 

PS. Thanks for recommending "Rifles for Watie" as a suggested read! I just finished it and thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

Timothy - you don’t seem to understand what racism even is. It is prejudice and generalization and resultant mistreatment based on race.

 

Therefore, YOU are a racist, because you support affirmative action for blacks. YOU are a racist because you propagate “typical white person” stereotypes.

 

Those of us who demand standards of ALL are not racist. Those of us who want to enforce the same immigration laws towards ALL are not racist. Those of us who support individual freedoms for ALL are not racist. You may call such attitudes ill advised or shortsighted or whatever BUT racist is not what they are.

 

YOU make this mistake all the time, and YOU are actually the racist here.

1) You don't understand the idea behind affirmative action. It is about equity and balancing out systemic barriers against black people and other unrepresented minorities.

2) I have mixed feelings about a lot of affirmative action policies.

 

Trump wasn’t president in 2015. He wasn’t president-elect in 2015. He wasn’t even the party candidate at that point, just a guy thinking about running.

So what? They still represent his views and attitude.

 

I have no idea what you’re talking about. “Deceive those who wish to be deceived?”, what kind of Jedi mind tricks are referring to? And “get away with” what, exactly? Legal plausible deniability? Are we talking about 0-bama here? I remember a time when you supported the Executive Order...

Trump's travel ban.

 

Normally, that would be a fair statement. However, in the context of the discussion these days, "refugee" means "illegal alien." If you are only concerned about actual refugees, then it's a lot like saying that water is wet, etc. I don't think this country has ever barred actual refugees from political oppression access to asylum protocols.

 

"Access to asylum protocols" if you mean a chance to apply that is meaningless if there are caps and rules that still prevent their entry even if their case is legitimate.

 

And we do have those caps. Trump attacked Obama/Clinton for raising those caps and his administration has lowered them. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-pompeo/u-s-to-sharply-limit-refugee-flows-to-30000-in-2019-idUSKCN1LX2HS

 

There are many refugees trying to enter by legal means who are being denied. It is not the same context as "illegal alien".

 

No, I don't think you are reading me correctly. In the context of the larger discussion, the message that conservatives don't want open borders is strongly framed in racist tenets. Apparently, none of us like brown people. Now if your own position doesn't reflect this, then good on you. But I'm interested in having a discussion on the bigger issue. How do you feel about it when pro-open borders folks assign racist motives to those of us who have none but still want to keep illegal aliens out of the country?

I think there needs to be more acknowledgement that that there are a variety of opinions and views and motives on all sides of this issue. Blanket statements of racism are wrong but so are blanket denials.

 

That might be true, but the last time we discussed this matter, my take away was that you believe we should let them in because it's morally correct. Was I misinterpreting you?

 

Yes, in a general sense.

 

Have you got anything to support that, or is that just a generalized observation?

Generalized observation, with plenty of examples especially from Trump by both his actions and words.

 

What leads you to believe I am being defensive?

You often focus on the criticism of right wing positions on this issue, especially criticism having to do with motives behind those positions, and attempt to deny those criticisms. And you keep bringing up racism specifically in the context of a broader point that might mean racism but could also mean many other things.

 

It's not entirely unwarranted since there is a lot of criticism of the right these days that says the right is racist. Almost no one wants to be tagged with that label.

 

And illegal immigration does apply to me because my state of Missouri is using about $32 billion dollars a year to support it.

I was talking about comments about motives for right wing opinions.

 

I am trying to have a decent conversation. You are about the only liberal or progressive left on this board that is willing to have one. The rest are interested in going down rabbit holes and executing drive bys. I do appreciate the fact that you put some time and effort into your replies.

Thank you.

 

As for making the statement that the conservative position is fear driven, you might be right. I am afraid of the country fracturing and breaking up from outside forces. We are already sharply divided and paying a lot of money supporting people who haven't got the right to be here does little for national cohesion. If your statement about our position being fear driven is because we are afraid of people who are different just because they are "not white," then I'd like to know what you've got supporting that belief.

 

Right now the main focus of the fear is on crime and terrorism.

 

I don't think it's helpful to go down the rabbit hole of if those fears have any racial bases. To me, the racial issue is secondary to the broader point which is letting fear be the main motive. And while I do object strongly to how that plays into right-wing ideas and policies on immigration, my objection do letting fear be a main motive isn't exclusive to immigration or to the right. For example, I strongly object to Antifa and others on the left using fear of fascism and racism as a justification for attacking freedom of speech.

 

And bringing up Christian principles and the associated hypocrisy that you seem to be suggesting, I do not see how progressives can expect us to legislate morality in one case, while abandoning it in the other. I am of course speaking about abortion. It is a well known fact that conservative Christians give more to charity than progressive liberals do, so I don't see your argument on this point carrying weight. But while we may give to many causes, it doesn't mean that we want to have government force us into which causes we will support and which ones we don't.

As I said people have a mix of good and bad motives, impulses, characteristics, and actions. People of all stripes often show an abundance of charity and love in some situations and a severe lack of charity and love in other situations. When I say that very broadly speaking, the most prevalent Republican positions on refugees show a lack of charity and love, that isn't a statement meant to apply beyond that issue. It isn't a statement about Republicans as individual people and how broadly charitable and loving they are.

 

Without wanting to go down the abortion rabbit hole I'll just say this: Abortion and immigration are different because abortion is generally a very personal issue while immigration is a public issue. As you may have seen I generally respect the pro-life side's underlining motives on the issue of abortion, even if I don't agree with their position.

 

Besides, either we are going to live by law or we are not. And if we are not, then we will get a tyranny for our trouble because what the government does in the future is only up to the people in charge and their whims.

This is focusing on the issue of illegal immigration which is not my point here.

 

I would like to know if you can answer this: Are democrats interested in open borders so that they can change the voting landscape?

It may be a secondary motive for some.

 

On the issue of refugees, my overwhelming concern is for the plights of refugees as individual people. The civil war in Syria and the violence in places like Guatemala have forced millions of people to flee and put them in desperate circumstances. They are uprooted from their homes that they can't go back to without a great risk of being killed, often suffering from trauma, often without the opportunity to work or for their children to attend school, and in desperate need of safety and stability so they can take live normal lives and take care of their families.

 

My second most important concern is the tradition of our country being an an open place that is a haven for refugees and immigrants. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

 

Anything else is a distant second.

 

That's primarily where I'm coming from on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

This reply is to Timothy, primarily, but not exclusively.

 

1) on affirmative action. It is said that AA’s intention is to level the playing field for disadvantaged minorities. You said that you have many problems with AA. Here are mine:

- no acknowledgement and no discussion allowed of the obvious fact that the way the playing field is leveled focuses almost entirely on end results (scores) obtained and not on leadup to said end results. This means that inferior end results are artificially elevated to equal or better status than other end results. Therefore, lower performing people get better educational and employment statuses than better performing people. This is a HUGE disservice to the rest of the nation who greatly depend on the performance of professionals in many sectors.

- most AA looks at race as THE major component. Disadvantaged whites are really kept off from the level playing field. It makes large parts of the program used as hypocritical apologies to slavery of the past.

- AA holds people back in the long run by creating a culture where children do not need to excel. I’m not a racist who says that blacks can’t be good scientists and doctors. They can, but only if they go through the same rigors as others. Our BRAINS have no race.

 

2) on refugees. The US population is 350M, give or take. The rest of the world is 20 times more people. The reality of numbers trumps endless compassion in this case.

- the US takes in 1.5-2M legal and illegal immigrants annually. This is 0.4-0.5% of the total population, and is causing many problems over longer term.

- it is fair to say that we cannot handle more than 0.5-1M immigrants annually while doing a decent/acceptable job of integrating them so that their problems are minimized and that our, the host’s, problems are minimized, for the sake of longevity.

- therefore, we just simply CANNOT accept every refugee who has a bad situation. Does it suck? Yes, but it’s not our fault.

- our resources, good resources, would truly be best spent on tackling the big problems outside this country. Battle the main cause of refugees by battling against totalitarian and dictatorial rules. Don’t just do the AA equivalent of giving aid, most of which ends in the dictators’ coffers anyway. Take a hard stance against countries like Venezuela, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iran, Libya, Syria, Gabon, Chad, Laos, North Korea. And there are others. Everyone will be happier if refugees never become refugees but they stay where they already are.

Edited by zurg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

I known plenty of people who lived through it and can corroborate it.

 

I lived through it too, and everything I've said about it has been 100% true and accurate and objective.

 

 

You're moving the goal posts. You specifically said:

"You beat me to it, MR. Timothy isn't old enough to have experienced or learned from the real racial struggles and gains and accomplishments that took place during the late 50's and 60's. Well I am and I did. To see all that gain and advancement and accomplishment destroyed by Obama in 8 short years was heartbreaking and infuriating. "

 

You are specifically saying that Obama destroyed "all that gain and advancement" for a period that included the dismantling of Jim Crow.

 

Oh brother. So you'd rather play semantics games than simply approach the facts honestly. Well here again are the facts, plain and simple:

 

Decades were spent during which countless honest, open-minded, reasonable, non-bigoted people of all races worked very hard improving race relations in America. Huge strides were made. Huge improvements. Leaps and bounds. Then along came Barack Obama and he did catastrophic damage to race relations in America. He DIDN'T bring back Jim Crow, but he DID do terrible harm to race relations.

 

 

PS. Thanks for recommending "Rifles for Watie" as a suggested read! I just finished it and thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

It's a great book, isn't it? Glad you liked it.

 

:yes:

 

 

Trump's travel ban.

 

Ah, you must be referring to the policy that Trump's pathologically dishonest enemies are STILL lying about, claiming it was a "Muslim ban".

 

You realize, I hope, that there are about 50 countries in the world that are "Muslim" countries (i.e. majority Muslim population.) If Trump's policy was a "Muslim ban", ALL 50 of those countries would be on the "banned" list. But only 7 were on the list, and the reason they made the list was NOT because they were "Muslim" countries. No, it was because they were either known, documented sponsors/supporters of international terrorism, or at the very least, simply refused to assist in the vetting/verification/background/criminal record investigation/etc process, making it impossible to know who was coming here and what their intentions were. It was an absolutely reasonable and necessary ban, as every honest person has known all along.

 

I mean sheesh, you must also be aware that it was nothing more than a continuation of OBAMA'S policy that was in place before Trump was elected.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

This reply is to Timothy, primarily, but not exclusively.

 

1) on affirmative action. It is said that AA’s intention is to level the playing field for disadvantaged minorities. You said that you have many problems with AA. Here are mine:

- no acknowledgement and no discussion allowed of the obvious fact that the way the playing field is leveled focuses almost entirely on end results (scores) obtained and not on leadup to said end results. This means that inferior end results are artificially elevated to equal or better status than other end results. Therefore, lower performing people get better educational and employment statuses than better performing people. This is a HUGE disservice to the rest of the nation who greatly depend on the performance of professionals in many sectors.

- most AA looks at race as THE major component. Disadvantaged whites are really kept off from the level playing field. It makes large parts of the program used as hypocritical apologies to slavery of the past.

- AA holds people back in the long run by creating a culture where children do not need to excel. I’m not a racist who says that blacks can’t be good scientists and doctors. They can, but only if they go through the same rigors as others. Our BRAINS have no race.

 

2) on refugees. The US population is 350M, give or take. The rest of the world is 20 times more people. The reality of numbers trumps endless compassion in this case.

- the US takes in 1.5-2M legal and illegal immigrants annually. This is 0.4-0.5% of the total population, and is causing many problems over longer term.

- it is fair to say that we cannot handle more than 0.5-1M immigrants annually while doing a decent/acceptable job of integrating them so that their problems are minimized and that our, the host’s, problems are minimized, for the sake of longevity.

- therefore, we just simply CANNOT accept every refugee who has a bad situation. Does it suck? Yes, but it’s not our fault.

- our resources, good resources, would truly be best spent on tackling the big problems outside this country. Battle the main cause of refugees by battling against totalitarian and dictatorial rules. Don’t just do the AA equivalent of giving aid, most of which ends in the dictators’ coffers anyway. Take a hard stance against countries like Venezuela, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iran, Libya, Syria, Gabon, Chad, Laos, North Korea. And there are others. Everyone will be happier if refugees never become refugees but they stay where they already are.

👍 Edited by Squirrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

I known plenty of people who lived through it and can corroborate it.

 

 

You're moving the goal posts. You specifically said:

"You beat me to it, MR. Timothy isn't old enough to have experienced or learned from the real racial struggles and gains and accomplishments that took place during the late 50's and 60's. Well I am and I did. To see all that gain and advancement and accomplishment destroyed by Obama in 8 short years was heartbreaking and infuriating. "

 

You are specifically saying that Obama destroyed "all that gain and advancement" for a period that included the dismantling of Jim Crow.

 

PS. Thanks for recommending "Rifles for Watie" as a suggested read! I just finished it and thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

 

1) You don't understand the idea behind affirmative action. It is about equity and balancing out systemic barriers against black people and other unrepresented minorities.

2) I have mixed feelings about a lot of affirmative action policies.

 

 

So what? They still represent his views and attitude.

 

 

Trump's travel ban.

 

 

 

"Access to asylum protocols" if you mean a chance to apply that is meaningless if there are caps and rules that still prevent their entry even if their case is legitimate.

 

And we do have those caps. Trump attacked Obama/Clinton for raising those caps and his administration has lowered them. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-pompeo/u-s-to-sharply-limit-refugee-flows-to-30000-in-2019-idUSKCN1LX2HS

 

There are many refugees trying to enter by legal means who are being denied. It is not the same context as "illegal alien".

 

 

I think there needs to be more acknowledgement that that there are a variety of opinions and views and motives on all sides of this issue. Blanket statements of racism are wrong but so are blanket denials.

 

 

 

Yes, in a general sense.

 

 

Generalized observation, with plenty of examples especially from Trump by both his actions and words.

 

 

You often focus on the criticism of right wing positions on this issue, especially criticism having to do with motives behind those positions, and attempt to deny those criticisms. And you keep bringing up racism specifically in the context of a broader point that might mean racism but could also mean many other things.

 

It's not entirely unwarranted since there is a lot of criticism of the right these days that says the right is racist. Almost no one wants to be tagged with that label.

 

 

I was talking about comments about motives for right wing opinions.

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

Right now the main focus of the fear is on crime and terrorism.

 

I don't think it's helpful to go down the rabbit hole of if those fears have any racial bases. To me, the racial issue is secondary to the broader point which is letting fear be the main motive. And while I do object strongly to how that plays into right-wing ideas and policies on immigration, my objection do letting fear be a main motive isn't exclusive to immigration or to the right. For example, I strongly object to Antifa and others on the left using fear of fascism and racism as a justification for attacking freedom of speech.

 

 

As I said people have a mix of good and bad motives, impulses, characteristics, and actions. People of all stripes often show an abundance of charity and love in some situations and a severe lack of charity and love in other situations. When I say that very broadly speaking, the most prevalent Republican positions on refugees show a lack of charity and love, that isn't a statement meant to apply beyond that issue. It isn't a statement about Republicans as individual people and how broadly charitable and loving they are.

 

Without wanting to go down the abortion rabbit hole I'll just say this: Abortion and immigration are different because abortion is generally a very personal issue while immigration is a public issue. As you may have seen I generally respect the pro-life side's underlining motives on the issue of abortion, even if I don't agree with their position.

 

 

This is focusing on the issue of illegal immigration which is not my point here.

 

 

It may be a secondary motive for some.

 

On the issue of refugees, my overwhelming concern is for the plights of refugees as individual people. The civil war in Syria and the violence in places like Guatemala have forced millions of people to flee and put them in desperate circumstances. They are uprooted from their homes that they can't go back to without a great risk of being killed, often suffering from trauma, often without the opportunity to work or for their children to attend school, and in desperate need of safety and stability so they can take live normal lives and take care of their families.

 

My second most important concern is the tradition of our country being an an open place that is a haven for refugees and immigrants. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

 

Anything else is a distant second.

 

That's primarily where I'm coming from on this issue.

Still waiting for what you want to talk about Obama achieved. Then discuss it and stand behind. Seems all you can do is defend the failures. Again can we discuss some positive achievements? You must have a huge list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

Trump's travel ban.

Sheesh. Are you still on that? A travel ban from a handful of countries with known ties to terrorism (or so poorly governed that terrorism tools live and develop in their midst) who refuse to help vet people coming to this country is a "Muslim ban?"

 

The countries, I admit, are predominately Muslim. Do you even stop to think why that is? Because the overwhelming majority of terrorism around the entire planet originates with Muslims. Do you honestly think that we should throw open our borders with no vetting? Or, just so that you and your ilk don't get your PC panties in a wad, do you think he should have added a Scandinavian country to the mix?

 

 

"Access to asylum protocols" if you mean a chance to apply that is meaningless if there are caps and rules that still prevent their entry even if their case is legitimate.

 

And we do have those caps. Trump attacked Obama/Clinton for raising those caps and his administration has lowered them. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-pompeo/u-s-to-sharply-limit-refugee-flows-to-30000-in-2019-idUSKCN1LX2HS

 

There are many refugees trying to enter by legal means who are being denied. It is not the same context as "illegal alien".

Wow, the US has caps on how many people we allow into our country that we don't have to allow at all. What big meanies we are. We are the biggest help to the most people, both in our own country and in impoverished countries around the world, and that is not good enough for you.

 

BTW, more than 80% of refugee claims are found to be without merit. Economic immigrants are abusing the system to try and force "catch and release" while their case is moving its way through. Once the case has been processed and a hearing is scheduled, 90% of those fail to show for the hearings. (Not linking numbers because both of those have been linked here in the past couple of weeks more than once.)

 

You want to make things easier for the refugees? Help Trump stop the flow of illegal migrants and free up our legal system for legitimate claims.

 

On the issue of refugees, my overwhelming concern is for the plights of refugees as individual people. The civil war in Syria and the violence in places like Guatemala have forced millions of people to flee and put them in desperate circumstances. They are uprooted from their homes that they can't go back to without a great risk of being killed, often suffering from trauma, often without the opportunity to work or for their children to attend school, and in desperate need of safety and stability so they can take live normal lives and take care of their families.

 

My second most important concern is the tradition of our country being an an open place that is a haven for refugees and immigrants. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

So, again, you should be all about stopping the illegal immigration and migration for economic reasons so that our system can focus on legitimate claims for refugee status. Are you ready to do that?

 

I cut out the part from your response, but addressing your general religious comments...from a Christian perspective, anyway, we are supposed to help the poor and the widows and the orphans. On an individual basis and as the Church. Those are to be direct actions and direct sacrifices by people and churches to help those less fortunate. This assistance is to start, first, in the local community and then the local community helps the larger community. There is NOTHING Biblical about legislating charity through a government and forcing people, against their will, to assist others. NOTHING. In fact, we are admonished to support our leaders. Christian or not, they are in their positions to advance God's plan. So, we, as Christians, should be supporting Trump's efforts to curb illegal immigration. In doing so, nothing stops us from individually and collectively supporting charitable programs that help these people. Those programs are, by and large, multiple times more efficient than government and originate from an actual concern for the people and not from a political goal.

Edited by JerryL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...