Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[BStowers023]

I had to stop after the first article and read this...

 

Threat of physical attacks

The second factor is a fear of a different kind: the visceral threat of physical attacks.

 

Here are some counters to that...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/05/pro-trump-rally-in-berkeley-turns-violent-as-protesters-clash-with-the-presidents-supporters/?utm_term=.27fbf2dcb623

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/multiple-videos-violence-erupts-deplorable-peaceful-protesters/

 

 

The majority of people calling anyone names are the "progressives" or liberals (whatever you want to refer to the far left as). I'll generalize since that's what we are doing here. The left calls anyone who supports Trump, voted for Trump or has conservative views a "Bigot, Racist, Sexist, Homophobe" along with other hateful labels. If you voted for Trump, you are automatically placed into one of these categories by a liberal (again, generalizing because that's what we're doing, right?).

 

If I don't agree with the Black Lives Matter movement = I am racist

If I don't agree with Women's marches for rights they already have = I am sexist

If I believe we should have a vetting process for immigration = I am an islamophobe

Or simply if I support the United States and our President, many will call me a "Bigot"

 

It has nothing to do with "white power." Do I think racism still exists? Yes, absolutely. Is there only 1 race effected by racism? Absolutely not. Every race is effected by racism. Unfortunately people like yourself believe racism is just a 1 way street. Not everyone is looking for an excuse as to why they aren't successful. A lot of people, black, white, asian, hispanic, etc. just put their head down and go to work to create a better life for themselves. I think that has become lost in all of this. You are going to tell me there is some designated white privilege, but I disagree. Every race has certain privileges. To me, it's more circumstantial. You can't simply say "I was born black, so I am at a disadvantage." If that were the case, no black people in this country would be successful. Was this an issue at one point in this country? Yes, absolutely it was. Why don't you tell me that I am more privileged that Will Smith or LeBron James' kids. I am white, so I must be, right? Go tell the rust belt white father of 4 that lost his job at his manufacturing plant who lost his house and can barely afford to feed his children that him and his kids are privileged simply because he's white.

[BigOxley]

you understand the word "Tacit" means implied without being stated, right? I don't mind being challenged (in fact I enjoy it) but try to make it count mmmkay? don't just do it because I did it to you earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/world/americas/trump-white-populism-europe-united-states.html

 

 

 

http://time.com/4569129/racist-anti-semitic-incidents-donald-trump/

 

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/hate-on-the-rise-after-trumps-election

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/01/donald-trump-and-david-duke-for-the-record/?utm_term=.822c99983993

 

 

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-steve-bannon-alt-right-white-nationalist-disavow

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469

 

 

 

 

 

I will save you the time on reading all of these....although he has made statements "Disavowing" racism, he has been fairly weak on the issue. He refused to repudiate the Klan by claiming he "didn't know anything about them" which let's be honest you have to be pretty fucking sheltered in American to not know anything about them. He has been completely silent on anti-Semitic acts carried out in his name and on the rise of such acts in general.

 

 

 

And then there is Steve Bannon. It's a little hard to claim you are not associated with the alt-right and White Supremacy when when of your closest advisors runs one of the major news outlets catering to that audience.

 

 

 

Missed the part where Obama disavowed black supremacists, BLM, Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, etc

[Geeto67]

I had to stop after the first article and read this...

 

Threat of physical attacks

The second factor is a fear of a different kind: the visceral threat of physical attacks.

 

Here are some counters to that...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/05/pro-trump-rally-in-berkeley-turns-violent-as-protesters-clash-with-the-presidents-supporters/?utm_term=.27fbf2dcb623

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/multiple-videos-violence-erupts-deplorable-peaceful-protesters/

 

First off Anarchists are not "liberals" or "progressives" and they tend to be the catalysts for a lot of the rally violence we are seeing. If you are implying that violence here is in any way attributable to to one side vs the other then you just aren't reading the articles. Both groups are powder in the same keg, the anarchists are the fuse.

 

 

 

The majority of people calling anyone names are the "progressives" or liberals (whatever you want to refer to the far left as).

 

orly? I suppose "snowflake", "libtard", "Cuck", "Social Justice Warrior", etc... don't really count then eh? This is I guess from your personal experience and what can I say...maybe you need to be around a more diverse crowd. Honestly, I think both sides are trolling pretty hard and it's about 50/50. Insults are just noise, they are . Here is an easy one - if you see someone using terms on these lists:

 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/every-insult-the-right-uses-to-troll-liberals-explained

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/every-insult-the-left-uses-to-troll-conservatives-explained

 

generally discount their opinions like you are walmart (with the exception of maybe Misogynist since that's an actual word with a real definition and only it's misuse counts as an insult).

 

 

I'll generalize since that's what we are doing here. The left calls anyone who supports Trump, voted for Trump or has conservative views a "Bigot, Racist, Sexist, Homophobe" along with other hateful labels. If you voted for Trump, you are automatically placed into one of these categories by a liberal (again, generalizing because that's what we're doing, right?).

 

Well....that was one of the risks that comes with backing an administration whose policies have a veneer of racism to them (e.g. travel ban) and whose members have personally made racist statements or supported policies that have significant racial disparate impact (e.g. Jeff Sessions, Steve Bannon). Sometimes the perception outstrips the reality and where as the reality is that you may not be a racist, the perception is that you supported something that is racist and you have accepted it. By the way, the right does this same thing with democratic backers and "socialism" (even in cases where the item in question isn't even socialism - e.g. ACA).

 

If I don't agree with the Black Lives Matter movement = I am racist

that may or may not be true depending on how you define BLM. Like many organizations there are good attributes and bad attributes, and there are also disassociated acts that claim to be part of the org. If you are generally in opposition of the org as a whole and you state as such - then you are going to be perceived racist, and I don't know that label is necessarily unjust. If you have objections to certain methods and tactics but agree they are trying to address a legitimate problem in this country, well then it's probably an unjust perception but since you control your perceptions it's probably best you find a better way to communicate. If what you object to isn't actually BLM but the actions of private actors who just claim to be part of it - well then maybe you need to research things better first.

 

If I don't agree with Women's marches for rights they already have = I am sexist

yep - this is a sexist statement. If you don't understand why it's a sexist statement maybe you need to do more homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

 

 

If I believe we should have a vetting process for immigration = I am an islamophobe

The problem here is that there is an assumption that there wasn't a robust and effective vetting process in place before. Everyone believes we should have a vetting process - the problem here is that one side wrongly believes there isn't one, and the other knows there is one and that it's already really good. The facts of this are - If you are backing a trump position on this, well there isn't anything he can really add to the vetting process to improve it already. Except a travel ban which appears to be islamicly based rather than politically based. Esp when the CIC has said he might give preferential treatment to people of other religions.

Or simply if I support the United States and our President, many will call me a "Bigot"

We all live in the United States, and to a degree the overwhelming majority support it. A lot of the problem here turns on the word support. In outr current administration republicans interpret support of the president as support of Trump and his policies, where as democrats interpret support as holding Trump accountable to the office of the president and its responsibilities to the American people when he deviates from it.

 

 

It has nothing to do with "white power." Do I think racism still exists? Yes, absolutely. Is there only 1 race effected by racism? Absolutely not. Every race is effected by racism.

100% agree

 

 

Unfortunately people like yourself believe racism is just a 1 way street.

That is a mighty powerful assumption for you to make based on literally nothing. The current problem with racism isn't about the racism itself, it's about power. Currently there are programs working their way through government where race and religion are the primary focus, but they use some lesser legitimate factor as a mask for the desperate impact they have. Racism without power is just a really shitty opinion. Add power and it becomes racist political policy.

 

 

Not everyone is looking for an excuse as to why they aren't successful. A lot of people, black, white, asian, hispanic, etc. just put their head down and go to work to create a better life for themselves.

 

yes, but for a lot of them they are starting from a deficit because of historical racist policies that have tendrils extneding into today. If you see the institutional racism in this country as an excuse, then I doubt you will ever see the real problem trying to be solved. The problems with racial impact, crime, poverty, and social costs are all interrelated and require work that recognizes and addresses that. Separating them out and saying it's one factor over the other is not only not seeing the forest from the trees it's just not going to work.

 

I think that has become lost in all of this. You are going to tell me there is some designated white privilege, but I disagree. Every race has certain privileges.

yes but not every race has the same privileges nor the power to exercise them. Not all privileges are created equal.

 

To me, it's more circumstantial. You can't simply say "I was born black, so I am at a disadvantage."

Sure you can say it, because statistically it is true. If less people from your group are going to be successful than other groups and the groups are drawn along race lines, and the reason for the difference can be linked back to laws that suppressed rights based on race you can absolutely say that.

 

 

If that were the case, no black people in this country would be successful.

Bad at statistics are we? Just because one group is less likely to doesn't mean nobody will. This is literally faulty logic.

 

Was this an issue at one point in this country? Yes, absolutely it was. Why don't you tell me that I am more privileged that Will Smith or LeBron James' kids. I am white, so I must be, right? Go tell the rust belt white father of 4 that lost his job at his manufacturing plant who lost his house and can barely afford to feed his children that him and his kids are privileged simply because he's white.

 

Sure. How about you aren't stopped in an airport because you are white and not Muslim - that's a privilege you enjoy over Mohammed Ali's kid.

 

your example of a father of 4 in the rust belt is false equivalence. Privilege does not equal money. There are things he can do that many wealthier individuals cannot. privilege is also not government sponsored. you are literally defining privilege as two different things in the same example. By the way - in that example of a white father of 4, as someone living in poverty he has a lot in common with others of a different racial mix because of the negative effects of poverty, so tell me why he would back an organization that advocates against his self interest? Social welfare can only benefit him, but somehow some of these people have been swindled that conservatism is on their side because you need to "raise yourself up by your bootstraps" (which itself is a fiction invented by Ben Franklin, who raised himself up by passing his social and familial obligations and costs to his sister who toiled in poverty to maintain them).

Edited March 15, 2017 by Geeto67

[Geeto67]

Missed the part where Obama disavowed black supremacists, BLM, Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, etc

 

yes you did:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/26/obama-denounces-farrakhan-endorsement/

 

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20160709/after-violent-week-obama-and-others-cry-out-for-unity

 

As for the new panthers I don't know that he was ever asked about them. However, he didn't appoint any to his cabinet either. And he has routinely spoken out against racial violence which goes against the means and methods of the NBPP.

 

And I am not saying Trump hasn't spoken out against it, he has:

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/21/516488410/after-criticism-trump-speaks-out-against-anti-semitic-violence

 

but it is hard to be credible in speaking out when a member of your own cabinet publishes stuff like this:

 

- 'Bill Kristol: Republican spoiler, renegade Jew'

- 'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy'

- 'Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage'

- 'Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet'

[BStowers023]

Well....that was one of the risks that comes with backing an administration whose policies have a veneer of racism to them (e.g. travel ban) and whose members have personally made racist statements or supported policies that have significant racial disparate impact (e.g. Jeff Sessions, Steve Bannon). Sometimes the perception outstrips the reality and where as the reality is that you may not be a racist, the perception is that you supported something that is racist and you have accepted it. By the way, the right does this same thing with democratic backers and "socialism" (even in cases where the item in question isn't even socialism - e.g. ACA).

 

that may or may not be true depending on how you define BLM. Like many organizations there are good attributes and bad attributes, and there are also disassociated acts that claim to be part of the org. If you are generally in opposition of the org as a whole and you state as such - then you are going to be perceived racist, and I don't know that label is necessarily unjust. If you have objections to certain methods and tactics but agree they are trying to address a legitimate problem in this country, well then it's probably an unjust perception but since you control your perceptions it's probably best you find a better way to communicate. If what you object to isn't actually BLM but the actions of private actors who just claim to be part of it - well then maybe you need to research things better first.

 

How do you think we as a country should go about fixing racism?

 

 

yep - this is a sexist statement. If you don't understand why it's a sexist statement maybe you need to do more homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

 

How do you think we as a country should g about fixing sexism?

 

The problem here is that there is an assumption that there wasn't a robust and effective vetting process in place before. Everyone believes we should have a vetting process - the problem here is that one side wrongly believes there isn't one, and the other knows there is one and that it's already really good. The facts of this are - If you are backing a trump position on this, well there isn't anything he can really add to the vetting process to improve it already. Except a travel ban which appears to be islamicly based rather than politically based. Esp when the CIC has said he might give preferential treatment to people of other religions.

 

I agree, we do have a solid vetting process. My understanding is that a lot of the left wanted to bring in the immigrants from Syria without a vetting process at all. Also, if it were JUST a Muslim ban, then every Muslim country would be banned. I will say, I don't think we should exclude anyone from coming here, but we need to maintain a proper vetting process and we cannot fix the worlds problems by letting every war torn countries citizen migrate here. We simply cannot support that.

 

I hope you will acknowledge the bombs the US dropped on Syria killing innocent Syrian citizens under the Obama administration. I can acknowledge what Bush did in Iraq. Neither are okay.

 

 

We all live in the United States, and to a degree the overwhelming majority support it. A lot of the problem here turns on the word support. In outr current administration republicans interpret support of the president as support of Trump and his policies, where as democrats interpret support as holding Trump accountable to the office of the president and its responsibilities to the American people when he deviates from it.

 

Kinda like Obama deviating from Capitalist values and creating the largest racial divide in the country since the Civil rights movement?

 

 

That is a mighty powerful assumption for you to make based on literally nothing. The current problem with racism isn't about the racism itself, it's about power. Currently there are programs working their way through government where race and religion are the primary focus, but they use some lesser legitimate factor as a mask for the desperate impact they have

 

yes, but for a lot of them they are starting from a deficit because of historical racist policies that have tendrils extneding into today. If you see the institutional racism in this country as an excuse, then I doubt you will ever see the real problem trying to be solved. The problems with racial impact, crime, poverty, and social costs are all interrelated and require work that recognizes and addresses that. Separating them out and saying it's one factor over the other is not only not seeing the forest from the trees it's just not going to work.

 

Are you referring to churches not being taxed?

 

Keeping the African American community in poverty by creating generations of welfare recipients. Something democrats would like to expand because more handouts will surely get them out of poverty. Maybe if we take more from Peter to pay Paul it will all work out. If you disagree, you're racist (Literally liberal logic). I'm sure that will work out great. Public education? Well, it has worked out so well, look at where the US ranks in education throughout the world! But god forbid someone comes in and changes anything. It's going so well, it's racist to change the system. Affirmative Action? Who does that help?

 

yes but not every race has the same privileges nor the power to exercise them. Not all privileges are created equal.

 

Examples?

 

Are there any college scholarships simply for being white? What about for being black, hispanic, american indian, asian, middle eastern?

 

Why do hispanics and african americans get "bonus points" added onto their SAT scores simply for being black or hispanic?

 

http://downtrend.com/vsaxena/bonus-sat-points-for-being-black

 

Sure you can say it, because statistically it is true. If less people from your group are going to be successful because than other groups and the groups are drawn along race lines, and the reason for the difference can be linked back to laws that suppressed rights based on race you can absolutely say that.

 

So you believe that to be a problem with society and not a cultural thing?

 

 

Sure. How about you aren't stopped in an airport because you are white and not Muslim - that's a privilege you enjoy over Mohammed Ali's kid.

 

I have been stopped and patted down at an airport twice while I watched numerous minority races pass by before me and during my pat downs without being patted down themselves.

 

 

your example of a father of 4 in the rust belt is false equivalence. Privilege does not equal money. There are things he can do that many wealthier individuals cannot. privilege is also not government sponsored. you are literally defining privilege as two different things in the same example. By the way - in that example of a white father of 4, as someone living in poverty he has a lot in common with others of a different racial mix because of the negative effects of poverty, so tell me why he would back an organization that advocates against his self interest? Social welfare can only benefit him, but somehow some of these people have been swindled that conservatism is on their side because you need to "raise yourself up by your bootstraps" (which itself is a fiction invented by Ben Franklin, who raised himself up by passing his social and familial obligations and costs to his sister who toiled in poverty to maintain them).

 

Money does equal privilege. You can't tell me that you don't get away with more in this country for simply being rich? Being rich also provides much more opportunity. I view privilege more as a rich and poor thing where you view it more as a race thing.

[BigOxley]

yes you did:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/26/obama-denounces-farrakhan-endorsement/

 

 

 

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20160709/after-violent-week-obama-and-others-cry-out-for-unity

 

 

 

As for the new panthers I don't know that he was ever asked about them. However, he didn't appoint any to his cabinet either. And he has routinely spoken out against racial violence which goes against the means and methods of the NBPP.

 

 

 

And I am not saying Trump hasn't spoken out against it, he has:

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/21/516488410/after-criticism-trump-speaks-out-against-anti-semitic-violence

 

 

 

but it is hard to be credible in speaking out when a member of your own cabinet publishes stuff like this:

 

 

 

- 'Bill Kristol: Republican spoiler, renegade Jew'

 

- 'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy'

 

- 'Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage'

 

- 'Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet'

 

 

 

Farrakhan has a different view than you do.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/10/louis-farrakhan-shares-details-of-private-meeting-with-obama-video/

[Geeto67]

How do you think we as a country should go about fixing racism?

 

you can't "fix" racism. And honestly it is every American's right to feel the way they feel about things. However there are certain activities which you can't make decisions based on race and the way to curtail that is transparency, oversight, legislation, and remediation are how you can exclude it from certain activities.

 

Where we run into problems are programs where historically they have been racist, and while the racist language has been purged over time, the program still has a lasting effect because the program is continued to be built upon that old program. Prisons, Schools, Law enforcement - they all have these problems in some way and some of them exist at the state level so the federal government doesn't have comity to fix it.

 

Social programs like welfare often serve as band-aids to some of these problems, addressing symptoms but not root cause. Removing them isn't an answer to try and force others to "rise up", but it also doesn't fix certain problems - what it does fix is less people are dying in the streets than they used to.

 

 

 

 

How do you think we as a country should g about fixing sexism?

 

Get rid of all the religions. Kidding but only partially. Again, we aren't curing sexism - we are just trying to keep it out of the in-alienable rights. This one is tougher because the obvious solution is to amend the constitution, but now it might undo 100 years of individually granted rights that take into account gender (such as protections for pregnant women).

 

 

I agree, we do have a solid vetting process. My understanding is that a lot of the left wanted to bring in the immigrants from Syria without a vetting process at all. Also, if it were JUST a Muslim ban, then every Muslim country would be banned. I will say, I don't think we should exclude anyone from coming here, but we need to maintain a proper vetting process and we cannot fix the worlds problems by letting every war torn countries citizen migrate here. We simply cannot support that.

 

I don't think anybody was advocating anyone coming in without any vetting process. Nobody sane anyway. I did hear of programs to expedite the immigration of those who had assisted us in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria at their own peril but even now with a program in place we can't get 1/10 of those people in.

 

I hope you will acknowledge the bombs the US dropped on Syria killing innocent Syrian citizens under the Obama administration. I can acknowledge what Bush did in Iraq. Neither are okay.

 

Of course I acknowledge that. It's an absolute crock of shit that the president won a Nobel peace prize for diplomacy while the US was still experiencing a higher than acceptable civilian casualty rate from the drone strikes. However, in my limited understanding I do know there are some things in the government that are "running on autopilot" which are difficult for the president to change. This goes for Bush and Obama equally. They are often put in the unenviable position of having to pick the lesser of two shit sandwiches and do the best they can. Examples of this include troop deployment, gitmo, etc....

 

 

 

Kinda like Obama deviating from Capitalist values and creating the largest racial divide in the country since the Civil rights movement?

 

This is bold statement and one that I don't know you can support with facts. The tale of the tape at the end of his presidency shows him as a pretty moderate, mainstream president.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-shows-obama-is-the-most-moderate-president-2012-3

 

 

Are you referring to churches not being taxed?

no. I mean Trump initiatives that are racially biased or have deleterious desperate impact, but masquerade as something else.

 

Keeping the African American community in poverty by creating generations of welfare recipients.

Welfare is not KEEPING anybody in poverty. In fact the majority of welfare recipients have jobs.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-recipients-already-have-one/

 

What is keeping them in poverty is poverty itself, lack of access to good education, lack of opportunity, and a legal system that stigmatizes a large number of people through corruption and wrongful conviction.

 

Did you know that if you live in a poor neighborhood, everything costs more? Groceries, transportation, insurance, value of rent per square foot.

 

Something democrats would like to expand because more handouts will surely get them out of poverty.

They aren't meant to get anybody out of poverty. They are meant to avoid the social costs associated from people living below a minimum wage (such as healthcare and body clean up).

 

Maybe if we take more from Peter to pay Paul it will all work out. If you disagree, you're racist (Literally liberal logic).

 

That is not "liberal logic" it's a fiction that people create in their heads as a stand in for actually doing research and root cause analysis. Nobody sane in politics is remotely advocating this.

 

 

I'm sure that will work out great. Public education? Well, it has worked out so well, look at where the US ranks in education throughout the world! But god forbid someone comes in and changes anything. It's going so well, it's racist to change the system. Affirmative Action? Who does that help?

 

yes public education isn't perfect. You want to know when we were great at education? the 1950's and 1960's when Eisenhower dumped a ton of money into education in response to the space race (including the GI bill). And this was held up by Kennedy and Johnson. During that time the US was No.1 in the industrialized world for both high school and college. Then came nixon, Reagan, and two bushes that cut the ever living shit out of educational spending. The plain simple fact is public education responds to money at all levels - Dump a ton of money into the program and you get results. Honestly, I don't know why conservatives can't grasp this concept. We have the problem we have now because richer areas have good education because they are pumping money into the system via local taxes. Poor neighborhoods can't do that so they suffer. And poorer neighborhoods are racially biased.

 

Who does affirmative action help? White women. really, it helps them the most. at least when it comes to college admission.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

It had noble intentions in helping enforce parts of the civil rights legislation that was coming through at the same time. Does it still work? a little but not as well as intended or even as well as it used to. Does it need a retool? abso-fucking-lutley. Do we need to scrap it entirely? no because there wouldn't be anything to hold employers accountable.

 

Examples?

Do you own a nice car? Do you know an African American friend who has a similarly nice car. Ask him how often he gets pulled over. Seriously though, how do you not understand how societal privilege works? Start here and fall down this rabbit hole:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29

 

Are there any college scholarships simply for being white?

yes there are:

https://privilegegrant.com/

http://www.fmafe.org/

 

 

Why do hispanics and african americans get "bonus points" added onto their SAT scores simply for being black or hispanic?

 

Because you are a sucker who literally believes anything you read. The only sites that seem to report this are places like "the daily stormer" which is about as fucking NAZI as you can get. They all link back to an unverifiable power-point presentation in an old LA times article that cites no sources for the information. This is fake news. Literally bullshit. here's a good article breaking it down:

http://thecommunicatedstereotype.com/no-minorities-do-not-earn-bonus-points-on-the-sat/

 

http://downtrend.com/vsaxena/bonus-sat-points-for-being-black

 

 

 

So you believe that to be a problem with society and not a cultural thing?

why can't it be both? Culture develops and evolves because of societal influence.

 

 

 

I have been stopped and patted down at an airport twice while I watched numerous minority races pass by before me and during my pat downs without being patted down themselves.

Yes, but was it because you were white? or non-Muslim? I'm pretty sure Mohammad Ali Jr was stopped specifically because he was a Muslim.

 

 

 

Money does equal privilege. You can't tell me that you don't get away with more in this country for simply being rich? Being rich also provides much more opportunity. I view privilege more as a rich and poor thing where you view it more as a race thing.

Money is a form of privilege, but it is not the sum total of privilege. You view it as a money thing, I view it as a privilege thing that extends beyond that because that's what it fucking is. Some privileges are good, some are not. again, seriously read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29

 

and then read a whole shit ton more about it.

[Geeto67]

Farrakhan has a different view than you do.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/10/louis-farrakhan-shares-details-of-private-meeting-with-obama-video/

 

your source is the daily caller? yeah....that's not Pundit Tucker Carlson's highly dubious website with credibility issues or anything....

 

come on dude, be serious.

[RedRocket1647545505]

I feel like anyone who is pro-refugee (without a revised vetting process), should be obligated to take in a family and maintain 100% responsibility for anything they do. Put up or shut up. You want them here, you carry the weight and responsibility.

 

I'm all for immigration, but with some caution.

[BigOxley]

your source is the daily caller? yeah....that's not Pundit Tucker Carlson's highly dubious website with credibility issues or anything....

 

 

 

come on dude, be serious.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, those are Farrakhan's words....Hence the quotations.

[Geeto67]

I feel like anyone who is pro-refugee (without a revised vetting process), should be obligated to take in a family and maintain 100% responsibility for anything they do. Put up or shut up. You want them here, you carry the weight and responsibility.

 

I'm all for immigration, but with some caution.

 

What is this "revised" process you want to see? What is it that the current process does now that you think needs to be changed?

 

To help you out here is the current process:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0

 

And to add some color:

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-extreme-vetting-process-for-refugees-to-enter-america-2017-2

 

What is it you think needs improvement? Currently the only thing Trump has done in this area is the failed travel ban.

[BStowers023]

So what do you guys this of Rand Paul's health care bill?

 

https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ObamacareReplacementActSections.pdf

[BStowers023]

What is this "revised" process you want to see? What is it that the current process does now that you think needs to be changed?

 

To help you out here is the current process:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0

 

And to add some color:

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-extreme-vetting-process-for-refugees-to-enter-america-2017-2

 

What is it you think needs improvement? Currently the only thing Trump has done in this area is the failed travel ban.

 

 

I think the current vetting system is solid, and we really don't let in that many immigrants a year to begin with, but whether you want to believe it or not Kerry, there were a lot of people that wanted to just take in refugees from the middle east similar to how a lot of European countries did and it has backfired on them.

 

I just wish the United States would stay out of the middle east all together. We're nearly 20 trillion dollars in debt and nobody seems to give a fuck. We have major cities crumbling, and we keep going further and further into debt. I think we need a strong national defense, but we need to stay out of these shit 3rd world countries problems and not let them become our problem.

[Geeto67]

but whether you want to believe it or not Kerry, there were a lot of people that wanted to just take in refugees from the middle east similar to how a lot of European countries did and it has backfired on them.

 

First off.....yes there are people who wanted to accept immigrants with a relaxed vetting process....but there are also people that believe Elvis is alive, the moon landing was fake, and Ralph Nader would make a good president. I wouldn't characterize them as "a lot", in fact the term I would probably best use to describe them is a crackpot fringe minority. If you are going to be alarmist about these people despite it not only going against common sense but mainstream opinion on both sides then I don't know what to tell you other than stop it. I get your political position requires you to have enemies to rail against but don't manufacture credibility for crackpot ideas so you can feel better about your position.

 

Now, about accepting refugees from Europe and the middle east USING our existing vetting process: It's not a bad idea, at least not as bad an idea as it sounds because it certainly would help ease the burden of those countries right now.If we did agree to that it would have been from a pool of vetted individuals from European countries or like normal immigration process from those countries. And it wouldn't be as significant number as people think because believe it or not, most of those people fled to European countries so that they could be close to their home countries, some of them had the opportunity to come here and didn't. Also immigration has been proven to be good for the economy. A new community of people brings with it jobs and an influx of a working force for jobs that are hard to hire for (like minimum wage).

 

The thing that disturbs me is that we have plenty of allies in those countries who work for the American government that we can't get out of their own countries. These are people who worked for us, supported us at great personal risk and loss for a vague promise of immigration to the US and we leave the majority of them to twist in the wind.This is everybody from translators and guides to intelligence informants. If more immigration means getting those people here I'm all for it - it's shitty that we as a country welch on our debts to these people.

 

 

I just wish the United States would stay out of the middle east all together. We're nearly 20 trillion dollars in debt and nobody seems to give a fuck. We have major cities crumbling, and we keep going further and further into debt. I think we need a strong national defense, but we need to stay out of these shit 3rd world countries problems and not let them become our problem.

 

We can't. It's a fever dream to think we could. The finances of the US are deeply intertwined with Saudi Arabia. The U.S. buys oil from Saudi Arabia and provides the kingdom military aid and equipment and in return, the Saudis plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret). They hold $117 Billion in US marketable debt.

 

By the way - debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a saleable instrument (it's basically how the bond market works - when you buy a treasury bond you lend the government money that they pay back with interest) that can be leveraged to assets in other ways. In some ways it is considered the alternative currency of the world market. The last time the US paid off it's national debt (1835) it underwent one of the longest depressions ever seen (longer than the great depression of the 1920's) caused by a housing bubble that burst. By the way the debt at the time was $75 million (approx $1,918,216,095.33 in modern spending power). While I am not saying the lack of debt caused the depression it certainly didn't help the US climb out of it either. It sounds strange, but without the US carrying some debt, it is harder to get credit from foreign powers.

[BStowers023]

First off.....yes there are people who wanted to accept immigrants with a relaxed vetting process....but there are also people that believe Elvis is alive, the moon landing was fake, and Ralph Nader would make a good president. I wouldn't characterize them as "a lot", in fact the term I would probably best use to describe them is a crackpot fringe minority. If you are going to be alarmist about these people despite it not only going against common sense but mainstream opinion on both sides then I don't know what to tell you other than stop it. I get your political position requires you to have enemies to rail against but don't manufacture credibility for crackpot ideas so you can feel better about your position.

 

Maybe if all you do is read articles from CNN who you think represent everyone. I hate to say it, but Facebook is a great way to see how "a lot" of everyday people view certain issues. And I'm not just talking about people on my friends list, but people who comment on political pages like Occupy Democrats or Occupy Democrats Logic or certain public figures who have comments from people all over the country from all different walks of life and YES I did see A LOT of people arguing the point that we need to let those refugees in without a vetting process.

 

Inb4 you say a CNN journalist represents more of the population than "idiots on Facebook."

[Geeto67]

Maybe if all you do is read articles from CNN who you think represent everyone.

 

Stop reading these things as representative of people's positions and start reading about the issue itself. Be objective and parse fact from opinion and vet from multiple credible sources. You be objective, form your own questions and seek answers and draw your own conclusions. Then once you understand the basic details and complexity of the issues - go out and see what people are saying as a kind of litmus test. It's actually a lot of work to really be informed so it pays to pick and choose your issue and not chase stupid outrage around the schoolyard.

 

I hate to say it, but Facebook is a great way to see how "a lot" of everyday people view certain issues. And I'm not just talking about people on my friends list, but people who comment on political pages like Occupy Democrats or Occupy Democrats Logic or certain public figures who have comments from people all over the country from all different walks of life and YES I did see A LOT of people arguing the point that we need to let those refugees in without a vetting process.

 

I like a good entertaining conspiracy theory and crackpot recommendation as much as the next guy because it is really entertaining. However, Facebook as a political platform is really only good for either being really disappointed in your friends and family, of finding plenty of dipshits to get your ire up. The problems i see here are 1) you are assuming that your personal experience is representative of the whole of the country. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't (i'm guessing it isn't) but you really can't validate that; 2) you are applying equal credibility to all opinions whether they are credible or not; and 3) you are out there seeking enemies of your position. It's not about having a well formed objective view on a particular issue, it seems to be about being more right than some other group of people.

 

The average American doesn't understand most of how their government works. 1/3 can't demonstrate basic knowledge of structure (http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-many-americans-dont-know-basic-facts-about-government-2014-9). Things like complex foreign policy and geopolitical positioning is outside the realm for most and distrust of the government, Cynicism, historical team fandom, and emotional knee jerk reactions don't help that any. Looking for answers to complex geopolitical problems inside the emotional political swirl is kind of like fishing with bricks - maybe you'll get lucky and conk a fish on the head but mostly you'll just stir up a lot of crap.

 

If you approach any issue with arms folded looking only for the stupid person to validate you are right, you will never run out of stupid people but you will never fully grasp the issue at hand either. You have to approach these things with an open mind, a jaundiced eye for bullshit, and a willingness to change your opinion regardless of party position as more facts become available. It's not hard to find flaws in nearly everything you say here because you are willing to build your castles on the shifting sand of fake news and uninformed political outrage.

 

Inb4 you say a CNN journalist represents more of the population than "idiots on Facebook."

 

a) who the fuck would say that?, and b) why can't you separate an issue from people?

 

Also you keep trying to stereotype or anticipate my arguments based on your paradigm but really - you aren't even playing in my sport. Let go of the adversarial portion of it and try to discuss the actual issue on the merits - not whether some dingus on facebook is saying open all the borders or Obama is still coming for your guns.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Geeto67

[RedRocket1647545505]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/devin-nunes-trump-communications/index.html

 

[BStowers023]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/world/europe/uk-westminster-parliament-shooting.html?_r=0

 

Another one...

[LJ]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/devin-nunes-trump-communications/index.html

 

 

ehhhhhhhhhh

 

Outside of the White House on Wednesday, Nunes confirmed his opinion that Trump was not wiretapped in the sense the president meant with his March 4 tweet.

 

But he did suggest Trump could have been caught up in incidental collection — or legal surveillance of the communications of foreign nationals who may be in contact with U.S. citizens. He signaled that the intelligence community may have, in his mind, included certain names in their reports that did not belong there.

[zeitgeist57]

^^^ Which is why Trump needs to pick his words/phrasing better. Guess what??? If you're using a handheld device accessing your TWITTER ACCOUNT you can bet that someone with the means is able to access conversations you'd rather not have people hear on that same device or others within a network.

 

"Incidental collection" is NOT the same as an intentional wiretapping from a senior government official. The fault is User Error. (Trump)

 

For all the good we can possibly hope to extract from a Trump presidency, it comes at an embarrassingly large amount of noise. Cannot believe the resources (people, communications, time) being devoted to this stupid "wiretapping" issue.

[l36tols1]

lol http://www.businessinsider.com/the-daily-show-went-to-a-trump-rally-2017-3

[Geeto67]

 

"Incidental collection" is NOT the same as an intentional wiretapping from a senior government official. The fault is User Error. (Trump)

 

Given the number of surveillance devices in NYC in general at the private, City, County, State and Federal level "Incidental collection" is a huge distinction. You can't walk though NYC without being recorded in some way in general - and yes the federal government can track your movements for reasons completely unknown or unrelated to the commander in chief or other senior officials. His own people may have turned that surveillance information over voluntarily to the government as well with out Trumps knowledge.

 

For all the good we can possibly hope to extract...it comes at an embarrassingly large amount of noise. Cannot believe the resources (people, communications, time) being devoted to this stupid "wiretapping" issue.

 

how did you not see this coming? seriously did you think he would change post campaign?

[Geeto67]

reality just keeps getting weirder....maybe we do live in a simulation:

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/trump-lawyers-swipe-at-teen-cat-website-983518?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=THR%20Breaking%20News_now_2017-03-21%2018:31:35_ARahman&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_breakingnews

 

President Donald Trump's legal team apparently wasted no time bearing its claws for a fight with a teenager over one kitten-centric website.

 

Lucy, the 17-year-old behind kittenfeed.com, tells The Hollywood Reporter she's received a cease and desist letter over the site — which allows users to virtually scratch at four photos of Trump's head using a cat's paws. The website launched in February, and within its first few weeks only had about 1,200 visitors, but it was enough to catch the attention of the White House.

[BStowers023]

reality just keeps getting weirder....maybe we do live in a simulation:[/url]

 

 

Things just keep getting weirder...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5GYlZKfBmI

[RedRocket1647545505]

Things just keep getting weirder...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5GYlZKfBmI

 

I don't even know anymore...