American Politics

[Princess Ana]

Deporting illegal immigrants does not solve the unemployment crisis. It looks so on paper, because it frees up more jobs! But those jobs are not automatically available to Tom, Dick, and Harry. What may have been 10 construction jobs done by illegal immigrants now becomes 2 jobs done by Americans because of the wage gap. What was once an easy job to get now becomes more competitive; you're paying more (because you have to), so now you want to make sure that the person you're paying all this money too is actually worth the ticket.

The immigration process right now is a shitshow. It's been worse in the past (it's always ironic to see Central / Eastern Europeans try to justify our current immigration system considering we used these exact same arguments to keep them out of country but a hundred years ago), but its still really bad now. I pretty much agree with Stealthy on the matter: the issue is a lot more complicated than just they need to leave and we need to build a wall.

(Not to mention that mass deportation requires resources we don't have, will almost undoubtedly displace many actual Mexican-Americans, and will probably be thick with general nastiness.)

[Snorby]

Originally Posted by Talon87

For the record (and for anyone wondering what on earth my post in response to), there was originally a post in between Stealthy's here and mine here in which Shuckle responded to Stealthy.


1. Things that people believe, things that people said, they have to be examined through the lens of that place and time.

2. People change. Attitudes and beliefs held in early adulthood can and do often change by one's later years.

1 + 2 = I'm not making excuses for the man, but I find examples pulled from '73 much less compelling than ones pulled from '93. Donald Trump was born in 1946. He was younger in 1973 than I am now. He was only 27 years old. Now, 27 is plenty old. I wouldn't call any 27 year old a kid. But he's still certainly young. Young enough, in fact, to hold opinions which he will change later in life. Many men are devoutly religious at 27 and atheist-agnostic by their 50s. Many other men go the opposite route. And a man's religious beliefs, his worldview, these are big things. So if a man can go from 27 "Jesus Christ is my personal savior" to 57 "religion is all a bunch of hogwash," then certainly a man can go from 27 "Negros are a lesser race" to 57 "black, white, makes no difference."

Doesn't mean Donald J. has done this. In fact, we have plenty of recent examples, pulled from the last sixteen years, to show that he is very probably everything UPN's left have accused him of being. But yeah, try not to pull examples from over 40 years ago, from a time period where the Civil Rights Act was barely ten years old.

Oh no you're entirely right my point in including things from that long ago was less "He was racist in '73 so he must be now" and "He's racist now and has been on record as racist since as early as '73". The former's rather silly xp

Originally Posted by Shuckle

My bottom line, and the hill I'll choose to die on: It's hard for me to accept that the Trump who supports affirmative action and wants to expand federal aid in inner cities is the exact same Trump who believes that black people are naturally lazy or inferior.

These viewpoints are absolutely incompatible. Either one invalidates the other completely.

See, that's an easy one. Racism does not necessarily equate to being a heartless person who lacks compassion. It just means you're prejudiced and/or lack empathy. There's a big difference. Someone can very easily and rationally hold both those beliefs with the justification of:

"Black people are naturally lazy and nonwhites are inferior. Therefore, they need to be given a boost through federal aid where they commonly live as well as affirmative action so they can keep up with the superior white race."

There's no contradiction there. That belief arguably sees nonwhites as more inferior than most racist views, because most racist views claim that due to a perceived absence of white privilege any nonwhite who's willing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work as hard as a white person can succeed.

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Snorby

"Black people are naturally lazy and nonwhites are inferior. Therefore, they need to be given a boost through federal aid where they commonly live as well as affirmative action so they can keep up with the superior white race."

There's no contradiction there. That belief arguably sees nonwhites as more inferior than most racist views, because most racist views claim that due to a perceived absence of white privilege any nonwhite who's willing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work as hard as a white person can succeed.

I guess that point of view is logically consistent. I hadn't considered that point. But at the same time, we're extrapolating from the effect, not the cause. Here's some quotes from interviews that seem to support a non-racist interpretation:

Q: You said that you're "fine" with affirmative action. What about those who say the time for that kind of preferential treatment has come and gone?

TRUMP: I'm fine with it, but we have it, it's there. But it's coming to a time when maybe we don't need it. That would be a wonderful thing. I don't think we need it so much anymore. It has served its place, and it served its time. Some people have loved it and some people don't like it at all. But I think there will be a time when you don't need it.

This is consistent with what most non-racists think about affirmative action (a solution to systemic differences) and inconsistent with your logical pattern of "nonwhites are inferior and need AA to keep up with whites." Sure, it could still be an ignorant point of view on its own - ignoring the struggles of minorities - but even that is inconsistent with racism. Believing all races are equally equipped to take advantage of every opportunity in America is not a racist point of view (quite the opposite actually), it's just naive and wrong.

Q: You said of Barack Obama, "Sadly, because he's done such a poor job as president, you won't see another black president for generations." What did you mean by that?

TRUMP: Well, I think he's been a very poor president. We have $18 trillion right now in debt and going up rapidly. We don't have victories anymore. China is killing us on trade. Mexico's killing us at the border and also killing us on trade.

Q: I understand your critique, but why we won't see another black president for generations?

TRUMP: Because I think that he has set a very poor standard and it's a shame for the African American people. He really has done nothing for African Americans. You look at what's gone on with their income levels, and with their youth. They have problems now in terms of unemployment numbers. We have a black president who's done very poorly for the African Americans of this country.

It's up to you to interpret these statements through your own filter but I don't think I'm being unreasonable in thinking he's just being a politically incorrect asshole some of the time and a problem solver in other times.

Q: You don't use a politician's filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals."

TRUMP: Only Rosie O'Donnell!

ok this one's actually kinda funny

Today, according to Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, there are more women than men holding executive positions in the Trump Organization, heading such departments as human resources, golf and hotel management, and global licensing, even though women make up just 43 percent of the overall workforce. Women who are in similar positions as men, Cohen said, “are compensated at equal and in many cases higher pay rates.”

It was not possible to independently verify Cohen’s data, and he declined to provide documentation.

[Mozz]

I've definitely taken a knee on this thread so I don't get banned from the forum, fwiw.

[Snorby]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

I guess that point of view is logically consistent. I hadn't considered that point. But at the same time, we're extrapolating from the effect, not the cause. Here's some quotes from interviews that seem to support a non-racist interpretation:

This is consistent with what most non-racists think about affirmative action (a solution to systemic differences) and inconsistent with your logical pattern of "nonwhites are inferior and need AA to keep up with whites." Sure, it could still be an ignorant point of view on its own - ignoring the struggles of minorities - but even that is inconsistent with racism. Believing all races are equally equipped to take advantage of every opportunity in America is not a racist point of view (quite the opposite actually), it's just naive and wrong.

See, what I see in that affirmative action quote is a well calculated (Surprisingly so. Not that Trump's dumb per se, he's certainly intelligent, but I think we can all agree he often times does not think before he speaks.) stance on AA that allows him to toe the line. If he thinks it will help him, he can campaign on a platform of increasing or continuing AA by saying the country "still needs it", or he can campaign on a platform of abolishing it by saying the country "doesn't need it". What he says doesn't necessarily clear his name in terms of racism, it just proves he's better at playing politics than people (both those for and against) think.

The way I see it, there are three basic viewpoints on race:

1. The one I already outlined and charged Trump with.

2. My personal view- Whites and nonwhites are fundamentally equal, but due to the burdens of being marginalized and oppressed for generations, our society has strong-armed them into a corner where they find themselves severely disadvantaged, and thus things such as affirmative action etc are necessary to counteract as well as repent for the marginalization and oppression these people have faced.

3. The view of many conservatives, Bill O'Riley being a good example. Nonwhites are just as capable as whites, but they as a race are simply unwilling to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" as the saying goes, and therefore nonwhites are inferior to whites for (supposedly) no fundamental, racial reason, but merely due to a perceived lack of initiative. Therefore, AA etc are unnecessary because nonwhites are the ones at fault for their own marginalization.

The first viewpoint, in my view, is the most racist, because it's the only one that claims there's something fundamentally wrong with people who aren't white. The third, however, is the one with the most unsound logic behind it- it inherently contradicts itself by claiming nonwhites are inferior yet somehow responsible for their own inferiority and thus are not deserving of compensation. I side with the second so I'm in no place to give an objective criticism, because I think it's by far the most morally virtuous and logically sound position to take.

Obviously these are not the only three stances that can be taken but I think of the three Trump very clearly fits most neatly into the first.

[deh74]

Injecting some non-Presidential news into this thread in the form of an update on the current status of Governor Paul LePage of Maine, as seen through the eyes of the Boston Globe.

Paul LePage is New England's George Wallace.

I guess we finally know where "D-Money, Smoothie, and Shifty" are from.

I really hope that somebody gives newspapers the opportunity to say "Massachusetts to LePage: Drop Dead"...

[Shuckle]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...24d_story.html

ARE YOU READ FOR THE WLASL

Shuckle's Political Commentary:

Some solid strategy in action.

Step 1: Say outrageous things and make an unacceptable offer
Step 2: Come across as reasonable in direct discussions and negotiation, seeming agreeable to tone down the shock and horror of the original offer
Step 3: Come to a compromise that favors you but is more favorable for the other party than your original offer

It's some classic Trump; he has a lot of weight to throw around thanks to the attention he gets and his vast wealth (probably), and he uses it pretty skillfully to get people onto his side.

We'll see what Trump comes up with to get Nieto to accept his proposal.

[Talon87]

I am reminded of:



Principal Skinner trying to please the women of the PTA.

If Trump is seriously playing the retroactive centrist card, as Shuckle was saying he ought to do back in June, and if this seriously plays out for him and he wins the election ...

[Shuckle]

Trump confirmed that his visit was simply for relations purposes and apparently the subject of the payment for the wall was not seriously discussed.

[Snorby]

And yet Nieto has said he all but opened with "Mexico will not pay for your border wall". I feel like it wouldn't be out of character for Trump to lie about this, so while I admit to knowing very little about Nieto I'm gonna trust him on this one.

[Zelphon]

The wall isn't happening, we know this.

[Sparkbeat]

It could very much so happen, unless I'm just completely mistaken on something. It's just the Mexico paying for it part that almost certainly won't.

[Zelphon]

It's an ultimately pointless expense on whoever ends up paying for it, easily circumvented by creative enough smugglers. Not to mention all the geography and land ownership you have to circumvent in order to build it.

The idea of the wall is dumb.

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Snorby

And yet Nieto has said he all but opened with "Mexico will not pay for your border wall". I feel like it wouldn't be out of character for Trump to lie about this, so while I admit to knowing very little about Nieto I'm gonna trust him on this one.

While Mexican politics is an absolute shitshow of lies and corruption, you are correct; Nieto (and rightfully so) opened with a "we will not pay for this wall." That's not really something you should doubt even if Nieto was a lying and cheating scumbag. Which I think he isn't, actually, I seem to remember something saying he was at least halfway decent, but the structure of Mexican government is pretty rotten and it's just ugh.

However, that doesn't mean that Trump negotiated or discussed payment for the wall. Just that Nieto brought it up and took a stance on it. The purpose of the trip was not to negotiate payment for a wall that may or may not even happen! It was just to establish a diplomatic relationship and ease international tensions. They probably discussed agreements in which both countries could come out ahead without either country benefiting unfairly.

Trump's already done the exact same thing with Britain and France by saying something to get them up in arms and then appeasing them with things they can't help but get interested in - Britain is grudgingly happy about getting a new and better trade deal from Trump and are mostly just Britishly protesting his racism by saying lots of stuff about it but not actually getting angry.

[Midgeorge]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Britain is grudgingly happy about getting a new and better trade deal from Trump and are mostly just Britishly protesting his racism by saying lots of stuff about it but not actually getting angry.

Could you elaborate on this? Britain is quite divided politically at the moment so referring to Britain as one single entity sounds inherently wrong.

[Stealthy]

This was nothing but a photo op. A poorly organized one, but still a photo op.

[Princess Ana]

I'm gonna say I really don't agree with Shuckle, at all. His immigration platform was really, before anything else, the defining point of his campaign. "Build a wall" on the Mexican border, its really the first thing anyone picked up on and went "what the actual fuck" about. It's also what drew a significant voter bloc of his because, let's face it, even if you don't want to admit that Trump himself is racist or xenophobic, many of his supporters are and were drawn to him by his tight immigration policy.

Him moving to be more central at this point would be a disaster. He would simultaneously lose the racist, xenophobic vote while gaining very few central voters. He would look wishywashy instead of a negotiator or someone who drives for compromise. That's not the image he initially wanted to set for himself, and its not the image that many of his supporters see in him. If he changes now, its going to be a major issue.

This trip to Mexico is simply a talking point and nothing but. It's his speech in Arizona that's going to make more of a difference. That said, this alone doesn't necessarily look bad especially to his more educated voters who knows one of his weak points is that the world hates him.

On a different note, Shuckle, I'm going to ask that you take an objective look at what Trump says and does. So far you've only seen what Trump has done and said in a neutral or positive light. You denounce him in name only, when its convenient, and then immediately flip-flop. A couple of pages ago you found good evidence to show you that Trump was actually racist...and now you've turned around and are saying the complete opposite. Opinions change, but this doesn't look it.

When Talon says its UM levels of bad, I'm inclined to agree. Simply because you don't seem like a rational Trump supporter, you seem like someone who treats everything that comes out of his mouth like solid gold. Even among Bernie supporters here we didn't act like this.

Kush shut up before you say something stupid.

[Stealthy]

Seems to me like Trump's banking on his core supporters sticking to his cult of personality over any policy at this point (hi Shuckle), and that the more centrist voters that he needs to win have a short enough memory to fall for the massive swing in policy.

[Mercutio]

I'm generally happy tiptoeing around you Emi but I'm not about to pretend you're smarter than me. Don't bait me :p

[Princess Ana]

Not sure if you're trying to tell me not to bait by trying to bait me

:3

[Doppleganger]

Trump could always have transitioned to a more centrist view on immigration. The problem is he needed the credibility of an already solid campaign (in other areas) to do it. If Trump were crushing Hillary in the polls right now, backing off on the wall wouldn't have sunk his campaign and instead improved his chances.

It's a sales pitch, effectively. Showman will say whatever gets in you in the door and then tone it down once you're hooked. That was always Trump's best game plan and has been obvious since his primary camaign. But he's been unable to consolidate the rest of his campaign theology, and that was the issue.

[Princess Ana]

In a "shocker" Trump has not moved centrist on his immigration policy after all.

[Slash]

So, I don't overly keep up with current events, so I just yesterday heard about the whole controversy with Kaepernick. I know most of us aren't very sportsy, but I don't think I saw anyone here mention it, and it might be a good change of pace from talking to death the innumerable low points of Drumpf.

So, an athlete not standing for the anthem: Right? Wrong? Well-intentioned but not the proper forum? Acceptable act but for the wrong reasons? Does his net worth make it irrelevant?

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Midgeorge

Could you elaborate on this? Britain is quite divided politically at the moment so referring to Britain as one single entity sounds inherently wrong.

Nope, I'm not good with non-American politics. If you know more about this I'll happily defer.

Originally Posted by Emi

I'm gonna say I really don't agree with Shuckle, at all. His immigration platform was really, before anything else, the defining point of his campaign. "Build a wall" on the Mexican border, its really the first thing anyone picked up on and went "what the actual fuck" about. It's also what drew a significant voter bloc of his because, let's face it, even if you don't want to admit that Trump himself is racist or xenophobic, many of his supporters are and were drawn to him by his tight immigration policy.

Him moving to be more central at this point would be a disaster. He would simultaneously lose the racist, xenophobic vote while gaining very few central voters. He would look wishywashy instead of a negotiator or someone who drives for compromise. That's not the image he initially wanted to set for himself, and its not the image that many of his supporters see in him. If he changes now, its going to be a major issue.

You think Trump moving centrist involves him changing his stance on immigration?

Do you know what "moving centrist" means?

This trip to Mexico is simply a talking point and nothing but. It's his speech in Arizona that's going to make more of a difference. That said, this alone doesn't necessarily look bad especially to his more educated voters who knows one of his weak points is that the world hates him.

On a different note, Shuckle, I'm going to ask that you take an objective look at what Trump says and does. So far you've only seen what Trump has done and said in a neutral or positive light. You denounce him in name only, when its convenient, and then immediately flip-flop. A couple of pages ago you found good evidence to show you that Trump was actually racist...and now you've turned around and are saying the complete opposite. Opinions change, but this doesn't look it.

When Talon says its UM levels of bad, I'm inclined to agree. Simply because you don't seem like a rational Trump supporter, you seem like someone who treats everything that comes out of his mouth like solid gold. Even among Bernie supporters here we didn't act like this.

I don't see evidence of any of this in my posts. I don't fanboy over Trump and I don't think he's infallible.

In fact I was whining about his mistakes from the very beginning. Holding his cards too tightly, making a stance about teleprompters that nobody cares about, kicking things off by attracting race-related attention, etc. He's made messes in his political campaign.

He's smart and capable, and he is really good with image. When I analyze his statements and actions, I'm coming up with actual reasons for him to do the things he does.

I'm pretty sure the only reason that you're saying that I'm "UM levels of bad" is because I refuse to agree with you that Trump is racist based off of your feelings on the matter.

Does he make offensive jokes? Yes. Does he talk about race-related politics? Yes. Does that make him racist? Only if it makes Hillary racist, too. Which, hint: it doesn't for either one.

Originally Posted by Stealthy

Seems to me like Trump's banking on his core supporters sticking to his cult of personality over any policy at this point (hi Shuckle), and that the more centrist voters that he needs to win have a short enough memory to fall for the massive swing in policy.

Nah, you're making the same mistake as Emi here. You're assuming Trump is just gonna fuckin abandon his old policies for new, shiny, centrist policies.

"Moving Centrist" means that Trump is going to stick to his guns on gun control and immigration, which is going to keep him entrenched on the Republican side. Hillary's doing the same thing in the opposite direction. Both have carefully kept quiet on several issues (Trump more so than Hillary, as he's more moderate than she is) and are now revealing their stances on both sides of the aisle to try to convince moderate voters.

Trump isn't going to change his mind on immigration, he's just going to talk more about ways in which he is moderate or even liberal.

[Heather]

I'll say this: As much as the First Amendment protects his right to protest like this, it protects the rights of other people to take issue with it, so if he faces consequences for it, i.e. pay cuts or what have you, it's no one's fault but his own.

Okay that was at Slash, thanks Shuckle for the Greninja.