U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[Skimbo 304]

13 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

More like by starting a war he couldn't win. 

A good army leader knows when to retreat - he didn't and payed the very high price.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Historical hindsight is 20/20.  Both Napoleon and Hitler made the fatal mistake of attacking Russia without any real understanding of the kind of terrain nor the size of it.  Northern winters are not funny for an invading army that is not prepared for it, and neither of these invasions were.  Bogged down in the autumn mud, then frozen to death by the winter. 

Of course, by this time, both leaders had mentally lost it.  Megalomania has a way of growing so as to completely disable any discriminatory powers the victim may have.  Nappy may be excused (a little) because of general ignorance of the land masses at the time, but the little corporal had no such excuse.  He simply stopped listening to anything he didn't want to hear and hid behind the SS.  The OKW must have gone quietly mad with Adolf the Aryan (who wasn't one) giving contradictory orders from day to day.  I have sympathy for Field Marshall Keitel, but he was too chicken to stick his dagger into his boss, so ...

But enough ancient history.  Let's return to our muttons and consider the effect, if any, of the State of the Union Address which was a pretty good piece of Democratic campaigning.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 1/12/2016 at 10:31 AM, LexusInfernus said:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8?r=US&IR=T

Just saying

What's wrong with reading or studying Hitler's speeches?

I have a copy of Das Kapital but I'm not a communist. I have a digital version of My Kampf but I haven't gotten around to reading it. I also own a copy of the Old Testament, New Testament, Quran (digital), and I'm an atheist.

In the article it says he was given the book by a friend. I think this is an important detail because it shows Trump's level of interest in Hitler and the Nazis. If he was really an enthusiast why didn't he buy the book himself? Why is My New Order the only work of Hitler he owns (as far as we know)?

"Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed."

It would be weird/suspicious if My New Order was the only book Trump kept in that cabinet by his bed, but who knows what else is in it. He could have a bunch of books in there that he likes to keep a round for a little night time reading.

Also, in terms of style, Trump's speeches have little to nothing in common with Hitler's speeches. Hitler speaks like a military leader, emperor, or king. There's a certain level of anger and tightness. Trump is loose and free flowing, more like a stand-up comedian with a very New York style.

I don't like having to defend Trump but there is a lot of exaggeration and hyperbole around the things he says and does. The opposition is so desperate to bring him down they'll grasp at anything to make him seem racist and bigoted, even things that aren't true or that are pure speculation. Calling someone a Hitler or a Crypto-Nazi is pretty weak, and you don't need to do that to prove that most, if not all, of Trump's policies are pretty dumb.

On a personal note however, I think Trump has one of the most rational foreign policies of all the candidates. It gets a bit lost in his blowhard posturing, but in my opinion it's actually pretty sound.

 

He's surprisingly rational, sometimes. That's not to say voting for him is a great idea, but I totally get the appeal.

[krbe 193]

He is surprisingly rational as long as you account for the fact that he deals talking points. E.g. "Paris doesn't look like Paris any longer" is not hard for anyone who doesn't like him to brush off. But is wandering around in a city centre full of people with guns and military fatigues what Paris is supposed to look like? And when you take the train from Gare du Nord to Roissy; where are the French? And why are construction waste dumps chock full of satelite dishes?

But he's going to get into trouble converting this into politics. If Mr Obama had been doing anything to Mr Assad and his country -- what would it have been except destroying the country even faster and lead to a bigger flow of refugees. We don't need that, Donald.

But Bill O'Reilly? There must be someone better in the media that the candidates are talking to, no?

[Sabretooth78 808]

18 hours ago, krbe said:

But Bill O'Reilly? There must be someone better in the media that the candidates are talking to, no?

Better?  I don't know.  There's Sean Hannity, though.  That is, if you're looking for somebody who is actually a bigger blowhard than Trump can be.  I miss his interviews with Ron Paul.  He would act as though he was trying to kiss up and then Ron would school him - there was one time Ron called him a statist and it completely shut him up (no small feat) and I think they then cut to commercial.  I don't think he was invited back.

But yeah, among the pablum-spewing ideologues that the average 'Murican turns to for their daily dosage of socialized thought, O'Reilly is probably one of the more sensible ones.

[Hellken 1,658]

Not The Onion: Poll Shows 30% Reps & 19% Dems Support Bombing Fictional City From Disney's Aladdin

Trump Lead Grows Nationally; 41% of His Voters Want to Bomb Agrabah, the Fictional Country From Aladdin; Clinton Maintains Big Lead

 

 

 

Full PDF results here [LINK]

 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

20 hours ago, krbe said:

But he's going to get into trouble converting this into politics. If Mr Obama had been doing anything to Mr Assad and his country -- what would it have been except destroying the country even faster and lead to a bigger flow of refugees. We don't need that, Donald.

I don't think Trump wanted Obama to fight Assad, just criticizing him for setting a "red line" then looking like a fool for not being able to do anything when the time came.

[krbe 193]

46 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

I don't think Trump wanted Obama to fight Assad, just criticizing him for setting a "red line" then looking like a fool for not being able to do anything when the time came.

Those two last sentences were actually my own personal EUropean opinion -- a unilateral air only campaign would only drive more people towards Europe.

However, the fact of the matter is that Mr Trump talks big on issues he can't possible have been thinking through. Luckily, with so many of his supports in favour of a war on Agrabah it may be hard for them to distinguish Muslim and Muslin.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

1 hour ago, krbe said:

Those two last sentences were actually my own personal EUropean opinion -- a unilateral air only campaign would only drive more people towards Europe.

But Trump isn't suggesting a unilateral air campaign is he?

1 hour ago, krbe said:

However, the fact of the matter is that Mr Trump talks big on issues he can't possible have been thinking through.

Why can't he possibly have been thinking these issues through?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

From the evidence of his own mouth, I think the Donald reacts rather than acts.  This doesn't say much about thinking.

[krbe 193]

19 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

But Trump isn't suggesting a unilateral air campaign is he?

Why can't he possibly have been thinking these issues through?

I believe Mr Trump has answered both of your questions himself. I'm not assured he'd take the responsibility needed if he had the bombs -- he simply lacks the balls. No different than any other Western politician; and for good reasons, of course.

His Muslim ban could have been a good start though, but I doubt he'd like his legacy to be that of the Muslim Exodus. How will he defend that in front of his Jewish friends?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

2 hours ago, krbe said:

I believe Mr Trump has answered both of your questions himself. I'm not assured he'd take the responsibility needed if he had the bombs -- he simply lacks the balls. No different than any other Western politician; and for good reasons, of course.

Oh, he said that...

lol.

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 13-1-2016 at 4:33 PM, MilitantRadical said:

I don't like having to defend Trump but there is a lot of exaggeration and hyperbole around the things he says and does. The opposition is so desperate to bring him down they'll grasp at anything to make him seem racist and bigoted, even things that aren't true or that are pure speculation. Calling someone a Hitler or a Crypto-Nazi is pretty weak, and you don't need to do that to prove that most, if not all, of Trump's policies are pretty dumb.

On a personal note however, I think Trump has one of the most rational foreign policies of all the candidates. It gets a bit lost in his blowhard posturing, but in my opinion it's actually pretty sound.

Eh well, if on your shortlist of nighttime reading books is a book by Hitler, I'd get suspicious. 

And calling him a crypto Nazi is appropriate if we look at the facts. Trump is to some extend copying Hitlers political tactics, namely by turning one ethnic group within society into a scapegoat and then promising to cleanse the land of said scapegoat. Furthermore, he does present himself as the 'strong leader' who is going to fix everything that is broken. He pretty much literally states such things at his rallies. In fact, Trump is so much like Hitler he has a very significant following of white supremacists and Neo Nazis. If your political style appeals to that kind of people, I would be worried. 

As for is 'rational' foreign policy, the guy is against an Iran deal and has argued for collective punishment policies to fight IS. That pretty much excludes him from the group of people with sane foreign policies. Okay, in the case of IS and Syria, he is perhaps better than Ted Cruz, but that is only because Ted Cruz is completely and totally insane. No, the least insane person when it comes to foreign policy is probably Rand Paul on  the Republican side. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If you discount the distaff side of the argument, who is a known scofflaw, it is looking better and better for Bernie Sanders.  Now will the G.O.P. implode?  The Iowa caucuses may be a telling point.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

13 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Eh well, if on your shortlist of nighttime reading books is a book by Hitler, I'd get suspicious.

Kind of interesting that during the 1990ies, when he was alleged to be reading this book, Trump was an avid Democrat and close friend of the Clintons.

Also, we don't know if he actually read this book. The info comes from his ex-wife during a time when they were going through a bitter public divorce. It could be true, it could also not be true.

13 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

And calling him a crypto Nazi is appropriate if we look at the facts. Trump is to some extend copying Hitlers political tactics, namely by turning one ethnic group within society into a scapegoat and then promising to cleanse the land of said scapegoat.

Except that he doesn't really go after Mexicans or Muslims all that much. Sure he's mentioned them in a speech or two, but it's not like he goes on at length about them, and he is willing to embrace them, at least for the sake of appearances. They're welcome at his rallies. Doubt you'd ever see Hitler on the campaign trail embrace a Jew. Trump has also acknowledged that Mexicans and South American people are good people, despite his rapists and murders comment. He's said he's going to deport the illegals, and while I think it is a futile and ineffective authoritarian plan, it's hardly the same as a genocide or cleansing. He's also said that he's willing to let South American immigrants in as long as they come in legally.

If anything I could accuse the Democrats of doing the same thing, turning ethnic groups against each other, blacks against whites in particular. BLM and some immigration groups can be pretty racists on their extremes. America's largest Latino advocacy group is called the National Council of La Raza, which literally translates to the National Council of The Race.

I'm sure parts of Trumps plans appeal to skinheads and Neo-Nazis, but nothing Trump has suggested will actually benefit them. Blacks and Jews are their most hated groups and Trump isn't going to do anything to them. Even if Trump manages to deport all the illegal immigrants there will still be plenty of legal South American people in the country, same with Muslims. They gain nothing by supporting Trump. Only a temporary sense that someone is on their side. Even if he became president he would be nowhere near popular enough or powerful enough to do any shady ethnic cleansing or whatever horrible thing you might be imagining. It's not like electing Trump will make lynching black people legal or acceptable again.

I find it kind of absurd to think he's some kind of secret racist, just hiding his racism enough so that he can get into power and unleash evil like he's Palpatine from Star Wars or something. It's a lot like when some conservatives thought Obama was a secret Muslim (oh wait, some of them still think that). I mean I don't rule out that he could be completely evil but I have to balance out what I want to believe with what I can prove.

13 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

 Furthermore, he does present himself as the 'strong leader' who is going to fix everything that is broken. He pretty much literally states such things at his rallies.

Kind of like how Obama presented himself...

13 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

No, the least insane person when it comes to foreign policy is probably Rand Paul on  the Republican side. 

Oh I agree on that, but sometimes when I hear Trump I think he has a fairly good grasp of the situation compared to other candidates, even though that ain't saying much.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Do any of these isolationist Republican candidates have a grip on anything but their local constituencies?  Foreign policy for them seems to stop at Cuba.

[LexusInfernus 908]

8 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Except that he doesn't really go after Mexicans or Muslims all that much. Sure he's mentioned them in a speech or two, but it's not like he goes on at length about them, and he is willing to embrace them, at least for the sake of appearances. They're welcome at his rallies. Doubt you'd ever see Hitler on the campaign trail embrace a Jew. Trump has also acknowledged that Mexicans and South American people are good people, despite his rapists and murders comment. He's said he's going to deport the illegals, and while I think it is a futile and ineffective authoritarian plan, it's hardly the same as a genocide or cleansing. He's also said that he's willing to let South American immigrants in as long as they come in legally.

Despite him 'embracing' a Muslim or Latin American once in a while, he is just as likely to kick them out of his rallies (they are only welcome because if he bans them, he opens himself up to lawsuits) or make fun of them during his rallies. Also, he still plans to build a wall to keep them out, deport them because they are all illegals or in the case of Muslims, simply deport them. Sure, he isn't talking about death camps yet, but Hitler never talked about those either when he was trying to get elected. His initial plans for getting rid of the Jews was to either deport them or bully them so much they would leave by themselves. Destruction camps were only come up with later. 

8 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

If anything I could accuse the Democrats of doing the same thing, turning ethnic groups against each other, blacks against whites in particular. BLM and some immigration groups can be pretty racists on their extremes. America's largest Latino advocacy group is called the National Council of La Raza, which literally translates to the National Council of The Race.

BLM isn't 'racist', they are just not the cuddly black people white Liberals feel comfortable hanging out with, because BLM has the balls to call white Liberals out on their hypocrisy and incomprehension regarding race, in particular when they start yelling stuff like 'all lives matter'. I don't blame them. Also calling yourself National Council of the Race isn't in it self a sign of racism. 

8 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

I'm sure parts of Trumps plans appeal to skinheads and Neo-Nazis, but nothing Trump has suggested will actually benefit them. Blacks and Jews are their most hated groups and Trump isn't going to do anything to them. Even if Trump manages to deport all the illegal immigrants there will still be plenty of legal South American people in the country, same with Muslims. They gain nothing by supporting Trump. Only a temporary sense that someone is on their side. Even if he became president he would be nowhere near popular enough or powerful enough to do any shady ethnic cleansing or whatever horrible thing you might be imagining. It's not like electing Trump will make lynching black people legal or acceptable again.

Well for one, White Supremacists hate everyone who isn't white, and with white they mean Northern European Christian white. So they hate Muslims and Latin Americans as much as they hate black people and Jews. In any case, the fact remains that he managed to convince White Supremacists that he's on their side, and he convinced me of that as well. Do I think that in the long run the White Supremacists will gain much from it? No, probably not, but that won't because Trump didn't care about them enough, its because White Supremacists are a bunch of whiny losers with a massive victim complex. No matter who gets in office, White Supremacists will never benefit because they sabotage themselves at every step. Still, that doesn't diminish the fact that they represent a corrosive and evil ideology and that any politician who appeals to that is skating on very thin ice. 

8 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

I find it kind of absurd to think he's some kind of secret racist, just hiding his racism enough so that he can get into power and unleash evil like he's Palpatine from Star Wars or something. It's a lot like when some conservatives thought Obama was a secret Muslim (oh wait, some of them still think that). I mean I don't rule out that he could be completely evil but I have to balance out what I want to believe with what I can prove.

Secret racist? What do you mean secret? He is pretty open about his racism. Again, he is proposing to build a giant wall along the Southern border and proposing to kick out all Muslims. Someone who proposes that isn't a 'secret' racist, thats someone who is very open and honest about how much of a bigot he is. 

8 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Kind of like how Obama presented himself...

Obama used the message of hope for change to get elected. Thats pretty different from claiming to be the strong leader that will fix every problem. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Despite him 'embracing' a Muslim or Latin American once in a while, he is just as likely to kick them out of his rallies (they are only welcome because if he bans them, he opens himself up to lawsuits) or make fun of them during his rallies.

Anyone who disagrees with a candidate and is disruptive will most likely get kicked out of the event. Happens at Obama rallies, happens at Clinton rallies.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Sure, he isn't talking about death camps yet, but Hitler never talked about those either when he was trying to get elected. His initial plans for getting rid of the Jews was to either deport them or bully them so much they would leave by themselves. Destruction camps were only come up with later.

So do you think secretly wants to exterminate racial groups and that he would attempt it when in office?

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

BLM isn't 'racist', they are just not the cuddly black people white Liberals feel comfortable hanging out with, because BLM has the balls to call white Liberals out on their hypocrisy and incomprehension regarding race, in particular when they start yelling stuff like 'all lives matter'.

I'm not saying BLM is racist, just that on the extremes there are racists. There are some pretty hardcore racists within BLM, but that doesn't make BLM racist. See what I mean?

And even though BLM has good intentions they exaggerate constantly and use racially divisive rhetoric.

When it comes to dividing ethnic groups and turning the against each other both parties do it. Only difference is that it is politically correct to be bigoted and racist against white people.

Hatred of the white rich man from the left is in some ways far more reminiscent of the hatred of the Jew in Nazi Germany who were the upper and middle class intelligentsia at the time.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Also calling yourself National Council of the Race isn't in it self a sign of racism.

At least if you're non-white.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Well for one, White Supremacists hate everyone who isn't white, and with white they mean Northern European Christian white. So they hate Muslims and Latin Americans as much as they hate black people and Jews.

Well no, I'd argue that on the scale of people that they hate most, blacks and Jews are on the top. Weren't you the one who said racism is a gradient?

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Secret racist? What do you mean secret? He is pretty open about his racism. Again, he is proposing to build a giant wall along the Southern border and proposing to kick out all Muslims. Someone who proposes that isn't a 'secret' racist, thats someone who is very open and honest about how much of a bigot he is. 

Sorry, I meant secret Nazi.

Wanting to prevent illegal immigration isn't racist (in and of itself) and I don't believe Trump has proposed kicking out all or any Muslims. He's only called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to America.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Obama used the message of hope for change to get elected. Thats pretty different from claiming to be the strong leader that will fix every problem. 

Obama portrayed himself as like the Messiah or the second coming of Christ. He made grand, bold, and vague promises about making the country great and fixing problems. It's what people who run for president do. Trump is hardly unique. If anything Obama's following was far more cult like in nature than Trump's.

[LexusInfernus 908]

44 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

So do you think secretly wants to exterminate racial groups and that he would attempt it when in office?

No, I'm saying that right now he is arguing for the exact same thing as Hitler was arguing for when he was trying to get elected. And as such, a comparison between Trump and Hitler can be made and isn't invalidated immediately because of Godwin's law.  

Quote

And even though BLM has good intentions they exaggerate constantly and use racially divisive rhetoric.

You mean that they are not trying to be friends with white people? Because they are saying things that are perhaps uncomfortable to hear as a white person? It shouldn't be a surprise that they have no love for white people, as they have kept a system in place that systematically discriminates and murders black people. And for all their talk about, liberals aren't exactly innocent in this either. You can ask them to put faith in white people to fix it, you can claim that white people are their friends, but reality shows that white people do not have black peoples best interest in mind. So why should black people trust them? Why shouldn't they look to their own, people who share the same experience of racism and police brutality, to try and fix this, when white society has so clearly failed them? 

Quote

When it comes to dividing ethnic groups and turning the against each other both parties do it. Only difference is that it is politically correct to be bigoted and racist against white people.

Oh please, the extend of bigotry and racism against white people is the amusing notion that 'white people can't dance', a stereotype so harmless that white people literally laugh it off when it comes up. White people in America and Europe get almost everything handed to them, they are in positions of power on all levels of society, the only way that white people are forced to share a bit of that power is through things like positive discrimination and affirmative action. And that type of 'discrimination' only results in a slightly more balanced distribution of certain jobs, it does at no point put white people at an actually disadvantage, which is where everyone else is coming from. 

Quote

Hatred of the white rich man from the left is in some ways far more reminiscent of the hatred of the Jew in Nazi Germany who were the upper and middle class intelligentsia at the time.

Oh please. Besides from the very obvious fact that no one would actually support a pogrom against rich white men, or wants them deported or otherwise imprisoned. And of course, the racism against Jews wasn't actually based in any kind of fact, Jews did not form some sort of special elite that controlled Germany at that time. Their political influence was not disproportionately large, unlike actual rich white men who basically run the United States and whose political influence is several magnitudes greater than the political influence of you know, the people. My point being, Nazis hating Jews was idiotic racism, left wing complaints about white rich men actually make a valid point. 

Quote

At least if you're non-white.

Well you have a point there. Then again, Latino's have never actually had a government that proclaimed the racial superiority of Latino's and was responsible for some of the worst crimes against humanity in recent history or started one of the most destructive conflicts that razed an entire continent in recent history. White people and the connection to race is a link we turned into pure poison ourselves. 

Quote

Well no, I'd argue that on the scale of people that they hate most, blacks and Jews are on the top. Weren't you the one who said racism is a gradient?

Hate is hate. It matters little if they hate one group more than the other, they still hate both. And they will still applaud candidates that go after one of their 'enemies' even if its the lesser one. Perhaps they would be happier if there was also a candidate arguing for pure racial purity in America, to be achieved by the deportation or destruction of everyone who can't prove having 'Aryan' blood, but since thats not gonna happen anytime soon, they will take what they can get. 

Besides, perhaps they have the not entirely unreasonable belief that if Donald Trump hates Muslims and Mexicans that much, he isn't exactly a big fan of black people either. They might think that although he won't actively go after black people, he will perhaps not support their advance either. 

Quote

Wanting to prevent illegal immigration isn't racist (in and of itself) and I don't believe Trump has proposed kicking out all or any Muslims. He's only called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to America.

True, in itself calling for an end to illegal immigration isn't racist. It only gets racist after you make statements about how Mexicans are all rapists and murderers. Which is kinda what Trump did. 

Sorry about the empty quote thingy, I'm having trouble deleting it. 

Quote

 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 1/16/2016 at 11:49 AM, LexusInfernus said:

No, I'm saying that right now he is arguing for the exact same thing as Hitler was arguing for when he was trying to get elected. And as such, a comparison between Trump and Hitler can be made and isn't invalidated immediately because of Godwin's law. 

Parallels? Maybe. Exact same thing? No.

On 1/16/2016 at 11:49 AM, LexusInfernus said:

You mean that they are not trying to be friends with white people? Because they are saying things that are perhaps uncomfortable to hear as a white person? It shouldn't be a surprise that they have no love for white people, as they have kept a system in place that systematically discriminates and murders black people. And for all their talk about, liberals aren't exactly innocent in this either.

This is going off topic but I'll reply anyway.

BLM picks cases of African American deaths, exaggerates and twists the facts to suit their view of the world and demand mob rule. Cases like Zimmerman/Treyvon and the Michael Brown case, both used by BLM to highlight the plight of black people at the hands of police were all built on fabricated and false testimonies. They tried to portray Treyvon and Brown as innocent little children when that wasn't the case. And please don't confuse that for meaning they deserved to be killed.

There are a myriad of examples where BLM uses dubious cases of criminals killed by police as a justification for their cause. So much so that to me the L in BLM has come to stand for Lies. This isn't the fault of the BLM members, they're just honest people who genuinely want justice, it's the leaders of the movement and their media mouthpieces who have stirred them up by propagating falsehoods about systemic white racism.

"White people" are not responsible for the bad actions of bad police officers (some of whom are black by the way). "White people" have not kept a system that discriminates and murders black people. That isn't to say there isn't police discrimination, that police brutality isn't a problem (especially for African Americans), or that racism doesn't exist, but saying that white people have kept in place something that "systematically discriminates and murders black people" is false and it is exactly the kind of divisive language I'm talking about. The average white person has nothing to do with this, but for some reason they're being accused of being complicit.

Just look at how the movement has infected college campuses with Black activists demanding the resignation of professors, deans, and presidents, over Halloween costumes, and perceived and fabricated racial slights. Look at how they're demanding segregated spaces and asking for white people to admit their "privilege" even though they themselves may be the kids of mulit-millionaires.

On 1/16/2016 at 11:49 AM, LexusInfernus said:

but reality shows that white people do not have black peoples best interest in mind.

 Just take a moment to think about what you're saying here. Who are you to say this? As if you can just see into the minds of all white people. As if white people all think the same and act the same.

White people fought the American Civil War. White people, the Brits, were behind the first push to end the slave trade in Africa. White people were part of the civil rights movement. White people march with BLM. White people are not a monolith.

As long as people keep lumping people into homogeneous groups based on the color of their skin this kind of conflict isn't going to end. This is exactly why I accuse BLM of racially divisive rhetoric, because they promote this kind of thinking.

This is the problem with this kind of social justice: it's blind to its own prejudice and double standards. Racism is okay, as long as it's politically correct and targeted at the right group, in this case 'white people'.

On 1/16/2016 at 11:49 AM, LexusInfernus said:

Oh please, the extend of bigotry and racism against white people is the amusing notion that 'white people can't dance', a stereotype so harmless that white people literally laugh it off when it comes up.

Yet you and BLM types would say that all white people are responsible for "systematic discrimination". Bigotry against white people is just different and usually extends to portraying all white people as racist, bigoted, and inherently evil. This is used in a way to discriminate against white people.

Look at the University Professors and Presidents who were forced to step down, primarily on the basis that they were white and privileged. People, predominantly white men, have lost their jobs on the mere accusation that they're racist or sexist.

McCarthyism is alive and well in the form of modern social justice movements. The Salem witch hunts have begun again, except this time the witches are white men. "Check Your Privilege" is the modern day equivalent of "Prove You're Not A Witch".

Long sentence incoming - I don't want to go on a tit-for-tat "who has more discrimination?" oppression Olympics debate here, there's not doubt ethnic minorities in the US have faced a disproportionate amount, but some white people do experience bigotry and racism far beyond the notion that "white people can't dance" and this is fueled by left-wing divide and conquer rhetoric.

On 1/16/2016 at 11:49 AM, LexusInfernus said:

 White people in America and Europe get almost everything handed to them

Totally absurd. You're confusing rich people with white people.

On 1/16/2016 at 11:49 AM, LexusInfernus said:

They are in positions of power on all levels of society, the only way that white people are forced to share a bit of that power is through things like positive discrimination and affirmative action.

Right cause no black person ever got ahead without affirmative action...

Because all white people just want to keep that black man down and not share the power...

How can you not see your own soft racism/bigotry/prejudice toward white people? Look at how you talk about them as if they're all the same, as if they're all bad, as if they're all guilty. It doesn't matter if you're white, I don't know if you are, but it is racism regardless. Don't buy in to that prejudice + power nonsense. Racism is not an equation.

And of course white people are in positions of power on all levels of society. Until quite recently the majority of white countries were majority white. It only makes sense that they hold a significant amount of power because they represent a significant amount of people. It's a statistical certainty that there will be more white people in positions of power simply because there are more white people (in American and Eurpean nations).

On 1/16/2016 at 11:49 AM, LexusInfernus said:

Oh please. Besides from the very obvious fact that no one would actually support a pogrom against rich white men, or wants them deported or otherwise imprisoned. And of course, the racism against Jews wasn't actually based in any kind of fact, Jews did not form some sort of special elite that controlled Germany at that time. Their political influence was not disproportionately large, unlike actual rich white men who basically run the United States and whose political influence is several magnitudes greater than the political influence of you know, the people. My point being, Nazis hating Jews was idiotic racism, left wing complaints about white rich men actually make a valid point.

The thing about propaganda is that it mixes fact with fiction. There were many rich and powerful Jewish bankers, business owners, as well as leading intellectual in Germany. This is a fact. Were some of them corrupt and have influence over the government? Of course they were, it's the nature of power and money (that doesn't justify Hitler). Some people are good, some are bad, most are shades of grey.

Are there bad rich white men? Of course there are, but does that make all rich white men bad? No.

In this respect, the Nazi targeting of the Jews bares a closer similarity to the left's complaints about "rich white men" than it does Trump's complaints about illegal immigrants.

Just look at how specifically racial and gendered the concept is. It's a 3x combo, class, race, and gender warfare all rolled in to one concept: The Rich White Man (dun dun duuuh! - evil music).

'Rich White Men' - think about that for a minute...

Change the words up and see how they make you feel. Rich Jewish Men, Rich White Women, Rich Black Men, Rich Asian Men, Rich Muslim Men. If it were any other group we'd recognize the racism and sexism right away.

Rich people will always exert an undue amount of influence on politics. What does being white and male have to do with it?

Targeting rich white men as if they are all responsible for the crimes of a few is very close to the Nazi targeting of Jews and while I don't expect a "pogrom" against white people, I'm once again illustrating divisive tactics used by the left to show you Trump isn't the only one guilty of this. It doesn't justify Trump, he isn't right for doing it just because the Democrats have their own version of divide and conquer. But before people go pointing the finger I suggest they look in the mirror.
 

On 1/16/2016 at 11:49 AM, LexusInfernus said:

Well you have a point there. Then again, Latino's have never actually had a government that proclaimed the racial superiority of Latino's and was responsible for some of the worst crimes against humanity in recent history or started one of the most destructive conflicts that razed an entire continent in recent history. White people and the connection to race is a link we turned into pure poison ourselves.

So are you saying that if Whites weren't white they wouldn't have done what they did?

If Europeans or Americans weren't white, but were the exact same society, would they have committed these atrocities?

If another race had risen to power instead of whites would we be living in a much more peaceful and equitable world?

Are white people the only ones who have had notions of racial superiority?

On 1/16/2016 at 11:49 AM, LexusInfernus said:

It only gets racist after you make statements about how Mexicans are all rapists and murderers. Which is kinda what Trump did.

To be technical, he never said Mexicans are all rapists and murderers.

Here's the quote:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

I can't look inside his heart, but in this comment his is not attacking them based on their race. This is not a racist statement. He's not saying that they do these things because they're Brown or Mexican. He's saying that some people coming across the borders illegally are criminals/rapists (with drugs) and that some are good. He makes it sound like they're disproportionately the former, and I think that is a totally unfair characterization, but it is indeed true that criminals and drugs are coming across. We know that for the most part South American illegal immigrants going to America are good people looking for a better life, and he's acknowledged that too.

It's like a media game of telephone or Chinese whispers. Trump says one thing, and then the media spins it to be even worse than what he said. Look at how that quote turned in to "Trump thinks all Mexicans are murders and rapists". This is why the media is so discredited, because their spin is so apparent and this is why accusations of racism against Trump don't stick.

Gosh, looks like I went all over the map on this one...

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

This is going off topic but I'll reply anyway.

BLM picks cases of African American deaths, exaggerates and twists the facts to suit their view of the world and demand mob rule. Cases like Zimmerman/Treyvon and the Michael Brown case, both used by BLM to highlight the plight of black people at the hands of police were all built on fabricated and false testimonies. They tried to portray Treyvon and Brown as innocent little children when that wasn't the case. And please don't confuse that for meaning they deserved to be killed.

Well and that is kinda the crux of the matter. Whether Michael Brown or Treyvon Martin were 'good' or 'innocent' people is irrelevant. What matters is that they didn't deserve to be killed, yet that is exactly what happened to them. Whats worse is that the people that killed them got off completely. In both cases the people who were supposed to seek justice for the victims, that is, the people who actually died, acted like defense lawyers for the accused. These cases represent perfect examples that the American justice system does not care about the deaths of black people, that in fact the justice system will try to ensure that officers can kill black people without any significant consequences to them. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

"White people" are not responsible for the bad actions of bad police officers (some of whom are black by the way). "White people" have not kept a system that discriminates and murders black people. That isn't to say there isn't police discrimination, that police brutality isn't a problem (especially for African Americans), or that racism doesn't exist, but saying that white people have kept in place something that "systematically discriminates and murders black people" is false and it is exactly the kind of divisive language I'm talking about. The average white person has nothing to do with this, but for some reason they're being accused of being complicit.

Well, white people kinda have. For one, white people are over represented in State and National politics, and in a number of cases, they were also over represented in the police department. Second, just look at how many average white Americans react, to both the cases BLM refers to and BLM itself. In each of those cases, white people adopted and propagated a narrative that the people who got shot weren't innocent, as if that somehow explains and excuses what happened. And when BLM comes around, they get accused of lying and being racists themselves. Rather than listen to both facts and the personal experiences of people who live systemic racism and police brutality, so many white people ignore them and come up with stuff like 'all lives matter'. That alone makes people complicit, and enough white people do this that its fair to say 'white people' are complicit. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

Just look at how the movement has infected college campuses with Black activists demanding the resignation of professors, deans, and presidents, over Halloween costumes, and perceived and fabricated racial slights. Look at how they're demanding segregated spaces and asking for white people to admit their "privilege" even though they themselves may be the kids of mulit-millionaires.   

 Just take a moment to think about what you're saying here. Who are you to say this? As if you can just see into the minds of all white people. As if white people all think the same and act the same.

White people fought the American Civil War. White people, the Brits, were behind the first push to end the slave trade in Africa. White people were part of the civil rights movement. White people march with BLM. White people are not a monolith.

Well, privilege exists in many form. White privilege is different than the privilege you get from having a lot of money. In this case, it means that white people can go to stores and buy stuff without the fear of security guards checking if you've paid for your stuff, unless you were acting really suspicious. Or it means you can drive a nice car without being stopped by cops because obviously it must have been stolen.  

Also, of course its not all white people, just like its also not all men. The reason Feminists hate that phrase, and why BLM hates the 'not all white people' argument is because it shuts down the conversation. What use is it to discuss all the 'good' white people when we are talking about a problem that kills people? Its just for people who seek applause for being decent human beings, people who have done the bare minimum of not being total a-holes to other people, and does not in any way contribute to a constructive discussion about how racism still affects a large group of people in the United States. All it does is make people defensive about racism, and rather than seek in what ways they may contribute to toxic patterns in society, they basically go 'well not me, I'm not racist, I'm not the problem, now give me a cookie'. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

This is the problem with this kind of social justice: it's blind to its own prejudice and double standards. Racism is okay, as long as it's politically correct and targeted at the right group, in this case 'white people'.

Criticism of white people is not the same as racism against white people. White people aren't a minority, and at no point are they actually being given a structural disadvantage compared to people from other races. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

Yet you and BLM types would say that all white people are responsible for "systematic discrimination". Bigotry against white people is just different and usually extends to portraying all white people as racist, bigoted, and inherently evil. This is used in a way to discriminate against white people.

No one portrays white people that way except white people who whine about how the evil BLM people keep calling them out on their racism. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

Look at the University Professors and Presidents who were forced to step down, primarily on the basis that they were white and privileged. People, predominantly white men, have lost their jobs on the mere accusation that they're racist or sexist.

No, they lost their jobs because they ignored or completely mishandled cases of blatant racism or sexual assault. In other words, because they didn't do their bloody jobs. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

McCarthyism is alive and well in the form of modern social justice movements. The Salem witch hunts have begun again, except this time the witches are white men. "Check Your Privilege" is the modern day equivalent of "Prove You're Not A Witch".

Its an over used term that at this point has lost all its meaning. Not a lot of people actually still use it, except when they want to make fun of SJW's. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

Totally absurd. You're confusing rich people with white people.

Nope, poor white people still get more opportunities just handed to them than anyone else. Again, the justice system treats them nicer, they are far less likely to get shot by police, they will be more likely to get called back when doing a job interview, they are more likely to get promoted, they are more likely to get a better education, etc. Look, affirmative action and positive discrimination didn't become policies because non white guys had such an easy time getting into places. Their existence is in itself proof that white people have it easier. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

Right cause no black person ever got ahead without affirmative action...

Because all white people just want to keep that black man down and not share the power...

Now you are talking in absolutes. Of course there have been people who beat the system. But that doesn't mean that what they did is statistically less likely to happen or that it took them just as much effort as it would have taken a white person to get there. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

How can you not see your own soft racism/bigotry/prejudice toward white people? Look at how you talk about them as if they're all the same, as if they're all bad, as if they're all guilty. It doesn't matter if you're white, I don't know if you are, but it is racism regardless. Don't buy in to that prejudice + power nonsense. Racism is not an equation.

As a white person, I am actually to some degree aware of some of my 'biases' towards both white people and non white people. I inherently feel safer and more comfortable around white people, without there being any reason for me to feel that way. I hold certain automatic assumptions about other people that are again without basis in fact, yet instantly pop into my head when I see people. I recognize that these assumptions are generally more positive when it comes to white people, and more negative when it comes to non white people. I recognize the bias, how its racist and I therefor need to correct my initial assumptions about people. If you would say that I'm racist, you would be right, I am, and its something I'm working on. Still, I'm fighting against biology here, the way the brain works is sort of racist, and it is why any accusation that white people are racist is inherently true. Its true because all people are racist. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

And of course white people are in positions of power on all levels of society. Until quite recently the majority of white countries were majority white. It only makes sense that they hold a significant amount of power because they represent a significant amount of people. It's a statistical certainty that there will be more white people in positions of power simply because there are more white people (in American and Eurpean nations).

I think I said over represented, meaning they hold more power than they statistically should have given the demographic situation. And even if it makes statistical sense, its important to recognize that if white people hold all the power, it doesn't mean its fair or acceptable that white people set up a system that advantages them over anyone who isn't them. You know, prevent a tyranny of the majority, and with great power comes great responsibility, that stuff. This hasn't happened, at least not in the United States and not in Europe. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

The thing about propaganda is that it mixes fact with fiction. There were many rich and powerful Jewish bankers, business owners, as well as leading intellectual in Germany. This is a fact. Were some of them corrupt and have influence over the government? Of course they were, it's the nature of power and money (that doesn't justify Hitler). Some people are good, some are bad, most are shades of grey.

Are there bad rich white men? Of course there are, but does that make all rich white men bad? No.

In this respect, the Nazi targeting of the Jews bares a closer similarity to the left's complaints about "rich white men" than it does Trump's complaints about illegal immigrants.

Just look at how specifically racial and gendered the concept is. It's a 3x combo, class, race, and gender warfare all rolled in to one concept: The Rich White Man (dun dun duuuh! - evil music).

'Rich White Men' - think about that for a minute...

Change the words up and see how they make you feel. Rich Jewish Men, Rich White Women, Rich Black Men, Rich Asian Men, Rich Muslim Men. If it were any other group we'd recognize the racism and sexism right away.

Again, one major difference, the US is actually an oligarchy because thats how big the influence of a few people is. Unlike Nazi Germany, which was not an oligarchy run by Jews (it was an oligarchy run by Prussian nobles). Yet it blamed Jews for supposedly being in control over Germany and causing all kinds of disasters, things that have no basis in fact. 

What does the left blame on rich men? Banking crisis? Widening wealth gap? The destruction of the middle class? Having an insane amount of influence to the point that the US isn't a democracy anymore? Its not unreasonable to blame those things on rich people, because rich people played a major role in all of those problems. And what does the left say we should do about those rich people? Kick them out of the country? Build a wall to keep them out? Arrest them, nationalize their property, and string them up from the highest trees? No, no one actually argues for any of those things. People argue for the closing of tax loopholes that rich people exploit to pay no taxes, they call for higher tax rates on the rich, on rich people to actually contribute more to society instead of plunder it for all its value. Not really all that similar to what Hitler wanted to do with the Jews now is it? 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

Rich people will always exert an undue amount of influence on politics. What does being white and male have to do with it?

Because it also shows there is a component of racism and sexism. Both in who actually gets rich enough that they start to have an larger than average influence on the politics of their country, and in how that select group that has such a large influence on the politics of that country is not at all representative of the population of the country. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

So are you saying that if Whites weren't white they wouldn't have done what they did?

If Europeans or Americans weren't white, but were the exact same society, would they have committed these atrocities?

If another race had risen to power instead of whites would we be living in a much more peaceful and equitable world?

Are white people the only ones who have had notions of racial superiority?

No I'm saying non of those things. I'm saying that the link between whiteness and race has been forever tainted by morons like the Nazis and KKK. If we would have been blue than the link between blue and race would have been forever tainted by those same morons. The thing is, we aren't blue, and our history is what it is. No sense in denying it. 

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

To be technical, he never said Mexicans are all rapists and murderers.

Here's the quote:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

I can't look inside his heart, but in this comment his is not attacking them based on their race. This is not a racist statement. He's not saying that they do these things because they're Brown or Mexican. He's saying that some people coming across the borders illegally are criminals/rapists (with drugs) and that some are good. He makes it sound like they're disproportionately the former, and I think that is a totally unfair characterization, but it is indeed true that criminals and drugs are coming across. We know that for the most part South American illegal immigrants going to America are good people looking for a better life, and he's acknowledged that too.

It's like a media game of telephone or Chinese whispers. Trump says one thing, and then the media spins it to be even worse than what he said. Look at how that quote turned in to "Trump thinks all Mexicans are murders and rapists". This is why the media is so discredited, because their spin is so apparent and this is why accusations of racism against Trump don't stick.

Gosh, looks like I went all over the map on this one...

Actually he says that there is a dark conspiracy involving Mexico having some kind of deliberate policy of dumping people in America, of whom the vast majority are criminals and rapists, and only a minority being 'good people'. While maybe you can argue that its technically not racist because he never explicitly creates a link between illegal immigrants being rapists and them being Mexican, but if your defense rests on a technicality...eh. He still paints millions of people as criminals and rapists, its still the use of politics of fear and division. 

[Odainsaker 2,134]

Interesting that this thread is leaning this way just as Ted Cruz in the Republic debate two nights ago spectacularly imploded on a bizarrely stupid and divisive attack on "New York values," an attack which he had been rolling out for conservative voters in Iowa and South Carolina.  "I think most people know exactly what New York values are..."  Goebbels would be so proud, for as Cruz continued, even I was unnervingly getting images of greedy rats in a sewer who darkly control all the money and media.  "Saturday Night Live" was right in their later parody of Cruz:   "believe me, if I could say 'Liberal Jews,' I would!"  For those who didn't watch, this was one of the more shiningly rational, albeit calculated and rehearsed, moments of Donald Trump, who slapped Cruz back so well using the 9/11 card that even Cruz was applauding his own onstage smackdown.

There may be another reason why Trump, Cruz, and race politics is playing out like this, as Fareed Zakaria in his controversial article "America's self-destructive whites" for The Washington Post points out that for the past 15 years, middle-age, working-class whites have been dying in an alarmingly anomalous spike:  "The main causes of death are as striking as the fact itself:  suicide, alcoholism, and overdoses of prescription and illegal drugs.  'People seem to be killing themselves, slowly or quickly'...These circumstances are usually caused by stress, depression and despair.  The only comparable spike in deaths in an industrialized country took place among Russian males after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when rates of alcoholism skyrocketed."

 

[AkemiAzula 280]

Drinking my fourth can of Guinness, I find that very easy to believe. Us white males are sure depressed, even more so in the UK where the weather doesn't help.

The only reason I don't become a neo nazi or join Islamic State is my grandfather was a Slav and I drink alcohol lol... 

I think the reason we are so depressed is because life has no meaning any more. Modern capitalist society is bearable for the well off but for workers it is pointless.

I think white supremacy attracts people because it gives life a point, it gives you a sense of being part of something with history and pride and values, whereas modern capitalist society lacks these.

I am too rational to blame the Jews but if this was Germany and 1936 I would be walking about in jackboots.

My generation especially has a bleak outlook. Or perhaps I watched too much Daria when I had a tv. 

Either bleak or hedonistic. Gloomy or stupid. That's gen Y.

But my fellow gens in the US seem more inclined toward Sanders and progress than 'making America great again'.

If I was a yank I'd vote for Sanders. I joined Labour to vote for Corbyn. Trump doesn't understand working class people. 

Not that we are of much worth. I am all too aware of my own lack of justification for existence.

[raynev1 1,886]

   I too suffer from depression , but I don't take prescription drugs or any drugs for that matter to deal with depression and I seldom drink . I cope with it one day at a time . 

   There is so much corruption here in the US , it stinks . Everything to save a buck and get rich at the expense of employees . Liars , thieves and conmen . That's what most politicians are made of . And the sad truth of it all is , this dumbed down society doesn't seem to care . I've heard so many people say "it don't matter , they'll do what they want" Because they have no consequences for their actions . They will only do what that will make their pockets fat , wether it is right or wrong .

   We have all of these people in this country going to college , how many of them are going to get a good paying job that they went to school for ? I see dark days in our future , because of all this greed . And I wish everybody well . 

   The Donald might just get nominated . Polls are in his favor the last I noticed . And just remember The president is the guy that everybody points the finger at , when things get ugly . But he has to do what the rest of the house votes on . The decisions are not solely made by the president alone . The whole government needs an overhaul , from the president all the way down to government at local levels . This greed is like a virus and all levels are infected .

[krbe 193]

9 hours ago, Odainsaker said:

Donald Trump, who slapped Cruz back so well using the 9/11 card

Can anyone tell me why exactly "recovering from 9/11" is a particular New York value and why this one instance absolves the rest of the city? Recovering from terrorism is a pretty natural thing. Happened in London, Paris, Bombay, Jakarta, Belfast, etc. Doesn't necessarily make them conservative.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Why don't you guys agree to meet in the chat room?  This kind of back and forth makes for very boring reading.

[Sabretooth78 808]

3 hours ago, krbe said:

Can anyone tell me why exactly "recovering from 9/11" is a particular New York value and why this one instance absolves the rest of the city? Recovering from terrorism is a pretty natural thing. Happened in London, Paris, Bombay, Jakarta, Belfast, etc. Doesn't necessarily make them conservative.

Seriously.  Life is defined by what you do and how you do it when the ___ hits the fan, seriousness of the event notwithstanding.  Judging by the rampage conservatives embarked upon after the events of that day isn't exactly something I'd look to be proud of anyway.  More of today's ills in this country can be traced to the reaction to that event than to the event itself.  We've probably inflicted more damage to ourselves and our way of life than those 20 bags of redundant DNA ever could have imagined.  It probably doesn't help that we're also all butthurt over China's rise at about the same time.

But that's just the thing - yet again, they're arguing over who is more conservative; what conservatism means, etc.  They're clueless.  They honestly don't know what it means and who can really blame them?  Try comparing conservatism today to conservatism in 1950 and I bet there's nothing recognizable left.  It's a concept that has done far more than just simply change with the times.

And we also don't need another Rudy Giuliani one-trick pony.  He seems to utter nine-eleven more liberally than an angry trucker spits out four-letter words.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh, working 9/11 in somewhere in a response is a convenient way to shut down opposition. You know, because if you then press the point you tried to make, you are essentially coming off as some a-hole who doesn't support the amazing sacrifices made by New Yorkers. Its an appeal to emotion, one that works particularly well with conservatives. 

[Meg 368]

9 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Why don't you guys agree to meet in the chat room?  This kind of back and forth makes for very boring reading.

 

So don't read it.   As long as they are abiding by the rules, they are welcome to have the discussion.

      

 

[Meg 368]

15 hours ago, Mark_Kochan said:

I think the reason we are so depressed is because life has no meaning any more.  . . .

Not that we are of much worth. I am all too aware of my own lack of justification for existence.

Yes, you definitely sound depressed.    Why do you think life has no meaning?   The thing is, nothing has any inherent meaning.   Meaning only exists when we assign it to something.  Why have you decided your life is worth nothing?