Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[makiri]

Trump's policies regarding illegal immigrants are just double-speak. It's an effective strategy (see paragraph 6) as times change to continue prejudiced attitudes and policies.

The illegal immigration crusade targets Hispanics, not Europeans (i.e., whites) or Africans or Asians. It's similar to Islamophobia--a white European who dressed in jeans and a shirt, who is Muslim, isn't the focus--no, it's dark-skinned people in robes, head scarfs, or turbans with funny sounding names.

Trump supporters are free to lie to themselves, but it does no one any favors. For being against political correctness, obfuscation of beliefs is sure a thing among that camp.

Well when 74% of illegal immigration comes from Mexico and Central/South America I don't see a problem there. Our land borders are the easiest to cross and thus a majority of illegals cross there. Tighter security measures at air/seaports and making sure people don't overstay visas (which is the majority of Asian/European illegal numbers) in conjunction with tightening our Southern border is a perfectly logical policy. Numbers don't lie, of course a wall would "target Hispanics," they are the ones who cross the Southern border. There is no racist intent as you seem to imply, it is just a fact of numbers, the wall will equally stop an Asian and European from crossing as a Hispanic.

I don't actually support a candidate, but the notion that Trump is being racist because he is targeting Hispanics is absurd. When you're a vast majority of something of course you're being "targeted."

 

[QuickBH]

but they were threatening the purity of the American race, calling it a holocaust when they were only interested in protecting our national security is way over the top!



are you referring to Islam in general?

We're not advocating killing them unlike ISIS who kills muslims, christians and everybody holy shit we're talking about temporary shutting our immigration and we're not advocating violence on muslims or ANYBODY.

I want to destroy ISIS, they (and others like Al Qaeda) are a radical sect that have been funded by Saudi Arabia and the U.S. that has been causing violence everywhere and caused disruption everywhere by killing the peaceful muslims in other countries. I want actual peace in the Middle East so get out of here with this nazi bullshit it's honestly offensive as fuck that you'd compare my nonviolent viewpoints to the fucking holocaust.

 

[tazz]

Both Ted Cruz and Kasich have dropped out of the race, leaving the only candidate as trump. On the democratic side however, sanders has stated that he intends to stay in the race until the last primary. Does anyone think this will affect general results in any way?

 

[tehy]

but they were threatening the purity of the American race, calling it a holocaust when they were only interested in protecting our national security is way over the top!

do me a favor, this refers to everyone here

stop appropriating the jewish struggles to fight your stupid battles

currently the syrian refugees are in refugee camps, not concentration camps. if those refugee camps start importing gas ovens please let us know right away but until then this is mind-numbingly fucking irrelevant

are you referring to Islam in general?

broadly, yes

i mean, there are moderate muslims. but that just means they don't take their own religion that seriously. if you take Islam seriously, your chance of being a terrorist is quite high comparatively. (I would extend this to other extremist religions, by the way, though I'm not interested in kicking people out of their homes so don't come at me on that axis.)

 

[veiva]

1) Numbers don't lie ...
2) There is no racist intent as you seem to imply ... but the notion that Trump is being racist because he is targeting Hispanics is absurd. When you're a vast majority of something of course you're being "targeted."

(Side-note: I just highlighted the points I'm going to address; there is no attempt at misrepresenting what you said!)

1) Of course not. But objective data is a wonderful tool to help support any cause with only subtle rhetoric required to frame the data incorrectly. Illegal immigration is a problem, but it's a problem the US has created via nefarious operations in Central/South America and various domestic policies (e.g., drugs) that make illegally crossing the border profitable/worthwhile. Building a wall, metaphorically or literally, would be just another failed band-aid solution, but it would most definitely alienate Americans of Mexican/Central American heritage and further existing racial divides...

2) Many of Trump's policies are racist. It's absurd to dance around the issue. His statements and policies regarding crime, immigration, and foreign policy would disproportionately target minorities by their color of skin or ethnicity (blacks, Hispanics, and Arabs at large). The general approach is simply a flimsy means of deflection--just like political correctness is a flimsy means of inclusiveness. There is a reason I referenced the infamous Lee Atwater quote on the Southern Strategy. But I'm just certain (/s) Chechnyan Muslims, poor white communities, and illegal Asian immigrants will receive the same treatment as Arabs (Muslim, Christian, Sikh, or otherwise!), poor black communities, and Mexican aliens under Trump's policies...!

 

[Soul Fly]

i mean, there are moderate muslims. but that just means they don't take their own religion that seriously. if you take Islam seriously, your chance of being a terrorist is quite high comparatively. (I would extend this to other extremist religions, by the way, though I'm not interested in kicking people out of their homes so don't come at me on that axis.)

As balls as that argument is, moving past that for a second you seem to identify that whatever this problem is, it is non-exclusive to Islam. Given that how were you in any way responding to what verbatim said earlier? I'm referring in particular to that bad attempt at sarcasm at the end. If anything you kind of validate his logic.

 

[shaian]

M
A
G
A

 

[QuickBH]

Both Ted Cruz and Kasich have dropped out of the race, leaving the only candidate as trump. On the democratic side however, sanders has stated that he intends to stay in the race until the last primary. Does anyone think this will affect general results in any way?

Going to ignore the "compare the person to Hitler" shitfest now to answer this. I don't see it affecting THAT much. I can see Bernie sticking in swaying a few more left leaning independents, but I think Bernie's honestly capped in-terms of millennial support. I expect a lot of people voting third party, I know a former Cruz supporter who is now supporting Austen Petersen. (The Libertarian Party)

 

[tehy]

. His statements and policies regarding crime, immigration, and foreign policy would disproportionately target minorities by their color of skin or ethnicity (blacks, Hispanics, and Arabs at large).

Care to elaborate on that black bit?

Regardless, the problem with 'disparate impact' is that literally any policy affects someone more than others. So are all laws and policies ever enacted automatically racist?

Probably not. Instead, you need to look at the policy and the people enacting it - is it a good policy that good people could support? Do its supporters have histories of racial discrimination? Etc, etc.

Of course you can never prove it 100%, but it's sure better than 'all laws are racist'

 

[veiva]

1) Care to elaborate on that black bit?

2) Regardless, the problem with 'disparate impact' is that literally any policy affects someone more than others. So are all laws and policies ever enacted automatically racist?

Probably not. Instead, you need to look at the policy and the people enacting it - is it a good policy that good people could support? Do its supporters have histories of racial discrimination? Etc, etc.

Of course you can never prove it 100%, but it's sure better than 'all laws are racist'

1) Here. Here. Here.

2) Of course. There is a framework to consider "Policy X." What is the stated purpose of the policy, what is the intent of the policy, and what is the expected outcome of the policy? Who--as in, what segment of the population--is affected by the policy, and why? Does the policy have the stated outcome over time? What are the side effects of the policy?

Just look up the Southern Strategy. Racism disguised by generally abstract statements and goals.

(And I said many of Trump's policies are racist. Nothing about "all laws [being] racist". Where does that even come from?)

edit (in response to your reply): I really can't tell if your replies are serious attempts, or some complex... show? play? act? Or if I'm just incredibly vague/unclear? Oh well.

 

[Bass]

Both Ted Cruz and Kasich have dropped out of the race, leaving the only candidate as trump. On the democratic side however, sanders has stated that he intends to stay in the race until the last primary. Does anyone think this will affect general results in any way?

Depends. Win or lose Sanders must stay in to ensure that the progressive movement still has a loud enough megaphone before the nearly inevitable Trump vs Clinton mudslinging fest begins. A large chunk of Sanders supporters have long distrusted Hillary Clinton so I don't think staying in significantly hurts her own chances in the general than it already has should she win the nomination. Whether or not she is able to "unite the party" is really on her since quite frankly many Sanders supporters (including myself) do not reliably vote or associate with the democratic party in the first place, so it will largely come down to how she decides to run her campaign. For example, does she "pivot to the center" or adopt some of Bernie's progressive platform? Does she pick progressive VP candidates like Elizabeth Warren or more establishment types like Cory Booker or even John Kasich (I am not joking, some pundits in the mainstream media think this is a brilliant idea). Unfortunately with Trump now being the official GOP nominee I'd be willing to bet that the establishment will get greedy and go with the latter choices. Trump himself is the big unpredictable elephant in the room since quite frankly he could end up alienating so many people in his messaging that he may lose regardless of how dishonest we perceive Hillary Clinton to be.

 

[tehy]

1) Here. Here. Here.

He...retweeted fake data? Shocking. By the by, how do you think Chicago's high crime rates should be solved? Keep in mind that the reverse policies to being tough have probably already been tried by the Democratic mayor.

2) Of course. There is a framework to consider "Policy X." What is the stated purpose of the policy, what is the intent of the policy, and what is the expected outcome of the policy? Who--as in, what segment of the population--is affected by the policy, and why? Does the policy have the stated outcome over time? What are the side effects of the policy?

Just look up the Southern Strategy. Racism disguised by generally abstract statements and goals.

I'm aware of the southern strategy... That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this.

(And I said many of Trump's policies are racist. Nothing about "all laws [being] racist". Where does that even come from?)

You said they were racist because, I repeat because, they had a disproportionate targeting. Well so does every law on the books, except maybe like 1 or 2 that manage a perfect statistical split.

By the way:

But I'm just certain (/s) Chechnyan Muslims, poor white communities, and illegal Asian immigrants will receive the same treatment

From what I hear chechnyan Muslims are in a whole new level so damn right, poor white communities don't statistically commit the same number of crimes, and which illegal Asian immigrants?

 

[veiva]

He...retweeted fake data? Shocking.

Donald Trump has millions of followers. His retweeting of faking data distributed this data to millions of his followers. Trump has a sense of trustworthiness among his supporters. It's a rhetorical technique that makes the data trustworthy by proxy.

By the by, how do you think Chicago's high crime rates should be solved? Keep in mind that the reverse policies to being tough have probably already been tried by the Democratic mayor.

The solution to Chicago's crime rates is completely irrelevant to Trump's policies that purposely target minorities based on race.

You said they were racist because, I repeat because, they had a disproportionate targeting. Well so does every law on the books, except maybe like 1 or 2 that manage a perfect statistical split.

Intent. For example, this is why a state can create a law banning a practice that poses a threat to public order, safety, or what-have-you, but cannot do so in order to limit a religious freedom under some guise of protecting public order, safety, or what-have-you. This is also why there's different classifications of manslaughter and murder, among other things.

1) From what I hear chechnyan Muslims are in a whole new level so damn right, 2) poor white communities don't statistically commit the same number of crimes, and 3) which illegal Asian immigrants?

1) I was focusing on the racial differences of Chechnyans and Arabs. I chose Chechnyans because they are a largely Muslim population, but have a culture and appearance greatly distinct from Muslims in the Middle East. Trump's anti-Muslim policies are supported (and, in turn, support) by racism towards those who appear Muslim, not prejudism against those who practice Islam. Because Sikhs surely aren't Muslim... They just happen to have the misfortune of being members of the "Muslim appearance stereotype" that fuels Islamophobia.

2) Yet, crime-for-crime, whites receive lighter sentences and are provided more opportunities afterwards (e.g., a white with a felony is more hireable than a black man, all things equal otherwise). Not to mention crime in black communities stems from slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws, segregation, discrimination, etc that have limited their ability to succeed (socially/economically/politically). You (in the general, collective sense) can't undo hundreds of years of oppression in a few decades, especially if you do nothing.

3) The some 1.5 million illegal Asian immigrants in 2005? Unless there a mass migration of illegal Asian immigrants from the US afterwards...

 

[Ununhexium]

Trump himself is the big unpredictable elephant in the room

Lol

 

[tehy]

Donald Trump has millions of followers. His retweeting of faking data distributed this data to millions of his followers. Trump has a sense of trustworthiness among his supporters. It's a rhetorical technique that makes the data trustworthy by proxy.

Dude, 'Donald Trump said something stupid and wrong' is a news headline you could play every single day and have it still be accurate. Do you have any other proof?

The solution to Chicago's crime rates is completely irrelevant to Trump's policies that purposely target minorities based on race.

Unless he thinks that's the solution which he clearly does.

Intent. For example, this is why a state can create a law banning a practice that poses a threat to public order, safety, or what-have-you, but cannot do so in order to limit a religious freedom under some guise of protecting public order, safety, or what-have-you. This is also why there's different classifications of manslaughter and murder, among other things.

And you have not proven intent.

1) I was focusing on the racial differences of Chechnyans and Arabs. I chose Chechnyans because they are a largely Muslim population, but have a culture and appearance greatly distinct from Muslims in the Middle East. Trump's anti-Muslim policies are supported (and, in turn, support) by racism towards those who appear Muslim, not prejudism against those who practice Islam. Because Sikhs surely aren't Muslim... They just happen to have the misfortune of being members of the "Muslim appearance stereotype" that fuels Islamophobia.

Your proof for this is...where?

You took a swing and you missed. If you can find me a Muslim country unlikely to commit terrorism then I don't care if they are purple.

2) Yet, crime-for-crime, whites receive lighter sentences and are provided more opportunities afterwards (e.g., a white with a felony is more hireable than a black man, all things equal otherwise). Not to mention crime in black communities stems from slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws, segregation, discrimination, etc that have limited their ability to succeed (socially/economically/politically). You (in the general, collective sense) can't undo hundreds of years of oppression in a few decades, especially if you do nothing.

Listen dude I'm not here to have some argument about who wins, whites or blacks. I'm here to explain that high-crime areas should be taken care of regardless of who lives there. And you're right - if we don't do anything, the problem won't get fixed. Now,is that anything 'get tough'? I personally think the answer's a whole lot more complex than that but if someone says so I can respect it.

3) The some 1.5 million illegal Asian immigrants in 2005? Unless there a mass migration of illegal Asian immigrants from the US afterwards...

Edit: sure, shut that off as well. About 10% of the overall immigrant population overall mind you. Plus China is kind of a lame place to live so there's that.

 

[veiva]

You took a swing and you missed. If you can find me a Muslim country unlikely to commit terrorism then I don't care if they are purple.

I really don't see how I'm being unclear. I'm not discussing the beliefs of Muslims or the religion. The point was Chechnyan Muslims (or other European Muslims, or certain African Muslims--it doesn't matter!) would face less scrutiny because they do not "look Muslim," but those who happen to fall into the "looking Muslim" stereotype will regardless of their religion (e.g., Sikhs). Ergo, hatred for Muslims is not just of religious bigotry, but also of racist bigotry as well. The same has occurred to minorities with certain stereotypical features unrelated to their minority status, resulting in hatred of people with those features as well.

 

[tehy]

I really don't see how I'm being unclear. I'm not discussing the beliefs of Muslims or the religion. The point was Chechnyan Muslims (or other European Muslims, or certain African Muslims--it doesn't matter!) would face less scrutiny because they do not "look Muslim," but those who happen to fall into the "looking Muslim" stereotype will regardless of their religion (e.g., Sikhs). Ergo, hatred for Muslims is not just of religious bigotry, but also of racist bigotry as well. The same has occurred to minorities with certain stereotypical features unrelated to their minority status, resulting in hatred of people with those features as well.

For it to be 'racial bigotry', people of arav descent would have to naturally grow turbans and long beards, which they don't.

Broadly speaking, if a white dude goes around with a long beard and a turban, he is not going to be looked on more favorably either.

Tl;Dr : people A: don't like the Muslim religion and B: identify Muslims via stereotypes. But you haven't proven anything other than these guys don't know how to identify Muslims, which is to be expected since you can't tell on sight what someone believes anyhow.

 

[Ohmachi]

The reason why banning muslims, or attacking them all in general is that feeds into isis game plan. There goal is to get everyone to gang up on the Muslim people and then recruit them. When you say stuff like "All muslims are bad" or "Carpet bomb them all", "Kill there families" you are writing Isis recruiting poster. They have a magazine where they quote US politicians in order to convince Muslims that we are trying to kill them.

If you really want to win the war on terror you need to show compassion to the people fleeing from the region. You need to provide them with safety, You need to get the local population to fight the problem themselves, and then once the region is stable the refugees that you saved will return to their country thankful to the western powers who saved them.

Or you can keep telling them there all a bunch of terrorists.

 

[QuickBH]

The reason why banning muslims, or attacking them all in general is that feeds into isis game plan. There goal is to get everyone to gang up on the Muslim people and then recruit them. When you say stuff like "All muslims are bad" or "Carpet bomb them all", "Kill there families" you are writing Isis recruiting poster. They have a magazine where they quote US politicians in order to convince Muslims that we are trying to kill them.

If you really want to win the war on terror you need to show compassion to the people fleeing from the region. You need to provide them with safety, You need to get the local population to fight the problem themselves, and then once the region is stable the refugees that you saved will return to their country thankful to the western powers who saved them.

Or you can keep telling them there all a bunch of terrorists.

The radicals are radicals I'm not going to rage war because someone said something offensive to my beliefs do you people even know how freaking stupid assuming that is. Also Trump said specifically to carpet bomb ISIS if you think ISIS is all muslims you're dumb. He opposed and opposes things that killed/kills muslims like the Iraq war and the Syrian rebels which attack indiscriminately and is the REAL reason why ISIS forms because now we've created people with nothing left to live for and a place for radicals to come in and take over.

Holy shit these arguments I'm hearing are some of the most offensive shit if I was an SJW I would cry racist.

 

[brightobject]

OH MY GOD YOU'RE A GENIUS, LET'S JUST *SELECTIVELY* CARPET-BOMB ONLY ISIS OUT OF EXISTENCE WITHOUT HITTING ANYONE ELSE THAT SOUNDS REALLY SIMPLE HOW DID I NOT THINK OF THIS BEFORE

e: this post doesnt rlly make clear my argument/foment discussion but i'll follow up on it when i get home.

 

[tehy]

OH MY GOD YOU'RE A GENIUS, LET'S JUST *SELECTIVELY* CARPET-BOMB ONLY ISIS OUT OF EXISTENCE WITHOUT HITTING ANYONE ELSE THAT SOUNDS REALLY SIMPLE HOW DID I NOT THINK OF THIS BEFORE

Also Trump said specifically to carpet bomb ISIS if you think ISIS is all muslims you're dumb.

 

[Soul Fly]

^he's asking how do you carpet bomb ISIS without harming the civilian population in their captured territories.

 

[faint]

we can backtrace their IP address from their cellular devices to find their exact geolocation using a GUI i whipped up in visual basic

 

[Soul Fly]

 

[Bughouse]

All I have to say about that post is "Tú cabrón vete a la chingada"