Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

Bandorr said:
RolStoppable said:

I concur that he is wrong. You never struck me as someone who is acting deliberate, but rather as someone who is honestly very slow on the uptake.

Gotta disagree. They are clearly just copy/pasting others thoughts. They are being quite deliberate in their lack of an argument. They aren't trying to learn or understand which would be what you expect from someone being very slow on the uptake

Actually I guess there is a compromise. They are being deliberate in copy/pasting others though, and still be very slow to understand even what those thoughts are.

"but you can come back later" is the talking point trumps PR team came up when called out on the BS.

Oh and I'll add this since no one else has and I find it hilarious.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/immigrants-facts.cfm

  • The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
    • Immigrants' Employment Rights Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws
      • Harassment Based on National Origin
      • Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like, "Go back to where you came from, " whether made by supervisors or by co-workers.

Go back to where you came from is so offensive, and been around for so long - it actually got added as an example of discriminating against Immigrants.

And I will let the sad attempt at semantics continue.

"They are clearly just copy/pasting others thoughts."

>These thoughts are my own. Whose thoughts do you mistakenly believe I am copy/pasting?



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
RolStoppable said:

I concur that he is wrong. You never struck me as someone who is acting deliberate, but rather as someone who is honestly very slow on the uptake.

More like others just get ahead of themselves.

the-pi-guy said:

This is what you don't understand.  This is the whole problem: 

-You can't assume someone was from somewhere else. 

-You can't suggest they go back there.  

I don't even care at this point if you disagree that it's a problem.  But understand that those two points are in general considered to be a no-no for most people.  Especially people that were born in America and get continuously get asked where they are from, and even worse told to go back there.  

It doesn't matter if he said "come back when you've fixed those problems".  Because for him, he might as well have said "come back when hell freezes over."  And it basically would have had the same meaning to him.

"-You can't assume someone was from somewhere else."

>Sure you can: at the risk of being wrong.

"-You can't suggest they go back there."

>Why the hell not? It's a suggestion, not a command. No one is forcing anyone to go somewhere against their will.

You must live in that bizarro world where people tell other people of a different color to go back to where they came from is a suggestion.  I know since they did not specifically say the word "Get the hell out of my country", you probably would believe it was a simple suggestion.  The more you argue this point the funnier it gets.  People probably love telling you jokes since you probably do not get them unless they explicitly state the obvious.



KLAMarine said:

"-You can't assume someone was from somewhere else."

>Sure you can: at the risk of being wrong.

Correction: And risk being a jerk to someone who is just trying to fit in.  In a country that has prided itself in being a melting pot of people from all over.  

People don't usually assume a white person is from somewhere else.  But it happens all the time for non-white people.  

KLAMarine said:

"-You can't suggest they go back there."

>Why the hell not? It's a suggestion, not a command. No one is forcing anyone to go somewhere against their will.

So if I were to "suggest that you go to Hell", there's nothing wrong with that? 

Even beyond that, would it be ludicrous for someone else to find that phrasing offensive?

Keep in mind, this is hypothetical.  



Bandorr said:
RolStoppable said:

I concur that he is wrong. You never struck me as someone who is acting deliberate, but rather as someone who is honestly very slow on the uptake.

Gotta disagree. They are clearly just copy/pasting others thoughts. They are being quite deliberate in their lack of an argument. They aren't trying to learn or understand which would be what you expect from someone being very slow on the uptake

Actually I guess there is a compromise. They are being deliberate in copy/pasting others though, and still be very slow to understand even what those thoughts are.

"but you can come back later" is the talking point trumps PR team came up when called out on the BS.

Oh and I'll add this since no one else has and I find it hilarious.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/immigrants-facts.cfm

  • The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
    • Immigrants' Employment Rights Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws
      • Harassment Based on National Origin
      • Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like, "Go back to where you came from, " whether made by supervisors or by co-workers.

Go back to where you came from is so offensive, and been around for so long - it actually got added as an example of discriminating against Immigrants.

And I will let the sad attempt at semantics continue.

Being very slow on the uptake and being a strong Trump supporter are indeed not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, they usually go hand in hand.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Lol

I do believe that our debt needs to be taken more seriously but Paul is being pretty dumb here by not supporting the 9/11 bill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6geoLhv8LM

GOP 2020 opposition to AOC. I feel like this race will end up having an absurd amount of money spent but I expect AOC to easily win it.



Around the Network

Since we are still roughly on the same topic, I have a question:

Does it actually matter what Trump's intent was?

In a "Death of the Author" type of way, I think it can be argued that what is important about the President's speech is not so much what he meant to say from that speech, but the interpretations and effects of the communication. Speaking in somewhat broad terms regarding the effect of his speech regarding race and immigration, I think there are three main effects on three different groups of people:

1) Political Enemies: This is the most obvious and direct effect here. It is the effect of a powerful individual generally insulting and disparaging his political enemies. I don't think this needs much explanation.

2) Immigrants/Racial Minorities: For many individuals, whether or not it was Trump's intent, words such as these feel like a racist or xenophobic attack, reflecting historical racism and attacks of "go back to your country" as a means of othering an individual and denying them an American identity. For such language to be echoed by the leader of the country can be very hurtful to certain individuals and groups.

3) Far-right extremists: We often see individuals within these groups praising Trump's words when he makes comments such as this, or when he talks about Europe "losing its culture" or any of his other various questionable comments. The reason these comments are called dog whistles is because, again, whether intentional or not, this is using the veiled language of right wing extremism and white nationalism and lending validity to talking points such as "white genocide" (which has been rebranded several times now).

As such, do we definitively need to ascertain intent in order to condemn such comments? I don't believe we do.



EricHiggin said:

Depends on what the person hates about America. If they hate something like the existing tax system, that's something that can be changed to some degree without much issue, but if you hate the existence of another country and it's people and wish they would just 'go away', then that's a problem America won't be participating in unless they become an enemy, so you might as well go elsewhere if that's a problem you want to fix. The types of complaints and the type of person doing the complaining would be taken into account when determining the type of response.

What????

If you're told to go do a job somewhere else and then expected to return when finished, with a full report and the job completed, is that racist or prejudice? By Trump saying go to your home country and fix it and come back here and show us how you did it, how is that necessarily seen as a bad thing, unless those other countries are that horrible, or those individuals couldn't complete the task? It's as if people are taking it like Trump would basically be sending them to jail, which doesn't say good things about those countries, by the same people who seem to be defending them. I also don't see how it could be looked at as racist or prejudice, as those countries are not all single race countries, and if by chance they were, then you couldn't help but wonder if those countries are racist or prejudice themselves, or just so horrible no other race wants to live there, even some of their own.

You do know context means a lot right.  So using your analogy.  If you are a mexican immigrant and someone told you to go back to mexico and work there instead of what you are doing in the US then yes that would be considered prejudice. If you are a black man doing work within a white neighborhood and a white person walks up to you and say why don't you go to your own neighborhood and do work there, that would be considered prejudice.  You see your analogy as always comes up short because you leave out context trying to make a weak point.

As to what Trump said, well we still come back to the point that they are AMERICANs not immigrants, not illegal aliens but US citizens.  Does this very context escape you.  You cannot tell someone who is an American to go back to their place of ancestry and fix something since they are now US citizens.  The majority of US citizens in America have ancestry in other Countries INCLUDING TRUMP.  So trying to tell someone to go fix where their ancestry is from before trying to do the job they were elected to do in the US is disingenuous based on his OWN ancestry.  You cannot escape or explain this point because we can all agree, what Trump stated was stupid.  But please continue to try to make what he said right.

Machiavellian said:

Ok this is pure comedic gold.  Are you making the defense that people should praise someone for doing a generous act out of self interest because if not they would get discouraged and not do it.  

You would be that person who gives 10 bucks to a homeless person and go around telling everyone looking for praise.  

What you just described is the difference between someone who is generous and someone who looks to appear generous.  Keep going down this line, it should be interesting where you take it.  I am sure you have one of your famous analogies to bring it all home.

Everyone just keeps strengthening the point.

Are you saying that because both you and I have been wrong in the past and admitted it, that means we're both stupid and aren't worthy of being conversed with no matter how correct or useful our other comments may be? Just because we've made mistakes before, that means we have nothing else to offer?

If we continue to make the same mistakes and not improve ourselves then yes.  Are you a person who would open the refrig, take a bottle of milk drink it and notice its gone bad, put the milk back in the refrig and come back the next day and drink it again.  If people notice you doing the same failure you did before, why would they believe you are worthy of anything but continued failure.

Just because someone like Epstein may be a POS when it comes to woman, who may deserve to spend a lot of time behind bars, doesn't mean a blind eye should be turned to any good deeds he's done. That's not to say he should be praised for it, but like in my example, you can't even give him the smallest amount of respect or anything for that matter, just because he did something else unacceptable. When it comes to being wrong, where do you draw the line? At what age and at what level of bad deeds are your good deeds from then on inadmissible?

If his good deeds are done as self interest then why should anyone praise him for doing it.  If the good deed is there to offset all the bad why would anyone fall victim to such a scheming person.  If a murderer kills someone but gives to the poor we are suppose to show this person respect.  In your example you totally ignore motives which is a huge point to dismiss.  You cannot wipe away the bad crap you do by doing something charitable since it then isn't charity.

It's like trying to say Bill Cosby was never funny. The guy was hilarious, but apparently was also a scumbag. That doesn't change the fact he was funny when it came to his comedy though. Do I look at him in the same light as I used to? No, but I couldn't logically say he wasn't a funny guy.

I also wasn't the one who brought up Epstein's charitable donations, and for good reason.

Last edited by Machiavellian - on 17 July 2019

Machiavellian said:

The majority of US citizens in America have ancestry in other Countries INCLUDING TRUMP.  So trying to tell someone to go fix where their ancestry is from before trying to do the job they were elected to do in the US is disingenuous based on his OWN ancestry. 

Interesting thought. So Trump should go back to Germany, but the problem is that Gauland is already doing Trump's job there.

One of Gauland's coolest statements was that his political party doesn't like where Germany is going and that their intention is to give a Germany to their grandchildren that is the same as the Germany that was given to them by their grandparents. Then you stop for a moment to think about Gauland's age and what timeframe he would be refering to and it's the late 1940s.

Might be a bit off-topic, but senile old men in politics aren't exclusive to the USA.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Machiavellian said:
KLAMarine said:

More like others just get ahead of themselves.

"-You can't assume someone was from somewhere else."

>Sure you can: at the risk of being wrong.

"-You can't suggest they go back there."

>Why the hell not? It's a suggestion, not a command. No one is forcing anyone to go somewhere against their will.

You must live in that bizarro world where people tell other people of a different color to go back to where they came from is a suggestion.  I know since they did not specifically say the word "Get the hell out of my country", you probably would believe it was a simple suggestion.  The more you argue this point the funnier it gets.  People probably love telling you jokes since you probably do not get them unless they explicitly state the obvious.

>It sounds like a suggestion:

"Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

>It starts with a 'why' which most likely means this is a question. Granted, it does not end with a question mark so it leaves it up in the air whether this was a question or not. And let's not forget this bit:

"Then come back and show us how it is done."

>So at some point, these "progressive" congresswomen are to return and put their abilities to good use. He's not asking they leave permanently.

the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

"-You can't assume someone was from somewhere else."

>Sure you can: at the risk of being wrong.

Correction: And risk being a jerk to someone who is just trying to fit in.  In a country that has prided itself in being a melting pot of people from all over.  

People don't usually assume a white person is from somewhere else.  But it happens all the time for non-white people.  

KLAMarine said:

"-You can't suggest they go back there."

>Why the hell not? It's a suggestion, not a command. No one is forcing anyone to go somewhere against their will.

So if I were to "suggest that you go to Hell", there's nothing wrong with that? 

Even beyond that, would it be ludicrous for someone else to find that phrasing offensive?

Keep in mind, this is hypothetical.  

"Correction: And risk being a jerk to someone who is just trying to fit in."

>That's certainly a possibility too. Not sure the four congresswomen are trying to fit in, however: seems 'The Squad' is more interested in sticking out.

"So if I were to "suggest that you go to Hell", there's nothing wrong with that?"

>There's a big difference between an unnamed country and 'Hell'.

"Even beyond that, would it be ludicrous for someone else to find that phrasing offensive?

Keep in mind, this is hypothetical."

>Yes, it's possible to find that phrasing offensive. Key word: 'possible'.



Immersiveunreality said:
EricHiggin said:

The definition says nothing about the giver.

Well there you go, another way in which to point out something bad so you don't have to acknowledge the good.

The definition of charity says nothing about the giver.

Why should anyone give to charity? Because in one way or another it stokes their ego. It just depends whether or not that form of ego is seen as acceptable to some people. Other people couldn't care less where the money comes from, within reason.

Bolded: Yeah in some way it ultimately strokes our ego but there is still a difference in how we use it to stroke our ego,or you just feel good about helping others and keep it mostly a personal thing or you expect people to respect you for what you've done and you try to gain a better social status in a needy way.

The first example is the good way to do charity and those that practice the second example are the more powerhungry people and the more negative use of ego in charity in my opinion,those in the second group aren't always the best of people.

Yes, some people use charity to further a separate agenda that would be seen as negative and that sucks, but as in any system, it's not perfect and you have to take the good with the bad. In a well thought out, useful system, typically much more good than bad.

That doesn't mean there aren't poor, average, and rich people who give in a manner most would accept, and even some who may push their own employees in a  somewhat 'negative' manner, while using that money for charity because they see it as more important than simply giving those employees a raise on top of what is already seen as a worthy enough wage.

Where is the line? Always moving.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.