Trump Thread

[Mary_Gail_36]

This is flawed logic, a concrete wall is not just a concrete wall. In fact there are a several different types of concrete walls. Quite frankly I’m sick and tired of having my tax dollars being fleeced on frivolous government projects. Being how he has made this project a centerpiece in this campaign, you’re going to have to win me over with specifics about this project, because quite frankly his charming personality isn’t winning me over. This project is going to have go through immense hurdles to bring it to fruition. How is he going to obtain all of this land? The wall is going to be running through numerous Indian tribal reservations, how is he going to obtain that land? He’s also going to running his wall through privately own farmland, what about the farmers. Not to mention that this wall is going to be running through numerous floodplains…so you can’t just build a simple 30 foot concrete slab and prop it up…that would be a fools way of doing things because it could lead to widespread flooding and an environmental disaster.

And also there are waterways that run between the US and Mexico that are protected by treaties. I’m not sure how that will work.

I guess eminent domain would be used to obtain the land. But it would need to be paid for.

 

[anon67074017]

Marriage equality is an issue that has already been decided. The majority of Republicans, while perhaps still personally opposing marriage equality, see it as a non-starter from a political standpoint. And the majority of the electorate sees this as a non-issue.

I like to think that Trump will take on the LGBT agenda though. It gives me hope.

 

[Millie123]

And also there are waterways that run between the US and Mexico that are protected by treaties. I’m not sure how that will work.

I guess eminent domain would be used to obtain the land. But it would need to be paid for.

I dont think we can eminent domain an Indian Reservation. They’re their own nation

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I like to think that Trump will take on the LGBT agenda though. It gives me hope.

nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/politics/donald-trump-gay-rights.html?_r=0

Elton John and his longtime boyfriend, David Furnish, entered a civil partnership on Dec. 21, 2005, in England under a law the country had just enacted granting recognition to same-sex couples. The congratulations poured in as the two men appeared at a joyous ceremony at Windsor Guildhall, amid a crush of paparazzi. Donald J. Trump, who had known the couple for years, took to his blog to express his excitement.

“I know both of them, and they get along wonderfully. It’s a marriage that’s going to work,” Mr. Trump wrote, adding: “I’m very happy for them. If two people dig each other, they dig each other.”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I dont think we can eminent domain an Indian Reservation. They’re their own nation

I believe you are right.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you can refute the analysis of FactCheck, then please do so.

There was no “analysis” to refute, more along the lines of she said and he said talking points. For a site that is supposed to actually check facts the article did a poor job.

Where is the data of what was actually done by the Foundation in terms of results – not what the Foundation claims was done in vague terms?

Facts were supposed to have been checked, but there was a suspicious dearth of facts, except a superficial juggling of numbers to make it appear that something substantial was proved.

It wasn’t.

 

[TMC]

Easily asserted, easily denied.

But still true.

 

[TMC]

I like to think that Trump will take on the LGBT agenda though. It gives me hope.

Then why does he constantly say the opposite?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There was no “analysis” to refute, more along the lines of she said and he said talking points. For a site that is supposed to actually check facts the article did a poor job.

Where is the data of what was actually done by the Foundation in terms of results – not what the Foundation claims was done in vague terms?

Facts were supposed to have been checked, but there was a suspicious dearth of facts, except a superficial juggling of numbers to make it appear that something substantial was proved.

It wasn’t.

We must not be talking about the same article. As I read it, it is full of facts to support their conclusion, the prime one being the link to CharityWatch that gave the 89% figure I cited. I guess whatever chain of citations I give, you will insist on one more, unless it is a breitbart citation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But still true.

Well you could at least explain why you think it is “still true” rather than serve up a rehash of your claim.

Let me help you out a bit. The following is a statement of the philosophical underpinnings of the alt-right movement.

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
12. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.
13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
    voxday.blogspot.ca/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html

Now if you want to actually discuss the topic rather than make peevish claims based upon what you have picked up in an echo chamber somewhere, then do pick any point above and explain why it is “openly racist, misogynist and hate-filled.”

I mean other than merely because you think it for no reason other than that you think it.

 

[TMC]

Well you could at least explain why you think it is “still true” rather than serve up a rehash of your claim.

Let me help you out a bit. The following is a statement of the philosophical underpinnings of the alt-right movement.

Now if you want to actually discuss the topic rather than make peevish claims based upon what you have picked up in an echo chamber somewhere, then do pick any point above and explain why it is “openly racist, misogynist and hate-filled.”

I mean other than merely because you think it for no reason other than that you think it.

I know what the alt-right supports and proposes because I read the things they write and support, which are often so vile that they cannot even be linked to here. Even your white-washed list of the “underpinnings” of the movement contains racist and nationalists elements, such as points 4, 5 and 11. Points 7 and 14 are openly racist, even in this white-washed form.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We must not be talking about the same article. As I read it, it is full of facts to support their conclusion, the prime one being the link to CharityWatch that gave the 89% figure I cited. I guess whatever chain of citations I give, you will insist on one more, unless it is a breitbart citation.

2014:

grants: $5 million

revenues: $177 million

 

[Al_Moritz]

To counterbalance that skewed article, I suggest this one on why the alt-right isn’t wrong:

spectator.co.uk/2016/07/why-the-alt-right-isnt-wrong/

A damning article on The Federalist:

You Can’t Whitewash The Alt-Right’s Bigotry

Subtitle:
The alt-right movement counters the toxic culture of the left with a toxic brew of its own: a mix of old bigotries and new identity and victimhood politics adapted for the straight white male.

Beginning of the article:

Who’d have thought that in 2016, we would be discussing whether mainstream Republicans and conservatives should be nicer to white nationalists? Yet here we are.

The debate is, of course, about the “alternative right,” suddenly propelled into visibility by its fervent embrace of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. Recently, it was the subject of a long, sympathetic article by Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos at Breitbart.com, the Trump-loving site that some, including ex-Breitbart writer Brian Cates, have long accused of courting the alt-right. (For the record, I have had a cordial professional relationship with both authors, have been on a panel with both of them and have appeared twice on Yiannopoulos’s webcast.)

In a nutshell, the article argues that, while the alt-right does have some actual—but, worry not, utterly irrelevant!—white supremacists and neo-Nazis in its ranks, it is mostly a loose alliance of maverick intellectuals, traditionalists who feel unrepresented in the mainstream political establishment, and cheeky young rebels who post racist slurs and memes just to annoy the pearl-clutching guardians of political correctness.

While this taxonomy of the alt-right is interesting,** it is ultimately—as it were—a whitewash**, full of far-fetched arguments and misleading claims that consistently downplay this movement’s ugly bigotry.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Too much Maths for me.

Math is essential.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We must not be talking about the same article. As I read it, it is full of facts to support their conclusion, the prime one being the link to CharityWatch that gave the 89% figure I cited. I guess whatever chain of citations I give, you will insist on one more, unless it is a breitbart citation.

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses.
thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/

More Here:

thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

CharityNavigator.org refuses to give any rating to the Clinton Foundation because it has no idea what the organization actually does.

charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well you could at least explain why you think it is “still true” rather than serve up a rehash of your claim.

Let me help you out a bit. The following is a statement of the philosophical underpinnings of the alt-right movement.

Well, let’s look at those points.

Points 1 and 2 merely say what they are not.
Point 3 is incomprehensible.
Point 4 assumes that only Western civilization is suited to carry the banner for Christianity and the Rule of Law. I don’t know what it means to call the European nations a foundational pillar.
Point 5 is in conflict with points 4 and 14.
Point 14 is in direct conflict with point 15.
Point 12 is just schoolyard bragging, and has no meaningful content.
Point 6 is meaningless, since they don’t define “globalist ideals”.
Point 7 is just playing with sematics with the word “equality”, ignoring the fact that are many senses in which that word can be used, and they criticize just one sense.
Point 8 uses “scientody” instead of “the scientific method” to pretend they are one of the few who practice it. Actually all scientists do.
Point 9 is too terse to convey any refutable meaning.
Point 10 is a general view that all decent people have. Nothing special there.
Point 11 presents an observation and hints at a solution (eliminate diversity or proximity) but is not bold enough to openly proclaim that solution, which is strange considering point 12.
Point 13 is isolationist.
Point 14 does not bother to say we must secure the existence of brown people or yellow people.
Point 16 is difficult to interpret because people will disagree about the purpose of any one war.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

2014:

grants: $5 million

revenues: $177 million

You apparently didn’t read the article, or just don’t believe it. Grant-making is only one aspect of the Foundation. The Foundation does much of the charitable work themselves, which does not show up as grant making.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A damning article on The Federalist:

You Can’t Whitewash The Alt-Right’s Bigotry

Subtitle:
The alt-right movement counters the toxic culture of the left with a toxic brew of its own: a mix of old bigotries and new identity and victimhood politics adapted for the straight white male.

Beginning of the article:

Who’d have thought that in 2016, we would be discussing whether mainstream Republicans and conservatives should be nicer to white nationalists? Yet here we are.

The debate is, of course, about the “alternative right,” suddenly propelled into visibility by its fervent embrace of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. Recently, it was the subject of a long, sympathetic article by Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos at Breitbart.com, the Trump-loving site that some, including ex-Breitbart writer Brian Cates, have long accused of courting the alt-right. (For the record, I have had a cordial professional relationship with both authors, have been on a panel with both of them and have appeared twice on Yiannopoulos’s webcast.)

In a nutshell, the article argues that, while the alt-right does have some actual—but, worry not, utterly irrelevant!—white supremacists and neo-Nazis in its ranks, it is mostly a loose alliance of maverick intellectuals, traditionalists who feel unrepresented in the mainstream political establishment, and cheeky young rebels who post racist slurs and memes just to annoy the pearl-clutching guardians of political correctness.

While this taxonomy of the alt-right is interesting,** it is ultimately—as it were—a whitewash**, full of far-fetched arguments and misleading claims that consistently downplay this movement’s ugly bigotry.

I wouldn’t call the article “damning.” It is opinionated, but that is about all. It is an opinion piece. It is one perspective. Just like your perspective on the Clintons is one perspective. Whether it is true or not is open to discussion.

You don’t, however, solve a question by bringing in someone else’s opinion.

I will note that you didn’t address the philosophical points I posted which comprise the alt-right movement to make any claims about where the “ugly bigotry” is to be found, precisely.

Any particular one of those points that causes you grief? Or is it just a “general impression” or “gut feeling” you get?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses.

Other than the use of words like “whopping”, and the use of inuendo, this quote is mostly right. What they don’t say is that the travel expenses are mostly in the execution of the charitable programs.

CharityNavigator.org refuses to give any rating to the Clinton Foundation because it has no idea what the organization actually does.

charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204

Here is what your link actually says:

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

This is not properly characterized as “Charity Navigator has no idea what the organization actually does.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

I know what the alt-right supports and proposes because I read the things they write and support, which are often so vile that they cannot even be linked to here. Even your white-washed list of the “underpinnings” of the movement contains racist and nationalists elements, such as points 4, 5 and 11. Points 7 and 14 are openly racist, even in this white-washed form.

That’s ridiculous, but I don’t have time to show you right now. But I will get back to this and Leaf’s attempt to take on the points a bit later today.

How is it “racist” to defend the right of ethnic and cultural groups or nations to exist? Is it less “racist” to endorse the extinction of those groups through assimilation and making everyone look, think, act and feel the same? That is what leftist ideas of “equality” – making everyone the same – gets you.