Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_Plato said:
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?
Click to expand...
You must not have read the article then. It is obvious from it that alt-right bigotry is a fact.

That you don’t see that speaks volumes.
 
Peter_Plato said:
How is it “racist” to defend the right of ethnic and cultural groups or nations to exist?
Click to expand...
That depends on how that group is being threatened. If that group is being exterminated as part of a genocidal program, then it is a good thing to mount a defense. On the other hand, if that group is merely one cultural group in a multi-cultural society, and other elements of that society are growing in numbers and in influence through normal moral means, it is not moral to engage in a program that opposes that trend through disenfranchising those other elements. That was the kind of justification Hitler used in his program of racial purity. (And don’t Godwin me, please.)
Is it less “racist” to endorse the extinction of those groups through assimilation and making everyone look, think, act and feel the same?
Click to expand...
That depends again on how it comes about. If people choose to assimilate, it is racist to say they can’t.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That depends on how that group is being threatened. If that group is being exterminated as part of a genocidal program, then it is a good thing to mount a defense. On the other hand, if that group is merely one cultural group in a multi-cultural society, and other elements of that society are growing in numbers and in influence through normal moral means, it is not moral to engage in a program that opposes that trend through disenfranchising those other elements. That was the kind of justification Hitler used in his program of racial purity. (And don’t Godwin me, please.)

That depends again on how it comes about. If people choose to assimilate, it is racist to say they can’t.
Click to expand...
Excellent post.
 
Here is what Stuart Stephens, Mitt Romney’s former campaign manager, says about alt-right and the controversial nationalism Bannon — now officially Trump’s campaign CEO — is known for:

"Putting politics aside, I think it’s a very important point to make in the moral dialogue of the campaign. You can’t let this stuff be normalized, I wish more Republicans would speak out. I think it’s incredibly detrimental to civic society and it’s an attempt, under the guise of not being politically correct, to normalize hate speech,” said Stevens, one Republican who’s remained vigilant in his opposition to Trump no matter how many campaign shake-ups the nominee attempts.

Most GOP voters, he insisted roughly 24 hours before Clinton was set to make a similar case, should recognize that the “alt-right” does not represent them.

“They’re a bunch of racists. It’s a rebranding of something as old as time."

Link:
politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-right-trump-gop-227391
 
Al_Moritz said:
Here is what Stuart Stephens, Mitt Romney’s former campaign manager, says about alt-right and the controversial nationalism Bannon — now officially Trump’s campaign CEO — is known for:

"Putting politics aside, I think it’s a very important point to make in the moral dialogue of the campaign. You can’t let this stuff be normalized, I wish more Republicans would speak out. I think it’s incredibly detrimental to civic society and it’s an attempt, under the guise of not being politically correct, to normalize hate speech,” said Stevens, one Republican who’s remained vigilant in his opposition to Trump no matter how many campaign shake-ups the nominee attempts.

Most GOP voters, he insisted roughly 24 hours before Clinton was set to make a similar case, should recognize that the “alt-right” does not represent them.

“They’re a bunch of racists. It’s a rebranding of something as old as time."

Link:
politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-right-trump-gop-227391
Click to expand...
Here’s what one commentator at the Washington Post had to say about Stephen Bannon:
Bannon, who had been publisher of the far-right website Breitbart, has called the pope a “commie” and said Catholics are trying to boost Hispanic immigration because their “church is dying.”
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t think that Bannon’s views in this case would be very popular with most Catholics. :rolleyes:
 
Al_Moritz said:
Here is the Wiki article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

It contains tons of references based on which you can conclude for yourself what it stands for.

It is also worth taking a look at the Wiki article on the publication (website) “Alternative Right”:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Right
Click to expand...
So, it looks like one part of the Conservative movement is calling another part of the Conservative movement racist. In the old days, they used to let the Democrats do that. I guess they must really be bad for other Republicans to call them out.
 
I found some more on Stephen Bannon’s views about the Catholic Church:
Steve Bannon, the Breitbart News executive chairman who was recently named Donald Trump’s campaign CEO, earlier this year suggested the Catholic Church supports Hispanic immigration because it wants to boost its flagging attendance numbers in the United States.
Click to expand...
The Hill reported on Bannon’s comments from his radio program for Breitbart News on March 8.
Click to expand...
“I understand why Catholics want as many Hispanics in this country as possible, because the church is dying in this country, right? If it was not for the Hispanics,” Bannon said on his show during a conversation with Princeton law professor Robert P. George, one of a group of Catholics who wrote an open letter denouncing Trump.
Click to expand...
“I get that, right?” Bannon continued. “But I think that is the subtext of part of the letter, and I think that is the subtext of a lot of the political direction of this.”
Click to expand...
Bannon also was critical of Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, accusing him of “rubbing his social-justice Catholicism in my nose every second.”
Click to expand...
newsmax.com/Politics/steve-bannon-catholics-immigration-boosts-attendance/2016/08/23/id/744844/
 
Thorolfr said:
I found some more on Stephen Bannon’s views about the Catholic Church:

newsmax.com/Politics/steve-bannon-catholics-immigration-boosts-attendance/2016/08/23/id/744844/
Click to expand...
Here’s from your quote:

"Steve Bannon, the Breitbart News executive chairman who was recently named Donald Trump’s campaign CEO, earlier this year suggested the Catholic Church supports Hispanic immigration because it wants to boost its flagging attendance numbers in the United States.

The Hill reported on Bannon’s comments from his radio program for Breitbart News on March 8.

“I understand why Catholics want as many Hispanics in this country as possible, because the church is dying in this country, right? If it was not for the Hispanics,” Bannon said on his show during a conversation with Princeton law professor Robert P. George, one of a group of Catholics who wrote an open letter denouncing Trump.
"

I have seen Catholics who favor immigration, including churchmen, fellow Catholics and posters on CAF say the very same thing in support of open immigration. It certainly isn’t peculiar to this Bannon fellow.

Does this professor George not know that? I imagine he does, and I would lay odds he has said the same thing himself in certain circles.

I, myself, have felt in the past that Hispanic Catholic immigration to the U.S. is a good thing and healthy for the Church, given the number who are dropping out. I probably said it on CAF, along with a lot of others. But then I observed how many of the Hispanics turn evangelical and return to their home countries as “missionaries”, and began to think differently about that aspect of it.
 
Breitbart is a, frankly frightening, news outlet.

How disturbing for Trump to chose the head of Breitbart to head up his campaign.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This is not properly characterized as “Charity Navigator has no idea what the organization actually does.”
Click to expand...
Since the rating system of Charity Navigator is tuned to determining what charities do and how well they it, it would seem appropriate to characterize the reason why the method can’t determine how well the foundation does charitable work as “they have no idea what the organization does.” If they knew what the Clinton Foundation actually did, it would seem a simple matter to determine by the method whether the organization does it well. The inference would seem to imply, without belaboring the point, that Charity Navigator can’t figure out what it does so to apply a “charitable methodology” to it would seem inappropriate. I.e., We can’t determine whether it actually is a charity, so we can’t consider it to be one. And won’t pretend that it is.

This is why it distanced itself from making a statement in either direction. “Charity Navigator has no idea what the Clinton Foundation actually does,” would seem a proper way of phrasing it.
 
Peter_Plato said:
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.
Click to expand...
This list is very close to the precepts of the Aryan Brotherhood!
 
Peter_Plato said:
Since the rating system of Charity Navigator is tuned to determining what charities do and how well they it, it would seem appropriate to characterize the reason why the method can’t determine how well the foundation does charitable work as “they have no idea what the organization does.” If they knew what the Clinton Foundation actually did, it would seem a simple matter to determine by the method whether the organization does it well.
Click to expand...
You have not accurately represented what Charity Navigator does. They strive to produce a numerical rating or other objective ranking of charities so that a potential donor can compare one with another. Charity Navigator does not issue vague statements like “this is a good charity”, or “this charity works well”. So when they say that their existing rating methodology does not apply to the Clinton Foundation, that is all they mean. They have not devised an objective formula for rating this charity among other charities. It says nothing about how well or poorly Charity Navigator understands what the Clinton Foundation does. That leap is entirely yours.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Can you name a few (or one even) and provide documented proof that what was purported to have been done actually was?

I mean besides providing expedient access to politicians and diplomats in exchange for donations of several million and payments of up to $700 000 a speech by one of the Clintons.

Can you explain why Bill’s fee for speaking at an event went from $200 000 to $700 000 after Hillary became (Secret)ary of State?
Click to expand...
Since this is the Trump thread I’m going by what newly minted Trump campaign mgr Kellyanne Conway says since she mentioned here 3x about the good work the Clinton Foundation does.

mediaite.com/tv/trump-campaign-manager-cant-stop-saying-how-much-good-work-the-clinton-foundation-does/

I can’t even explain why Donald Trump can’t release his tax returns.

cnbc.com/2016/08/22/trump-has-no-excuse-to-not-release-his-tax-returns-commentary.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top