Trump Thread

[Peter_Plato]

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.

It’s much more complicated than that and it depends entirely upon who is choosing to assimilate and why. Are, say, current French or German people really and freely choosing to have their culture and way of life slowly eroded by government policies when the ruling elites think nothing of those traditional cultures?

Now you might counter that those governments were elected by the majorities in those countries. However, that is untrue on two levels.

1. EU immigration policies were forced on the people of those countries by unelected EU bureaucrats not by national governments who are beginning to speak against them.
2. Any move by the people themselves to stop the erosion of their culture and ethnicity is being called bigoted and racist by those who have no qualms about letting those cultures die. Suppose a majority, as in the Brexit vote in Great Britain, decide they want to preserve their way of life and not be forced to accept foreign influences from eroding it. Are you going to defend these people standing up against “assimilation” if the majority or significant minority want it, or will you just shrug and say, “Too bad for them?” and force their assimilation into some watered down form of modern secularism?

Again, your “if people choose to assimilate, it is racist to say they can’t” cuts both ways. Suppose they don’t want to assimilate, isn’t it equally racist to say they must because it could very well mean the end of an ethnic or cultural identity? Careful how you answer this. And make sure you don’t speak for others who should have a voice if they choose not to assimilate or be assimilated.

 

[J_Peterson]

Item 14 on that list, “14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.”, is literally Fourteen Words.

I didn’t even notice that when I read that list earlier. I wish I didn’t click on that alt-right link. Now I have a white supremacist website in my internet history.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s much more complicated than that and it depends entirely upon who is choosing to assimilate and why. Are, say, current French or German people really and freely choosing to have their culture and way of life slowly eroded by government policies when the ruling elites think nothing of those traditional cultures?

You are asking a question that relates more to how well these nations are represented by their governments than it does to the inherent morality of disenfranchising a segment of the population. So you are deflecting by changing the subject.

So let me get you back on track. We were discussing the morality of the alt-right position on preserving white European culture. And as I said, it depends on how that culture is being threatened. If it is being threatened unjustly, then mounting a defense is in order. If it is being threatened because you just noticed a mosque where the old Kwik-E-Mart used to be, then no. If it is being threatened because public school teachers are mentioning Kwanzaa along with Christmas, then no. If it being threatened by women bathing in France with a one-piece swimsuit, then no.

1. Any move by the people themselves to stop the erosion of their culture and ethnicity is being called bigoted and racist by those who have no qualms about letting those cultures die.

If the activities are racist, they are racist regardless of the character of the people who say so. (Genetic fallacy, anyone?)

 

[Good_Tidings]

I didn’t even notice that when I read that list earlier. I wish I didn’t click on that alt-right link. Now I have a white supremacist website in my internet history.

Scary. Isn’t it?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Scary. Isn’t it?

Very

 

[Good_Tidings]

I don’t think the alt right supporters are going to like the fact that Trump is softening his view on immigrants. He may be the first presidential candidate that manages to alienate the entire population of the US.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I don’t think the alt right supporters are going to like the fact that Trump is softening his view on immigrants. He may be the first presidential candidate that manages to alienate the entire population of the US.

Well this could test his belief that he would not lose support even if he shot someone. We’ll have to see if he does for changing his view on immigration after all the criticism he leashed at low energy Jeb and others on immigration.

 

[Good_Tidings]

Well this could test his belief that he would not lose support even if he shot someone. We’ll have to see if he does for changing his view on immigration after all the criticism he leashed at low energy Jeb and others on immigration.

If he can totally change his mind on his central policy, why wouldn’t one be skeptical of his statement on Supreme Court appointees?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Item 14 on that list, “14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.”, is literally Fourteen Words.

So let’s change this to…

The State of Israel believes it must secure the existence of Jewish people and a future for Jewish children.

Aboriginal nations believe they must secure the existence of aboriginal peoples and a future for aboriginal children.

Japan believes it must secure the existence of Japanese people and a future for Japanese children.

The Italian people believe they must secure the existence of Italian culture and heritage and a future for Italian children.

Amazonian groups believe they must secure the existence of Amazonian cultures and a future for Amazonian children.

The Hutu people believe they must secure the existence of the Hutu culture and a future for Hutu children.

The Kurds in Syria and Iraq believe they must secure the existence of the Kurdish people and a future for Kurdish children.

The Yazidi people believe they must secure the existence of the Yazidi people and a future for Yazidi children.

Why is it ONLY “racist” when the word “white” is used in the same context as if being white is the only determiner for being “racist?”

 

[Sy_Noe]

If he can totally change his mind on his central policy, why wouldn’t one be skeptical of his statement on Supreme Court appointees?

My profile shows I have 3 political posts allowed yet today so I will allot 1 of them to you Good Tidings…

There is no reason why one shouldn’t be.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

If he can totally change his mind on his central policy, why wouldn’t one be skeptical of his statement on Supreme Court appointees?

We already have a huge body of established immigration law; all he wants is for us to FOLLOW the law; we are currently ignoring the law; he wants people to enter LEGALLY. Right now about one million people enter legally. He wants all of them to enter LEGALLY.

He has said that a million times.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Lovely, isn’t it?

Ringil must secure the existence for ringil’s deeply held beliefs and traditions and a future for ringil’s children.

Ringil is racist for thinking that.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Florida poll: Trump 44%, Clinton 41%: tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/fla-chamber-poll-donald-trump-44-hillary-clinton-41-gary-johnson-9/2290872

 

[Theo520]

Louisiana Dem thanks Trump for visiting flood zone

washingtonexaminer.com/article/2599767/

LOL, only a retired senator would give this non-partisan feedback.

Reminds me that all the climate skeptics also tend to be retired, not constrained.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So let’s change this to…

The State of Israel believes it must secure the existence of Jewish people and a future for Jewish children.

Aboriginal nations believe they must secure the existence of aboriginal peoples and a future for aboriginal children.

Japan believes it must secure the existence of Japanese people and a future for Japanese children.

The Italian people believe they must secure the existence of Italian culture and heritage and a future for Italian children.

Amazonian groups believe they must secure the existence of Amazonian cultures and a future for Amazonian children.

The Hutu people believe they must secure the existence of the Hutu culture and a future for Hutu children.

The Kurds in Syria and Iraq believe they must secure the existence of the Kurdish people and a future for Kurdish children.

The Yazidi people believe they must secure the existence of the Yazidi people and a future for Yazidi children.

Why is it ONLY “racist” when the word “white” is used in the same context as if being white is the only determiner for being “racist?”

These examples fall into two categories. Those that are racist and those that are not.

The non-racist ones are the examples where the people in question are being unjustly exterminated or marginalized by more powerful forces. The racist ones are the ones where the people in question are inconvenienced by the material success of other cultures, conducted through moral means.

 

[Peter_Plato]

These examples fall into two categories. Those that are racist and those that are not.

The non-racist ones are the examples where the people in question are being unjustly exterminated or marginalized by more powerful forces. The racist ones are the ones where the people in question are inconvenienced by the material success of other cultures, conducted through moral means.

Nonsense. You are saying that the only time cultures, ethnicities and children can be protected, endorsed, cherished and promoted is if they are threatened. Nope.

That is like saying different species of animals should only be valued if they are threatened with extermination or extirpation and not for their own sake or the sake of the qualities they exhibit.

:nope:

 

[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.

Now I understand why point 12 was added…

1. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Texas elector threatens not to vote Trump
Another Republican member of the Electoral College wavers in his commitment to back the GOP nominee.

.

 

[Millie123]

Nonsense. You are saying that the only time cultures, ethnicities and children can be protected, endorsed, cherished and promoted is if they are threatened. Nope.

That is like saying different species of animals should only be valued if they are threatened with extermination or extirpation and not for their own sake or the sake of the qualities they exhibit.

:nope:

"“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”
I guess my question regarding of this quote is I need clarification of what does it mean to specifically “secure the existance of our people…and for white children”.

I’m a caucasian woman married to an Asian imigrant…we have a biracial child together. Is the fact that I married and am procreating with a non-white man a threat to your white race? And if it is a threat, then why is that a bad thing? Does the fact that I send my non-white child to a school with white kids a threat to the future of white children? In the future if my non-white son marries and procreates with a white woman…is that again a threat to the white race? And if it is a threat then, how should this threat be secured…as is stated in the quote.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

In other words, the monies went “mostly” to well-off individuals connected to the foundation and only secondarily and scarcely to the people who could benefit from that money.

In other words, the Foundation is a large hog that eats its weight in anything given to it and only makes itself larger and more hungry in the process.

It is the charitable target of its own charity. What fun!

No wonder it is difficult to assess as a “charitable” organization. There is no distinction to be made between the recipient and the organization doing the charitable work.