Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[SteveSC]

The worst possible thing I'm guilty of is giving Trump too much benefit of the doubt in phrasing. However, it is very apparent from my post that I was not referring to all or a majority of Mexicans, nor all or a majority of Mexicans illegally crossing into the border. Much less the "vast majority" as you claim.

I interpreted Trump's statement as "some" and said so. And as I was obviously referencing "some," my point was entirely accurate. If you want to hang your position on there not being any drug dealers who cross the US-Mexico border illegally, you go right ahead. Seems bizarre to me, but maybe you've got some reason for believing that is the case. But you "called me out" by making blatantly dishonest statements about what I said and insinuated I was a bigot on the basis of those statements. Pretty absurd, IMO.

That's a problem to be frank that you would "interpret" any of his statements especially when he says things like:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” he said in the same speech. “They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

The right seem to have a habit of telling us to ignore him and don't read too much into his words. But then what are we supposed to read into? What are we supposed to judge his character on and how good he understands the role he is in.

 

[Pettifogger]

That's a problem to be frank that you would "interpret" any of his statements especially when he says things like:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” he said in the same speech. “They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

The right seem to have a habit of telling us to ignore him and don't read too much into his words. But then what are we supposed to read into? What are we supposed to judge his character on and how good he understands the role he is in.

I'm not telling you to do anything. I'm pretty confident in my interpretation of that particular Trump-speak. But if someone is super-convinced that he really meant to call all Mexicans drug dealers, I'm not going to work very hard to convince them otherwise.

Judge his character by his words. I certainly do.

 

[Pettifogger]

What ever the semantics, his intent was clear and nasty.

Don't be too hard on verreauxi

 

[SteveSC]

I'm not telling you to do anything. I'm pretty confident in my interpretation of that particular Trump-speak. But if someone is super-convinced that he really meant to call all Mexicans drug dealers, I'm not going to work very hard to convince them otherwise.

Judge his character by his words. I certainly do.

Don't read so literally into things i said "the right" as in general.

and we are that's the bloody point.

If you interpret it someway else that's fine, but for the rest of us its insulting and disrespectful. Millions of Americans see it this way also, as did Mexicans and the majority of the worlds press and population.

But as long as you interpret differently that's what counts. Jesus wept get down of your high horse.

 

[Pettifogger]

get down of your high horse.

oh my

 

[verreauxi]

found it

Certainly looks like a tax plan that will be increasingly popular.

 

[verreauxi]

I'm not telling you to do anything. I'm pretty confident in my interpretation of that particular Trump-speak. But if someone is super-convinced that he really meant to call all Mexicans drug dealers, I'm not going to work very hard to convince them otherwise.

Judge his character by his words. I certainly do.

Oh look, Mr. right-wing Trump voter is going to judge my moral character and values. That's precious.

 

[Pettifogger]

Oh look, Mr. right-wing Trump voter is going to judge my moral character and values. That's precious.

Haha I was referring to Trump you insufferable loon. "Trump voters lack character!!!" argues the guy who just blatantly lied in an attempt to bolster a failing argument on a message board.

 

[verreauxi]

Haha I was referring to Trump you insufferable loon. "Trump voters lack character!!!" argues the guy who just blatantly lied in an attempt to bolster a failing argument on a message board.

This will surprise you, but I went back and read what I wrote, and I owe you an apology.

If you are simply saying that some background frequency of Mexicans are drug-dealers, say 7 in 1000 (= 0.007) (or whatever rate it actually is) then yes this is trivially true and I wouldn’t disagree with that. So if a fraction of N Mexicans came into our country we would expect Nx0.007 to be drug dealers. If that’s what you’re saying then yes, I have definitely mischaracterized what you said and apologize for doing so; I was wrong to impute more than what you actually said in print and then call it racist, so I apologize sincerely.

As to the explanation, what motivated me was as follows: it would be strange for you to make such a trivially true statement in the context of offering support for Trump’s ridiculous hate-mongering remarks. I suspected you were trying to say something more than just talking about simple background rates of drug-dealers, as any population is characterized by a given rate of just about anything (a background rate of drug-dealers, a background rate of bad drivers, etc.); I suspected that you were intimating something more about Mexicans and who they were in terms of their character (i.e. drug-dealers), that you were trying to be deliberately provocative and negative about Mexicans. As you know, their country is torn apart by drugs on a humanitarian-crisis scale and it is an easy leap of illogic to portray Mexicans as drug-dealers because of this. But that’s what Trump did, whereas you have gone to great lengths here to reinterpret his remarks as being about--from what I gather--background rates of drug dealers in a given population. If that’s actually the case then my imputation of what you said was definitely wrong.

 

[Pettifogger]

Well I appreciate that.

As to the rest:

Trump is loose with language. I think being "loose with language" is a bad quality in a President. I think it allows him to use identity politics to appeal to his base in a way he probably would not if he were forced to be more direct. You probably think he does those things blatantly, I think he uses loose language to do them less explicitly. That distinction probably isn't important.

That said, I think the cries of Trump being a fascist, this being one of the darkest times in American history, etc. are ridiculous. And I think people who oppose Trump most virulently will ignore any underlying truths in his statements and often end up taking bizarre stances in order to be on the "right" side of the Trump issue.

That is the context in which I participated in the discussion we've been referencing. In short, I was focused on the "technically true" aspects of Trump's comments in response to the wholesale dismissal of them. I'm sure the large majority of Mexican immigrants are unconnected to the drug trade. No idea what the numbers would look like. Similarly I think the overwhelming majority probably have no serious criminal background.

The rest of the statement is this - "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems." That would be the arguable "underlying truth" that I don't disagree with. It's cold and it's not how I'd like a President to express himself, but I think there is truth to it.

My reaction to the shithole thing is very similar

 

[Ruairi77]

This is probably opening a whole can of worms but this separation of church and states except for Israel, really gets on my nerves

 

[Tubey]

This is probably opening a whole can of worms but this separation of church and states except for Israel, really gets on my nerves

See, that's every bit as extreme as things Trump and co. say and do. But because he's a Democrat it won't be called as such.

To say the USA needs to defend Israel at all costs literally because the Torah says it's fine is legitimately insane. That's honestly not far off declaring the Jewish right to lebensraum... Amazing lack of self-awareness.

 

[Ruairi77]

See, that's every bit as extreme as things Trump and co. say and do. But because he's a Democrat it won't be called as such.

To say the USA needs to defend Israel at all costs literally because the Torah says it's fine is legitimately insane. That's honestly not far off declaring the Jewish right to lebensraum... Amazing lack of self-awareness.

It's worth noting that Sanders, the first Jew to win state primaries, gave AIPAC a wide birth and would never use rhetoric like this. I think there's a new wave of younger progressives in this country that can see right through Schumer's hypocrisy, at least I hope so.

 

[SteveSC]

Lobbying is one of the biggest issue in the US in politics. It make senators and congressmen say and do crazy sh*t just for funding and support. It also prevents things from getting done and quite frankly it is a big part in why there are so many fractures and why bipartisan politics is largely a thing of the past. More interest groups mean more stupid decisions and more fighting.

Schumer is a fool. He joins the ranks of the other fools on both sides that sell their soul and say dumb stuff to try get ahead.

If lobbyists were not allowed give massive funding/donations and if these overall were restricted we probably wouldn't see have of the crazy rhetoric out there. Nor would the NRA or any other special interest group have a platform.

Nor the banks for that matter.

 

[MrPerfectNot]

Lobbying is one of the biggest issue in the US in politics. It make senators and congressmen say and do crazy sh*t just for funding and support. It also prevents things from getting done and quite frankly it is a big part in why there are so many fractures and why bipartisan politics is largely a thing of the past. More interest groups mean more stupid decisions and more fighting.

Schumer is a fool. He joins the ranks of the other fools on both sides that sell their soul and say dumb stuff to try get ahead.

If lobbyists were not allowed give massive funding/donations and if these overall were restricted we probably wouldn't see have of the crazy rhetoric out there. Nor would the NRA or any other special interest group have a platform.

Nor the banks for that matter.

How about if we start with the Citizens United decision?