2020 US Election (Part One)

[Berzerker]

Strawmanning again you... just as I predicted. He said that the people Mexico is "sending" are rapists. There was not "some" in that statement. In other words, Mexican immigrants are rapists.

The US has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems. Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. 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.

First, the accusation I'm disputing is he called Mexicans rapists. He's talking about illegal immigrants, and if some of them are good people or bringing problems or drugs or crime, then some of them are rapists, not all of therm. Do you guys need a Venn diagram? Thats a straw man, Trump says some of the people coming across the border are rapists and you guys accuse him of claiming all Mexicans, or all Mexican immigrants are rapists.

Yep, spoken like a true Republican apologist... the dude has been on TV as long as he had a bank account and you're making excuses for him "stumbling thru" his words?? Gimme an effing break, the guy is a pro at speaking on TV... he said what he meant and he meant what he said..."They're rapists" is what he said about Mexican immigrants. Defend that or get the eff off the pot.

I'm just here speaking truth to power, you're defending a falsehood because you hate Trump. Obama got the nickname deporter in chief and most Democrats didn't raise a fuss. And now you're accusing Trump of being a smooth and clear speaker? As proof he stumbled, he made a generalization which he acknowledged at the end.

I suspect Trump still has vivid memories of what happened when Castro emptied his prisons into Florida. Maybe south of the border countries do that too if their jails are over crowded. Tell lower level criminals to skedaddle, dont come back, ya hear.

A couple people said he was being sarcastic. I posted the clip, no laughter from him or the audience, no smile, no clown faces, no sarcasm. The Democrats cant win a morality contest with Trump by fabricating evidence, RussiaGate just might get Trump re-elected if the Durham report builds on the IG report.

Yes, I agree... as an experienced TV man he realized instantly that the racist things he said would be portrayed as racist, and tried to give his defenders a fig leaf of cover.

He didn't say Mexicans or Mexican immigrants are rapists. Thats his cover.

No... we don't.... LMAO you still don't get it.

Then it's hypocritical to complain about Trump's assumption, at least he acknowledged good Mexicans are crossing the border.

is irrelevant to this discussion. You need to seek professional help... fast

Didn't you vote for super predator?

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's funny because the reality is that some Jewish people are white, some are not. There are even black Jews though they are relatively rare.

Funny you mention that... I actually had a Professor in undergrad who was black and Jewish... an Ethiopian Jew, specifically. Incidentally he is also, hands down, one of the most impressive individuals I have ever met. He dressed everyday in long white flowing robes, with a tall, white embroidered kufi to match. He was tall, lean and wore a long grey/white beard. He also spoke IIRC ten languages including Arabic, Aramaic, Amharic, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, German, French, Spanish and English. When teaching class he would sometimes spontaneously start lecturing in a different language, carry on like that for a few sentences, realize we weren't understanding he make fun of us a little for only speaking English. It started becoming a running gag in class.

 

[Sommerswerd]

First, the accusation I'm disputing is he called Mexicans rapists.

I'm fully aware of what your strawman is. That doesn't stop it from being a strawman.

He's talking about illegal immigrants, and if some of them are good people or bringing problems or drugs or crime, then some of them are rapists, not all of therm.

Almost none of what you said was in his actual statement which you just quoted... sheesh... dude... you just quoted it and you're still trying to spin it and add stuff that wasn't said and rearrange the words to suit your narrative

I'm just here speaking truth to power

"to power"?? Seriously?!? hahaha Dude, this is CFC OT, get a grip.

you're defending a falsehood because you hate Trump

You're defending a falsehood because you love Trump... see how that squeeze works?

Obama got the nickname deporter in chief and most Democrats didn't raise a fuss.

He got that nickname from the Democrats who openly opposed and criticized his policies, so by bringing this up you've just Plaxico Burress'd your own argument. "Most Democrats" don't "raise a fuss" about anything. Most people don't "raise a fuss" about anything political, because they're too busy just living their lives. The reality is that there was harsh criticism from Democrats for his administrations deportation policies.

He didn't say Mexicans or Mexican immigrants are rapists.

Yes. He did. And you just admitted he did. First you say "He didn't say ALL Mexicans, just Mexican immigrants" then you switch it to "He didn't say ALL Mexican immigrants, just some Mexican immigrants", then you move the goalpost to "He didn't say Mexican immigrants, just Mexican illegal immigrants" now you've moved the goalpost once again to "He didn't say Mexicans or Mexican immigrants" which is hilariously wrong... because Mexican illegal immigrants are still Mexican immigrants and calling "some Mexicans" rapists is still calling Mexicans rapists.

Did he call people rapists? Were the people he called rapists Mexican? So by definition, he called Mexicans rapists. So you're wrong. He pointed out the fact that they were from Mexico then called them rapists. Go back to your strawman that "He didn't say ALL Mexicans"... you just don't get it. He said "Mexico... is sending people with lots of problems... they're rapists" He associated Mexican immigrants with being rapists. It doesn't matter if it was "ALL" or "some" or "most" or "47.58%"... it was an effing racist, disgusting thing to say. And you're defending it because you agree with it.

You keep fixating on what he didn't say... all the while putting words in his mouth and rearranging his words... all to defend his racist, despicable statements... But I just keep pointing to what he actually said, and its all there in black in white.

Then it's hypocritical to complain about Trump's assumption, at least he acknowledged good Mexicans are crossing the border.

No... it's not.... LMAO you still don't get it... But I will try to explain it to you... I'm not assuming anything. It's the claim of an assumption that is disingenuous.

 

[Lexicus]

Maybe the issue is that PoC is an imbecile term.

Sounds like your analysis needs a bit more nuance, but ok
I think it's a nice catch-all term to describe those who aren't white...

 

[Takhisis]

Lexicus, luiz has already argued that China's merely authoritarian rather than totalitarian, so obviously he's running on a different set of values.

 

[Lexicus]

For one, dead bodies littering the desert.

Yeah, there are not dead bodies littering the desert. The desert is a big place.

Or women and girls being raped.

I agree that it happens at all is a problem, what does it have to do with border enforcement?

Or gang members preying on Mexicans and central Americans.

This problem is made actively worse by border enforcement! Don't pretend this is a problem you actually care about. That's Orwellian nonsense.

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah, there are not dead bodies littering the desert. The desert is a big place.

I agree that it happens at all is a problem, what does it have to do with border enforcement?

This problem is made actively worse by border enforcement! Don't pretend this is a problem you actually care about. That's Orwellian nonsense.

Ah yes, a Hillary supporter tells me I dont care about the people Hillary wouldn't let into the country. Now thats Orwelian. I vote for people who support 'open borders' and you vote for people who supported the cold war, the drug war, and walls on the border. Yes you did, even canvassed for Hillary, right? What does border enforcement have to do with raping women trying to get into the country? Gee, let us ponder the relationship.

You asked what problem, I answered... But you'd rather complain about my choice of words to describe the problem, apparently 'litter' is wrong because the desert is a big place. Hey, if we cant see dead bodies everywhere they're not littering the desert. We dont know how many died out there, people keep stumbling on bodies and mass graves.

 

[Takhisis]

Once again, you're called something and then you just quote the nearest post by that person and say ‘NO U!’.

Now that's Orwellian.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The only thing that is Orwellian is how Berzerker tries to explain away trumps own words.

Trump is a bigot, who doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

[luiz]

Sounds like your analysis needs a bit more nuance, but ok
I think it's a nice catch-all term to describe those who aren't white...

You can say non-white in that case.
But still, both "non-white" and "of color" (which of course literally means colored in the English language, but for some mysterious reason PC people think it's more polite) are terms that create more confusion than clarity, for reasons already discussed such as how to classify Jews, Arabs, Iranians, turks, white Latin Americans, etc etc. I also question the utility of an ethnic term that places the Japanese and Haitians in the same bucket - I don't think they have much in common when it comes to facing hardship or discrimination.

In short, it's a silly term reminiscent of the days when the US was basically 90% white and 10% black, so racial theorists in the US still have this lazy habit of reducing everything to white VS black, or white VS "of color" in modern PC-speak. But it's completely useless to talk about the modern US, let alone the world as a whole.

 

[luiz]

Lexicus, luiz has already argued that China's merely authoritarian rather than totalitarian, so obviously he's running on a different set of values.

The nonsense is strong here. Let's see
1- what does making a factual distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism tell about my values?
2- more importantly, what in God's name does thinking that PoC is a stupid term tells about my values? In the mental world you inhabit, people with good values must like the term PoC? Seems like a dark, arid mental word.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think China has been totalitarian since 1976.

Definately authoritarian.

 

[luiz]

I don't think China has been totalitarian since 1976.

Definately authoritarian.

Yep, this is just a fact.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm fully aware of what your strawman is. That doesn't stop it from being a strawman.

Almost none of what you said was in his actual statement which you just quoted... sheesh... dude... you just quoted it and you're still trying to spin it and add stuff that wasn't said and rearrange the words to suit your narrative

What did I add? @Takhisis accused Trump of saying "Mexicans are rapists". You said Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists. I provided the quote and the clip to show he described rapists as a subset of illegal immigrants. You ignored the quote where he lists the other people and picked out "they're rapists" to accuse him of calling Mexican immigrants rapists.

Can we say Mexican gang members are crossing the border without you accusing people of calling Mexicans gang members? If I'm a Mexican living in Tijuana and I see Americans smuggling guns, can I tell the cops I saw Americans smuggling guns across the border without you accusing me of calling Americans gun smugglers?

"to power"?? Seriously?!? hahaha Dude, this is CFC OT, get a grip.

The power is the Democrat party and the propaganda machine numbing our brains with BS. You know, the people who tell us what to think. If you need proof of it, exhibit A is RussiaGate. Mexicans are rapists is exhibit B. The power casts a Catholic HS kid as a racist for standing still while an Indian bangs a drum inches from his face because he wore a MAGA hat.

You're defending a falsehood because you love Trump... see how that squeeze works?

You started the squeeze Mr Democrat Apologist, I dont love him and you do hate him. I just call em like I see em and Democrats dont like that because they suck too and you guys know it. But you want to vent about Trump so mirrors are an inconvenient truth. I understand, but I have no obligation or loyalty to either party and hypocrisy makes me vent. Now why is it false to say Trump called some illegal immigrants from Mexico rapists?

He got that nickname from the Democrats who openly opposed and criticized his policies, so by bringing this up you've just Plaxico Burress'd your own argument. "Most Democrats" don't "raise a fuss" about anything. Most people don't "raise a fuss" about anything political, because they're too busy just living their lives. The reality is that there was harsh criticism from Democrats for his administrations deportation policies.

Where did I say Democrats didn't give him the nickname? I said most Democrats didn't raise a fuss about Obama and you said most Democrats dont raise a fuss about anything. Maybe thats true, but most didn't raise a fuss about Obama. So why the fuss now? Partisan politics. The media ('power') wailed about Trump while using images from the Obama era. No irony there.

Yes. He did. And you just admitted he did. First you say "He didn't say ALL Mexicans, just Mexican immigrants" then you switch it to "He didn't say ALL Mexican immigrants, just some Mexican immigrants", then you move the goalpost to "He didn't say Mexican immigrants, just Mexican illegal immigrants" now you've moved the goalpost once again to "He didn't say Mexicans or Mexican immigrants" which is hilariously wrong... because Mexican illegal immigrants are still Mexican immigrants and calling "some Mexicans" rapists is still calling Mexicans rapists.

Are those actual quotes or are you putting quote marks around your interpretations? I dont recognize the first 2, where can I find them in context? The 3rd looks off, I didn't say Trump called illegal immigrants rapists. The 4th looks familiar and I dont see a contradiction. Immigrants and illegal immigrants are two different classifications and you're conflating them. Are immigrants illegal? Here's what I said:

"the accusation I'm disputing is he called Mexicans rapists. He's talking about illegal immigrants, and if some of them are good people or bringing problems or drugs or crime, then some of them are rapists, not all of therm. Do you guys need a Venn diagram?"

Did he call people rapists? Were the people he called rapists Mexican? So by definition, he called Mexicans rapists. So you're wrong.

Oh my God... By that logic super predator was calling black people super predators and you voted for her anyway. I wouldn't let you get away with that nonsense even in her case. Trump called some illegal immigrants from Mexico rapists. Is he wrong? I guess you cant answer that truthfully without calling Mexicans rapists.

He pointed out the fact that they were from Mexico then called them rapists. Go back to your strawman that "He didn't say ALL Mexicans"... you just don't get it. He said "Mexico... is sending people with lots of problems... they're rapists" He associated Mexican immigrants with being rapists. It doesn't matter if it was "ALL" or "some" or "most" or "47.58%"... it was an effing racist, disgusting thing to say. And you're defending it because you agree with it.

You keep fixating on what he didn't say... all the while putting words in his mouth and rearranging his words... all to defend his racist, despicable statements... But I just keep pointing to what he actually said, and its all there in black in white.

We weren't debating if what he said was disgusting or racist, he was accused of calling Mexicans rapists and I disagreed. I said he didn't call Mexicans rapists. He said some of the people coming in illegally are rapists. Was he accusing women and children of being rapists? No, some of the males are the problem.

He said some of the people are good, that means 'some' applies to the other groups (if that wasn't already obvious jhc). Some had problems, some carried drugs, some are criminals, some are good, and some are rapists.

If I associated Mexican immigrants with rapists I wouldn't support 'open borders'. Where did I either defend or agree with what he said? I said he was guilty of exaggeration and hyperbole by over stating the bad people entering the country illegally and I said most people coming in illegally are good people and most people here know that.

I'm defending him against the accusation he called Mexicans rapists, not that he overstated the problem. So now it doesn't matter if he said some (illegal) immigrants are rapists? Really? You were talking about moving goal posts? We began with "Mexicans are rapists" and stopped at "Immigrants are rapists" and now you're at "some immigrants are rapists". You're getting close, some illegal immigrants are rapists.

No... it's not.... LMAO you still don't get it... But I will try to explain it to you... I'm not assuming anything. It's the claim of an assumption that is disingenuous.

I know you think he was disingenuous and/or sarcastic. Where's your proof? I posted the clip, was he chuckling and winking? Did he and the crowd mock with laughter the idea there were good people crossing the border illegally?

We're discussing your 'thought exercise'. I asked if you guys assume some of Trump's supporters on the internet are good people and you said no. He assumed some good people are crossing the border illegally and you dont think anyone defending Trump is good. How is your analogy, analogous?

I apologize for the length of this post, twas a bountiful harvest and straw is everywhere

 

[Berzerker]

Once again, you're called something and then you just quote the nearest post by that person and say ‘NO U!’.

Now that's Orwellian.

What was I called? What does any of that mean?

The only thing that is Orwellian is how Berzerker tries to explain away trumps own words.

Trump is a bigot, who doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Big Brother has no doubts

 

[Gorbles]

You can say non-white in that case.
But still, both "non-white" and "of color" (which of course literally means colored in the English language, but for some mysterious reason PC people think it's more polite) are terms that create more confusion than clarity, for reasons already discussed such as how to classify Jews, Arabs, Iranians, turks, white Latin Americans, etc etc. I also question the utility of an ethnic term that places the Japanese and Haitians in the same bucket - I don't think they have much in common when it comes to facing hardship or discrimination.

Some fun etmyology:

1. "non-white" was considered condescending or worse, much like calling a gay person "not-straight" would be. It "others" the demographic and isn't very inclusive (and therefore isn't that respectful either). Ironically, the Wiki page that describes this history also uses it, so, hey.
2. "coloured" has explicit racial history to it that anybody can Google.
3. "person of colour" has been around for decades, and thus modern opposition to it is more likely to be ideological than questioning the actual linguistic use of the term, which unfortunately pervades discussions like this.

I mean, your point about it being too much of an umbrella is a good one, but as of 2020 there isn't really a better phrase that anyone has managed to come up with (or popularise, at least), so why not stick with what we have?

 

[Traitorfish]

Are people who affect confusion about the difference between "coloured" and "of colour" confused by all forms of etiquette?

Given the number and range of essentially arbitrary taboos and expectations humans draw up for each other, which people are exposed to and expected to participate in from when they first start talking, it stretches credibility that this one should be such a struggle.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What did I add?

As a wild guess, not a darn thing. Near as I can make out you haven't actually contributed anything of value to this forum in years...if ever.

 

[luiz]

Some fun etmyology:

1. "non-white" was considered condescending or worse, much like calling a gay person "not-straight" would be. It "others" the demographic and isn't very inclusive (and therefore isn't that respectful either). Ironically, the Wiki page that describes this history also uses it, so, hey.
2. "coloured" has explicit racial history to it that anybody can Google.
3. "person of colour" has been around for decades, and thus modern opposition to it is more likely to be ideological than questioning the actual linguistic use of the term, which unfortunately pervades discussions like this.

I mean, your point about it being too much of an umbrella is a good one, but as of 2020 there isn't really a better phrase that anyone has managed to come up with (or popularise, at least), so why not stick with what we have?

Well I think "person of color" is an extremely condescending term, created by white American academics, much like "Native American". But that's just me.

My point is that in 2020 we should not still be dividing the world between white and "the rest". This might have been useful for simplicity in the US of the 60's and 70's, which as I mentioned earlier was pretty much 90% white, 10% black, and very little everything else. As this was the period where anti-racist rhetoric caught on, Americans keep using terms which are simply confusing for the present US, and outright useless for the overall world.

I mean in the 60's you clearly had one better off group, and one worse off, one oppressed and one not. Today it would be absurd to say that all non-whites are oppressed or worse off. I mean, Asians do better than whites in pretty much every social and economic metric, and unlike in the 60's, they are now a very significant group. The richest ethnic group in the US are Indian-Americans. Within the largest minority, Hispanics, many subgroups actually outperform the overall population economically, including large subgroups such as Cuban Americans. So there is no "white VS others" anymore. The others are extremely diverse, some do far better than whites, and indeed have far more in common with whites than with other non-whites.

So lets dump this archaic and condescending term that creates more confusion than clarity, and rather understand that different groups are not part of one big colored bucket.

 

[Lexicus]

But still, both "non-white" and "of color" (which of course literally means colored in the English language, but for some mysterious reason PC people think it's more polite) are terms that create more confusion than clarity, for reasons already discussed such as how to classify Jews, Arabs, Iranians, turks, white Latin Americans, etc etc.

*shrugs* the term is useful in some contexts, less useful in others. You should however consider that it's obvious to the rest of us that your hostility to the term is connected with your general denial that racism is an ongoing problem in the US and elsewhere.

But you'd rather complain about my choice of words to describe the problem,

I'm not complaining about your choice of words, I'm actually pointing out you're unable to demonstrate that a problem even exists. Your use of sensationalizing language ("desert littered with bodies") is an attempt to create the "problem" out of whole cloth, exactly like Trump's statements about rapists and criminals. You and Trump both hope no one will notice that neither of you is able to make a factual argument. Just sensationalize and hope people's lizard-brain racism will fill in the rest.

What does border enforcement have to do with raping women trying to get into the country? Gee, let us ponder the relationship.

Yes, let's. Reports tell of rampant sexual abuse inside Trump's concentration camps. Border enforcement = rapists in US government uniforms.