[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

[Saelune]

What about people with mental illnesses? What about mentally impaired people? Should they be locked away?

No.

As to your point on confiscation, does that apply to people who have had their driver's license revoked?

There is an interesting rub here. I'm not exactly well-versed in the subject, but to my limited understanding, a Driver's License or ID is, legally speaking, property of the State. You essentially agree to such terms when you get the little piece of plastic. With that, it is not a confiscation of a person's property, as it is a State-owned representation of what is deemed a privilege(in most states, I think there are varying takes on this in some). How much of that should change, if anything, is a discussion in of itself.

What about the doctors and surgeons who have had their license to practice revoked?

I have zero understanding of medical licenses but they seem to be related to the above.

What about people who have had their cars seized due to traffic or drug and alcohol violations? Have those people had their rights violated?

Not well versed on the specifics of driving offenses, but I know where you're going with this. Relating to being involved in a crime, driving and licensing, and in most cases, the vehicle being able to be recovered, I'm going to say no. But that leads to a different can of worms regarding Civil Forfeiture and how easily that shit is abused.

Is it a violation of rights for a public school (elementary to high school) to confiscate a bottle of alcohol?

I abstain, but this is a very good point.

That depends on the reason property is confiscated or rights violated. Obviously, with respect to this argument, confiscation of property (guns) may potentially prevent violation of rights (physical harm).

A key here is "may potentially". We're discussing a blanket banning and confiscation of one particular item for what an absolute minority of people may do with it at any given time. On what level are we willing to restrict ourselves for a true minority of people that exist among us? In relation to something said some posts above I believe, how much are we willing to sacrifice for the few for the whole?

Jail is restriction of rights - and a damn sight more restriction than being free to go about one's business except for being forbidden to own a gun or drive a car, etc.

We can judge that someone is broadly safe, so long as they restricted from certain high risk activities where they have a proven history of poor conduct. Your average fraudster, for instance, is not the sort of person you'd want running a company, but probably safe to own a gun.

The problem I have with restrictions is that we are quickly becoming a society where you are permanently branded with a dark mark, restricting your rights permanently. The concept of doing the crime, doing the time, and that's it, is flying out the window in favor of lasting restrictions on people in a society where drug possession makes up the majority of our imprisoned.

Uhrm, well, no. Obviously not everybody who is going to commit a crime has committed a crime before.

Every criminal has to commit a crime for the first time. And for that reason, background checks are inadequate.

If you rely on background checks, you are tacitly considering those initial crimes (as well as the violated rights and freedoms that the victims suffer) as an acceptable cost. That's not a cost I consider acceptable for the right to carry around weaponry.

The same argument can be used to argue for a total restriction on near anything out of considering the possibility of misuse to harm individuals being an unacceptable cost. Didn't I have huge post in R&P in reply to you regarding cars on the same subject?

When I call things what they are, people like you ***** at me.

You call things as you see them, which does not necessarily reflect the reality of what you are seeing.

The Right should call it what it is. I'm so sick of the right talking about all immigrants in discussions of illegal immigration and then pretending that anyone who calls out the racism involved is pro-illegal immigration.

Since you consider me Right-Wing, can I safely chime in on this? Have you ever considered that racism is not actually involved, and that people simply want to have a border that works?

I have submitted my evidence time and again. You need to provide evidence he isn't at this point.

...That's the thing. I really don't think you ever have. Not even once. From memory, you just say he's X and Y is why, but Y usually amounts to you saying he is X again. Can you personally provide evidence for him being a white supremacist? Because I don't know of any white supremacists that are actively backing Israel.

Maybe if you're Bernie Sanders or AOC, but you aren't. You are attacking Democrats as a defense of Republicans.

No, I'm just attacking Democrats. I can attack Republicans, Gary Johnson, the Green Party, Bernie, Donald, Hillary, RMoney, Obama, Bush, Bill, and so on. And none of that is an endorsement of anyone else.

That says alot about you, none of it good.

Your ends are bad ones.

Well, I'm a bad man then.

There is too much evidence to go by assumptions with you at this point.

Well, go by what you want. You want LGBT people to be disarmed and be at the whim of the state and those around them. Black and White.

Voting for Trump says otherwise.

So I can't vote for Trump and open my wallet to people in need? Does it automatically get sewn shut?

Nothing has turned you from Trump. So I have to assume yes. You support Trump despite having apparently no reason to. Unless there is some other reason perhaps?

So again forgetting that I have misgivings with him, and that if I was to vote for him again, it'd be because the Democrats have not changed at all?

I support guns laws that are fairly and evenly applied. They should apply to white and non-white people evenly.

...Why does it sound like you're trying to pin me as wanting racially applied gun rights? And you still haven't explained the race war bit.

The problem is the things you want.

Peace?

What an extreme and rather black and white view of the situation.

Why does it have to be so all or nothing?

So, why should we be lax on rights? I would have thought you of all people would understand why rights should be protected and not be considered expendable for society. At least, from the LGBT perspective. I'm getting AIDS scare flashbacks.

I dont think children should be driving cars or operating heavy machinery. Doesnt mean I think they should be in jail though.

Different yet related subject on rights, and you absolutely know that's not what I was saying at all.

*snip*

I was going to just leave this thread and delete what I typed up, but this bit in particular made me want to stick around to just post this. Thanks.

You made me dig up context and now I'm mad a second time. Journalists really are awful sometimes.

Donald Trump: "I?m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn?t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?"

Like, what the hell is that crap? Trump says a lot of dumb things with even dumber implications, but how does a person hear "white supremacists should be condemned totally, but the other people are being treated unfairly" as "white supremacists are being treated unfairly." Jesus Christ.

It's called mental gymnastics and the ongoing effort for the media to try and fling whatever they can at Donald, regardless if the shit they're flinging even exists. If it doesn't, they'll fabricate it.

Because when I present facts to you, you deny them. I know I will never make you 'understand' because you don't want to. That is why you think that bashing Democrats for doing things Republicans do while not bashing Republicans is somehow ok, and not an endorsement of Republicans.

It hasn't been a question of 'Is Trump a bigot?' since the end of his first year. He is one. He is also really bad at his job. It is now a question of how far will his supporters ruin everything out of spite just to save faces they long since mutilated as a way to 'spite the libtards'.

Your claims of peace are hollow when you defend guns and White Supremacists. You are just as guilty if not more so of refusing to see the other side, of reducing the other side to a generalized enemy, and I am sick and tired of arguing with hypocrites who refuse to accept reality and logic and sense just because they want to pretend their brand of bigotry is ok.

And you do not care about LGBT rights.

 

[Saelune]

Atleast if you did vote third party, you would have a better claim to your 'not a Republican' stance. But you voted for Trump, you have admitted as such.

Not true, if they voted third party, even if they voted third party in a deeply red state that went 70/30 to Trump you'd still claim they were really a Republican and were *actually* voting for Trump by not voting for Clinton. How do I know this? Because that's the line you used when I pointed out that I am registered Independent and I voted for Jill Stein.


Most people shooting black folks are other black folks. Like seriously, most homicides overall committed in the US are done by black folks and most of their victims are other black folks.

I'd suggest why I think that is, but I think I'll refrain and just let Saelune call me racist. Because it doesn't matter what reasoning I suggest, Saelune will se the previous line and just assume racist.

I call you a Trump supporter cause you keep supporting and defending Trump. For someone who claims to have voted for Jill Stein, you sure don't seem to share her views.

Black people shoot a lot of black people because black people are often kept in segregated shit holes. The racist part is trying to spin that as black people being the problem.

 

[Leg End]

Because when I present facts to you, you deny them.

We meaning the same "facts" as Trump being a racist for wanting to actually secure the border? Can I use the same type of "fact" against you to say you're actually anti-LGBT for wanting a vulnerable group in society to be disarmed? Because it's logic from the same tree.

I know I will never make you 'understand' because you don't want to. That is why you think that bashing Democrats for doing things Republicans do while not bashing Republicans is somehow ok, and not an endorsement of Republicans.

Because I've bashed Republicans for years, and I'd like to spend time bashing the Democrats, since I seem to have given them a free pass.

It hasn't been a question of 'Is Trump a bigot?' since the end of his first year. He is one.

Asserted as a fact without backing, but should be assumed to be fact?

He is also really bad at his job

Hell, I'll throw you some bones there. Bastard pulled back on a damn phone call.

It is now a question of how far will his supporters ruin everything out of spite just to save faces they long since mutilated as a way to 'spite the libtards'.

And you consider me to be in the same camp. Great. That's not true.

Your claims of peace are hollow when you defend guns

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum. Words I very closely live by, after my life experiences.

and White Supremacists.

By saying they should speak stupid shit like everyone else? Saying someone has the right to say something stupid does not mean you approve of what is being said. I fight for your right to say the things you do, even if I absolutely disagree with the majority of it.

You are just as guilty if not more so of refusing to see the other side, of reducing the other side to a generalized enemy,

Except I'm not, because I do have actual discussions with people of varying beliefs. No matter how directly opposed to my beliefs they are, I can sit and have a discussion with them, and explore their beliefs and thoughts to see why they hold them, and they usually reciprocate. We may not even change our minds by the end, but we can (usually) recognize that we're both humans with opinions, and that we should not devalue the other person. Cases where that did not happen... were interesting.

and I am sick and tired of arguing with hypocrites who refuse to accept reality and logic and sense just because they want to pretend their brand of bigotry is ok.

Consider me as having said the exact same thing.

And you do not care about LGBT rights.

Despite the fact I've cared about them since before select persons in my family stopped thumping the bible to restrict marriage rights. Growing up, I recognized that people love whoever they love, and that no other person should have a say in what they do. That people have autonomy over themselves and none deserve lesser rights or freedoms. This flew in the face of said family members(and still does for one in particular), but I held to it and still hold to it. It was one part of a whole that fueled my contempt for the State.

 

[tstorm823]

The Southern Strategy is a lie.

This tells us everything we need to know about you.

I assume you mean to say that I am a smart and tall and not excessively tall but smart and thin and rich and rich hamster.

 

[Agema]

As always, in order for you to think that Republicans are evil opportunistic bastards, you also have to think they're moronic incompetents who accidentally fumbled into power but are failing to have the same luck enacting their evil plans. There's a simple alternative to that: they aren't evil in the first place.

Oh, I wouldn't generally describe them as evil (not most of them anyway) - terms like evil are not generally very useful in mainstream politics. But they're certainly opportunistic bastards: most successful politicians probably are.

And the Southern Strategy is well attested, by Republican politicians and campaigners, no less.

And voters choosing a candidate because they're the nicest to white supremacists are like 1000 people in this country, where those who actively vote against that are like 150,000,000.

There are about 1000 white supremacist organisations, although undoubtedly most are small (<100) and there's likely to be people members of more than one. But it's not just the outright white supremacists: there's a spectrum of views, and there's no magic boundary where a person takes one ideological step and suddenly becomes totally okay. Start adding associated movements, sympathisers and you're into the millions. Common or garden racists, tens of millions.

The Republicans look for all the world to me to be very weak on this. Bluntly, they want to co-opt as much as they can, and as a result are very slow and very reluctant to criticise it beyond the most extreme end. There's a lot of changing the subject, avoidance, minimising the threat or actuality right-wing violence, etc.

 

[Silvanus]

The same argument can be used to argue for a total restriction on near anything out of considering the possibility of misuse to harm individuals being an unacceptable cost. Didn't I have huge post in R&P in reply to you regarding cars on the same subject?

The "same argument" can be used in that way if you push it to the extreme, yes: reductio-ad-absurdum.

Much like I could say that the "same argument" you're using could be utilised to argue for complete freedom for people to have whatever they want, such as nuclear weaponry and pet tyrannosaurs (without leashes). It could, but only if I were to push it out of recognition.

 

[Abomination]

The Republicans look for all the world to me to be very weak on this. Bluntly, they want to co-opt as much as they can, and as a result are very slow and very reluctant to criticise it beyond the most extreme end. There's a lot of changing the subject, avoidance, minimising the threat or actuality right-wing violence, etc.

Votes are votes. Not the most honourable path to take, but as evidence would have it, 1 million votes is the difference between the Whitehouse and being the opposition.

It's also begging the question, are you not allowed to have racists vote for you? Are their votes somehow worth less than any other person's vote? When is someone considered a "racist voter"? What criteria do they need to meet?

 

[tstorm823]

The Republicans look for all the world to me to be very weak on this. Bluntly, they want to co-opt as much as they can, and as a result are very slow and very reluctant to criticise it beyond the most extreme end. There's a lot of changing the subject, avoidance, minimising the threat or actuality right-wing violence, etc.

Alternate theory for you: much like that nonsensically twisted quote of Trump that still won't die about fine people on both sides, perhaps Republicans are up front and explicit in their condemnation of these things, but all the journalists ignore that part. There's not an act of bigotry that passes by without a thousand Republican condemnations in 24 hours, you're just not being exposed to them.

 

[Saelune]

Because when I present facts to you, you deny them.

We meaning the same "facts" as Trump being a racist for wanting to actually secure the border? Can I use the same type of "fact" against you to say you're actually anti-LGBT for wanting a vulnerable group in society to be disarmed? Because it's logic from the same tree.

I know I will never make you 'understand' because you don't want to. That is why you think that bashing Democrats for doing things Republicans do while not bashing Republicans is somehow ok, and not an endorsement of Republicans.

Because I've bashed Republicans for years, and I'd like to spend time bashing the Democrats, since I seem to have given them a free pass.

It hasn't been a question of 'Is Trump a bigot?' since the end of his first year. He is one.

Asserted as a fact without backing, but should be assumed to be fact?

He is also really bad at his job

Hell, I'll throw you some bones there. Bastard pulled back on a damn phone call.

It is now a question of how far will his supporters ruin everything out of spite just to save faces they long since mutilated as a way to 'spite the libtards'.

And you consider me to be in the same camp. Great. That's not true.

Your claims of peace are hollow when you defend guns

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum. Words I very closely live by, after my life experiences.

and White Supremacists.

By saying they should speak stupid shit like everyone else? Saying someone has the right to say something stupid does not mean you approve of what is being said. I fight for your right to say the things you do, even if I absolutely disagree with the majority of it.

You are just as guilty if not more so of refusing to see the other side, of reducing the other side to a generalized enemy,

Except I'm not, because I do have actual discussions with people of varying beliefs. No matter how directly opposed to my beliefs they are, I can sit and have a discussion with them, and explore their beliefs and thoughts to see why they hold them, and they usually reciprocate. We may not even change our minds by the end, but we can (usually) recognize that we're both humans with opinions, and that we should not devalue the other person. Cases where that did not happen... were interesting.

and I am sick and tired of arguing with hypocrites who refuse to accept reality and logic and sense just because they want to pretend their brand of bigotry is ok.

Consider me as having said the exact same thing.

And you do not care about LGBT rights.

Despite the fact I've cared about them since before select persons in my family stopped thumping the bible to restrict marriage rights. Growing up, I recognized that people love whoever they love, and that no other person should have a say in what they do. That people have autonomy over themselves and none deserve lesser rights or freedoms. This flew in the face of said family members(and still does for one in particular), but I held to it and still hold to it. It was one part of a whole that fueled my contempt for the State.

Except you voted for Trump and aren't even sorry about it.

 

[Saelune]

The Republicans look for all the world to me to be very weak on this. Bluntly, they want to co-opt as much as they can, and as a result are very slow and very reluctant to criticise it beyond the most extreme end. There's a lot of changing the subject, avoidance, minimising the threat or actuality right-wing violence, etc.

Alternate theory for you: much like that nonsensically twisted quote of Trump that still won't die about fine people on both sides, perhaps Republicans are up front and explicit in their condemnation of these things, but all the journalists ignore that part. There's not an act of bigotry that passes by without a thousand Republican condemnations in 24 hours, you're just not being exposed to them.

You're not even trying to use facts.

 

[twistedmic]

There's not an act of bigotry that passes by without a thousand Republican condemnations in 24 hours, you're just not being exposed to them.

Two things: Words are cheap, and actions speak louder than words. Condemning racism and bigotry a thousand times means jackshit if you don't do a thing to change or prevent said racism and bigotry.
Show me what the Republicans have done to try and stem racism and bigotry. Show me what they've done to help any group outside of the 'rich white male' demographic.

 

[generals3]

Alternate theory for you: much like that nonsensically twisted quote of Trump that still won't die about fine people on both sides, perhaps Republicans are up front and explicit in their condemnation of these things, but all the journalists ignore that part. There's not an act of bigotry that passes by without a thousand Republican condemnations in 24 hours, you're just not being exposed to them.

Politics is a lot more subtle than that. Talk is cheap and condemnation of a particular act is even cheaper. What matters is the general attitude and communication on a more local level. You say that republicans will not let an act of bigotry pass by without a thousand condemnations. Yet they elected someone as president who made plenty of bigotted statements. The most well known and obvious being the one about mexican immigrants crossing the border who are apparently almost all criminals and rapists with "maybe some" being good people. How would you feel if someone said republicans are racists, sexists and nutjobs and maybe some are good people?

Than we could mention the fact Republicans have a tendency to defend bigotted policies (against gay rights, muslim bans,etc.). Saying a racist shooting was bad but at the same time pushing for racist policies feels rather schyzophrenic. And it is, by design, it is a tactic aimed at gathering the support of the more bigotted voters while backing yourself against racism accusations to still maintain a more moderate support. And your behavior shows how well that tactic works.

Our far right does the same, and the Brussels left does the same with Islamism. It's a common political tactic used to pander to groups/ideologies you know a part of your electorate rejects.

 

[Agema]

Alternate theory for you: much like that nonsensically twisted quote of Trump that still won't die about fine people on both sides, perhaps Republicans are up front and explicit in their condemnation of these things, but all the journalists ignore that part. There's not an act of bigotry that passes by without a thousand Republican condemnations in 24 hours, you're just not being exposed to them.

Well, there are a lot of Republicans, and many of them are decent people who resent bigotry, so I'm sure they condemn it when they see it. The problem is more the substantial tranche of them that aren't quite so good, and hence the politicians who are cynically aware there are millions of votes to be won by being soft on bigotry. Or, as in the case of Steve King, are right there with the bigots.

The rhetoric pumped out by Trump is shocking. He's not just some weird isolated case spouting that and happening to be forgiven for it, he's actively saying what millions of Americans - often Republicans - think... and they love him for it. You can query all manner of isolated cases, but the general pattern of his rhetoric is undeniable. People like Steve Bannon ar unquestionably connected to white nationalism... and Trump gave him a big seat in the White House. The whole birther thing. He's happy to say Muslims are dangerous when they carry out a terrorist attack, but white nationalists are not a problem when they gun down lots of Muslims. You can overlook or explain away some of this, but the sheer weight of it all is undeniable.

I appreciate you don't want to see that vein running through your party, but it's there.

 

[tstorm823]

Politics is a lot more subtle than that. Talk is cheap and condemnation of a particular act is even cheaper. What matters is the general attitude and communication on a more local level. You say that republicans will not let an act of bigotry pass by without a thousand condemnations. Yet they elected someone as president who made plenty of bigotted statements. The most well known and obvious being the one about mexican immigrants crossing the border who are apparently almost all criminals and rapists with "maybe some" being good people. How would you feel if someone said republicans are racists, sexists and nutjobs and maybe some are good people?

"Maybe some good people" would be a considerable upgrade to what people often say.

Two things: Words are cheap, and actions speak louder than words. Condemning racism and bigotry a thousand times means jackshit if you don't do a thing to change or prevent said racism and bigotry.
Show me what the Republicans have done to try and stem racism and bigotry. Show me what they've done to help any group outside of the 'rich white male' demographic.

They passed tax reform that was a tax cut for practically everyone except the richest whitest people. The same tax reform bill, which was passed by Republicans, included tax incentives for investment in "opportunity zones", which are primarily low income communities that trend non-white. By executive order of Trump himself, several federal departments have developed programs to benefit historically black colleges and universities. Largely through the efforts of Trump's immediate family, they pushed through criminal justice reform that removed a lot of extreme punishments for drug crimes that trended non-white. And that's just like the last 2 years. If you'd like to talk about the Civil War, the rise of American Progressivism, a bunch of the Civil Rights movement, we could go on.

Talk is cheap. Democrats talking about slavery reparations know that's nonsense that is never going to happen. They say it knowing it would likely never reach a vote, and they'd love if it did so that the Republicans have to be the adults in the room that vote it down, and then they can call all Republicans racist again.

Well, there are a lot of Republicans, and many of them are decent people who resent bigotry, so I'm sure they condemn it when they see it. The problem is more the substantial tranche of them that aren't quite so good, and hence the politicians who are cynically aware there are millions of votes to be won by being soft on bigotry. Or, as in the case of Steve King, are right there with the bigots.

The rhetoric pumped out by Trump is shocking. He's not just some weird isolated case spouting that and happening to be forgiven for it, he's actively saying what millions of Americans - often Republicans - think... and they love him for it. You can query all manner of isolated cases, but the general pattern of his rhetoric is undeniable. People like Steve Bannon ar unquestionably connected to white nationalism... and Trump gave him a big seat in the White House. The whole birther thing. He's happy to say Muslims are dangerous when they carry out a terrorist attack, but white nationalists are not a problem when they gun down lots of Muslims. You can overlook or explain away some of this, but the sheer weight of it all is undeniable.

I appreciate you don't want to see that vein running through your party, but it's there.

I don't appreciate that you believe complete nonsense. You show me where Donald Trump thought white nationalists killing Muslims was ok. Show it to me. You're talking about this undeniable thing, but I'm right here denying it. Your view of Republicans is wrong. Dead wrong. It is based on decades of propaganda being supported by incredibly rare and isolated incidents, and often those incidents are themselves either grossly mischaracterized or have no connection to Republicans. When white supremacist violence happens, the perpetrators don't tend to be party-line Republicans, or even Republicans in the first place. They're usually people who hate the whole establishment, Republicans included. They don't like Donald Trump, except perhaps in as much as he's viewed as a symbol of white supremacy in America. I ask you, who made him that symbol? Donald Trump did not declare himself a racist or white supremacist, neither through words nor deeds. No, the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) made that declaration. And now people like you unwittingly perpetuate lies that do nothing but empower racists who think they've got national power on their side and instill fear in those who least need more fear in their lives.

 

[Avnger]

The Republicans look for all the world to me to be very weak on this. Bluntly, they want to co-opt as much as they can, and as a result are very slow and very reluctant to criticise it beyond the most extreme end. There's a lot of changing the subject, avoidance, minimising the threat or actuality right-wing violence, etc.

Alternate theory for you: much like that nonsensically twisted quote of Trump that still won't die about fine people on both sides, perhaps Republicans are up front and explicit in their condemnation of these things, but all the journalists ignore that part. There's not an act of bigotry that passes by without a thousand Republican condemnations in 24 hours, you're just not being exposed to them.

You do realize that Republican Representative Steve King's very existence alone (though he's far from the only one) exposes this for the nonsense it is, right?

edit: And before you say "But he was stripped of all his committee assignments!", that was only 5 months ago. The man has been in Congress for over 15 years...

 

[CaitSeith]

The Republicans look for all the world to me to be very weak on this. Bluntly, they want to co-opt as much as they can, and as a result are very slow and very reluctant to criticise it beyond the most extreme end. There's a lot of changing the subject, avoidance, minimising the threat or actuality right-wing violence, etc.

Alternate theory for you: much like that nonsensically twisted quote of Trump that still won't die about fine people on both sides, perhaps Republicans are up front and explicit in their condemnation of these things, but all the journalists ignore that part. There's not an act of bigotry that passes by without a thousand Republican condemnations in 24 hours, you're just not being exposed to them.

It would had died if it hadn't backtracked his previous day statement (when he had explicitly condemned hatred, bigotry and violence in Charlottesville). Trump represent the Republicans (that's why he was elected as candidate in the first place), but he went his way to hint the far-right as an acceptable political ideology (as long as there are "some very fine people in both sides"). I know of people who used to be registered Republicans who stopped supporting the party years ago. If the current Republicans want to stop supporting Trump, then they'll have to support the calls to impeach him.

Spoiler: PS: If you see white supremacy flags at your rally, and not walk away; you aren't a very fine people.

If you see white supremacy symbols at your rally, and not walk away; you aren't a very fine people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoYKuoiUrY

 

[twistedmic]

They passed tax reform that was a tax cut for practically everyone except the richest whitest people. The same tax reform bill, which was passed by Republicans, included tax incentives for investment in "opportunity zones", which are primarily low income communities that trend non-white. By executive order of Trump himself, several federal departments have developed programs to benefit historically black colleges and universities. Largely through the efforts of Trump's immediate family, they pushed through criminal justice reform that removed a lot of extreme punishments for drug crimes that trended non-white. And that's just like the last 2 years. If you'd like to talk about the Civil War, the rise of American Progressivism, a bunch of the Civil Rights movement, we could go on.

Talk is cheap. Democrats talking about slavery reparations know that's nonsense that is never going to happen. They say it knowing it would likely never reach a vote, and they'd love if it did so that the Republicans have to be the adults in the room that vote it down, and then they can call all Republicans racist again.

First off all, the new tax reform bill was staggeringly biased towards the rich and super rich, with lower and middle class people get a mere fraction of the benefits.
'Tax Incentives' typically mean that the business owners and shareholders get more money for themselves. Those businesses might build in low income communities but that sure as hell doesn't mean that they'd be paying above minimum wage (currently $7.25/$7.50 an hour) which is not a livable wage.
Where is the money coming from to help these black colleges? Is it coming from military spending cutbacks? Or are the Republicans planning to pull funding from public schools, federal parks, various social services etc? Are any of these obscenely rich Politicians donating their own money to help>
Give me links to the info that Trump and his brood are trying to reform the prison system to help the incarcerated, instead of trying to privatize the prison system.
Are the Republicans helping minorities and the poor by constantly trying to strip them of health care, medicaid, medicare and WIC? What about their unending quest to strip women of their reproductive rights? Is that helping them?

 

[tstorm823]

You do realize that Republican Representative Steve King's very existence alone (though he's far from the only one) exposes this for the nonsense it is, right?

edit: And before you say "But he was stripped of all his committee assignments!", that was only 5 months ago. The man has been in Congress for over 15 years...

And he is one person. Much like how the Dixiecrats were Democrats, and the vast majority of them stayed Democrats, but like 3 switched to Republicans so now all racists are Republicans, right?

Joe Biden has said far more racially tinged things than all but the worst Republicans. He helped create racial disparity in America multiple times. Hell, he eulogized one of those Dixiecrats, calling him a friend. But unlike Steve King, he's largely gotten a pass on his comments because there isn't an organized network of media outlets dedicated to amplifying his worst qualities. He wasn't stripped of his positions, he's a presidential front runner! Does that mean the Democrats are collectively racists dog-whistling white supremacists?

First off all, the new tax reform bill was staggeringly biased towards the rich and super rich, with lower and middle class people get a mere fraction of the benefits.

People have been saying that, but they are incorrect. First, they lump tax cuts to corporations with tax cuts to the wealthy, and that's not how things work. Corporations saving on taxes don't just give that surplus as a lump sum to wealthy owners, but even supposing they did, the owners would then pay tax on that a second time. The tax cut benefited the middle class directly as far as paying less taxes, and the lower class indirectly from the much higher economic growth rate and much lower unemployment that otherwise forecasted (because business are reinvesting their profit , not just cutting wealthy owners fat checks).

'Tax Incentives' typically mean that the business owners and shareholders get more money for themselves. Those businesses might build in low income communities but that sure as hell doesn't mean that they'd be paying above minimum wage (currently $7.25/$7.50 an hour) which is not a livable wage.

Something like 1% of employed people make minimum wage or below, and most of those below are working tipped jobs that actually make significantly more than minimum. They are paying above minimum wage, I guarantee it.

Where is the money coming from to help these black colleges? Is it coming from military spending cutbacks? Or are the Republicans planning to pull funding from public schools, federal parks, various social services etc? Are any of these obscenely rich Politicians donating their own money to help>

It's not always money. Sure, the HBCU got Pell Grants restored and are being spared any proposed cuts to education funding, but the projects they've worked on are largely networking. Getting these colleges into arrangements with other universities and professional industries to share resources and points of contact so that the students can connect to their desired profession. Historically black colleges aren't going exceptionally bankrupt and need mountains of money. But they do have the unique challenge of a lot of first generation college students who don't have a head start on making professional contacts.

Give me links to the info that Trump and his brood are trying to reform the prison system to help the incarcerated, instead of trying to privatize the prison system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Step_Act

Hey look, a bill that lets people out of prison by applying sentencing reform retroactively, seeks to improve prison conditions, and hypothetically would establish rehabilitation programs for inmates.

Also, if you'd like a solid example of biased information delivery, ask yourself why that wikipedia article feels the need to name exclusively Republicans as opponents of a non-controversial bill, when they could have picked at least a couple of the 57 Democrats in the House who voted against it [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h215].

Are the Republicans helping minorities and the poor by constantly trying to strip them of health care, medicaid, medicare and WIC? What about their unending quest to strip women of their reproductive rights? Is that helping them?

Short answer, yes. Our miserable attempts at providing people "free" healthcare are a huge part of how healthcare in the US became an insurmountable mess. The "reproductive rights" you're talking about are killing human beings. Republicans hold the controversial opinion that people are better off when they have accessible, affordable healthcare and aren't killing their offspring.

 

[Agema]

I don't appreciate that you believe complete nonsense. You show me where Donald Trump thought white nationalists killing Muslims was ok. Show it to me.

I didn't say he said it was okay, I said that he opined it wasn't a problem. More strictly, he said there was no growing threat from white nationalists just after one busted into a mosque and shot over 50 people: "I don?t really. I think it?s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems. I guess if you look at what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that?s the case. I don?t know enough about it yet." For a start, he's dead wrong: it's been on the rise (and not just in the USA). Contrast that with whenever a likely terrorist attack conducted by Muslims occurs, where he's straight out there with the Islamic terrorist rage.

And this sort of minimising and brushing off of the far right by politicians is exactly what I mean.

Your view of Republicans is wrong. Dead wrong. It is based on decades of propaganda being supported by incredibly rare and isolated incidents, and often those incidents are themselves either grossly mischaracterized or have no connection to Republicans.

I have most definitely not stated that Republicans are white nationalists.

I think a chunk of Republicans are racist; some are more racist than most and getting somewhat sympathetic with white nationalist, and a subset of those tend towards and into white nationalism itself. It says something that a lot of these guys fucking loved Trump. They loved him because he said so much that warmed the cockles of their bigotted hearts. He's retweeted their comments. He's enabled them like no president in decades.

 

[Schadrach]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Step_Act

Hey look, a bill that lets people out of prison by applying sentencing reform retroactively, seeks to improve prison conditions, and hypothetically would establish rehabilitation programs for inmates.

Also, if you'd like a solid example of biased information delivery, ask yourself why that wikipedia article feels the need to name exclusively Republicans as opponents of a non-controversial bill, when they could have picked at least a couple of the 57 Democrats in the House who voted against it [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h215].

Learn the rules and procedures WP operates under, and go there and argue it's an NPOV issue - that despite more Republicans than Democrats supporting the bill and despite far more Democrats than Republicans voting against it that 3/5 listed congressional supporters are Democrats and 0/6 listed opposers are. You could probably argue that that is a subtle attempt to present the topic as more partisan than it is.

Though it's worth noting that they also limited that to Senators, presumably specifically to use as an excuse against NPOV (all the *Senators* who opposed were Republican, after all), so you'll likely have your work cut out for you. Just do not get heated or aggressive, and if and when they try to apply different standards there than in other similar places call them out on it, with examples.

I once argued about a name going on a list article for a long while, and it took pointing out that the standard they were trying to impose for this one specific name would basically destroy the list if it were imposed across the whole thing. It was the list of political self immolations, and the guy literally mailed a manifesto about the issues he was protesting to a local paper then set himself on fire on the courthouse steps. In New England.