Come on MOL Republicans
The "send her back" chanting at his North Carolina rally is chilling.
I'm still waiting for a Trump supporter to justify this.
mrincredible said:
The "send her back" chanting at his North Carolina rally is chilling.
I'm still waiting for a Trump supporter to justify this.
conservatives and so-called centrists get all shocked at comparisons to Nazi rallies, but I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Trump rallies have parallels to 1984's Two Minutes Hate.
this week a big segment of our country has crossed lines I didn't think I'd see crossed. It's starting to get scary.
Klinker said:
I think Gollum and Lord Haw Haw have sequestered themselves while the try to come up with a positive spin on this one.
It seems hard to believe that whataboutism has finally betrayed them.
I am not a Republican (thus, I did not believe the thread was relevant to me). Instead, I would call myself an independent (no party affiliation) libertarian. As a result, I just got around to opening this thread just now. Sorry to hear that this disappointed Colonel Klinker.
So proeasdf, did you come here to insult Klinker or offer your justification for Trump's racist comments?
mrincredible said:
So proeasdf, did you come here to insult Klinker or offer your justification for Trump's racist comments?
My posting above was merely a joke. And, based on the title of this posting (namely, "Come on MOL Republicans"), I don't believe that I qualify to substantively respond.
PS I don't support racism. Additionally, DJT's tweet attempting to shut down dialogue by telling the four Congresswomen to go back to where they come from is not a way to solve differences.
mrincredible said:
So proeasdf, did you come here to insult Klinker or offer your justification for Trump's racist comments?
By the way, your posting is the definition of a loaded question (by the fact that the two alternatives are unjustified assumptions).
Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Wiki definition: A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
PS Klinker likes to kid me by calling me Gollum (even though my avatar is NOT of Gollum). When will you accuse Klinker of "com[ing] here to insult" me?
proeasdf said:
By the way, your posting is the definition of a loaded question (by the fact that the two alternatives are unjustified assumptions).
Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Wiki definition: A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
PS Klinker likes to kid me by calling me Gollum (even though my avatar is NOT of Gollum). When will you accuse Klinker of "com[ing] here to insult" me?
Not Gollum? Please explain?
Am I too hopeful? I saw a portion of the small group behind Trump, not responding to the chants or his rhetoric and I assume that those people are chosen to cheer and look enthusiastic. Were they reluctant to be caught on camera applauding this?
I'm grasping at straws here.
proeasdf said:
I am not a Republican (thus, I did not believe the thread was relevant to me). Instead, I would call myself an independent (no party affiliation) libertarian. As a result, I just got around to opening this thread just now. Sorry to hear that this disappointed Colonel Klinker.
Ah! A libertarian! So you support the free movement of peoples across the borders, yes? That the wall is a folly, and that the USCBP and ICE should be disbanded? That all the "detention centers" should be closed down and everyone in them should be set free?
ridski said:
proeasdf said:Ah! A libertarian! So you support the free movement of peoples across the borders, yes? That the wall is a folly, and that the USCBP and ICE should be disbanded? That all the "detention centers" should be closed down and everyone in them should be set free?
I am not a Republican (thus, I did not believe the thread was relevant to me). Instead, I would call myself an independent (no party affiliation) libertarian. As a result, I just got around to opening this thread just now. Sorry to hear that this disappointed Colonel Klinker.
In principle I do support open borders. However, open borders will not work in the current situation that we are in. The solution cannot be to have 10%, (or perhaps 20%, or 30%) of the world's population comes to the US (under an borders policy). Such an influx would likely destroy the existing social safety net here in the US and severely depress wages in the US. I think the question that instead needs to be answered is: why is the US so much richer than the countries where people are eager to immigrate from?
What can we (the US) do assist these poorer countries in becoming wealthier?
proeasdf said:
In principle I do support open borders. However,
That's all I need to know. You're not a libertarian. Libertarians are idealists, just like communists. There is no "practical libertarianism". You either believe that all people and commerce should be free, or you don't. You've picked a side. You're not for the liberty of mankind, but for the liberty of American citizenry only and that, my friend, only exists upon the oppression of others.
So please don't use that word to describe yourself again, or I'll set Terp on you.
ridski said:
proeasdf said:That's all I need to know. You're not a libertarian. Libertarians are idealists, just like communists. There is no "practical libertarianism". You either believe that all people and commerce should be free, or you don't. You've picked a side. You're not for the liberty of mankind, but for the liberty of American citizenry only and that, my friend, only exists upon the oppression of others.
In principle I do support open borders. However,
So please don't use that word to describe yourself again, or I'll set Terp on you.
Because I am practical you castigate me. You have created a binary analysis of libertarianism with no inconsistencies permitted. Libertarianism is NOT a suicide pact. With that in mind, we must accept that the world and the US are not perfect today. Proposing aspirational intellectual goals does not deserve abuse.
Do you not have any aspirational goals?
proeasdf said:
Because I am practical you castigate me. You have created a binary analysis of libertarianism with no inconsistencies permitted. Libertarianism is NOT a suicide pact. With that in mind, we must accept that the world and the US are not perfect today. Proposing aspirational intellectual goals does not deserve abuse.
Do you not have any aspirational goals?
I
Libertarianism has no inconsistencies. It can't. Either you believe all individuals have their own rights, including the right to free movement, or you support some kind of authoritarianism. I have not created this analysis out of my ***, it is one of the primary tenets of libertarianism, and free movement of people is at the heart of the current Libertarian Party manifesto.
I used to call myself a social libertarian and economic centrist back in the day. It's an oxymoron and I know it. I don't use the word anymore. It's as useful as calling anyone in the Democratic Party a socialist. I'm libertarish. Maybe. Definitely with a small l. At best, that's what you are, and going forth from there, we probably just disagree with what level of authoritarianism we're prepared to put up with.
ridski said:
proeasdf said:Libertarianism has no inconsistencies. It can't. Either you believe all individuals have their own rights, including the right to free movement, or you support some kind of authoritarianism. I have not created this analysis out of my ***, it is one of the primary tenets of libertarianism, and free movement of people is at the heart of the current Libertarian Party manifesto.
Because I am practical you castigate me. You have created a binary analysis of libertarianism with no inconsistencies permitted. Libertarianism is NOT a suicide pact. With that in mind, we must accept that the world and the US are not perfect today. Proposing aspirational intellectual goals does not deserve abuse.
Do you not have any aspirational goals?
I
I used to call myself a social libertarian and economic centrist back in the day. It's an oxymoron and I know it. I don't use the word anymore. It's as useful as calling anyone in the Democratic Party a socialist. I'm libertarish. Maybe. Definitely with a small l. At best, that's what you are, and going forth from there, we probably just disagree with what level of authoritarianism we're prepared to put up with.
You have your POV. And, I have mine.
PS Who put you in charge of defining others?
Trump is not exactly racist, at least not in my opinion. I’m sure there are plenty of black, brown, gay, female, etc people out there willing to say nice things about him and or give him money. He’s fine with those folks. But if you criticize him or oppose him in any way he will defame your race, gender, orientation, height, weight, disability, etc to put you down and make himself look tough to his supporters.
I’m not sure what to call that.
proeasdf said:
You have your POV. And, I have mine.
PS Who out you in charge of defining others?
Defining others and defining words are a rather common sport on MOL.
Ridski's has given a definition of Libertarian in keeping with recognized usage.
Nan has spent many posts defining "Progressive" as one who strictly agrees, without much deviation, with Bernie Sanders' version of M4A.
I happen to feel that the word "Fascist" fits a number of Trump supporters and former Trump official Gorka. Steve Bannon comes close.
So you are correct. We are all entitled to our POV.
proeasdf said:
I am not a Republican (thus, I did not believe the thread was relevant to me). Instead, I would call myself an independent (no party affiliation) libertarian. As a result, I just got around to opening this thread just now. Sorry to hear that this disappointed Colonel Klinker.
Where do you stand on:
- the US deficit
- Trumps tax cuts
- the 9/11 responder bill that Rand Paul voted against
DaveSchmidt said:
It’s Gollum’s boy, Sherman.
I was going to guess twin brother Colm
Red_Barchetta said:
Trump is not exactly racist, at least not in my opinion. I’m sure there are plenty of black, brown, gay, female, etc people out there willing to say nice things about him and or give him money. He’s fine with those folks. But if you criticize him or oppose him in any way he will defame your race, gender, orientation, height, weight, disability, etc to put you down and make himself look tough to his supporters.
I’m not sure what to call that.
What would you call anybody else who wasn't the President but who consistently denigrated people based on their race, gender, 'orientation' or disability?
Is it really that difficult?
flimbro said:
What would you call anybody else who wasn't the President but who consistently denigrated people based on their race, gender, 'orientation' or disability?
Is it really that difficult?
Trump is totally racist. Always has been. The only new twist is learning that he thinks his overt racism is a winning strategy.
flimbro said:
What would you call anybody else who wasn't the President but who consistently denigrated people based on their race, gender, 'orientation' or disability?
Is it really that difficult?
Saying Trump is racist is like saying the Thai women’s soccer team needs a better goalie. It’s only a sliver of his shortcomings.
proeasdf said:
I think the question that instead needs to be answered is: why is the US so much richer than the countries where people are eager to immigrate from?
Well if you're asking in the broad sense about why countries and cultures in certain parts of the world have ended up with more power and resources than others, Guns, Germs & Steel is a good read.
If you're asking in the context of immigration specifically, I think you might be making some unwarranted assumptions. First off, are you talking about only countries current immigrants are coming from, or over the history of the US? "Other countries" aren't an undifferentiated mass, after all, and any given country's fortunes waxes and wanes over time, along with immigration from any given country to the US, and reasons driving it. Ireland used to be a poor agricultural country on the periphery of Europe that sent saw a staggering proportion of its population emigrate to the US (and Canada, and Australia, and NZ, and elsewhere) at one point, but is in very different circumstances now.
Mexico has a very different relationship with the US than other countries, having been at one point the recipient of large numbers of immigrants from the US, then seeing much of its territory annexed to the US, and of course as a bordering country has always had a fair amount of population exchange in across its shared border.
Right now there's a lot of people coming from countries in central America such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, driven by conditions specific to their countries at this particular time, different from why, say, what drove 19th C Irish or 20th C Mexican immigrants.
People are always moving, and particular states see their fortunes rise and fall. I guarantee you that at some point in, say, the next 500 years, there'll be some significant population movements from whatever polity or polities occupy temperate North America to some other polities that are more stable and more prosperous at that point in time.
Red_Barchetta said:
Trump is not exactly racist, at least not in my opinion. I’m sure there are plenty of black, brown, gay, female, etc people out there willing to say nice things about him and or give him money. He’s fine with those folks. But if you criticize him or oppose him in any way he will defame your race, gender, orientation, height, weight, disability, etc to put you down and make himself look tough to his supporters.
I’m not sure what to call that.
He literally opened began his campaign by calling Mexicans rapists. I don't think this is merely a political tactic, but central to his worldview. To the extent Donald Trump believes in anything, it's that America belongs to white people, and him most of all.
Oooh, there's a host of true Americans out there in Dairyland! Fcuk Trump!
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), flying home after a whirlwind week dueling with the president over a series of racist attacks, was met by a coalition of cheering supporters in Minnesota on Thursday evening.
The crowd of about 150 people gathered at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to welcome the congresswoman before she held a town hall event later that evening.
“Welcome home, Ilhan!” the group, some bearing signs and moving to shake her hand, chanted. “We have your back,” another supporter shouted.
HuffPost
Red, don't strain for other words that might fit. The scumbag's got a long history. He's an old school reptilian racist. Didn't need to become POTUS to reveal that that's the "that."
“The reality is everybody talks about how [Trump] is threatened because we criticize him,” Omar said, according to an account from Minnesota Public Radio. “But the reality is he is threatened because we are inspiring people to dream about a country that recognizes our dignity and our humanity.”
I mean, really? How fcuked up do things have to get (as of 7/17)? And...wait for it...Epstein! Anyone see the NBC 90s tape?
We're living in one of those old parodies about how the future was gonna be about TV stars and the worst in American values.
Absolutely worst actors - the GOP Congress. They are truly hollow men. No excuses at all for not actively and publicly opposing Trump. This is a serious matter and a time to step TF up.