ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags border walls , donald trump , immigration issues , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 19th February 2019, 08:50 PM   #321
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't think any US citizen have a legitimate concern for the wellbeing or future of US citizens. Heck, mathematically there is a chance getting rid of illegal immigrants could raise their chances of US citizens being the victims of violent crime.
Do you agree that the individual citizens choose how the government interacts with them? If the citizens are altered then the government will soon change with them.

I'd like to see the math proving that getting rid of illegal immigrants could raise their chances of US citizens being victims of violent crime.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Agreed. However, in this case of Trump's wall, it is racist and bigoted. It's all about keeping the brown people out.

Nice try, but such deception and trickery doesn't really work in this forum.
How did you come to that certainty with such conviction?

Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
I can work with that
If we are forced to 'give back' all lands to the original inhabitants then humans are one of the lowest species on the totem-pole.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Like the Canadian-American border.. oh hang on - Trump's not trying to keep brown people from crossing that border... my bad
There are around 100 times more apprehensions of illegal immigrants along the southern border than with the Canadian border. That may have something to do with it.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yeah, an example of a meaning for something that doesn't exist.
My proposed second definition of open borders doesn't exist? I may be mistaken in my understanding. I thought that pure socialist and libertarians believed that the state (any level of government) doesn't have a right to control the flow of people?

Maybe Bob would be willing to define open borders since he supports it.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
No

The definition that Trump is using is -
"3. A policy in which the party neither cares about people entering the country illegally, nor wants to do anything about it"
He says this is the Democrat policy - he is a pants-on-fire liar. The Dems want no such thing; what they want is an immigration policy that is fair to everyone, and border security that is sophisticated, and up to date for the 21st century, not some dumb, worthless medieval wall that is no more than a vanity project for Dear Leader.
You're using quite a bit of derogatory language. I'm not here to defend Trump.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
When Obama was talking about a crisis at the border he was talking about a crisis where people were in physical and emotional distress.

When Trump talks about a crisis at the border, he is talking about too many brown people being allowed to enter the country
I have already acknowledged that the justification Obama used to declare a crisis at the border was different than the justification that Trump used to declare a crisis at the order; yet we're having difficulty agreeing that there is a crisis at the border. That, is mind boggling.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
What are you, a supporter of "Manifest Destiny"? That is a complete misrepresentation of what actually happened and why it happened.

In the early 1820s, the Mexican government actually encouraged American emigration into Texas in order to strengthen the economy of the territory and to increase their income from taxes. As large numbers of Americans came to live in Texas, they attempted to create their own power base. The key issue that lead to all the trouble was that those Americas came mostly from nearby southern states, and of course, they wanted to introduce slavery into a Mexico, a country where slavery was illegal (and that tells us all a bit about which of the two countries was more civilized). The result of this is that Santa Anna tried to become dictator of Texas, and after a number of different groups tried to claim government status, fighting broke out. Americans were hammered and decided to give up, but General Sam Houston kept a small force of troops together and launched a counter-offensive and defeated the Mexican Army. They took Santa Anna prisoner, and forced him to sign documents giving Texas independence.

The Americans still living in Texas were hoping to be annexed by the USA but President Jackson and most northerners were against it as they did not want to annex a new slave territory and thereby increase the Southern votes in Congress.

Texas was a wild and lawless expanse in the 1820's, hence the hiring of experiencedfrontiersmen as lawmen by Land Agent Stephen Austin - those frontiersmen later formally becoming known as Texas Rangers. To even suggest the idea that Mexicans coming to the USA could in any way repeat the Texas scenario is complete and utter hogwash; it tells me that you have little, if any, understanding about this history (as evidenced by your anecdotal tale of learning for the first time about it in a slide show).
Wow! This is a lot. I can't see how your additional details delegitimizes my claim that uncontrolled immigration into a territory does NOT impact the government and ultimate destiny of that territory. EDIT: Mexico encouraged US emigration and then outlawed it. Can you explain why Mexi can officials had a sudden change in immigration policy? You will most certainly say it was to stop US citizens from importing slaves. Do you have any other thoughts? Are there resources on the web that espouse any other justifications (I found many unrelated to slavery).

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I am sorry to hear that an exhibit at the Gateway Arch National Park has promulgated so much disinformation about Texas history. I hope ServiceSoon is misremembering, influenced perhaps by his desire to distort Texas history in support of his own beliefs concerning current events.


This Texan-by-birth thanks smartcooky for correcting ServiceSoon.

(Texas history is sordid enough; we needn't invent.)

By the way, Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón was the sort of strongman the current POTUS likes to emulate. From that Wikipedia article:


The Wikipedia articles linked in that excerpt will correct ServiceSoon's mistakes.


I hope the slide show he saw was not put together by the National Park Service, or did not get so much wrong as he did.
The first slide said "Should settlement of land justify a nations ownership?" A few slides later "US Immigrans soon outnumbered Mexicans in the Mexican State of Texas." No failure in memory. Is your claim really that US Immigrants outnumbering Mexicans played no role in the switch of ownership of this parcel of land? Sure, there were other factors. To completely disregard the allegiance, customs, ideas, and ambitions of the inhabitants would be an example of unjustified disassociation.

Last edited by ServiceSoon; 19th February 2019 at 09:09 PM.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 09:23 PM   #322
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,956
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"Trump is obviously gonna lose. Lookit his support numbers" was the Dem's entire strategy in 2016 as well.
That strategy would have worked, and did work. However, it didn't overcome the cheating by the Russians and GOP. What strategy works to counter outright cheating?
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 09:29 PM   #323
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,956
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
How did you come to that certainty with such conviction?
By listening to the idiot president's words.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 09:33 PM   #324
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,956
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...b07f12a993.jpg

Who is telling America that, exactly?
The strawmen of libtards that Trump cultists have built.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 09:36 PM   #325
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,594
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
I'd like to see the math proving that getting rid of illegal immigrants could raise their chances of US citizens being victims of violent crime.
I didn't say "math proving". I said Mathematically there is a chance.

As best our knowledge, illegal immigrants commit violent crime at a lower rate than citizens.

Suppose two populations of 100 each, X and Y.
Population X will commit 1 violent crime
Population Y will commit 2 violent crimes

Together, of the population of 200, each individual has a chance of being a victim of 3/200=0.015

If you remove population X, The odds for the remaining population are 2/100=0.02.

Now, it isn't accurate to assume the violence is random across the entire population. I also simplify things by having people able to victimize themselves. But it is important to have the basics before moving on to more complicated models.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 09:39 PM   #326
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,594
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The wall is unpopular. Trump's views were soundly rejected in the presidential election. That was before he failed to secure Mexican funding. Democrats running on no wall platform crushed the republicans in the house and senate. There isn't a world in which democrats need to come to the table and the polling proved that.
Also, trump's people popularity went up after caving on the shutdown. The democrats did him a favor.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 09:50 PM   #327
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,304
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
That was exactly how he wanted that to play out.

The Dems refused to come to the table and settle this in a bi-partisan fashion, and were unwilling to do something as terrible as secure the border, to stop the shutdown.

They were forced to tell America that they weren't willing to protect the border, in exchange for reopening the government.

Trump frames it as he would shut down the government to protect Americans, and the Dems will shut down the government to protect illegal immigrant criminals.
This is pure alt-reality bull crap. Not that Trump frames everything in his dishonest propaganda. But that you are essentially saying you believe all the nonsense, not that the Democrats aren't effectively countering it.

There was no 'table' to come to. In the end the bill was quite balanced, it wasn't all GOP, that doesn't mean it wasn't balanced.

The Democrats have been saying loudly and repeatedly they are all for border security, they don't believe the wall is how to get it. And the evidence supports their POV.

Nothing would make Trump tell the truth. If it wasn't this it would just be something else. The idea the Democrats should bow down to this guy the way Trump supporters do is ludicrous.

Pelosi handled it well.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 09:52 PM   #328
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,304
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...b07f12a993.jpg

Who is telling America that, exactly?
Pssst, he thinks Trump is describing facts.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 09:55 PM   #329
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,304
Originally Posted by Elvis666 View Post
You are not wrong. But the Democratic Party has to realize that calling a significant portion of the voters derogatory names will result in some of the independent minority turning against them, even if those independents are not meant to be included in that group. I think the Dems have to field a candidate who is running for the presidency, instead of against Trump.
If it wasn't a basket of deplorables it would have been something else, there is no way to avoid the GOP's targeting of some single thing and turning it into a mantra. It's how they campaign.

In retrospect, it looks like the Democrats blundered. In reality, it would have been something else if not that gaffe.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 19th February 2019 at 09:58 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 09:57 PM   #330
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,886
The proof is easy when you remember that illegal migrants are more often the victims of crimes than the perpetrators.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 10:00 PM   #331
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,304
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
No idea what the "right wingers" think, but for me the issue with drugs is not the actual drug taking usually, it is all the crime associated with it like getting your house broken into by a junky who needs his next fix, or the collateral damage from stray bullets from drug related gang shootings etc etc.

I don't think people generally care if someone gets wasted in the privacy of their own home.
So you don't mind the thousands of deaths then?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 11:35 PM   #332
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,168
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Also, trump's people popularity went up after caving on the shutdown. The democrats did him a favor.
No, Trump did himself a favour by caving. He lives for popularity poll approval. Although the numbers went from "ginormously stupid frickin' idiot" back up to "incompetent frickin' idiot".
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:05 AM   #333
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,424
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So you don't mind the thousands of deaths then?
was that a question or an assertion?
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 06:33 AM   #334
Elvis666
Critical Thinker
 
Elvis666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If it wasn't a basket of deplorables it would have been something else, there is no way to avoid the GOP's targeting of some single thing and turning it into a mantra. It's how they campaign.

In retrospect, it looks like the Democrats blundered. In reality, it would have been something else if not that gaffe.
True, but if the Democrats could put a moratorium on throwing softballs to the GOP, if the rhetoric were toned down, the voters who are independent would be less likely to react negatively.
__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Elvis666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 06:36 AM   #335
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,444
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So you don't mind the thousands of deaths then?
No more or less so then the thousands of people who die from other of their own personal choices.

I don't think the police should kick my neighbor's door in and force him to stop eating red meat and instead have a salad either. That's not logically or morally equivalent to "not minding thousands of deaths from heart disease."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 20th February 2019 at 06:38 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 06:36 AM   #336
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,594
Originally Posted by Elvis666 View Post
True, but if the Democrats could put a moratorium on throwing softballs to the GOP, if the rhetoric were toned down, the voters who are independent would be less likely to react negatively.
And by "less likely to react negatively" you mean somehow getting more than the 2 million more votes than Trump?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 09:11 AM   #337
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,574
Following a quotation of my one post in this thread, ServiceSoon wrote:

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
The first slide said "Should settlement of land justify a nations ownership?" A few slides later "US Immigrans soon outnumbered Mexicans in the Mexican State of Texas."
That much is accurate, if "soon" is taken to mean several years and "the Mexican State of Texas" is taken to be one of the political units in which US immigrants outnumbered other citizens of Mexico. (In the state of Coahuila y Tejas, comprised of three districts (not states) including one that more or less coincided with the parts of modern Texas then claimed by Mexico, English-speaking settlers were a minority.)

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
No failure in memory. Is your claim really that US Immigrants outnumbering Mexicans played no role in the switch of ownership of this parcel of land?
Not at all. Those who bother to check will find I wrote nothing that could be construed as such a claim.

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Sure, there were other factors. To completely disregard the allegiance, customs, ideas, and ambitions of the inhabitants would be an example of unjustified disassociation.
True.

Nonetheless, you attributed two serious errors to the slide show you saw in St Louis, in addition to omitting a rather important fact that's highly relevant here: Years after Mexico had declared its independence from Spain, but shortly before that independence had been achieved, Moses Austin negotiated a land grant with the Spanish governor of Mexico that called for a settlement of 300 immigrant families. Moses Austin died soon thereafter, and the settlement was accomplished by his son, Stephen F Austin, during the years after Mexico had achieved its independence. Austin and his settlers maintained generally good relations with the government of newly independent Mexico, which of course included Texas at that time, leading to more immigration of English-speaking settlers into Texas. Conflicts eventually arose, including a conflict over the settlers' importation of slaves, leading Austin to support Santa Anna's rise to power. Mexico eventually feared the United States might attempt to annex Texas; in 1832 the English-speaking settlers of Texas held a convention designed to reaffirm their loyalty to Mexico while requesting reforms such as a return to less restrictive immigration policy and a greater degree of influence within, or some degree of independence from, Coahuila y Tejas (which included Mexican Texas).

In the following, I have highlighted your errors of commission:

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Do you know the story of Mexican Texas? While I was visiting the Arch in St Louis they had a slide show that taught me all about it.

A couple hundred years ago, Mexico owned the territory known today as Texas. The Mexican government did not control immigration to this Mexican territory. When Mexico realized that they were loosing this territory to US citizens they enacted a law that forbid US immigrants, but it was too late. A war ensued and Mexico Texas because a US territory and was renamed to Texas (It would have been just as easy for the inhabitants living in this territory to have taken the peaceful route of voting their allegiance to the US. God Bless Democracy).
Following the Texas Revolution of 1836, Texas became the independent Republic of Texas; Texas has never been a US territory. Although a majority of Texans would probably have preferred for Texas to be annexed by the United States, that course was opposed by political leaders of the US because Texas would have become a slave-holding state and also because annexation would have led immediately to war with Mexico, as did result when Texas became part of the United States in 1845/1846.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 20th February 2019 at 09:37 AM. Reason: Added comment in gray.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 09:25 AM   #338
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,991
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If it wasn't a basket of deplorables it would have been something else, there is no way to avoid the GOP's targeting of some single thing and turning it into a mantra. It's how they campaign.

In retrospect, it looks like the Democrats blundered. In reality, it would have been something else if not that gaffe.
It's also called gaslighting when mildly abrasive language draws contrived concern over civility from those who put up an endless stream of slander that goes all the way up to dehumanizing.

Or just hypocrisy.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 11:32 AM   #339
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
No idea what the "right wingers" think, but for me the issue with drugs is not the actual drug taking usually, it is all the crime associated with it like getting your house broken into by a junky who needs his next fix, or the collateral damage from stray bullets from drug related gang shootings etc etc.

I don't think people generally care if someone gets wasted in the privacy of their own home.
But the faux wailing and pearl clutching is about the deaths by drugs. Fentanyl is killing our addicts! Maybe it would be too crass to put the emphasis on the ancillary crime, like home break-ins.

As to collateral damage in drug gang shootouts, I wonder of what proportion of all gun deaths that comprises. Why, even including deaths of the perpetrating gang members, this might still be a not particularly large fraction?

In any event, sensible gun legislation, like that adopted in the rest of the civilized world, would even reduce drug gang shootings. But no. That precious but ambiguously worded Second Amendment is God's own word that all possess a killing tool requiring only to lift it and pull a trigger.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 06:14 PM   #340
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,424
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
But the faux wailing and pearl clutching is about the deaths by drugs. Fentanyl is killing our addicts! Maybe it would be too crass to put the emphasis on the ancillary crime, like home break-ins.

As to collateral damage in drug gang shootouts, I wonder of what proportion of all gun deaths that comprises. Why, even including deaths of the perpetrating gang members, this might still be a not particularly large fraction?

In any event, sensible gun legislation, like that adopted in the rest of the civilized world, would even reduce drug gang shootings. But no. That precious but ambiguously worded Second Amendment is God's own word that all possess a killing tool requiring only to lift it and pull a trigger.
Fair enough, though in the UK and Australia generally I truly think people do not have that on their minds most of the time (apart from the very sad occasions when some healthy teen/young person collapases and dies from a bad pill at a festival)

They are more concerned with drug related robbery and having drugs pushed onto their children at school, or some meth crazed rampage. You don't tend to hear anything when a long term heroin addict dies from an overdoes in an alleyway.

Nearly 20% of all crime in the US is related to drugs from a quick google - that appears to be what impacts people the most. I just don't see any pearl clutching about the deaths by drugs - unless you are actually talking about innocent people being taken out by drug users - that does get attention.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 20th February 2019 at 06:15 PM.
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 06:34 PM   #341
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,168
Meanwhile...!

What's the situation along the Mexico border today? How many MS-13 drug-addled crazy women and kids from the Honduras charged across the open border to murder some innocent Americans last night? Surely it must be an emergency by now!




<<crickets>>
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 06:41 PM   #342
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,168
Shall we keep an eye on it?

https://wxyzwebcams.com/en/webcam-116.php
http://www.opentopia.com/webcam/9339
http://www.blueservo.net/index.php?error=nlg
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 07:04 PM   #343
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,338
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And by "less likely to react negatively" you mean somehow getting more than the 2 million more votes than Trump?
And the recent mid-terms, after which, of course, the GOP had to resort to awarding themselves a triumph for not losing the Senate at a particularly advantageous point in the cycle. Imagine how it might have been if the Democrats hadn't only thrown softballs the way they clearly didn't.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 10:35 PM   #344
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,338
Originally Posted by Elvis666 View Post
True, but if the Democrats could put a moratorium on throwing softballs to the GOP, if the rhetoric were toned down, the voters who are independent would be less likely to react negatively.
Not sure if you're using "throwing softballs" correctly. I think you mean "put a moratorium on shooting themselves in the foot", i.e. giving the Great Right Wing Noise Machine material to exploit. (Post Jussie Smollet you'll see a tremendous example of this developing.)

As Ginger pointed out, the GRWNM will create Trip to Molehill Mountain, regardless. Witness "But her Emails!" Witness "Swift Voters for Dystopia". Witness "She gave away our uranium!" Witness "Kamala Harris is a slut!" The list is endless.

But, ironically, it's those independent voters reacting negatively that just turned over forty House seats. Two years ago, those same voters all said, "Well, he's an ass but she's a crook and we need a breath of fresh air!" In 2018 they said, "Oops, I guess that wasn't such a good idea. Did I vote for these cretins?"
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 11:08 PM   #345
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,304
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
was that a question or an assertion?
It was a question as to if you believe what you posted:
Quote:
I don't think people generally care if someone gets wasted in the privacy of their own home.
Does that also apply to them overdosing and dying?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 11:11 PM   #346
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,304
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
No more or less so then the thousands of people who die from other of their own personal choices.

I don't think the police should kick my neighbor's door in and force him to stop eating red meat and instead have a salad either. That's not logically or morally equivalent to "not minding thousands of deaths from heart disease."
You oversimplify the situation.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 11:12 PM   #347
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,304
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
It's also called gaslighting when mildly abrasive language draws contrived concern over civility from those who put up an endless stream of slander that goes all the way up to dehumanizing.

Or just hypocrisy.
Not mutually exclusive.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 02:08 AM   #348
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,122
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You oversimplify the situation.
I don't think Joe's take is any more simplistic than the take of "drugs are bad and should be illegal".
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:12 AM   #349
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 20,231
Trump Tweets

THE WALL IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW!

Quote Tweet
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
We have just built this powerful Wall in New Mexico. Completed on January 30, 2019 – 47 days ahead of schedule! Many miles more now under construction! #FinishTheWall

https://twitter.com/i/status/1098295228837048325
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:27 AM   #350
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,889
Originally Posted by Elvis666 View Post
You are not wrong. But the Democratic Party has to realize that calling a significant portion of the voters derogatory names will result in some of the independent minority turning against them, even if those independents are not meant to be included in that group.
I assume you are referring to things like the 'deplorables' comment. Do we have any proof that that actually caused more independents to support Trump?

To be honest, it sounds like a rather bizarre form of logic... "Oh, she called a group that includes neonazis 'deplorable'... I think I'm going to throw my support to Trump".

At best it provided some sort of 'mantra' for Trump supporters, but I can't see it really being anything that would have added to his base.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:36 AM   #351
Elvis666
Critical Thinker
 
Elvis666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
But, ironically, it's those independent voters reacting negatively that just turned over forty House seats. Two years ago, those same voters all said, "Well, he's an ass but she's a crook and we need a breath of fresh air!" In 2018 they said, "Oops, I guess that wasn't such a good idea. Did I vote for these cretins?"
I don't see anything ironic about it. That's exactly what happened. But that was for an election where more than one Democrat got to grab a gold ring. When the presidential race heats up, I fear we'll see a repeat of 2016, as 20-plus wannabes vie for the same seat.
__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Elvis666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:38 AM   #352
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,444
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I assume you are referring to things like the 'deplorables' comment. Do we have any proof that that actually caused more independents to support Trump?

To be honest, it sounds like a rather bizarre form of logic... "Oh, she called a group that includes neonazis 'deplorable'... I think I'm going to throw my support to Trump".

At best it provided some sort of 'mantra' for Trump supporters, but I can't see it really being anything that would have added to his base.
Oh come on we're talking a system where one bad photo-op in a tank or one goofy sounding scream at campaign speech can sink you.

Voters aren't logical. Politics is not exact.

True, probably nobody (within a rounding error) literally had the thought process "Hillary called X subdemographic of the Y demographic I am part of an insulting term, I'm going to steer into the skid and become the very insulted subdemographic that I was insulted she lumped in with my broader demographic just to show her" but that's not the same thing as it not having an effect.

"You can't show me where voters made this as admitted, thoughtful conscious decision" is not the same thing as "Had no effect."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:39 AM   #353
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,247
Originally Posted by Elvis666 View Post
But the Democratic Party has to realize that calling a significant portion of the voters derogatory names will result in some of the independent minority turning against them, even if those independents are not meant to be included in that group.
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I assume you are referring to things like the 'deplorables' comment. Do we have any proof that that actually caused more independents to support Trump?

To be honest, it sounds like a rather bizarre form of logic... "Oh, she called a group that includes neonazis 'deplorable'... I think I'm going to throw my support to Trump".

At best it provided some sort of 'mantra' for Trump supporters, but I can't see it really being anything that would have added to his base.
Moreover, why wouldn't that logic work both ways? It's not like Trump doesn't call people derogatory names. Why would doing so not hurt him?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:41 AM   #354
Elvis666
Critical Thinker
 
Elvis666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I assume you are referring to things like the 'deplorables' comment. Do we have any proof that that actually caused more independents to support Trump?

To be honest, it sounds like a rather bizarre form of logic... "Oh, she called a group that includes neonazis 'deplorable'... I think I'm going to throw my support to Trump".

At best it provided some sort of 'mantra' for Trump supporters, but I can't see it really being anything that would have added to his base.
No proof at all, but I do know it left a bad taste in my mouth, and caused the decision to be much harder to make. It helped make 2016 a choice between two undesirable candidates.
__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Elvis666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:44 AM   #355
Elvis666
Critical Thinker
 
Elvis666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Moreover, why wouldn't that logic work both ways? It's not like Trump doesn't call people derogatory names. Why would doing so not hurt him?
I think it does, which is why the Democrats need to avoid it as much as possible. I want their candidate to be the obvious choice for independents.
__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Elvis666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:50 AM   #356
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,247
Originally Posted by Elvis666 View Post
No proof at all, but I do know it left a bad taste in my mouth, and caused the decision to be much harder to make. It helped make 2016 a choice between two undesirable candidates.
Really?

Here's what she actually said:
Quote:
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
You're saying that calling Trump out on pandering to racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic people, Clinton put herself on a similar level of undesirableness as the guy who was pandering to racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic people?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 21st February 2019 at 09:51 AM. Reason: missed a word in my copy/paste
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:57 AM   #357
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,444
Elvis666 is saying that Hillary's statement reduced the chances of people who were on the fence to move to her side.

Upchurch is saying the statement was accurate.

I'm saying they are both right and those two statements don't really disprove each other directly.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 09:58 AM   #358
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,364
"Oh, Hillary called racists deplorable. I'll show her, by siding with the racists!!"
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 10:07 AM   #359
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,247
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Elvis666 is saying that Hillary's statement reduced the chances of people who were on the fence to move to her side.

Upchurch is saying the statement was accurate.

I'm saying they are both right and those two statements don't really disprove each other directly.
My point was a little more subtle than that, more along the lines of a false equivalence or double standard.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2019, 10:11 AM   #360
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,444
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
My point was a little more subtle than that, more along the lines of a false equivalence or double standard.
And I don't disagree on that point.

But political reality sadly sometimes requires some unfairness.

You've got to sell a little harder to the people further away from you. That's a bit cynical and maybe a little manipulative, but it is a thing.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.