|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Explain to me why Trump’s characterisation of Mexican immigrants as - typically - drug dealers, criminals and rapists isn’t at the least xenophobic. Because he didn't say it was "typical,"... PaulK didn't put quotes around "typical." He did not quote Trump. He characterized (accurately, if you read Message 2740 where PaulK quotes Trump's actual words) what Trump said.
...he was talking about the fact that we are getting drug dealers, criminals and rapists along with all the others. Which you'd know if you used a single brain cell to figure it out. But getting Trump is always the game played here, hang the truth. This characterization of what Trump meant doesn't hold water when compared with his actual words. This interpretation is meaningless anyway since any large group of people will inevitably include drug dealers, criminals and rapists. But Trump chose to say it about Mexican immigrants.
Explain to me why Trump enjoys so much support among White Supremacists. Because he supports the culture and they don't know the difference. White supremacists recognize a fellow traveler when they see one.
Explain to me why you are less concerned by violent Right-wing extremists than you are about violent people who oppose them. I rarely hear about right wing extremists from normal people,... Who's the judge of who is normal? Would these be people from your own self selected news sources?
Explain to me how Laura Ingraham’s objections to brown people moving into white areas aren’t racist (as discussed here in Message 1) I didn't hear her say it but assuming she did I'd say it is racist,... PaulK wasn't specific about what Laura Ingraham said, but I think it was this:
quote: She doesn't specifically mention brown people moving into white areas, but there's nothing else she could mean. Before you agreed it was racist I thought you'd want to see what she actually said.
...I didn't hear her say it but assuming she did I'd say it is racist, but I'd prefer it if she pointed out the cultural problems rather than focusing on race because it's really the cultural problems that matter. By "cultural problems" do you mean that some cultures are inherently problematic? Or are you referring to something else? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: There ARE drug dealers, criminals and rapists coming across the border and that's what Trump is talking about. This indicates a failure to follow the conversation.
There's nothing wrong with putting "typical" in quotes. That's the natural way to show that a word was said, in this case by PaulK characterizing Trump's point of view,... This again indicates a failure to follow, or even remember, or even check, the conversation. The word PaulK actually used was "typically." Putting quotes around a word somebody didn't use has various other interpretations.
...and you don't know if it's a fair representation or not. Of course it's not, and it's been explained why to you many times.
Since he used the word... He didn't.
...he obviously considers Trump to be characterizing the immigrants in general as including a large number of these categories we don't want in the country, a large number being enough for PaulK to say Trump considered it "typical" of the population coming in. Yes, that's precisely what Trump said. It was quoted word for word for you just a page or two ago. Do you even read what people post, or do you only reply so you can riff on whatever strikes your fancy at the time? Here are Trump's actual words. Again.
quote: Trump says two things that are incorrect:
I doubt he meant that and it's usually not a good idea to take his every word literally. Much of what Trump says is untrue.
Thank you for the quote which proves that Laura Ingraham did NOT say anything racist. What Laura Ingraham said was most definitely racist.
I trusted PaulK when I shouldn't have. PaulK's characterization of what Laura Ingraham said was accurate.
It's just the usual way of characterizing anyone who has a problem with illegal immigration changing the character of the nation. So you object to people coming into the country who aren't just like you.
Yes there are some problematic cultures,... Do you consider the cultures of El Salvador, Guatamala and Honduras "problematic?"
...and if people are coming here and not being required to go through the usual instruction in our institutions to become a citizen our institutions are going to be seriously eroded. Another dog whistle for racism. Nobody's arguing for illegal immigration or bypassing the traditional path to citizenship. The objection is to cruelty and inhumanity on the border, and the argument is for fair and reasonable immigration laws. The plaque on the Statue of Liberty does not say, "Let's keep America white!" America should stand as a beacon of hope to the world. We don't want to relive the shameful portions of our past, such as refusing immigration to the Jews in the years before WWII, and such as internment of Japanese American citizens during the same war. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Today's Washington Post ran a helpful Perspective piece on What to do if you're called a racist. Summarizing:
But racism is complicated. How would you feel if this person moved in next door? Are you racist if you think maybe it's a good time to move?
How about this person?
Both probably make you feel uncomfortable, at a minimum. Are your feelings about the black guy racist and your feelings about the white guy merely rational? By the way, the first image is of Busta Rhymes, so if he moves in next door it means you're probably living in a mansion. The second is of Jason Barnum, convicted of attempted murder. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Used car salesman. He mixed in a lot of facts, but in the end he didn't tie them together and so created more muddle than clarity. His understanding of trade deficits seems to be at the same flawed and rudimentary level as Trump's.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: Soros is obscenely rich and he is on the Left. But he accepts the reality of climate change and the need to bear the costs associated with taking action, unlike those on the right who deny climate change because dealing with it might hurt their profits.
And instead of commenting on/misrepresenting me personally why don't you just spell out the particular point of view you favor? I was struck by the same thing as JonF. Why do you assume it's an either/or? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: As might be expected of the Washington Post... You should judge the quality of a news source's information by the evidence supporting it, not by their editorial stance. But the piece I cited, What to do if you're called a racist, wasn't news. It was a perspective piece. Opinion.
...this presentation on racism absolutely and utterly misses the point. Total red herring. The piece wasn't a "presentation on racism," and it directly addressed the point it intended to address, namely what to do if you inadvertently and/or unknowingly exhibit racism and are called on it.
Real racism to whatever extent it may exist is not the point. No, racism is pretty much the point.
The point is that racism is one weapon in an arsenal of character-assassinating weapons invented by Cultural Marxism to undermine the credibility of political opponents while avoiding ever taking their political arguments seriously. Racism is real. We see its effects every day. Some threads here even have a died-in-the-wool racist contributing on a regular basis. Cultural Marxism is just a name the right likes to pin on the left because it riles up their base. Yourself, for example.
It is currently specifically directed against Trump and his supporters. When one speaks or acts publicly on their racist attitudes one shouldn't be surprised when one is called racist.
The rational bases for any of Trump's political aims is completely ignored under a barrage of personal accusations. If Trump has a rational basis for what he says and does he hasn't yet been able to articulate it. His "chopper talk" Q&A's with reporters, which is all that passes for press briefings these days, are a random assemblage of unsupported, self-serving and often contradictory comments.
This is how the nation is being destroyed. By Trump lies, misrepresentations and misinformation? Yes, that is true.
Call him a racist when he's not,... Even Republicans think Trump a racist, for example, George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president: "Naivete, resentment and outright racism, roiled in a toxic mix, have given us a racist president." Or Paul Ryan: "Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sorta the textbook definition of a racist comment." Or the four Republicans in the House (Will Hurd (TX), Fred Upton (MI), Susan Brooks (IN), Brian Firzpatrick (PA)) who voted to condemn Trump's racist comments (Joe Amash (MI-I), recently resigned from the Republican party, joined them).
...call him a liar when he's just misspoken,... Here's a link to Trump's nearly 11,000 lies and misrepresentations. You're welcome to peruse them and bring to our attention any errors.
...bury his intended point under a mountain of innuendo and fake news. Yes, what you're saying is a mountain of innuendo and fake news.
There is no such thing as political discourse any more, just pile on the personal accusations and nobody has to bother thinking seriously about the real issues. Trump seems to think personal accusations are legitimate political discourse, and that he's never done any serious thinking about the important issues of the day is self evident. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I think the article Trump admin says children of US soldiers born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship may be misleading, though I'm not sure. Say John and Mary Smith were born and raised in Alabama but were stationed in Germany when their first child was born. The article gives the impression that that child would not automatically be an American citizen, and I don't think that's true. Am I reading it wrong?
I then read through the first three and a half pages of Defining Residence in Statutory Provisions Related to Citizenship and found it hard to follow. I think the implication for the military is that children born to non-citizen members of the military while stationed outside the US would not automatically be US citizens, that it would depend upon how much time the parents had resided within the physical borders of the US. It also seems to be saying that it would be a similar situation for US citizens born outside the US. It might also introduce an interesting conundrum. If a child born outside the US to US citizens is not a citizen of the US, and is not a citizen of the country where born (because that country doesn't have birthright citizenship), then what is it a citizen of? Are such children automatically stateless? I could easily have this wrong. Like I said, I found the language hard to understand, but my initial impression is that USCIS is tying themselves in knots trying to reconcile corner cases whose resolution has been rendered ambiguous because of evolving law. In normal times they would probably have written a policy that interpreted citizenship leniently for such corner cases, but in the time of Trump they have to develop policies that make citizenship as restrictive as possible. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Chiroptera writes: JonF writes: quote: Not sure exactly what that last one means. Children born abroad to parents who are US citizens do not automatically qualify for US citizenship. The parents have to have residency in the us for a certain length of time and for a certain period before the child's birth. And this presents no citizenship problems for most people. If two married people were both born and raised in the United States, then as adults permanently leave the United States, they can galavant around the world having children hither and yon, and all those children will be US citizens. But citizenship problems do arise for the children's children. Say a US couple, both born and raised in the United States, become US consular employees in Great Britain. They like Great Britain and remain there for the rest of their lives, having children there and raising them there. Their children are US citizens. The family makes occasional visits to the US to visit family and take vacations. But when their children themselves become parents and have children of their own outside the US, those children (the grandchildren) are not automatically US citizens, because their parents never resided in the US, only occasionally visiting. But then what country are these children citizens of? I haven't yet seen an article that spells it out. I assume they're stateless if they're born in a country that doesn't have birthright citizenship. Being stateless is a very bad thing, restricting access to education, healthcare, employment and travel. The article Born stateless: Challenges faced by Americans Abroad in the Transmission of Citizenship to overseas-born children says that about 10% of children born abroad to US parents are denied citizenship. This is a very bad thing well worth remedy. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
dnftt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes: tayrnm idkwtm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
I'm going to follow my own suggestion now.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
It doesn't matter who put children in cages, it is wrong. If Obama did it it was wrong, and if Trump's doing it then it's still wrong. Trump, should fix this, not justify it by saying, "My predecessor did it, too."
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
It you type "barr mueller phone call" into Google it will find the information you're looking for.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Fox News today lied in an article about the Biden/Ukraine affair, saying that Joe Biden pressured the Ukraine to fire Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin because he was investigating Burisma Hldings where his son Hunter Biden sat on the board:
quote: Fox News has this exactly backwards. Ukrainian corruption was affecting the western democracies, and when Shokin refused to provide documentation to the British for a lawsuit about dirty Ukrainian money it was the final straw. A collection of western democracies pressured the Ukraine to fire Shokin, and in this group Joe Biden represented the interests of the United States. One of the people Shokin was refusing to investigate was the founder of Burisma Holdings, the aforementioned company where Hunter Biden sat on the board. So when Joe Biden joined with other western democracies to pressure the Ukraine to fire Shokin he was making it more likely that the founder of the company where his son sat on the board would be investigated. Geez, Fox, get it right, will ya? It's not like the correct information isn't a matter of public record. You don't have to believe every crazy idea that escapes Trump's lips, especially when the facts exposing them as lies are so readily available. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
In Biden snaps at reporter over Ukraine question, tells media to focus on Trump instead Fox News comes a little closer (very little) to the truth about Shokin's investigation of Burisma Holdngs where Joe Biden's son sat on the board:
quote: What Fox News gets right is a) That Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, but they fail to mention that he was investigating a period before Joe Biden's son joined the board; and b) Shokin was widely viewed around the world as corrupt himself, which is why Joe Biden, representing the interests of the United States in his role as Vice President, joined with other western democracies to urge the Ukraine to dismiss Shokin. What Fox News continues to get wrong by omission is that Shokin refused to investigate the founder of Burisma Holdings, one of the reasons Shokin was viewed as corrupt. By pushing for Shokin's dismissal Biden was making it more likely that the founder of Burisma Holdings where his son sat on the board would be investigated. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024