Re: Planned Parenthood Refuses Federal Funds over Abortion Restrictions
Robert Reich is an economist served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. He was Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997. He was a member of President Barack Obama's economic transition advisory board. He has been publishing a series of videos on YouTube, one of which seems to respond to this message.
Robert Reich: Where Your Tax Dollars Really Go:
It turns out the really big Republican bugaboos that they claim are dragging us down and therefore must be cut out entirely for us to survive only amount to a few percent each. 54% of federal spending, more than half, is on the military. My understanding is that most of that is for projects for military contractors. BTW, your example of that $200M drone is minor compared to all that spending.
And FWIW, calls to cut Social Security and Medicare in order to deal with the deficit is complete and utter bullshit! That is mandatory spending of special taxes levied for those very specific purposes -- they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the deficit which is instead due to not taxing the rich.
I can't possibly check out any of that, but of course as usual I don't trust anything anyone on the Left says.
If you would check things out, you might find out that the Left can be trusted at least as often as the Right.
But as long as you stay in your little fishbowl, looking at nothing but Right-wing propaganda, you'll naturally be biased toward Right-wing propaganda.
"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
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:"In some parts of the country it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn't exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people, and they're changes that none of us ever voted for and that most of us don't like. From Virginia to California we've seen how radically in some ways the country has changed. Now most of this is related to illegal and, in some cases, legal immigration that of course progressives love."
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?
There ARE drug dealers, criminals and rapists coming across the border and that's what Trump is talking about. 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, and you don't know if it's a fair representation or not. Since he used the word 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 beint enough for PaulK to say Trump considered it "typical" of the population coming in. I doubt he meant that and it's usually not a good idea to take his every word literally.
Thank you for the quote which proves that Laura Ingraham did NOT say anything racist. I trusted PaulK when I shouldn't have. It's just the usual way of characterizing anyone who has a problem with illegal immigration changing the character of the nation.
Yes there are some problematic cultures, 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.
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: "Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
"But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people."
Trump says two things that are incorrect:
Mexico is not sending anyone to immigrate into the US. How, exactly, are you imagining that would work, anyway?
The largest single group of immigrants coming across our southern border is not from Mexico but from the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatamala and Honduras. Perhaps you are imagining that Mexico is recruiting or kidnapping people from those countries, then sending them to our border.
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.
quote:The Epoch Times, a conservative news outlet that has spent more money on pro-Trump Facebook advertisements than any group other than the Trump campaign in the last six months, shifted its spending on the platform in the last month, according to results seen on Facebook's advertising archive. These new pages obfuscate their connection to ads that promote the president and conspiracy theories about his political enemies.
The Epoch Times’ new method of pushing the pro-Trump conspiracy ads on Facebook, which now appear under page names such as Honest Paper and Pure American Journalism, allows the organization to hide its multimillion-dollar spending on dark-money ads, in effect bypassing Facebook’s political advertising transparency rules.
...
Following a request from NBC News, Facebook conducted a review of the Epoch Times’ new accounts, and as a result, banned them from future advertising on the platform.
quote:There ARE drug dealers, criminals and rapists coming across the border and that's what Trump is talking about
That’s probably true of all borders. And is is true that the American public includes drug dealers, criminals and racists. That hardly justifies Trumps characterisation of Mexican immigrants in general.
quote:Thank you for the quote which proves that Laura Ingraham did NOT say anything racist. I trusted PaulK when I shouldn't have. It's just the usual way of characterizing anyone who has a problem with illegal immigration changing the character of the nation.
Ingraham specifically said that the problem was only connected to immigration. If you had chosen to check - I linked to the discussion so you could - you would have seen that. So it certainly isn’t restricted to illegal immigration. That is just something you made up. But I guess lying to defend racists is fine with your God - certainly better than trusting an honest person telling the truth.
Realize that what matters most is what you said and how you respond.
Keep in mind the broader context that you've likely been raised within a context of implicit racism.
Ask for clarification.
Listen to the answers.
Express gratitude and make changes.
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.
As might be expected of the Washington Post this presentation on racism absolutely and utterly misses the point. Total red herring. Real racism to whatever extent it may exist is not 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. It is currently specifically directed against Trump and his supporters. The rational bases for any of Trump's political aims is completely ignored under a barrage of personal accusations. This is how the nation is being destroyed. Call him a racist when he's not, call him a liar when he's just misspoken, bury his intended point under 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.
quote: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
Cultural Marxism is just a right-wing conspiracy theory. And as we have seen the racism is real.
quote:It is currently specifically directed against Trump and his supporters.
Because Trump and his supporters embrace racism. It’s not exactly a secret. Or something you can cover up with silly conspiracy nonsense. Even though you feel compelled to try.
quote:The rational bases for any of Trump's political aims is completely ignored under a barrage of personal accusations.
Perhaps Trump would do better expressing a rational basis for his actions rather than spouting nonsense on Twitter. But I guess you can’t admit that that is a bigger problem than people daring to point out the racism and xenophobia among his supporters.
quote:This is how the nation is being destroyed. Call him a racist when he's not, call him a liar when he's just misspoken, bury his intended point under a mountain of innuendo and fake news.
I wonder how telling the truth about Trump could possibly destroy the nation. Ignoring climate change could do that - but Trump is the champion of that.
quote: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.
Not while we have screaming loons like you trying to shout down the real issues.
Does it have to be saving the environment versus saving human enterprise?
As I say on the Tribute thread where the death of David Koch is noted, I don't know much about the Koch brothers except a vague sense that they are immensely wealthy supporters of conservative causes, and even that vague sense is contradicted by another sense that some conservatives don't like their point of view.
So I read up a little on David Koch at Wikipedia and some Google headlines and found again, as I did on the Tribute thread, how hated he and his brother are by the Left. It's still not completely clear to me what the main issues are but environmental concerns are high on the list?
Somebody accused Koch of causing the fire in the Amazon. If there's any connection at all I gather he must have supported economic development in the region to the detriment of the rain forest? The fire is a frightening thing, since it could destroy a major environmental boon to the planet. With that concern I certainly agree. Losing the Amazon rain forest is a scary thought.
But the problem with this kind of political conflict is that it's always completely one-sided. If you favor environmental protections you think of economic developers as simply evil and wish them dead. If you see the danger in militant environmentalism as destroying the economies on which human prosperity and wellbeing relies you may wish the environmentalist fanatics dead.
This is the essential conflict in the climate change disputes too. Either you favor shutting down human enterprise to save the planet or you're willing to risk climate change to protect human enterprise. There doesn't seem to be much ability on either side to consider the valid issues on the other side.
I doubt any kind of reasonable discussion about this is possible, of course. I'm sure my choice of terms will become a major dispute for starters, and soon enough I'll be having to deal with some kind of statistical analysis that supposedly answers all questions although it's simply impossible for any such analysis to anticipate all the relevant variables, and the topic will stagnate and I'll be blamed for refusing to study the statistics. Or something like that. Or it may stagnate before it goes anywhere at all.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
