ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"
Raycheetah wrote:
"
"
Raycheetah wrote:


Hey, you elect whoever gives you your preference. Meanwhile, President Donald J. Trump is helping minorities in ways no previous president has done. =^[.]^=


I'm sure there's some reality in which what you said makes sense. Problem is... this is earth. And here, Trump's symbols and slogans have been adopted by white nationalist movements across the globe. They certainly think he's a white nationalist. And why wouldn't they? After all, there were fine people on both sides at Charlottesville.


President Trump is a Nationalist, that is true. And he is a caucasian. To conflate the two into "fascist racist" is ridiculous on the face of it. =9[.]9=


There are many reasons that people think Trump is racist.

Here's 10 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/14/times-president-trump-comments-called-racist/985438002/



Three pre-presidency candidate Trump racist indicators.
"
Housing discrimination cases
In 1973 the U.S. Department of Justice sued Trump Management, Donald Trump and his father Fred, for discrimination against black people in their renting practices. The impetus for the suit was the Trumps' alleged refusal to "rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans", violating the Fair Housing Act.

Testers from the New York City Human Rights Division had found that prospective black renters at Trump buildings were told there were no apartments available, while prospective White renters were offered apartments at the same buildings. During the investigation four of Trump's agents admitted to using a "C" or "9" code to show which applicants were Black and stated that they were told their company "discouraged rental to blacks" or that they were "not allowed to rent to black tenants," and that prospective Black renters should be sent to the central office while White renters could have their applications accepted on site. Three doormen testified to being told to discourage prospective Black renters by lying about the rental prices or claiming no vacancies were available.[29][30] A settlement was reached in 1975 where Trump agreed to familiarize himself with the Fair Housing Act, take out ads stating that Black renters were welcome, give a list of vacancies to the Urban League on a weekly basis, and allow the Urban League to present qualified candidates for 20% of vacancies in properties that were less than 10% non-White.

The Trump Organization was sued again in 1978 for violating terms of the 1975 settlement by continuing to refuse to rent to black tenants; Trump and his lawyer Roy Cohn denied the charges. In 1983 the Metropolitan Action Institute noted that two Trump Village properties were still over 95% White.

Central Park jogger case
Main article: Central Park jogger case § Accusations by Donald Trump
On the night of April 19, 1989, Trisha Meili was assaulted, raped, and sodomized in Manhattan's Central Park. On the night of the attack, five juvenile males—four African Americans and one of Hispanic descent—were apprehended in connection with a number of attacks in Central Park committed by around 30 teenage perpetrators. The prosecution ignored evidence suggesting there was a single perpetrator whose DNA did not match any of the suspects, instead using confessions that the suspects said were coerced and false. They were convicted in 1990 by juries in two separate trials, receiving sentences ranging from 5 to 15 years. The attacks were highly publicised in the media.

On May 1, 1989, Trump called for the return of the death penalty by taking out a full-page advertisement in all four of the city's major newspapers. He said he wanted the "criminals of every age" who were accused of beating and raping a jogger in Central Park "to be afraid."[39] Trump told Larry King on CNN: "The problem with our society is the victim has absolutely no rights and the criminal has unbelievable rights" and, speaking of another case where a woman was raped and thrown out a window, "maybe hate is what we need if we're gonna get something done."

In 2002, an imprisoned serial rapist confessed to the jogger's rape, which was confirmed by DNA evidence, and the convictions of the five men were vacated. They sued New York City in 2003 for malicious prosecution, racial discrimination, and emotional distress. Lawyers for the five defendants said that Trump's advertisement had inflamed public opinion. The city settled the case for $41 million in 2014. In June of that year, Trump called the settlement "a disgrace" and said that the group's guilt was still likely: "Settling doesn't mean innocence. [...] These young men do not exactly have the pasts of angels."

In October 2016, when Trump campaigned to be president, he said that Central Park Five were guilty and that their convictions should never have been vacated,[44] attracting criticism from the Central Park Five themselves[45] and others. Republican Senator John McCain retracted his endorsement of Trump, citing in part "outrageous statements about the innocent men in the Central Park Five case." Yusuf Salaam, one of the five defendants, said that he had falsely confessed out of coercion, after having been mistreated by police while in custody. Filmmaker Ken Burns, who directed the documentary The Central Park Five that helped clear the names of the accused, called Trump's comments "the height of vulgarity" and "out and out racism".

Black professionals
In a 1989 interview with Bryant Gumbel, Trump stated: "A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market." Fortune Magazine reported that Trump's statement was not confirmed by studies of factual evidence concerning the impact of an applicant's race on their job prospects.

In his 1991 book Trumped! John O'Donnell quoted Trump as saying:

I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes.... Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else... Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that's guy's lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.

In an interview in 1997, he admitted that the information in the book was "probably true". Two years later, when seeking the nomination of the Reform Party for president, he denied having made the statement.

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

There are many more articles on this topic but I think those two articles covered it pretty good.
Have an opinion on labyrinth but never voiced it? Make a post in Feedback and Suggestions. I'll keep track. Over 410 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1020 posters in support (thread # 1702621)
"
And more to the point, it's not exactly Trump's agenda. If we're going to give the guy credit for signing uncontroversial maintenance bills that cross his desk, then it won't be hard to come up with a list like this for any president.


Well, that's the thing isn't it?

The problem is we have a group of people who have convinced themselves, that he is ruining our institutions, making the country more unsafe, or is secretly some racist.

But, when you look at a lot of his actual policies, its not that at all.

Most of the stuff is common sense. And some of the policies are even left leaning.

Its nothing at all what you hear from the news.

"
There's a reason this stuff doesn't tend to make the news, and I haven't heard about it - and it's the same reason you probably haven't seen similar lists about the Obama administration.

What is covered in the news is simply what grabs someone's attention. It isn't an exact representation of his actual positions, or stuff he puts into law. This happened to Obama too, but to a lesser extent.

(Fox News at this time was just as psychotic as CNN)

And I say this because news organizations generate revenue based on articles that people click on. And if people want to hear about how bad Trump is, that's what you are going to get.

You aren't going to hear about the ten or twenty good policies that Trump has enacted, but the one or two, that has people losing their minds.

Just to put this in perspective, all those good Trump policies were reported by CNN. It's not CNN's fault that people reading their news simply don't care as much about it.

It's why I prefer to get news from multiple sources, it helps filter out the biases from their readership.

"
You end up with things like his big Tax Cut bill, which somehow managed the unique achievement of being an unpopular tax cut.

I find this ironic, but I'm guessing it's because there was so much negative news coverage about it.

If people actually read the tax cut, they'd realize this year they'd be getting more tax returns. (everyone is getting money back)

But, yeah, not everyone can be bothered with the small details.

"
So just so we're clear, you literally cannot google the family separation policy without running across a half-dozen sources pointing out that the bolded part is simply not true. The Bush and Obama administration separated families under specific circumstances - mostly when there was legitimate concern that the children were the victims of trafficking.


Do you have a source for this? As far as I read, there was no data for how Bush and Obama separated the children.

There were only speculations/guessing it was done only in the cases of trafficking or similar crimes because DHS only reported the numbers of children separated. Not how they were separated or why.

This makes me suspect, it was done by the discretion of the border patrol. And that families were forcibly separated, anytime facilities or officials thought it was necessary for any reason at all.

The only new thing Trump did, was that he made it a formal policy for all detention facilities, a policy which only lasted for 3 months.
(⌐■_■)
"
In fact, we've since received signed documents from DHS that prove that the family separation program was intentionally meant as deterrence - showing not only that this was a clear break with Obama-era policy, but also that the cruelty was the point.

I'm pretty sure the point was to decrease migrants, not inflict undue cruelty on people.

All illegal migrants are putting themselves and children at risk by crossing the border illegally. They are going to get hurt or die. Most of them fail to get in.

And those that do get in put an undue strain on the communities involved (as we can see in Europe). You are hurting more people than you are helping by encouraging this behavior, every single year.

And if we can stop the people crossing from getting, raped, murdered, or killed by separating their families. It should put into action, even if it restricts the rights of the people involved.

The only difference from Obama's immigration policy that I'm aware of was that in Obama's era, family separation wasn't mandatory. It happened, and nobody knows how often or why. And that border wide family separation was discussed in his administration, but it never went above that.
(⌐■_■)
Last edited by RPGlitch on Apr 15, 2019, 11:46:20 PM
"
RPGlitch wrote:
I'm pretty sure the point was to decrease migrants, not inflict undue cruelty on people.

All illegal migrants are putting themselves and children at risk by crossing the border illegally. They are going to get hurt or die. Most of them fail to get in…

And if we can stop people the people crossing from getting, raped, murdered, or killed by separating their families. It should put into action, even if it restricts the rights of the people involved.
Ellipsis mine.

By the same logic, the way to prevent urban crime is to increase the property taxes in the highest-crime neighborhoods, to encourage residents to leave.

You're advocating a policy of kicking people while they're down in order to make a perilous journey even more perilous. If that isn't an outright hateful approach to solving the problem, it is at best coldly contemptuous.
"
RPGlitch wrote:
And those that do get in put an undue strain on the communities involved (as we can see in Europe).
Ah, there's where that resentment comes from.

Stop hiding your power level, Glitch. You don't like what the immigrants have done to Europe and are doing/threatening to do to the United States, and you blame them, in whole or in part, for it — as is evidenced by your policy preferences.

I'll be completely honest — I am more than a little appalled by the effects poorly regulated and nigh-uncontrolled imigration has had on the United Kingdom. I desperately wish for effective policy in the US to prevent or mitigate similar issues. But I'm not bigoted enough to believe that the typical Pakistani imigrant to a suburb of London is a future violent pimp; I understand that such evil men constitute a tiny minority of such immigrants.

The only imigrants I have even the slightest iota of resentment towards are the ones who commit violent crime or fraud. I have no hatred towards the immigrant who, on the basis of merit, competes for a job and wins it over native competitors. I have no resentment towards the imigrant who applies for welfare using the same process as everyone else, and receives government assistance legally. These are just people trying to better themselves honestly. They did nothing wrong, and it's possible they went through hell just trying to get a shot at the American dream.

If I take issue with anyone, it is with those with power over policy. We shouldn't be letting in more people than our labor market is ready to handle. We shouldn't be letting in people who will put additional burden on a welfare system that can't even properly provide for its own. But none of these things are the fault of immigrants. They aren't responsible for our labor market's capacity; they aren't responsible for how we've designed our welfare systems, or how well funded they are; they (usually) aren't employed as peace officers tasked with getting rapists off the streets. If you voluntarily decide to give your rent money to a beggar, and you later can't pay your rent, nobody is going to blame the beggar.

Maybe we should be turning away more immigrants (even legal immigrants) than we currently are (or maybe not). But if we do turn people away, we sure as shit shouldn't be putting salt on the wound by punishing them on top of rejecting them. Just as with any professionally conducted job interview, we should treat those who aren't selected with dignity and respect, until and unless they do something to earn our contempt that is more egregious than existing within our jurisdiction.

There's no valid excuse for this maltreatment of attempted-immigrant families without probable cause.
A shining light in a sea of stagnant bong water.
"Bread is garbage. Pure sugar and carbs. Might as well have a Snikers bar with a Mountain Dew chaser. Tastes better less work." - OT Surgeon General Aim_Deep

Last edited by Rachel_GGG on Sep 31, 2018 0:61:72 PM
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Apr 16, 2019, 1:07:07 AM
"
Turtledove wrote:


There are many reasons that people think Trump is racist.



There's only one reason: TDS.
"We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony."

-Donald J. Trump
"


I'm sure there's some reality in which what you said makes sense. Problem is... this is earth. And here, Trump's symbols and slogans have been adopted by white nationalist movements across the globe. They certainly think he's a white nationalist. And why wouldn't they? After all, there were fine people on both sides at Charlottesville.


Imagine unironically linking to The Root, a black supremacist racist blog.

White nationalists hate Trump. They accuse him of being "Zion Don" and rail him for wanting record high legal immigration.

"We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony."

-Donald J. Trump
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
Ellipsis mine.

By the same logic, the way to prevent urban crime is to increase the property taxes in the highest-crime neighborhoods, to encourage residents to leave.

You're advocating a policy of kicking people while they're down in order to make a perilous journey even more perilous. If that isn't an outright hateful approach to solving the problem, it is at best coldly contemptuous.

Yeah, no.

You break the law (crossing the border illegally). You get jailed. You do it again. You get a harsher punishment (family separation). That's hardly kicking people down.

That's discouraging bad behavior.

Its teaching people that if you want to be a functioning part of society you follow the rules. Not break them, when you feel like you had a hard enough life.

I'd agree with you if we placed an unnecessary financial burden every illegal immigrant like fining them over 1000$ dollars for their housing in detention. Or do actual humanitarian crimes, like torture them, while they are confined.

That would be kicking them down.

But, jailing them and separating them, is not that far and beyond the policies that deal with criminal activity. In fact, it appears we let them off too lightly, as we have so many repeat offenders.

Its also not the same thing as a high property taxes on high crime neighborhoods (an action that does not automatically give people a higher standard of living and nor does it solve the crime problem. You're moving the criminals to another city, to cause problems there.)

"
ScrotieMcB wrote:

Stop hiding your power level, Glitch. You don't like what the immigrants have done to Europe and are doing/threatening to do to the United States, and you blame them, in whole or in part, for it — as is evidenced by your policy preferences.

Well, this is true. I don't like what happened in Europe. And I don't want that disaster happening in the U.S.

But, I'm not hiding my power level, lol.

If you had a question about it.

I'd have told you.

If you are talking about my temper, I try to keep that in check, as I don't think that's too useful in a conversation.

I don't want to be like turtledove, screaming like a banshee.

"
Maybe we should be turning away more immigrants (even legal immigrants) than we currently are (or maybe not). But if we do turn people away, we sure as shit shouldn't be putting salt on the wound by punishing them on top of rejecting them. Just as with any professionally conducted job interview, we should treat those who aren't selected with dignity and respect, until and unless they do something to earn our contempt that is more egregious than existing within our jurisdiction.

Well, that's the thing.

Illegal immigrants are doing something egregious.

They are breaking the laws meant to keep citizens safe from people, who may have criminal or malicious intent.

This is not special treatment for everyone crossing the border.

There are millions of immigrants, who go through the legal process. Get an interview and file the paperwork, to show they haven't killed anyone, sold drugs, or raped people. To live in the United States.

These millions of people, waiting for that job interview, are not being maltreated.

It's the people who break into that interview room at night and scribbles their name on the top of the list that get put in jail.

And since more of them keep coming despite us telling them to stop ignoring our laws.

We make the jail a lot less comfortable.

That's what we have now.

It may not be the best thing to do, but what other options are you proposing we do?
(⌐■_■)
Last edited by RPGlitch on Apr 16, 2019, 3:51:56 AM
Interesting how those who advocate for using the kid gloves on border jumpers also forget that their criminality doesn't end with entering the US in violation of our laws. Disregarding any other varieties of crime these scofflaws may ultimately commit, their ongoing presence in the US routinely requires identity theft and other forms of fraud, in order to function within our socio-economic structure.

Not exactly victimless crimes.

Anyway, seems some folks in this thread need Band-Aids for their bleeding hearts. =9[.]9=
=^[.]^= basic (happy/amused) cheetahmoticon: Whiskers/eye/tear-streak/nose/tear-streak/eye/
whiskers =@[.]@= boggled / =>[.]<= annoyed or angry / ='[.]'= concerned / =0[.]o= confuzzled /
=-[.]-= sad or sleepy / =*[.]*= dazzled / =^[.]~= wink / =~[.]^= naughty wink / =9[.]9= rolleyes
Last edited by Raycheetah on Apr 16, 2019, 6:09:07 AM
"
RPGlitch wrote:

Well, that's the thing isn't it?

The problem is we have a group of people who have convinced themselves, that he is ruining our institutions, making the country more unsafe, or is secretly some racist.

But, when you look at a lot of his actual policies, its not that at all.

Most of the stuff is common sense. And some of the policies are even left leaning.

Its nothing at all what you hear from the news.


I think this sort of cuts to the heart of our disagreement.

You're saying, "Look at all these policies passed under Trump, they're all common-sense good things."

And I'm saying, "Sure, but that's totally normal stuff that any semi-competent government would pass and you could make similar lists for any president."

Part of this is selection bias - the news media covers things that are controversial, and "the government is working as intended" is not exactly a hot news story.

But there's a reason for that selection, and that reason is the other part: this is basically the "noise" of governance (in the "signal and noise" sense). Congress passing uncontroversial laws that are basically continuations of existing policy, feel-good executive orders that don't do much and general functionality of government... This is what we expect from government. In fact, it'd be news if we didn't see that. That's why it's noise. Praising Trump for this is akin for praising Trump for not shutting down the government, or praising Trump for keeping planes in the air.

The signal? Well, that's significant, out-of-the-ordinary stuff. The president's response to a natural or foreign policy disaster is terrible? That's signal. The president passes significant legislation that will have a meaningful impact on the country and its citizens? That's signal. The Department of Energy basically cannot do its job due to intentional purges? That's signal. We face our first-ever government shutdown when the president and congress all share a party? That's signal.

And while the noise has been largely positive (as one would expect), it's the signal that's actually interesting. And the signal... The signal has been really ugly.

And I guarantee this happened under Obama, too. Which do you remember - the multitude of small, uncontroversial bills passed under Obama (there are literally tens of thousands of them) or that the Obamacare website was an unusable mess early on?

"
Do you have a source for this? As far as I read, there was no data for how Bush and Obama separated the children.


Admittedly, all I have is numerous experts on immigration claiming that this is the case, and documents from within the DHS documenting that this is a new policy signed off by the administration, and Trump announcing the change in policy publicly. I think that's more than enough, but if you want specific data on how many children were separated from their families under Bush/Obama, I do not have that data.

"
The only new thing Trump did, was that he made it a formal policy for all detention facilities, a policy which only lasted for 3 months.


This shift from "doing it when it makes sense due to fear of trafficking/because the parent is breaking other laws and has to be detained" to "doing it to literally every family crossing the border" is what I'm talking about.

"
RPGlitch wrote:
"
In fact, we've since received signed documents from DHS that prove that the family separation program was intentionally meant as deterrence - showing not only that this was a clear break with Obama-era policy, but also that the cruelty was the point.

I'm pretty sure the point was to decrease migrants, not inflict undue cruelty on people.


This is such an odd hair to split. "Our policy of being as cruel as possible to immigrants isn't for the sake of cruelty, it's aimed at deterring immigration!" Yeah - by doing everything you can to hurt those who try to immigrate. And it has to be cruel, because that serves as a deterrent. Okay...


"
All illegal migrants are putting themselves and children at risk by crossing the border illegally. They are going to get hurt or die. Most of them fail to get in.


And most of them know this. Why do you think they try anyways? Many of them are fleeing violence or death in their home countries - violence and death that we helped cause. It should come as no surprise that some of them end up dead when we send them back. The idea that we're somehow making things better for them by scooping them up, separating them, and then deporting them sans kids is... well, fucking monstrous.

"
And those that do get in put an undue strain on the communities involved (as we can see in Europe).


I feel like the people pushing far-right anti-immigrant propaganda (case in point: the ludicrously dishonest Einzelfall map) may also share some blame when it comes to the "undue strain" here. The reality is that there is a lot of bullshit spewed about the status of european immigration by the far right, and most of it is just that - bullshit. It's not true. No-go zones, for example.

Hell, the entire conversation is full of this kind of rabid nonsense. Question - does the best available data show that illegal immigrants reduce wages for natives? Do they "take our jobs"? Are they more likely to be criminal if we except immigration crimes? If you answered "yes" to any of those questions... Well, at best the data doesn't really support that answer conclusively, and at worst what data we do have shows the exact opposite. (Lookin' at you, Raycheetah.) The debate has become so polluted with nonsense that people are talking about a wall across the southern border as though it were somehow a policy proposal worth taking seriously, rather than, as Christopher Hicks put it, "a vortex of stupidity that’s sucking in everything it touches".
Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof
Last edited by Budget_player_cadet on Apr 16, 2019, 6:27:37 AM
"
RPGlitch wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
You're advocating a policy of kicking people while they're down in order to make a perilous journey even more perilous. If that isn't an outright hateful approach to solving the problem, it is at best coldly contemptuous.
Yeah, no.

You break the law (crossing the border illegally). You get jailed. You do it again. You get a harsher punishment (family separation). That's hardly kicking people down.
Do you actually not understand Trump's zero tolerance policy?

If a person shows up at the border without the paperwork to enter the country legally (e.g. no passport), and they ask for asylum from oppression in their home country, there is a lengthy court process by which that application is accepted or denied. While waiting for a hearing, it used to be customary to release asylum-seekers into the general U.S. population (because deporting someone back to their home country when they say their home country is oppressing them is obviously cruel), and as you might imagine, many would not return for their hearings. Because of this, bonds were customary — asylum-seekers uses to be detained unless they could put up the cash, which was lost if they didn't show. A lot of them didn't show anyway. This doesn't happen anymore under Trump's new policy — bonds are rarely granted at all. Now, basically all asylum seekers are detained as long as possible.

You've incorrectly assumed that the people being detained have all been arrested under probable cause of either illegal entry or visa overstay. In some facilities, perhaps. But the detention centers along the border are full of people who showed up at the border seeking asylum and haven't broken a single law. The worst one might say of them is that they suspect the majority of such asylum claims are bullshit, but without evidence of probable cause supporting that suspicion in a specific case, there is no evidence that asylum-seeker committed a crime.
"
Raycheetah wrote:
Disregarding any other varieties of crime these scofflaws may ultimately commit, their ongoing presence in the US routinely requires identity theft and other forms of fraud, in order to function within our socio-economic structure.

Not exactly victimless crimes.
Um, nope, that doesn't pass the smell test. Seeing as I know a thing or two about identity theft.

I'm not seeing some obviously Hispanic dude, real name Carlos Gutierrez, sitting at a job interview and handing over a driver's license that says Paul Kowalski. Identify theft is of course older than cybercrime, but in essence it's a cybercrime; the things one does with it typically involve online, phone, or snail-mail transactions, because such transactions conceal the dissonance between the age, race and gender of the victim with that of the perpetrator.

So unless there's some crime wave I've never heard of, of young Hispanic male Americans having their identities stolen by some hacker who then redistributes them to young, Hispanic male Mexicans — because the immigrants themselves aren't usually going to have the skills or equipment, and the idea of actually selling stolen identities, rather than simply abusing their credit, is baffling in and of itself — then yeah, I don't believe this at all. Sounds like cherrypick news ("hey Joel Pollack, I found that one illegal immigrant identity thief you wanted!"), not real news.
A shining light in a sea of stagnant bong water.
"Bread is garbage. Pure sugar and carbs. Might as well have a Snikers bar with a Mountain Dew chaser. Tastes better less work." - OT Surgeon General Aim_Deep

Last edited by Rachel_GGG on Sep 31, 2018 0:61:72 PM
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Apr 16, 2019, 7:19:15 AM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info