Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[MJW (ya that one)]

As I said before that doesn't count because that was triggered by the Syria situation. Trump won the Cuban vote 54-41 because of the DEMs support of a dictatorship. GOP can win minorities if they have some other big advantage like CA-21 (12% white) being rural. This isn't enough to be relevant on the national scale so it should just be ignored (unless you wonder what the Koch brothers are latching on to).

[ipecac]

Uhhhhhhhhhh according to my 4chan friends where we post the dankest memes where pepe in a nazi uniform gasses anita sarkeezian, all the kids are just as racist as I am.

I can't tell whether you should stop reading 4chan because it's driving you crazy, or just post there exclusively because no one else deserves your lunatic rantings.

[ipecac]

As someone who has actually taught generation Z, in your dreams they fall conservative

In the US? And what makes you think your personal account means anything?

"staunchly supportive of personal freedoms, and strong on national security including counter-terrorism and cyber-security"

As am I, not Conservative only viewpoints then right? If anything supporting individual freedoms is a progressive thing, very little support for gay marriage or legalization of drugs on the conservative side,

If you read the article linked with 'personal freedoms', note 'don’t want government involvement in gun ownership'.

"they’re fiscally conservative, staunchly supportive of personal freedoms, and strong on national security including counter-terrorism and cyber-security, with a hint of isolationism"

Fiscally conservative:

Nothing to do with opposing progressiveness or a support for your "Nationalism" at all, just a Right wing view of spending, which does not have to go along at all with conservative viewpoints, as is shown by the Right wing that actually does have a large amount of support both here and overseas in the states

'Fiscally conservative' in the US means less welfare, among other things, and not the 'why not have UBI instead of bureaucratic welfare?' or the like of the right in Europe.

"found that individuals of Middle Eastern background supported Trump over Clinton by a 7 point margin"

So there are a slightly higher percentage of racists in the Middle Eastern group. Who'd have thunk right? It's not like they already support Authoritarianism in their homelands (like Erdogan and various other dictators), largely think women should have secondary status, and put their children under strong religious indoctrination for one of the worlds most authoritarian leaning religions, right? Nah that could never be, it must be because their generation is rightleaning, totally you guys...

'support dictators, authoritarian, religious indoctrination etc etc' is precisely what you would consider right-wing and fascist, have you already forgotten?

"78% of Generation Z identifies as liberal to moderate on social issues and 83% identifies as moderate to conservative on fiscal issues."

https://www.riponsociety.org/article/und...eration-z/

No really they are totally Nationalists you guys. Not just a bit right of center on economics, and actively progressive on everything else.

As usual, you miss the point entirely. They have a mix of progressive and conservative views that heralds a pendulum swing back to conservative, and do not display the ever-increasing progressiveness you fantasise about.

Oh and wow what a flaming trashpile of a site the Daily Caller is, their front page is just filled with misleading and clickbait articles. If that is where Conservatives get their news, then well I'm not surprised they don't know shit about the world.

Let me guess, you were convinced Trump would never win. How poorly informed.

[ipecac]

https://www.riponsociety.org/article/und...eration-z/

From the article you linked:

However, as noted above, Gen Z’s inclinations would generally fit that of moderate Republicans, of which notably there aren’t as many in leadership positions anymore. The Republican Party, if it plays it cards right, has a chance to make lasting inroads with this generation, even at an early age. That is something Republicans have struggled with for decades. Democrats on the other hand can’t and shouldn’t take Gen Z’s for granted, as they have with previous young generations, including most recently with the Millennials.

Precisely my point, you can't take for granted that they'll be progressive and 'on your side'. Please read your own sources.

Continued:

It is much more likely that the precipitous drops were due to the more conservative Generation Z being able, for the first time, to express their political inclinations, especially in economically hard-hit swing states. Some Generation Z voters were likely attracted to the Republican candidate because of Trump’s strong stances on economic recovery and national security – two of the main concerns of that generation.

'ipecac, you're wrong! And here's a source that proves you right'

Thanks, I guess? I rest my case.

[Japper007]

You just assumed that Trump supporters are automatically racists.

All that is nessesary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Trump is provably a racist, a sexist and supports authoritarianism (do you really want me to start throwing out any of the dozens of his own Tweets and speech transcripts that show this? I will, but it'd make the thread go around the block), his administrations decisions reflect this.

So by supporting him the GOP shows they either A) just flat out agree with him, or B) didn't think someone being openly and even proudly racist, sexist and authoritarian was a more important thing to consider when voting for him than his stances on other issues. The first makes them evil, the second as well by allowing it to fester in their party and voting it into office. Either way the GOP looks bad. For a party of supposedly "not racists" they certainly do come of seeming to like voting them into office this way. I'm sure there are decent folks on the right wing side (hell a lot of my friends lean right on economic issues), now is the time to show this, push another candidate in 2020.


@Ipecac as I said I have no problem with right wing economic policy, I just disagree with it since it doesn't work. What I have a problem with is conservatism on social issues (i.e racism, anti-feminism, religious fundamentalism), which is linked to it in the US but doesn't have to be.

[Gavagai]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you...ying-wolf/ - an excellent article debanking the idea that Trump is a racist, still very much to the point. All the more valuable given that it comes from the person who strongly opposes Trump on other grounds.

Section 17 is particularly insightful, it shows a very general problem which plagues lefr-wing thinking on racism issue.

[TheArchduke]

Good article. Crying wolf is also the right word for it. Overuse of phrases to attack the other opponent is one of the reason politics are increasingly becoming partisan. True in Europe in most countries as well.

EDIT: Excellent article. Managed to read the whole thing.

[Huinesoron]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you...ying-wolf/ - an excellent article debanking the idea that Trump is a racist, still very much to the point. All the more valuable given that it comes from the person who strongly opposes Trump on other grounds.

Section 17 is particularly insightful, it shows a very general problem which plagues lefr-wing thinking on racism issue.

That article predates Trump actually assuming the office of president, which makes it woefully inadequate for current discussion. It seems (in Section 16) to be arguing that Trump isn't racist (in that he doesn't attack non-white people specifically because of their race) - he's just generally awful (and will attack anyone and anywhere based on anything). Which is a valid viewpoint to hold - provided he's nothing more than a person saying things.

But now (and for the past year and a half) he's the President of the United States. If you want to demonstrate that he's not racist, you have to look at his actions as president - his policies, his endorsements (political, activist, or international), and the things he has chosen to reject or condemn, too.

The characterisation of Trump as racist is not based on his insults and attacks any more; it's based on his actions as president. The article you give mentions this briefly in the added update, but pretty much brushes it off.

One example of the difference: The article spends five whole sections on the topic of 'is a lot of Trump's support base racist?', which is a strawman argument anyway (it's bad if they are, but doesn't actually say whether Trump is racist himself), but doesn't address (because of when it was written) the question 'did Trump knowingly appoint a white nationalist (Steve Bannon) as Chief Strategist?'. An article which answered the second kind of question (along with others such as 'was the travel ban targetted at Muslims specifically?' and 'are Trump's policies anti-illegal-immigration measures also intentionally targetting non-white legal residents of the US?', to name but two) would be valuable for discussion; this one answers a couple of questions, but leaves the most important ones unanswered.

hS

[Gavagai]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you...ying-wolf/ - an excellent article debanking the idea that Trump is a racist, still very much to the point. All the more valuable given that it comes from the person who strongly opposes Trump on other grounds.

Section 17 is particularly insightful, it shows a very general problem which plagues lefr-wing thinking on racism issue.

That article predates Trump actually assuming the office of president, which makes it woefully inadequate for current discussion. It seems (in Section 16) to be arguing that Trump isn't racist (in that he doesn't attack non-white people specifically because of their race) - he's just generally awful (and will attack anyone and anywhere based on anything). Which is a valid viewpoint to hold - provided he's nothing more than a person saying things.

But now (and for the past year and a half) he's the President of the United States. If you want to demonstrate that he's not racist, you have to look at his actions as president - his policies, his endorsements (political, activist, or international), and the things he has chosen to reject or condemn, too.

The characterisation of Trump as racist is not based on his insults and attacks any more; it's based on his actions as president. The article you give mentions this briefly in the added update, but pretty much brushes it off.

One example of the difference: The article spends five whole sections on the topic of 'is a lot of Trump's support base racist?', which is a strawman argument anyway (it's bad if they are, but doesn't actually say whether Trump is racist himself), but doesn't address (because of when it was written) the question 'did Trump knowingly appoint a white nationalist (Steve Bannon) as Chief Strategist?'. An article which answered the second kind of question (along with others such as 'was the travel ban targetted at Muslims specifically?' and 'are Trump's policies anti-illegal-immigration measures also intentionally targetting non-white legal residents of the US?', to name but two) would be valuable for discussion; this one answers a couple of questions, but leaves the most important ones unanswered.

hS

The article is mostly valuable not because it answers some specific arguments but because it shows that the whole approach to this problem is wrong (I refer you to Section 17 ones again). All arguments in favor of Trump's racism are only convincing if you have already accepted this assumption and seek to illustrate it, not to prove. It applies to all new material which appeared since Trump assumed presidency. "Muslim ban" which you have yourself mentioned is a particularly good case in point. It was based on the list of countries prepared by Obama administration and no one saw anything racist in this list back then. Literally, if the very same executive order was issued by anyone other but Trump, no one would even think about calling it racist.
(Of course, there is also an obvious point that Islam is not a race and "Muslim ban" would not be an evidence of racism even if it specifically targeted Muslims.)

[T-hawk]

Trump is provably a racist

If it's so provable, then prove it.  Hint: Islam is not a race.  Illegal immigrant is not a race.  Even "shithole countries" isn't a race.

That those categories correlate with race does not make opinions about those categories racial opinions.

See how absurd this sounds: Trump attacks Rosie O'Donnell, therefore he is racist against white people. But that's the same argument being advanced for any of those other categories.