Politics

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Not necessarily completely literally, but whenever a point of ambiguity comes up, err towards knowing that the fou ding fathers were a heck of a lot smarter than any of us

They were also smarter than us in a time where it was okay to hold slaves (as many did).
To me, the founding fathers were the intellectual supertitans of their era; many of them were college educated (which less than 1% of the population was back then) and they were all ridiculously intelligent, but it doesn't mean they can't be wrong. Instead of putting these men on pedestals like gods, I treat them like philosophers who wrote the fabric(s) of our nation.

Also, yes I used the "classic Trump insults" for the same reason everyone else does: they're literally proven to be true

Yes this so much

[TheMarioPianist]

Wait, when did TMP show up? 

Politics happened. Ok, on to the big stuff.

And he was talking about how he had acted in the past..

Really, it was kind of childish on Donald's part. Why he talked that way, I'll honestly never know. The thing is, if he had actually done something of that nature, we would hear multiple reports from victims (as there were when Clinton had his "fun" in the Oval Office). As of now, almost nothing has been brought up against him. (No, I did not forget the case about the 13-year-old. You can mention that all you want, but I wouldn't be shocked if that case doesn't go anywhere. If I find out later that I was wrong, yeah, that would change my stance on Trump's morals. But I honestly don't believe that the case will find him guilty at all.)

That's not the argument. The question is solely whether or not what he said was bad, not whether what any democrat did was worse (which, if you're referring to the "basket of deplorables" comment, could be interpreted as an off hand comment far easier than what Trump said can be).

Actually, that's not what I was referring to. The whole point I was making was that Trump may have said some things that were out of line, but the Democrat party has actually DONE some pretty scandalous things. The Podesta email leak and the DNC email leak definitely display the duality of Hillary Clinton and the rigged primaries that poor Bernie was destined to lose...I could also go into the things that Hillary did in the past (including those in relation to Bill) but I figured that I would stay in the very recent past for now.

Good! Then we agree.

 ...Oh. So these statements don't matter enough to you to change your mind?

At no point did I disagree with the fact that the words themselves were...shall I say deplorable? I know it's hard for me to talk from the perspective of a woman because obviously I am not one, but based on what I've heard from female pro-Trump supporters, it didn't matter to them because he was just talking with the guys. If he had directly insulted a woman that way (basically a worse insult than the Miss Universe incident), then it would have been a different story. Again, I can't comment as accurately because I can't really relate. Let me try to put it this way: If a tape was released showing Hillary talking with some ladies and saying equally vulgar things about men, it wouldn't bother me that much. It would not make me any more anti-Hillary than I already am. How would such a situation make you feel if it were to happen? (Bill has said she curses like a sailor; don't try to say it isn't believable.)

Citation needed, as you can't speak for EVERY woman who supported Trump. I personally know at least 2 who formerly did support Trump and are now sitting out the election after those comments. No doubt that the statements aren't going to shake up his entire base but a) there are many on the fence voters for whom it could be a deal breaker and b) the discussion is, again, the MORALITY of such statements.

Kinda went into this topic in the last answer. I have conceded that I can't speak for all women. On a side note, I would advise you to attempt to convince those two women to vote. I mean, it's like the biggest responsibility we have as American citizens. If you're going to go into morality; however, that makes this a different ballgame. We've discussed a couple moral issues before, and I know our morals are polar opposites in some instances. To me, being pro-life is probably one of my strongest beliefs. My morals would never allow me to vote for someone as strongly pro-choice as Secretary Clinton.

Not exactly. The fact that he turned a horrible business decision which resulted in a billion dollar loss into an excuse to not pay taxes for the next 10 years is my issue with him.

Now words like "exploit" and "excuse" give a negative connotation, as if he did something wrong or illegal. He didn't. Everything he did was completely within the law. If you're truly disgusted that he was able to do that, maybe the law should be fixed so that people can't do that anymore.

And you don't think that after 9 separate investigations, many of them Republican lead, that wouldn't have been uncovered?

"Hmm, what do I want, expose Hillary Clinton, or get millions of dollars?" Ok in all seriousness that didn't happen, and I guess the investigations have been "conclusive." I'll stop pushing this one, but it doesn't mean that I agree.

Lmao. Stereotyping all government workers right before you complain about being stereotyped.

Yeah, that stereotype was a bad idea. I'm starting to sound like my dad...Stuff like this makes me sound even less intelligent; you're right to laugh...

Mostly because they're fairly accurate, at least of Trump if not his supporters.

You claim they are accurate, but I still do not believe that they are. I'll try to clarify more specifically down below where it makes more sense to do so.
 
Well, just to be devil's advocate, you could then justify people in Iran saying "Death to America" on the grounds of how much carpet bombing and drone operations we do completely extra-judicially (to say nothing of invading a sovereign nation that didn't attack us and killing minimum 200,000 civilians).
And I'm sorry to bring out the "b-word", but that statement is just bigoted. You're equating all Muslims with ISIS. The statement Trump made was as follows:
"Donald Trump is calling for a complete shutdown of all Muslims entering this country until our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on"
You can argue the validity of that statement, but you can't deny that he's talking about all Muslims. To equate this irrational statement with something he says about ISIS is a bigoted statement, because you're immediately inferring that when he talks about all Muslims, he's talking about ISIS.

Ok, devil's advocate, you got me on that. But from there on I disagree. I was not using that statement in relation to any term Donald used to describe them. I was describing my personal fear of ISIS. Moving on to the complete shutdown of Muslim immigration. If he had said that with no actual reason, it would be racist or religion-ist or whatever you want to call it. However, ISIS is a major threat, and let's face it: we wouldn't be able to tell if a terrorist was among the immigrants. So basically, the Muslim ban is not meant to be an act of hate towards Muslims; rather, it is an act of protection for our country from the few bad ones that would try to sneak in. Once we figure out some way to differentiate (or we take out ISIS for good), we lift the ban.

Do you fear the US Military then? We've certainly had our share of mass murder.

Come on, man....is that even remotely a fair argument? I thought I didn't need to clarify this but i guess I do...UNJUSTIFIED mass killing.

If he didn't, he wouldn't say that every Muslim coming into this country (who, by the way, are vetted quite thoroughly) needed to be kept out. We know what the hell is going on; while 1 American death from ISIS is too many, it still isn't nearly the public health crisis that ideological terrorism is (see Planned Parenthood shooting and the like).


Yes, he would. For reasons mentioned above.

No, it can't, because they aren't NEARLY the threat that he makes them out to be.

No, they are not the same threat in terms of criminal activity as ISIS is. I'll agree to that. The threat is more the fact that people illegally cross our border and then apply for welfare. They may eventually take a job as well. In the end, the threat is to the American economy and workers. Trump does exaggerate the crime rate, but by no means can the issue of illegal immigration be ignored.

 Jesus fuck the stereotyping.
We already have a policy that deports illegal immigrants who commit crimes (which isn't what Trump proposed- he wants to deport ALL 12 million illegals), this idea that people can commit crimes and not get sent back if they're undocumented is purely bullshit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/02/trumps-fuzzy-math-on-undocumented-immigrants-convicted-of-crimes/

According to the most accurate data currently possessed, it's around 850,000 or so undocumented immigrants who are criminals. 7.1% of all 12 million (far less if you think there's more than that). In addition, if you want to talk about the cartels, our drug war is largely to blame for how much they import into the US.

How about "when Mexico sends its people, they aren't sending their best. They're bringing drugs, they're criminals, they're rapists"?

Stories like this are the ones that scare me. I know this was an isolated incident, but there are unreported incidents of illegal immigrants that commit crimes and don't get sent back. I don't have a number right now, but give me a day and I'll find you some statistics. Also, Trump has eased back on the "send them all back" thing. Now he's really only guaranteeing that those who commit crimes as illegal immigrants will be deported. Which honestly, I could live with some illegal immigrants living here that don't engage in criminal activity. I still think its wrong, but once the wall goes up the illegal crossing will certainly be reduced.

And you did anything but "disprove" his sexism; if anything you just said that yeah, it was probably inappropriate but it doesn't bother you enough because "democrats are worse"


I think I covered this stuff earlier on, but my brain is getting kinda foggy because it's late. If I notice tomorrow that I left this out, I'll add it.

Except there's such a thing as nuance. Firstly, considering the context in which the amendments were written is extremely important; the founders were not all knowing gods. Secondly, no constitutional right is absolute; Free Speech is a right, but not for libel, slander, or direct threats of violence; protection from self incrimination is a right, but police can still force you to take a breathalyzer test. The list goes on.

Well then, owning a firearm for hunting or protection is a right, but if you use it to commit a murder then it is a crime. Is that example any different? (I know this wasn't originally a Second Amendment thing, but I kinda turned it into one.)

Actually, had we been taking it literally this whole time, many of those "interpretations" that allowed for equal protections for blacks wouldn't be a thing, to say nothing of the 13th amendment.

Well, I can't say that's wrong. I guess for me it more or less depends on the issue. I feel strongly about the Second Amendment, for example.

He came back to make a few pretty bad points.

@ TMP: Basically what PDS said, but I'd like to add: do you not realize that suggesting some Mexicans who cross the border are rapists and drug dealers that's literally racial profiling which is inherently racist and bad

Also, yes I used the "classic Trump insults" for the same reason everyone else does: they're literally proven to be true

Dang man, maybe I shouldn't have come back....

Anyway, it would be racial profiling if I said ALL Mexicans were rapists and drug dealers. But that's not what I said. Firstly, I limited it to illegal immigrants into the US, which is quite small compared to the entire population of Mexicans. Secondly, I said it was only a portion of the illegal immigrants. Mind you, I'm not saying they are rapists/drug dealers because they are Mexican. I'm basing my arguments off of actual statistics. As for the insults, the only one you might have even a little proof for is the sexism one, because he has said a couple questionable things about women. The "proof" of the other ones is purely based off of improper interpretations of Donald Trump quotes. Or perhaps large doses of CNN.

They were also smarter than us in a time where it was okay to hold slaves (as many did).
To me, the founding fathers were the intellectual supertitans of their era; many of them were college educated (which less than 1% of the population was back then) and they were all ridiculously intelligent, but it doesn't mean they can't be wrong. Instead of putting these men on pedestals like gods, I treat them like philosophers who wrote the fabric(s) of our nation.

Serious question: What does slavery have to do with their intelligence?
Anyway, there are a couple things that maybe aren't applicable to modern society, but like I said earlier, it depends on the issue.



We need to stop writing so much; it's literally taking me like an hour to type all of this stuff.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

We can talk over Skype sometime soon

[Dudeman]

We can talk over Skype sometime soon

please do, my scroll wheel is wearing out

[TheMarioPianist]

We can talk over Skype sometime soon

Sounds good!

please do, my scroll wheel is wearing out

I'm on my phone reading this; definitely sprained my right thumb .

[mikey]

please do, my scroll wheel is wearing out

yeah this maybe spoiler tag the last two pages
PDS, I personally guarantee you that any one of the founding fathers was much more intelligent than you or me and had a much more massive working understanding of how politics ought to be.  They may not be gods but they certainly deserve our greatest respect.

[FireArrow]

There they are. Knew the typical anti-Trump words had to come up eventually. I'll come back to racist in a second because I want to talk about xenophobic first. The definition of xenophobia is an irrational or intense dislike or fear of foreigners. Now you tell me; is it irrational to be afraid of a terrorist group that is decapitating innocent people and bombing cities on a daily basis? I wouldn't care if the group was African-American, Asian, Arab, Mexican, Hispanic, etc. If a group of people is mass murdering other people, it isn't wrong for me to fear them. The problem is that people believe that Trump hates/fears all Muslims because of what happens in the Middle East; this is simply not true. The same could be said about his beliefs about Mexicans. I can be afraid of the drug dealers and rapists that illegally cross the border and steal welfare checks from us without hating everyday Mexican-Americans who are simply trying to better their lives in this country. However, anti-Trump protesters portray him as anti-Mexican, just because he is against the ones who blatantly break the law. If you feel you have a comment or quote that contradicts this, by all means do share. (Actually, racist kind of fits in here, so I don't really need to say it again.)
As for the sexist remark, I covered my basic opinion on the matter earlier when answering shadowkirby; if you want me to go deeper into disproving Trump's sexism in general, just say the word.

I don't really wanna partake in this too much, but I need to call you out on this.

Being afraid of Isis isn't racist. Holding uninvolved muslims (or even vitcims) more responsible for it then random white Americans is racist, and that's exactle what Trump is doing. If you have another explanation for his suggestion of tracking muslim-americans than be my guest.

Being afraid of rapists and drug-dealers isn't bad. Associating that with mexicans is (hint: iirc white americans, despite their lower conviction rates, do not have a lower crime rate than mexicans.)

[TheMarioPianist]

I don't really wanna partake in this too much, but I need to call you out on this.

Being afraid of Isis isn't racist. Holding uninvolved muslims (or even vitcims) more responsible for it then random white Americans is racist, and that's exactle what Trump is doing. If you have another explanation for his suggestion of tracking muslim-americans than be my guest.

Being afraid of rapists and drug-dealers isn't bad. Associating that with mexicans is (hint: iirc white americans, despite their lower conviction rates, do not have a lower crime rate than mexicans.)

If you read above, I gave my explanation for why temporarily holding innocent Muslims. He isn't holding them because he thinks they are responsible, he's holding them because the people who are responsible could sneak in among the innocent and cause some major problems. Same with the Mexicans. He does not state that all illegal immigrants are bad. He is simply acknowledging the fact that there have been some bad people among those who cross illegally. It is not a racial issue.

[SlowPokemon]

If you read above, I gave my explanation for why temporarily holding innocent Muslims. He isn't holding them because he thinks they are responsible, he's holding them because the people who are responsible could sneak in among the innocent and cause some major problems. Same with the Mexicans. He does not state that all illegal immigrants are bad. He is simply acknowledging the fact that there have been some bad people among those who cross illegally. It is not a racial issue.

It's exactly a racial issue. Just because ISIS happens to be made up of Muslims, Trump is suggesting this punishment for ALL Muslims. Can you imagine if Christians were given the same treatment? Or white people? No, you can't. Because that kind of discrimination doesn't happen to those groups.

There are rapists and drug dealers who cross the border? There are rapists and drug dealers in every town in the United States. It's racism. Try not to be so ignorant, I'm not sure what part you're not really getting.

[mikey]

Can you imagine if Christians were given the same treatment? No, you can't. Because that kind of discrimination doesn't happen to those groups.

it did

[SlowPokemon]

But it doesn't. There's no cause for Christians to try playing the victim card. They make up a massive percentage of the population (70%) and when separation of church and state fails in America it's almost always in favor of Christianity. What you're talking about isn't relevant to this discussion.

[mikey]

it doesn't happen in america, at least

lol this
http://www.theonion.com/interactive/state-by-state-election-guide

[SlowPokemon]

^I laughed pretty hard at that when I saw it earlier. The Onion can be pretty funny.

[FireArrow]

If you read above, I gave my explanation for why temporarily holding innocent Muslims. He isn't holding them because he thinks they are responsible, he's holding them because the people who are responsible could sneak in among the innocent and cause some major problems. Same with the Mexicans. He does not state that all illegal immigrants are bad. He is simply acknowledging the fact that there have been some bad people among those who cross illegally. It is not a racial issue.

Let me clarify where trump and now you are being racist: A Muslim or Mexican coming into America isn't any more likely to be a criminal than anyone else, even those born american.

At least you don't verbalize it in cruel ways, but please try not to create that equivalence in the first place. It's like saying all christins are bigots because of the Westboro Baptist church and therefore the government needs to take extra steps specifically targeting Christian to prevent hate crime.

[TheMarioPianist]

It's exactly a racial issue. Just because ISIS happens to be made up of Muslims, Trump is suggesting this punishment for ALL Muslims. Can you imagine if Christians were given the same treatment? Or white people? No, you can't. Because that kind of discrimination doesn't happen to those groups.

There are rapists and drug dealers who cross the border? There are rapists and drug dealers in every town in the United States. It's racism. Try not to be so ignorant, I'm not sure what part you're not really getting.

Well viewing it as a punishment doesn't help. The Syrian refugees want to come here to escape what's going on in the Middle East, right? If we let them in right now, ISIS could very easily plant terrorists into the group of refugees. So in essence the problem they are trying to escape from would just follow them here. NOTE: I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT MUSLIMS IN GENERAL HAVE A HIGHER CHANCE OF BEING TERRORISTS. I AM SAYING THAT ISIS WILL USE THE SYRIAN REFUGEES AS A MEANS TO TRANSPORT THEIR SOLDIERS INTO THE US. This is not even just a suspicion, ISIS has threatened to do this. It's not made up. So again, I contend that it is not racism. And to answer your question about Christians, I would say this. Let's say that there was a group of radical Catholic terrorists scaring the world. I would probably leave the faith if that were going on because I don't want to be associated with that group. I'm not calling Muslims to change their faith, but it would be nice if maybe they realized we are anti-terrorism, not anti-Muslim.

Fair enough, but I still never said that Mexicans are more inclined to be criminals. The thing that makes me mad is the illegals that do commit crimes don't always get deported back. I mean, if you're undocumented and you get caught breaking the law, you should be sent back 100% of the time. NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THAT TRUMP WANTS TO BUILD A WALL TO KEEP OUT THE MEXICANS BECAUSE THEY ARE RAPISTS AND DRUG DEALERS. THE PURPOSE OF THE WALL IS TO DECREASE THE OCCURENCES OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REGARDLESS OF INTENTION. Illegal immigration is illegal. Why don't we start treating it that way?

Let me clarify where trump and now you are being racist: A Muslim or Mexican coming into America isn't any more likely to be a criminal than anyone else, even those born american.

At least you don't verbalize it in cruel ways, but please try not to create that equivalence in the first place. It's like saying all christins are bigots because of the Westboro Baptist church and therefore the government needs to take extra steps specifically targeting Christian to prevent hate crime.

I think I covered this enough while answering Slow, but I did not mean to imply that crimes are more prevalent due to their race. If I did, I apologize.