We Need To Talk About Donald

[pErvinalia]

Stop talking about the Democrats.

Um, no?

The Democrats have nothing to do with what Trump is doing. By constantly going "yebbut Democrats..." you are just committing logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

[pErvinalia]

When Trump says we want to keep them from crossing the border because they're undercutting US wages, and working illegally in the country, and taking advantage of government benefits, and raping white people, we know he really means that he hates Mexicans and wants to keep them out of the country because they are Mexican....which he views as a race.

...we know what he "really" means.... he's white, he's rich, he's a chauvinistic womanizer...we just KNOW he wants to keep the darkies down....

He uses racist rhetoric, and most of the idiots who support his border wall stuff are racists.

[Forty Two]

Stop talking about the Democrats.

Um, no?

The Democrats have nothing to do with what Trump is doing. By constantly going "yebbut Democrats..." you are just committing logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

Not in the least.

1. One assertion made is that Trump is lying, and he won't build the wall. Ha ha! Jokes on the Trump supporters. Well - the wall is being built, and has been for over a decade, and is continuing, and he signed an executive order to continue it. Since border walls and fencing are being built under a Democrat supported 2006 law, to say that it won't be built is silly. To accuse Trump of lying and not intending to build the wall, would be to say that he won't even follow through with what would be happening without him involved.

2. Another assertion is that the building a wall with Mexico is racist. It shows Trump is racist, because he wants to build a wall. Well, since the wall was supported by Democrats previously, including Barack Obama, and nobody on the "wall is racist" side was calling it racist then, then it indicates that the people arguing that the wall is racist are doing so selectively, and that they know it's not racist to build a wall even if it is possible to have a racist purpose for building a wall.

3. You responded that it depends why the wall is being built, but that's bootstrapping, because the wall itself is asserted as evidence of Trump being a racist - it's racist to build the wall to keep Mexicans out. But, no matter what one's avowed purpose might be, the function of the wall is to keep Mexicans out. It's not to keep Europeans out, it's to keep Mexicans out. So, if it's racist to build a wall, then why wouldn't it have been racist last year or the year before? Is it that we "know" Hillary and Obama aren't racist against Mexicans and we "know" Trump is, so therefore walls are racist when Trump supports them but not when Hillary and Obama support them? They all advanced similar reasons -- national security, economic reasons, wage depression, public funds, that kind of thing. But, we "know" Trump is racist, so that makes his wall racist.

4. That must mean that for Trump to do the non-racist thing, he has to be in favor of (a) not expanding the wall any more, and (b) actually dismantling the wall constructed under the law Obama and Hillary Clinton supported. After all, now it's racist, because Trump is racist. I guess maybe we could keep the racist wall up for four years until Trump loses his reelection bid, and then the non-racist wall can be completed by the Democrats, who know how to build non-racist walls between the US and Mexico.

[Forty Two]

When Trump says we want to keep them from crossing the border because they're undercutting US wages, and working illegally in the country, and taking advantage of government benefits, and raping white people, we know he really means that he hates Mexicans and wants to keep them out of the country because they are Mexican....which he views as a race.

...we know what he "really" means.... he's white, he's rich, he's a chauvinistic womanizer...we just KNOW he wants to keep the darkies down....

He uses racist rhetoric, and most of the idiots who support his border wall stuff are racists.

Uhmmm ... "racist" rhetoric? You mean something he actually said, or something you've interpreted by your powers of between-line-reading, and code-breaking? LOL. Has he said something literally racist, or just something you know is racist, even if not literally so?

Oh, so... were Obama and Clinton idiots who support the border wall, just not racist idiots? Or, is the wall they wanted not idiotic? Had you not heard of their support for border fences before? Or, you just trust them to build reasonable, rational border fences, which are not in the least racist?

[pErvinalia]

Stop talking about the Democrats.

Um, no?

The Democrats have nothing to do with what Trump is doing. By constantly going "yebbut Democrats..." you are just committing logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

Not in the least.

1. One assertion made is that Trump is lying, and he won't build the wall. Ha ha! Jokes on the Trump supporters. Well - the wall is being built, and has been for over a decade, and is continuing, and he signed an executive order to continue it. Since border walls and fencing are being built under a Democrat supported 2006 law, to say that it won't be built is silly. To accuse Trump of lying and not intending to build the wall, would be to say that he won't even follow through with what would be happening without him involved.

2. Another assertion is that the building a wall with Mexico is racist. It shows Trump is racist, because he wants to build a wall. Well, since the wall was supported by Democrats previously, including Barack Obama, and nobody on the "wall is racist" side was calling it racist then,

How do you know? This is your problem. You have these massive biases. And you aim this shit at me who you should well know is no supporter of the Democrats. Saying "yebbut the Democrats wanted to build a wall too" is utterly irrelevant to someone like me (and most people on this board).

3. You responded that it depends why the wall is being built, but that's bootstrapping, because the wall itself is asserted as evidence of Trump being a racist

Where did I assert that the wall itself is evidence of Trump being racist??

[pErvinalia]

When Trump says we want to keep them from crossing the border because they're undercutting US wages, and working illegally in the country, and taking advantage of government benefits, and raping white people, we know he really means that he hates Mexicans and wants to keep them out of the country because they are Mexican....which he views as a race.

...we know what he "really" means.... he's white, he's rich, he's a chauvinistic womanizer...we just KNOW he wants to keep the darkies down....

He uses racist rhetoric, and most of the idiots who support his border wall stuff are racists.

Uhmmm ... "racist" rhetoric? You mean something he actually said, or something you've interpreted by your powers of between-line-reading, and code-breaking? LOL. Has he said something literally racist, or just something you know is racist, even if not literally so?

Something he actually said. We've been over all this before. You don't think anything he said is racist. You've never changed your mind in the history of the universe, so there's no point revisiting it.

Oh, so... were Obama and Clinton idiots who support the border wall, just not racist idiots?

I don't know. Obama and Clinton and the Democrats have absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for why Trump is building a wall. It's a total red herring fallacy.

[Forty Two]

Something he actually said. We've been over all this before. You don't think anything he said is racist. You've never changed your mind in the history of the universe, so there's no point revisiting it.

I've changed my mind plenty, but you've not identified a single literally racist thing he's said. The best you've done is extrapolate racism from what he actually said. Nothing more.

Oh, so... were Obama and Clinton idiots who support the border wall, just not racist idiots?

I don't know. Obama and Clinton and the Democrats have absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for why Trump is building a wall. It's a total red herring fallacy.

They have plenty to do with the building of the wall, though, since they supported the 2006 law which began building a wall, then called a fence.

They certainly don't have anything to do with Trump's REASONS for wanting to build a bigger and better wall. But, you have offered no proof that his reasons are racist. The best you've done is to declare the reasons he has advanced to be racist, because you have an unsupported but preconceived notion that he is a racist. That's the most you've done.

Beyond that, you just keep declaring that you've explained it before or we've been over it, even when you have made no such case. You may even really believe you have made the case. You seem to think that just because you think something is true, that you've established it as true. That's how you come across, anyway.

[Animavore]

In was wrong when the Democrats did it too.

There. Now you've no argument.

The wall has environmental consequences on migrating species. But I guess no one cares about that. As long as the bad hombres are kept out.

The wall is idiotic. End of. Why is even a debate among rationalists?

[pErvinalia]

Something he actually said. We've been over all this before. You don't think anything he said is racist. You've never changed your mind in the history of the universe, so there's no point revisiting it.

I've changed my mind plenty, but you've not identified a single literally racist thing he's said. The best you've done is extrapolate racism from what he actually said. Nothing more.

Oh, so... were Obama and Clinton idiots who support the border wall, just not racist idiots?

I don't know. Obama and Clinton and the Democrats have absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for why Trump is building a wall. It's a total red herring fallacy.

They have plenty to do with the building of the wall, though, since they supported the 2006 law which began building a wall, then called a fence.

They certainly don't have anything to do with Trump's REASONS for wanting to build a bigger and better wall. But, you have offered no proof that his reasons are racist.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Whether or not I have offered proof that Trump is building the wall for racist reasons has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats.

[pErvinalia]

In was wrong when the Democrats did it too.

There. Now you've no argument.

No, you've got it wrong, Ani. Some lefty somewhere maintains that it was right when the Dems did it, therefore Trump can't be using racist rhetoric to support his wall, and we are going to have to hear about the Democrats constantly for some time yet...

[Hermit]

He uses racist rhetoric, and most of the idiots who support his border wall stuff are racists.

Uhmmm ... "racist" rhetoric? You mean something he actually said, or something you've interpreted by your powers of between-line-reading, and code-breaking? LOL. Has he said something literally racist, or just something you know is racist, even if not literally so?

I could retrieve the audiovisual record of him being explicitly and undeniably racist, but you'd just flat out deny the meaning of what was said and attempt to smother it with your usual arsenal of smoke and mirror type tricks packaged in a wall of words. And then you'll have the nerve to object people getting pissed off about your tediously repetitive, sanctimonious tirades, your ignorant, emotional outbursts of a panicked, hysterical rightwinger standing on a soap box made of hot air. I think it's about time to give you some taste of repetition. Let's see how long it takes for you to bite.

[Forty Two]

In was wrong when the Democrats did it too.

There. Now you've no argument.

I don't? My argument was that it isn't racist because it is being built now for the same non-racist reasons it was advanced for then - economic, national security, labor, public funds, etc. The argument that's been advanced against it so far is that it is racist, but nobody has presented evidence of that. The evidence I have for the reasons for the wall being economic, etc., are the statements of the people, democrats and republicans alike, who have been in favor of building it.

Now, you say it was wrong then, too. Why was it wrong then?

The wall has environmental consequences on migrating species. But I guess no one cares about that. As long as the bad hombres are kept out.

Interesting idea regarding migrating species. I have read a scientific american article o the topic and some miscellaneous articles which address the subject. All are vague. The main species that migrate are apparently birds, who would not generally be effected by a wall, since they can perch on top of it, and then proceed on. The other animal I've seen mentioned are animals like jaguars, but jaguars don't migrate. So, it's an interesting idea, but I'd like to see some proof.

The wall is idiotic. End of. Why is even a debate among rationalists?

Lots of countries have walls. The problem is that there is a tremendous and unsustainable influx of people across that border. I don't favor a wall. I don't like its symbolism or its cost. That being said, there IS a problem. So, we need to do something to stop that problem. I'm all ears. I have been a proponent for many years of a wholesale rewriting of American immigration law, from the top to the bottom. But, I am absolutely not in favor of simply letting millions of people walk into the United States. It's not reasonable.

I also think that there may be a technological solution to the border. Maybe electronic technology and drone technology can be used to patrol the border and track human crossings.

[Animavore]

Here's my take on pointing Dems did wrong shit too.

So the Dems did wrong things, but many Dem followers never pointed them out because they love Obama and turn a blind eye. Many Repubs don't point out the bad because wrecking the environment and bombing brown people isn't a problem to them.

Then America votes the biggest piece of shit that has ever been elected and now people, because they want to see his disgusting ass gone, are more aware of all the corruption going on and want bring it to bear and fight it, even if out of spite and opposition to the giant turd in the White House.

Isn't it good that the apathy toward years of corruption and belligerence has been been lifted now?

Arguing we should give it a pass now because we did in the past doesn't make sense.

[Animavore]

I was just thinking of a similarity between Trump and Al Gore.

In the late 00s denialists gained some political traction and one of the things which helped them was attacking Al Gore. Al Gore was the face of environmentalism and by attacking him and poking any holes they could find in his documentary amount to attacking the entire movement.

Now Trump has similarly come to personify the excess, greed, corruption, con, and total lack of empathy of the 1% and I suspect he will be a catalyst toward a larger push of exposing the massive inequality in society and economic myths like "trickle down."

Of course where the similarities are opposite is that the push was driven by corrupt, corporate liars in the former, and away from in the latter, should it transpire.

[Forty Two]

Here's my take on pointing Dems did wrong shit too.

See, I didn't refer to the democrats doing wrong shit too. I referred to the allegation that building a wall between the US and Mexico is racist by pointing out that the wall was already 700 miles long before Trump took office, and that if it's racist to build a wall then why isn't also racist to build a fence?

The reason for bringing it up is to show that Trump's wall is arguably no more racist than Obama and Hillary's fence, as they were and are proposed for the same reasons. It is only the preconceived notion that Trump must be racist that now, now that the racist is in office, that the wall becomes racist. Before, it was apparently not racist, because, well, we know that neither Obama nor Clinton could harbor negative views on Mexicans, right? So any wall they would build would be the non-racist variety.

So the Dems did wrong things, but many Dem followers never pointed them out because they love Obama and turn a blind eye. Many Repubs don't point out the bad because wrecking the environment and bombing brown people isn't a problem to them.

Indeed, and if a Republican was to argue against a Democrat leading us into a war against "brown people" one would expect they'd be ready with reasons other than those that would be equally applicable to, say the Iraq War. It would be rather incongruous to see vehement opposition from George Bush to a war Obama was getting us involved in, when those same reasons for opposition could equally be leveled at himself, right?

If, for example, a Republican was all fired up about Iraq, and then Obama was going to get us involved in another war and said that he had evidence of WMD there and that there was some intelligence information linking this new enemy to Al Qaeta or ISIS, and the Republican said "that's not good enough! preemptive self defense is not good enough! And, you don't have a UN approval!" - It wold be fair to point that out, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be relevant to the discussion?

I mean - we'd want to parse that out and find out how Republicans can rationally justify being on the opposite side of the ball on that one. By crystalizing that issue, we can come to understand it better. Maybe the Republicans would clarify that they have a good reason for opposing the war, maybe on different grounds. Maybe the Democrats, who opposed the war under a GOP president, would offer different reasons for supporting one now. Right?

That's the reason I brought it up. To get someone to set forth how a wall becomes racist when it wasn't racist before. I mean, even if Trump was found out to be a closet member of the KKK and a tried and true white supremacist - does that make a wall between the US and Mexico different than it is if he was gay and liked to suck black dick and thought the browner your skin was the better you were?

Then America votes the biggest piece of shit that has ever been elected

Rather subjective and nonspecific accusation, that. Many people felt the same way about Obama, and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Carter, and Nixon, and Johnson, and even Kennedy....etc. etc.

and now people, because they want to see his disgusting ass gone, are more aware of all the corruption going on and want bring it to bear and fight it, even if out of spite and opposition to the giant turd in the White House.

What corruption? Please be specific. And, no, you haven't explained it before. Corruption means something.

Isn't it good that the apathy toward years of corruption and belligerence has been been lifted now?

Yes, but you need to identify the "corruption." And, what do you mean by "belligerence?" Has Trump ramped up a war or something?

Arguing we should give it a pass now because we did in the past doesn't make sense.

Give WHAT a pass? Be specific.