Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries

[*PhilHos*]

(01-16-2018, 11:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Durbin's like the kid who stands up to the racist bully on the playground.

Ummm, what? Even assuming everything Durbin said about the meeting is 100% factual, how does what he did ANYTHING like standing up to a bully (let alone a racist one)? Do you even know what it means to stand up to someone?

So what you should have said is "Durbin is like the kid who tells on the racist bully to the teacher."

[*PhilHos*]

(01-17-2018, 01:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump supporters cannot suddenly hold forth honesty and integrity as standards of political behavior, while daily exempting Trump therefrom.

While I don't really disagree, is it any different from those who constantly defended Bill Clinton's sexual assualts now attacking Trump for his?

This is why I don't really take anyone seriously who thinks one's party's poop don't stink. I may still debate these people for shits and giggles, but at the end of the day, BOTH parties have some issues and BOTH are prone to huge bouts of hypocrisy. 

[Dill]

(01-17-2018, 04:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While I don't really disagree, is it any different from those who constantly defended Bill Clinton's sexual assualts now attacking Trump for his?

This is why I don't really take anyone seriously who thinks one's party's poop don't stink. I may still debate these people for shits and giggles, but at the end of the day, BOTH parties have some issues and BOTH are prone to huge bouts of hypocrisy. 

Well, Philhos, you would indeed have a point if, during the '96 election, Bill Clinton were a loutish, public misogynist who bragged of using his celebrity to "grab P" and had 19 accusers on his tail--and Democrats elected him anyway and continued to defend him to this day.

But that is not case. So far as the 1990s public knew, the Clinton affairs with Flowers and Lewinsky which fueled his scandal were between consenting adults. And he'd never have been elected in 1996 had the Lewinsky affair been then known. Paula Jones right wing funded lawsuit was dismissed for lack of evidence.  Wiley accused Clinton of killing her cat and her husband, and lost credibility. Some feminists continued to support Clinton because his policies were good for women, even if he cheated on his wife. Ironically, he was their best chance to pass anti-harassment laws.  Once stories of Clinton assaults gained credibility, he lost that support and former backers quickly turned on him, often publicly. Every major paper now has an article or two on the "reckoning" of Democrats with Clinton's behavior and how much we have learned since about the power differential between men and women.

Trump's known marriage history was more shameful than Clinton's, and he was attacked pre-election, not for consensual affairs, but for unrepentant misogyny and publicly admitted sexual assault. And his base elected him with full knowledge, still without regrets.  This would not be hypocrisy at all, but open acceptance of misogyny, if Trump himself did not continue to condemn all other accused politicians except himself.

So both parties may be prone to hypocrisy, but as the contrasting responses to Al Franken and Roy Moore demonstrate, they are not equally prone. Choosing Trump, and choosing to stick with him, indicates we are far beyond the old "both sides do it" mantra. 

The point of analyzing the behavior of Trump and his base is first of all to document and understand what is happening and changing in US politics. The point of evaluating that behavior is not to "make one side look good" or claim only one is hypocritical, but to warn voters about bad candidates and bad policies.  

[Dill]

(01-17-2018, 04:35 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Ummm, what? Even assuming everything Durbin said about the meeting is 100% factual, how does what he did ANYTHING like standing up to a bully (let alone a racist one)? Do you even know what it means to stand up to someone?

So what you should have said is "Durbin is like the kid who tells on the racist bully to the teacher."

Sure, if we understand "teacher" to be the press and the American people, to whom Trump is accountable.  "Telling on" politicians is only cast as rat behavior in authoritarian/totalitarian regimes.

Maybe it would be better to say Graham stood up to the racist bully, if he publicly and privately challenged Trump, as he says he did.

At some point though, people need to get past blaming the messenger and reckon with the racist bully. One problem with our present politics seems to be the inability of people grasp the essential problem, or even to recognize racism and misogyny when they see it.

[fredtoast]

(01-16-2018, 05:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Durbin's like the kid the teacher used to pick to take names of those talking while she/he was out of class.

You do realize that the only people who hate snitches are people who condone criminal, immoral, or other unacceptable behavior, right?

[*bfine32*]

(01-18-2018, 08:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You do realize that the only people who hate snitches are people who condone criminal, immoral, or other unacceptable behavior, right?

Nah, they hate them because they point to other's actions to excuse/ validate theirs. Durbin did nothing noble by putting this out to the public. 

[GMDino]

(01-18-2018, 09:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, they hate them because they point to other's actions to excuse/ validate theirs. Durbin did nothing noble by putting this out to the public. 

What?  That post is making some kind of list!  LOL!

What was Durbin "excusing/validating"?

[*bfine32*]

(01-18-2018, 09:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: What?  That post is making some kind of list!  LOL!

What was Durbin "excusing/validating"?

His desire to attach DACA protections to a Federal Budget.

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2018, 09:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, they hate them because they point to other's actions to excuse/ validate theirs.

You mean like Karen Silkwood, Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Serpico, Cathy Harris, and Edward Snowden?

What a bunch of selfish assholes!

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2018, 09:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: His desire to attach DACA protections to a Federal Budget.

Why would that require an "excuse"?  He was proud of that position.

[*bfine32*]

(01-18-2018, 09:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why would that require an "excuse"?  He was proud of that position.

Because he advocating supporting a position that protects folks here illegally at the expense of American Citizens.

Regardless if you agree with the stance or not; that's what it is. Of course someone would look to excuse that stance; regardless, how "proud" they are of it. 

[Dill]

(01-18-2018, 09:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why would that require an "excuse"?  He was proud of that position.

He betrayed our leader!  That's all we need to know.

Help us keep watch on the rats, Fred, or we will have to start watching you!

[fredtoast]

(01-18-2018, 09:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because he advocating supporting a position that protects folks here illegally at the expense of American Citizens.

I have noticed that the echo chamber has added this bolded part recently.

If a person is here working, paying taxes, and buying stuff he is helping the economy.  Deporting him is actually what creates an expense to American Citizens.

[*bfine32*]

(01-19-2018, 02:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have noticed that the echo chamber has added this bolded part recently.

If a person is here working, paying taxes, and buying stuff he is helping the economy.  Deporting him is actually what creates an expense to American Citizens.

And I have noticed the left ignoring the part that you failed to bold.

Economists can argue the financial effects (positive/negative) about deporting illegals; however, no one can argue that they are not illegal; they can simply choose to overlook it.; regardless what snippit of a point they choose to focus on.

Nor can anyone change the fact that the left is willing to hold Citizens and their federal benefits hostage in efforts to protect a population that is in this country illegally. As I said you can argue the merit, you just cannot argue the fact.

[fredtoast]

(01-19-2018, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  As I said you can argue the merit, you just cannot argue the fact.

And the fact is that 90% of the people that drive exceed the speed limit, but almost no one wants the government to shut down over prosecuting all of them.

An overwhelming majority of people want to protect the people that were covered under DACA and when the Republicans shut down the government over it they will discover that voters care more about "merit" than just "facts".

And adding a lie about it being "at the expense of American Citizens" is not going to make any difference.

[hollodero]

(01-19-2018, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I have noticed the left ignoring the part that you failed to bold.

Economists can argue the financial effects (positive/negative) about deporting illegals; however, no one can argue that they are not illegal; they can simply choose to overlook it.; regardless what snippit of a point they choose to focus on.

Nor can anyone change the fact that the left is willing to hold Citizens and their federal benefits hostage in efforts to protect a population that is in this country illegally. As I said you can argue the merit, you just cannot argue the fact.

Sure. But by adding words like "hostage" you kind of make a value judgment too, and that one sure can be argued.

Can I quickly ask, what would you want to happen with the DACA people? That is no trap question, I'm just curious.

[*bfine32*]

(01-19-2018, 02:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And the fact is that 90% of the people that drive exceed the speed limit, but almost no one wants the government to shut down over prosecuting all of them.

An overwhelming majority of people want to protect the people that were covered under DACA and when the Republicans shut down the government over it they will discover that voters care more about "merit" than just "facts".

And adding a lie about it being "at the expense of American Citizens" is not going to make any difference.

And no matter how many straw men or red herrings you throw out you cannot dispute the facts of the matter; you just keep trying to show how your opinion is right. And shutting down the government will absolutely hurt American Citizens; I have no idea how anyone could consider that a lie.

[*bfine32*]

(01-19-2018, 02:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure. But by adding words like "hostage" you kind of make a value judgment too, and that one sure can be argued.

Can I quickly ask, what would you want to happen with the DACA people? That is no trap question, I'm just curious.

I do believe Congress has until March to work on DACA

And no judgement on the meaning of hostage:

Definition of hostage


1 a : a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge pending the fulfillment of an agreement

b : a person taken by force to secure the taker's demands

2 : one that is involuntarily controlled by an outside influence

[hollodero]

(01-19-2018, 03:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do believe Congress has until March to work on DACA

Sure they do, although it's tough for the impacted to keep on waiting in insecurity. I agree however, shutting down the government is quite an extreme measure, one that looks really strange to me.

I would be interested as how you would like the DACA situation handled in general... independent from the current government mess.

(01-19-2018, 03:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And no judgement on the meaning of hostage:

Definition of hostage


1 a : a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge pending the fulfillment of an agreement

b : a person taken by force to secure the taker's demands

2 : one that is involuntarily controlled by an outside influence

Yeah... it still has a certain tone. Hostage takers are the bad guys. Putting it that way transports some judgment, but maybe that's just me seeing it that way.

[Belsnickel]

(01-19-2018, 03:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure they do, although it's tough for the impacted to keep on waiting in insecurity. I agree however, shutting down the government is quite an extreme measure, one that looks really strange to me.

I would be interested as how you would like the DACA situation handled in general... independent from the current government mess.

Yeah... it still has a certain tone. Hostage takers are the bad guys. Putting it that way transports some judgment, but maybe that's just me seeing it that way.

You are right that the word choice carries with it an implicit judgement. However, it shouldn't be something held against bfine in this situation. This is a word choice used by the players in Washington all the time with these things. Schumer, in 2013, said: "No matter how strongly one feels about an issue, you shouldn’t hold millions of people hostage".

I don't agree with the language, but it is the language of the topic.