I did. Then he immediately brought on a white nationalist as his closest advisor and is apparently going to name a southern good ol' boy who thinks marijuana is straight up the devil as his Attorney General. Chance thoroughly blown.
Also is it possible to be in favor of limited controlled immigration programs and not be called a racist? What happens if the person isn't white, like me, am I also a racist? Can I be a white nationalist who isn't white?
> White nationalism is an ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity.[1] Proponents of the ideology identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation.[2] It ranges from a preference for one's specific white ethnic group, to feelings of superiority, including calls for national citizenship to be reserved for white people.[3]
Curious, isn't it?
I first saw this term in the establishment press -- White Nationalist -- last week. To me, it seems to be an attempt to conflate White Supremacists with Nationalists. It is possibly an amusing pastime to substitute various candidate Xs into "<X> Nationalist" and consider the possibilities.
As for Bannon, that guy looks like he walked out of CIA central casting, with patrons in Goldman Sachs. Such wonderful straw(wo)men to co-opt genuine grievances of people.
Man, even after losing the election, the left still hasn't changed its record. "-ist -ist -ist, -phobe -phobe -phobe!" Most of the electorate doesn't buy it anymore.
Genuinely curious: what word would you use to describe Steve Bannon?
> Genuinely curious: what word would you use to describe Steve Bannon?
Person. Respectfully, I reject the question, which implies that anyone can or should be labeled by a single word. This is part of the problem with American politics. It degrades discussion into "Is not!"/"Is too!" back-and-forth, which is useless.
Here's my bottom line: this election has shown how extremely biased the media is. Despite a few columns here and there calling for the media to examine itself and change its ways, the media has not changed. One should take everything one hears about Trump and his administration with many grains of salt.
For example, I watched Don Lemon on CNN excoriate Bannon, taking the default position that he is a racist, sexist, anti-Semite, and demanding that one of his guests (the other two of which were anti-Bannon) prove that Bannon was not any of those things. That is not journalism--that is libel.
Oh my god, you know what the question meant. Describe his views related to race.
That's funny, because I was just thinking the problem was the tendency for people to look at an opinion and immediately apply partisan politics to it. Since you decided to deflect the question instead of answer it, I'll just say this: it's really disappointing to me that there's apparently no room to not agree with any major political party.
I'm watching the absolute mockery that is being made of the front office of our government right now, and I'm extremely disturbed, embarrassed, and pessimistic. The media didn't make Steve Bannon the leader of the alt-right movement, Steve Bannon did[1]. I know for sure that I do not agree with any of the elements of the alt right movement that I've observed (either self-proclaimed or through the media).
I don't think we disagree here. I think another way to state what you said is that one of the problems is a failure to recognize nuance, a tendency to reduce everything to binary choices.
> Since you decided to deflect the question instead of answer it
I rejected the question because, to me, it implied a binary "is racist/is not racist" choice. After all, when it comes to the media and public opinion, that issue is binary. There's no "a little bit racist," or "can seem racist from some perspectives," or "some people think he's racist but there's room to disagree on the interpretation"--no, when it comes to the media, it's either 100% racist, or not racist at all. And to be safely declared the latter, one must avoid even mentioning certain words and phrases, any one of which means being permanently, irreversibly labeled with one of several different -isms. It's like the media's equivalent of a sex offender list: say the wrong thing, and you're on it for life.
Anyway, if you want to ask a more nuanced question, or clarify what you meant, I don't mind discussing it further.
> I'll just say this: it's really disappointing to me that there's apparently no room to not agree with any major political party.
It's disappointing that it seems that way, yes. I certainly disagree with both, even though I lean toward one platform more than the other.
> I'm watching the absolute mockery that is being made of the front office of our government right now, and I'm extremely disturbed, embarrassed, and pessimistic.
Okay. I've been watching that mockery for the last 8 years--you know, with the IRS being turned into a political weapon; the DoJ being used to incite societal unrest; State sending our avowed enemies, who call for "death to America!", many millions of dollars in cash on a secret overseas flight; the DoE issuing decrees to local school districts, threatening to recall federal funding unless they run their bathrooms a certain way--things like that. Those things disturb and embarrass me as an American.
> The media didn't make Steve Bannon the leader of the alt-right movement, Steve Bannon did.
Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, the "alt-right" is simply a concoction of the media (and Wikipedia is heavily biased toward the left, so I reject it as a source). No one was talking about it before the election season. No one mentioned it during the primaries. It's yet another made-up basket that the leftist media can toss people into whom they want to denigrate. It's basically their pet bogeyman, which they feed with lies and half-truths, fattening it up for the continual slaughter in an endless cycle. In a few months they'll realize that, just as with their constant chanting of "racist/sexist/bigot/deploraphobe", most of the public isn't listening anymore, and then they'll invent a new basket to toss people into.
So, anyway, thanks for the civil discussion. It's more than some people around here are willing or capable of. :/
So, how do we have any kind of meaningful discussion if all sources and channels I've used to learn things about the world is apparently biased? What are the sources of truth that you've seem to have discovered while the rest of us have had the wool pulled over our eyes? How'd you find it and how do you verify it?
> The problem is it's impossible to have a discussion with you.
I have explicitly agreed to continue the discussion if you will ask more-specific questions. You respond by saying that it's impossible to have a discussion with me. Which of us is now refusing discussion?
> Any source of information that I have is going to be discredited as biased
You have provided one (1) source: Wikipedia. I rejected it out-of-hand, just like any serious researcher or academic institution does. You then leaped to the conclusion that any source you provide will be discredited. Again, it is you who are refusing to further the discussion, and you are making up excuses to try to justify it. Why bother responding at all if this is how you're going to respond?
Note that I haven't provided any references of my own, nor have I requested that you do so. This isn't an academic journal, it's a casual discussion on the Internet. There isn't any audience now, and neither of us have anything to prove to anyone. If you want to talk some more, have a pleasant, civil discussion, share ideas and hopefully come to a better understanding of each other's views, that's fine. If not, that's fine too. But if you're not, please don't make up excuses based on unfounded accusations to make it sound like I'm at fault.
It's beginning to sound like you are avoiding discussion because I have challenged your views and made you uncomfortable. Whether that's the case or not, of course, only you can say. But if you're really interested in searching for the truth, understanding other perspectives, etc, then you're going about it the wrong way.
> (based on what proof? I don't know, I guess just that "this election proves it" - whatever the hell that means).
Now you're putting words in my mouth. You are imagining that you are having a discussion with someone else, someone you actually know or have discussed with before. I am not that person, and I haven't said those things.
> So, how do we have any kind of meaningful discussion if all sources and channels I've used to learn things about the world is apparently biased?
Every source is biased, because every person is biased. That's how humans are. The questions are then, 1) to what extent a source is biased, and 2) whether you have explored a variety of sources to attempt to compensate for bias. If you only read sources that are biased in a certain way, then your own views are probably going to be similarly biased.
> What are the sources of truth that you've seem to have discovered
I read and listen to a variety of sources, as I hope you do.
> while the rest of us have had the wool pulled over our eyes?
If you really want to talk about this, it would be better to talk about specific topics. Sweeping statements about one group or the other being generally deceived aren't very useful, whether accurate or not; they are nearly always "preaching to the choir" and not useful for overcoming bias.
> How'd you find it and how do you verify it?
This, of course, is the most important question: with the overwhelming amount of information available to us, how do we verify the information we take in? Books have been written about this. Suffice to say here that the first step is to be skeptical of everything you hear, especially on the Internet, and especially regarding politics, and especially surrounding an election, and especially given how the recent election has demonstrated the media's extreme bias (remember, even the media itself has admitted this; see Will Rahn's commentary on CBS News, the recent op-ed by the NYT, etc).
Ok, anyway, if you want to keep talking, cool. If not, cheers.
When I see responses like this:
>You have provided one (1) source: Wikipedia. I rejected it out-of-hand, just like any serious researcher or academic institution does.
It's pretty clear you don't understand the basics of how wikipedia works. There's no point in discussing with you.
Trump lost the popular vote.
1. In at least some states, absentee ballots are not counted unless their number is greater than the difference between the counted results. Some have claimed that absentee ballots historically favor the Republican party. If this is so, it could be that, were all the absentee ballots counted, Clinton would not win the popular vote.
2. It's been claimed that about 3 million non-citizens voted in the election (lawsuits pending--we shall see). Obviously, the vast majority of non-citizens would vote for Clinton. Therefore, if this is true, Clinton did not win the popular vote at all.
3. It's interesting to note that if Los Angeles County alone were not counted in the results, Trump would win the popular vote. And Los Angeles is a sanctuary city.
Of course, it's a matter of opinion whether a few, densely packed urban environments, many of which are sanctuary cities for non-citizens, should be able to effectively overturn the vote of the rest of the country.
So the "Clinton won the popular vote" point is not as straightforward as it may seem.
(For anyone who wants a source on that claim, it's me, I'm claiming it here.)
In short, it implies that we're not sincere when we make fun of far-out conspiracy theories, but rather that we're only doing it to enhance our social standing.
And the double-standard is evident here, as in any other situation, such "unsubstantive" comments would bring down the chastisement of the mods and the community downvotes. But since the victim is not left-leaning, it's okay.
There's no double standard here. Unsubstantive, funny comments have always been allowed as long as they're not disruptive and are actually funny.
If you don't like being made fun of for bringing up completely unsubstantiated claims as if they were in any way relevant, then don't bring them up. Problem solved.
Did you notice the key words, "in principle," or did you selectively omit them? Do you understand the principle of ganging up on people whom you disagree with and cheering each other on as you do it? Do you really not grok this?
> There's no double standard here. Unsubstantive, funny comments have always been allowed as long as they're not disruptive and are actually funny.
"Actually funny," huh? "Not disruptive"? I guess I've been visiting a different "Hacker News" site, because the one I've been going to quickly downvotes and chastises even the mildest of humor buried deep in a subthread. I stand by the double-standard claim.
> If you don't like being made fun of for bringing up completely unsubstantiated claims as if they were in any way relevant, then don't bring them up. Problem solved.
Funny that you should accuse me of irrelevant claims when you have derailed the discussion multiple times with non-sequiturs of your own invention about extra-terrestrials.
You are not discussing in good faith. Let's end this discussion here. Good evening.
I'm not sure if you got the "three million non-citizen voters" thing from Infowars or directly from Gregg Phillips.
If the former, then you're posting something from a conspiracy site whose other headlines include "ALIENS DO EXIST, SAYS TOP SECRET FBI MEMO" and "THE COMING STAGED ALIEN INVASION."
If the latter, then you're taking at face value something from some random person on twitter.
Either way, it has zero credibility. You're right that I'm not discussing in good faith, because I'm trying to point out how ridiculous your original claim was by doing the same thing back to you. The only difference between yours and mine is that I actually understand that mine is fake.
Did I do it wrong?
As I said, it has been claimed that 3 million non-citizens voted, and a lawsuit is pending, so we shall see.
If it is true, then obviously that is a significant problem, and obviously Clinton would not have won the popular vote. And obviously that would vindicate the Republicans' efforts to institute voter-ID laws, and it would condemn the Democrats' repeated attempts to prevent such laws, and basically implicate them in election fraud. (Not to mention the Scott Foval videos.)
And that is one of the issues surrounding the repeated claim that Clinton won the popular vote, and the implied problem.
No, and who would? ETs have not been proven to exist, and if they did, why would they care about our election? This is a silly non-sequitur; please stop derailing the discussion with it.
Back in reality, non-citizen human beings in the USA obviously do exist, and groups have them have been very vocal about the election (going as far as marching in the streets with foreign flags), and articles in real newspapers (not "fake news sites") have been published recently documenting votes by non-citizens in elections, and videos have been published showing Democrat operatives by name and face admitting to committing election fraud.
This shows party, motive, opportunity, and method. What it does not show is to what extent it has occurred. The only source for the "3 million" claim is one person who has not shown his data or methodology, so of course it is not conclusive, and we should be skeptical. However, given the general evidence of fraud and manipulation surrounding this election, it should not be dismissed out-of-hand either. We should follow the lawsuit he is filing and see what happens.
Now, do you actually disagree with anything I just said? If so, please explain why without making silly remarks about ETs.
Ok but what does that prove or show? Didn't Hillary know she was supposed to get the electoral college votes? I hear many mention that, but doesn't that just make Hillary's team look more incompetent.
As for Trump, he's put a nazi (or alt-right if you prefer) in the White House. He's nominated another racist for AG: Sessions who was considered too racist to be a judge, in a confirmation hearing in 1986. The judiciary committee was led by none other than Strom Thurmond. Thurmond and company thought he was too racist. Thurmond! Let that sink in.
Speaking of foreign donations, the President-Elect has 'invited' foreign dignitaries to stay at the Trump Hotel (the Old Post Office) in DC. Which they are doing so in an effort to gain favor with the new administration. Profits from their stays, of course, goes straight to Trump. Unfortunately for him, this will be quite illegal, and un-Constitutional according to the emoluments clause, as soon as he takes office. This clause will also apply to his foreign holdings, many of which remain in the dark because Trump has decided to be as non-transparent as possible.
Mentioning Thurmond is simply misleading and detracts from the main point that Sessions was rejected from a federal judgeship because of concerns that he was a racist.
The fact of the matter is that Thurmond voted for Sessions.
> On June 5, 1986, the Committee voted 10–8 against recommending the nomination to the Senate floor, with Republican Senators Charles Mathias of Maryland and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voting with the Democrats.
Of course, once in office, those businesses will be administered by the "blind" trust run by his children... and Trump wants to stay in New York a few days a week to "be around his family"... where of course, they won't possibly talk business, right? (That's if they're not accompanying him around the world, be it Ivanka joining in meetings with Japanese dignitaries, his sons being part of his transition team, or peddling his son-in-law as one of his advisors - someone so ignorant of the operation of government that until after the election, he apparently didn't realize that Trump would have to hire advisors to replace Obama's...).
What could possibly be untoward about any of that...?
Not really. Under Obama the federal government raided hundreds (if not thousands) of legal dispensaries and grow operations, and spent hundreds of millions in doing so.