Just so we're clear, you see AOC and her socialist friends as the same thing as the KKK in that they are both people with dangerous ideas?
how do you say this... and then in response to another post say this... you chide someone for not being able to defend their position and then you type the above...do you have any idea how hypocritical you come across here? you also chide someone for accusing you of not being able to read and in the the next post complain that you are not able to read. what gives???
It is an observed phenomenon that when issues become high-profile and highly partisan, the debate becomes polarized, the tolerance for nuance goes down, and people take rhetorical positions that are more extreme than their policy positions. And I see that happening in spades with the wall debate right now. I don't think Trumpers are really as racist as they sound when they talk about the wall, and Democrats aren't as globalist as they sound when they oppose it. At the end of the day, I think liberals and conservatives alike will be content if we can stop unauthorized flows of people and goods across the border. The policy disagreements are actually elsewhere -- what to do about illegals already in the country, and how much legal immigration to allow. I believe the Admin has decided to get in their thousand reps per day saying "open borders" to drive the debate on these other issues. I think it is effective messaging because it is very simple and avoids all nuance, which as I said isn't tolerated in polarized debates. If you can paint your opponent as an agent of anarchy, you can create fear, uncertainty, and doubt and make people support your position out of fear. You're helping in that effort, wittingly or unwittingly. The Democratic leadership is trying to do the same thing but they have a harder row to hoe. Remember this is rhetoric and not policy, so the message 'we support securing the border to the extent that it is reasonable and cost-effective' isn't really resonant. They say instead 'walls don't work.' That's more rhetorically effective but it's, one, defensive, and two, not that strong. They've tried other, more proactive and combative messaging like, 'walls are immoral,' 'that's not who we are,' and 'abolish ICE.' But they haven't really hit on that magic formula to paint the pro-wall forces as evil. So when you cite examples like some anti-border t-shirt or some slogan, you're telling me about rhetoric. The rhetoric isn't unimportant (if 'we want open borders!' catches fire, that could be dangerous, just like 'Mexicans are rapists' was dangerous), but it doesn't say much about what people believe or what people want, it only tells you about the public position they take. The problem I really have with Trump's wall is that the wall itself is a rhetorical position -- not a policy goal -- that he wants to make into a physical manifestation. He wants it, not for border security or immigration policy, but for the 2020 campaign. It's one thing to stake out a ridiculous rhetorical position so that you can compromise on an acceptable policy goal, it is quite another thing to make me pay for it and accept all the side-effects of it standing there. So anyway, no, you're still wrong that Democrats, even Democratic leadership, want an open border. They want to change immigration policy to accommodate the reality of working class hispanics coming to the US to work. And populists don't necessarily want a 2,000 mile wall. They want policy to drastically increase its commitment to keeping a lid on immigration. An agreement on what border security should look like should be possible if the two sides can de-escalate. The problem is I don't see how to reconcile the camps on what the future of immigration should look like. Maybe if they use the wall distraction to give them space to compromise on immigration policy in the back rooms, but I doubt they're that smart.
This. The GOP/Trump is focused on The Wall because of its symbology not because of its effectiveness. Talking about drones, e verify, and people overstating their visas just doesn’t have that same impact.
Do you see these apples and being the same thing as these oranges? these racist, exclusionary oranges that would deny equal rights to the apples? Kurt EichenwaldVerified account @kurteichenwald 21m21 minutes ago The question for these "wall-nuts": Why? The goal is supposedly border security. Experts say a wall is the most expensive/least effective option. Why must it be a wall? What do you have that says it is worth spending ten times more for less security? Bumper sticker governance. Wall-nuts. godammit, it was right there all the time and I didn't think of it.The oranges are now Wall-nuts.
If anybody but you had posted this, I would have assumed they were mocking Donny. Right now, I'm about 50%/50% on whether your account was hacked by the anti-Trump cabal.
No, I see socialists as WAY worse than mere racists. Racism is clearly a really bad thing, but it has never done anything on par with the horrors socialism has brought to the world. Personally the world would be better off without either if I had a say in the matter.
Read closer and it should be obvious I don't. That's why I said anybody but you? If you weren't hacked I'm confident you think it glorifies Trump. I just don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion.
"New Coke" was ment to replace the original Coke formula and make people forget all about what Coke had tasted like for the last hundred years. Things dont always work as intended, alas.
Can you eleborate and do the body count for each? Also, is Stalin a democratic-socialism representative? Or is there no difference to you? Is Holocoust a racist thing or a socialist thing? I wouldn't put it past you to snake your pseudo-logic for either one of those questions' answers to fit to whatever your agenda for the day might be. Still I'm an optimist and would love to learn something substantially interesting from your knowledgeable great self.
When it comes to body count, when it comes to socialism, we're talking about something like 200 million non-war victims in the last 100 years. As to "Democratic Socialism" the only difference between that and any other form is that people vote for it in the beginning, the end state is the same. Venezuela is your example of "Democratic Socialism" I would qualify the Holocaust as a racist thing, sure. It still pales in comparison to the horrors of what socialism has done. If we want to use the broadest definition for the Holocaust you could get to a death toll of something like 17 million. Hell the "Great Leap Forward" alone more that doubled that in just 4 years. Now there's a lot of really awful things in the world but there's just nothing that can compare to the destruction and mass slaughter that you get every single time socialism is attempted.
"racism" reminds me from 100 million slavery death, racial cleansing of Indians, lynch of blacks, Hitler to recent Jew killings in the US. Those seems really bad horrors.. what "socialism" had done to be on par with those?
Whose side am I on if I want to stop illegal immigration and make better legal immigration options? It requires securing the border (in an appropriate manner) and prosecuting/deporting illegal immigrants to he actual written law of the land...while at the same time increasing the ability for workers to immigrate to the US in a legal manner (get assigned tax IDs, pay into the system, etc.). Who do I support on this one?
Eh, well even if I give you the slavery numbers, and you of course know there was more to that than racism, it still doesn't compare. You'd be comparing 200+ years of slavery to come up with just half of what socialism has done in the last 100 years.....and your number is highly suspect given that it counts many who lived full lives and died of natural causes to inflate the numbers. If we want to use similar standards I'd have to inflate the socialism number to include everyone who ever lived under the tyranny of socialism. When it comes to "racial cleansing of Indians" it's pretty hard to call that "racism" as it was merely 2 different groups fighting over land ownership.....and most of the "Indians" died from disease. When it comes to black people being lynched, sure that would absolutely count.....so that's what, 3,500 people total? Not really moving the needle with that. Hitler we're talking about 17 million total, "jew killings in the US" might add a few hundred. So yeah, while both are awful, one clearly is considerably worse than the other, but again, if I could snap my fingers and rid the world of racism and socialism forever, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Ok, fair enough. BUT....those rhetorical stances matter. Rhetoric is what drives public opinion. Further, I've always said that, in general, politicians aren't stupid....they say things for very specific purposes. So, it's worthwhile figuring out why they say them. Just as many talk about Donald just appeasing his base....the same goes the other way. Nancy wouldn't say something like 'walls are immoral', if there weren't very specific reasons she needed/wanted to say that. So, I disagree with you here: Nancy wouldn't say what she did if she didn't have to to appease a large part of her caucus. In all honesty, there are plenty of examples pointing this out. The far left has become a lot more mainstream. I've had debates with some of them. They openly say they think borders are immoral. Elected Democrats have said similar things. These people are out there...and in greater numbers than I think you realize. Do Democratic leaders feel this way? Mostly, no (not sure about t-shirt guy ). BUT are they concerned about the growing numbers within their party that DO feel that way? I think they definitely are. Yes, agree.
