or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 144

post #2146 of 8748
Okay, now I feel aggrieved--not over racism but over intellectual dishonesty. Just take a look at the fucking horseshit maneuever munchausen attempts: I'm going to say something sweeping and imbecilic about history! But when confronted with at least an attempt to talk facts and realities, I'm going to say, "Hurr hurr I don't want a history paper you never say nuthin'." So actual content is dismissed; the only thing that counts might be grunting assents to some moronic chant like AMERICA WAS ENGLISH LETS KEEP THE NON-ENGLISH OUT.

But in the spirit of the jokes above, what's fascinating to me (and imbeciles can be genuinely fascinating) is how munchausen actually can't say what he probably thinks he's saying. That is, he mixes up "English" for "European" (for "white") and then he keeps chanting "Latin America" when he probably means "brown." Which is a fascinating mix-up. "Latin America" is "Latin America" (in name, but also partly in reality) because of a imperial/colonial history that is European rather than brown in its imagination. The importation of "Latin" into "America" signals an attempt to affiliate European projects in the Western Hemisphere with Roman imperialism. And in an extra juicy tidbit, "Latin" actually does connote an indigenous population--the one that Aeneas mythically united with through marriage after successful warfare.

All of which to say, the language of munchasen's stupid racism is actually much smarter than munchausen himself. The language itself turns a stupid appeal to indigenous character (brown people are like this; white people are like this) into BOTH a question of native / settler relationships as driving history AND an internecine conflict within European cultures and nations as to who gets to the be the genuinely heroic conquerors and settlers ("English?" "European?" "Latin?" monarchical? republican? English republican? Roman/Latin republican? Catholic? Protestant?).

tl;dr: divided history of empire in the Western hemisphere is far more complex and interesting than stupid racism that can't even articulate itself properly
post #2147 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseract View Post

The scariest part of Bernie sanders trying to control economic policy in the United States is he seems to be totally unable to handle his own salary. As a senator who makes 176k a year his net worth is a measly 500k. What the fuck has he been doing with all of his money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I believe that the financial disclosure numbers don't include retirement accounts, which would make his numbers reasonable if not inspiring for his salary.

Yeah, federal retirement accounts, like the TSP, are excluded. From the disclosure forms:

Exclusions:
Exclude any retirement benefits from Federal Government employment (including the Thrift Savings Plan) and any social security benefits. Exclude also any deposits aggregating $5,000 or less in personal savings accounts in a single financial institution (unless listed as a source of income). Personal savings accounts include any certificate of deposit or any other form of deposit in a bank, savings and loan, credit union, or other similar financial institution. You may also exclude any assets of your spouse and dependent children which meets the three-part
exemption test defined above.

Forms and instructions are here:

http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/financial-disclosure-forms

If Bernie has been putting the max in since 1991, he probably has a million or more in that account.
post #2148 of 8748
A little Google-foo on Bernie seems to indicate his current wife/former LTR is president of a college? She probably earns a decent salary and benefits too.
post #2149 of 8748
How is it racist to point out cultures are not equal? I can give you a ton of metrics to show they are not.

Does not matter if you agree with munchausen on history of USA/immigration. calling someone a racist over allegedly being wrong is fucked up. But you're a leftist so I shouldn't be surprised.
post #2150 of 8748

I have to applaud eric for thoroughly arguing his point every time. (Even when the other person has no interest in a real back and forth)

post #2151 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

How is it racist to point out cultures are not equal? I can give you a ton of metrics to show they are not.

The allegation wasn't that all cultures aren't equal, it was that increased Hispanic immigration is making the US have higher inequality and more corruption. Because Hispanics are bringing it with them and it's contagious or some shit. That's an....aggressive statement.

Quote:
Does not matter if you agree with munchausen on history of USA/immigration. calling someone a racist over allegedly being wrong is fucked up. But you're a leftist so I shouldn't be surprised.

You're getting pretty lazy with the "leftist" ad homs.
post #2152 of 8748
it's incredible to me that, after all the explanation, eric's point is still completely misinterpreted. then again, it might have to do with all that explanation, especially when it turns away from his collocutor. i've never particularly enjoyed soliloquies...
post #2153 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Because Hispanics are bringing it with them and it's contagious or some shit. That's an....aggressive statement.
.



Bedbugs, diseases, rapes, murders, DUIs, cheap labor . . .

And the Mexican government is coaching the invaders on how to become voting citizens.

What's not to celebrate?
post #2154 of 8748
So a train of consciousness ramble after a few drinks...

What's a meaningful disambiguation between culture and race? Meaningful as in a tool for discussion. I don't like asking that question, as I think "race" is pretty much a bogus construct in the US Census type way, but it seems like culture develops in a location and a location usually seems to have a fairly homogeneous genetic pool. Now obviously if you drop a "white" baby into a family that lives deep into Mongolia the baby will identify with the culture it was raised in, which is to say thinking a culture is tied intrinsically to a race is obviously bogus, but it does seem culture and isolated/homogeneous gene pools develop together to a large degree so I can see why a shorthand of culture = "these people" could happen.

White Anglo Saxon Protestants now seems to be okay to apply to any white person that is financially successful. Nordic, Germanic, Catholic Scot....doesn't matter as the skin colour and SES gets you deemed to be a "WASP."

I got nothing.
post #2155 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Bedbugs, diseases, rapes, murders, DUIs, cheap labor . . .

And the US government is coaching the invaders on how to become voting citizens.

What's not to celebrate?

FTFY
post #2156 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

[W]hen confronted with at least an attempt to talk facts and realities...

There's something I can get onboard with. The fact and reality is that hispanic immigrants (that's a broad brush -- let's be honest here, we're mostly talking about mestizos) are not benefiting the country. They're not bringing important skills, and the labor that the immigrants are supplying is only needed because of artificial conditions created by the government. Their descendants are settling into a racial underclass that votes left and harms American competitiveness, equality, and freedoms. Why should anyone want this?
post #2157 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Republicans often just assume that anybody who isn't white is a Democratic voter, but there's nothing intrinsic about that.

Florida is rather add in that there are many, many Republican latinos. At least half Cuban, but a ton from Colombia, Venezuela, etc....

Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

The Republican Party is already changing.  There is the national narrative, but Republicans are winning state elections time and time again.  They're dominating most state legislatures and winning more governorships.

Not to get all Heraclitus on you, but the party changes with every new registration, every person leaving, and every election. Republicans are winning and the unadvertised part is they are winning with quite a few brown people. Hell, the first Haitian-American Congressman is a Republican woman from Utah.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

At the moment, the Democrats are driving out white voters faster than they're picking up others.

I'm one of them. When you ridicule words like "accountability", "self-sufficiency", and "religion" as some sort of right-wing drivel, you've lost the Blue Dogs democrats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Minimum income, for instance, is something even the vast majority of Dems knee jerk against so I'm farther to the left than the vast majority of Dems concerning a topic that's very important for the safety net and what has been dubbed the "inequality issue.".

As someone who has spent almost his entire career in the administration of public assistance, I suspect we are of the same mindset. There are almost 100 federal programs for low-income Americans, all requiring hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats like me to administer. And administer rather poorly. Give every American above the age of 18 $15,000 a year, get rid of all other federal low-income assistance, and let the states do whatever else they want to. You would save billions, if not trillions.

These Wars on Poverty, and Terror, and Drugs.... they tell us the end justifies the means. But to paraphrase the great Nick Harkaway - don't give me that nonsense. There is no end. Just the means. And we live the means.
post #2158 of 8748
Minimum income is in theory a good idea but the politics of it would ruin it imo. A large subset of the poor would spend their monthly minimum income in a wild weekend and would be on the news asking who was going to feed their kids. Before we knew it minimum income would be $10k per month. I don't think that a democracy like ours has the heart to say "you blow all your money then too bad suckers".
post #2159 of 8748
To respond to wojt's "How is it racism" question and, partly, Piob's more interesting question (in bullet points as an attempt to cut down on the soliloquizing that shah mentions):

- nobody's even mentioned the stupidity of describing "Latin America" (read: most likely all of Central and South America) as if it's all politically and economically the same down there (read: shitty). So that's gotta be the lowest form of racism--i.e., sweeping a population with a broad brush

- a lot of my point (which ataturk acknowledges by focusing on a mestizo population) is that the historical development of "Latin America" was altered by unwelcome and uninvited colonial/imperial encroachment (duh) that led not only to biological intermingling but also to cultural/political structures; then, subsequently the development of Latin America was shaped by a history of European and American interventions (ranging from the well intentioned to the deplorable)

- ethically and logically, the impulse toward American nativism doesn't make any sense. Munchausen gives it away when he begins to articulate a simple form of racism (children should look like their parents! Ethnic purity is good!) but then can't even figure out the terms or history that would allow that to make sense (Americans were English! No wait European!). This confusion is easily explainable in all sorts of ways: the American colonists from England were English, fine, but they also underwent cultural change--not to mention hereditary change as well. But, at any rate, these American English people weren't even natives (duh), so we're back to pitting one form of colonial encroachment against another. (Those dirty Spaniards and Portuguese and whatever they did down there! Hooray for the English! French and Dutch maybe okay! But none of this matters because I want to keep brown people out, not Europeans, even the tawny ones!)

- practically, we need an immigration policy that makes sense, not building a fucking wall. Ataturk's point that Latino (mostly Mexican) immigrants don't do valuable work sounds like utter bullshit to me. We all know if we eat at restaurants or buy vegetables, prices are kept low by immigrant (sometimes illegal immigrant) labor. And that "they're taking the jobs that honest hardworking Americans really covet" horseshit has been proven to be horseshit (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/georgias-harsh-immigration-law-costs-millions-in-unharvested-crops/240774/).

- at any rate, the simplest point obtains: the anger over immigration really honestly is the same shit we learned about in history class (or should have)--about how appealing to xenophobia works to score political points from angry mouthbreathers
post #2160 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

- nobody's even mentioned the stupidity of describing "Latin America" (read: most likely all of Central and South America) as if it's all politically and economically the same down there (read: shitty). So that's gotta be the lowest form of racism--i.e., sweeping a population with a broad brush

I always thought of racism as including some form of harmful intent. Otherwise, aren't prejudice and stereotyping are somewhat removed?
Quote:
- practically, we need an immigration policy that makes sense, not building a fucking wall. Ataturk's point that Latino (mostly Mexican) immigrants don't do valuable work sounds like utter bullshit to me. We all know if we eat at restaurants or buy vegetables, prices are kept low by immigrant (sometimes illegal immigrant) labor. And that "they're taking the jobs that honest hardworking Americans really covet" horseshit has been proven to be horseshit (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/georgias-harsh-immigration-law-costs-millions-in-unharvested-crops/240774/).

This is not entirely accurate, as he didn't bemoan the loss of jobs Americans covet but rather stated clearly that they bring skills of no importance, an effect facilitated by inept government policies. I want to ask him, though ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

There's something I can get onboard with. The fact and reality is that hispanic immigrants (that's a broad brush -- let's be honest here, we're mostly talking about mestizos) are not benefiting the country. They're not bringing important skills, and the labor that the immigrants are supplying is only needed because of artificial conditions created by the government. Their descendants are settling into a racial underclass that votes left and harms American competitiveness, equality, and freedoms. Why should anyone want this?
Are these "artificial conditions" created by an enforced minimum wage that results in employers seeking cheaper, illegal labor ? In that case, I would argue the government is not at fault but profiteering is the main driving factor (i.e. you can't argue that somebody is forced to break the law). If that's not the case, can you be more explicit in defining the artificial conditions and how they may come about?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field