Feelings and responsibility

[LigH]

Politicians, not only the US, also here in Germany consistently and I think in full consciousness bring up a ton of decisions that directly violate our constitutions.

What we're dealing with here is a total lack of respect for the law.

From the government. My ass. If the law limits their greed for power, they change the law. Welcome to the "banana republic".

And what shall we say about "Mister Deluge"?

Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?

Devil may care, let's wipe out the PR staff and start over. What is diplomacy, again?!

[Rigwyn]

I apologize for not apologizing sooner.  Sarras, you implied an idiocy on my part that I think you should know is not there, so I felt no need to respond.

Sadly, there has been no evidence of intelligence on your part in this discussion thus far, so the implied idiocy holds some weight.

Rigwyn, nothing you posted was a sensible argument against what Trump had himself said in the debates and through other media outlets. 

You might want to trace the discussion back a few links. I think you've lost track of what we were discussing.

Like, you can't ask me to prove something he's already readily admitted to.

I... never asked you to do that. >.>

So it didn't seem worth my time to help you diagnose your logic.

LOL. That's quite Ok. I have my logic all figured out.  I've made a point to discuss my points of view clearly and articulately. I think I've been fair and balanced giving credit where credit is due. You on the other hand, are being lazy by trying to just hand-wave this away. Shame on you.

What he has done since he has taken office again proves me right.  As if there weren't a mound of evidence already, now there's this:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/opinion/donald-trump-scouts-tradition.html?mwrsm=Facebook&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com

And now you try to back up your opinion with an OP-ED piece from a media source that is adversarial towards Trump. 

Oh well man at least we didn't get stuck with a woman who (legally) deleted (private) emails, right?

Maybe you could back up Hillary's innocence with an opinion piece written by the DNC and published in a pro-Democrat periodical.
 

[LigH]

OK, Scaramucci is done. Next victim for the hot seat, please?!

[Ralas]

Rigwyn, nothing you posted was a sensible argument against what Trump had himself said in the debates and through other media outlets.
You might want to trace the discussion back a few links. I think you've lost track of what we were discussing. 

Literally every claim I made was directly supported by Trump himself during the debates.  I'm not gonna go back and re-watch hours and hours of video to find where he made statements that are now so public knowledge that your average fourth-grader is aware of them.  Every "logical" statement you made has been DIRECTLY contradicted by Trump or his administration.  At the time of my original postings here these should have been extremely fresh in your mind because he had just said them.  Like literally just said how he believed in stop 'n frisk for instance or some terrible things about varying groups of people.  This is all stuff he has repeatedly stated publicly so there is zero question as to its authenticity.  I figured out pretty quick that Trumpers don't actually CARE about facts so I feel no need to now posthumously hunt things down.  Again, hours and hours of tape i'd have to sift through to find things that were extremely public knowledge.  I'm not gonna spend nine hours leading a horse when he's not gonna drink the damned water anyway.

LOL. That's quite Ok. I have my logic all figured out.  I've made a point to discuss my points of view clearly and articulately. I think I've been fair and balanced giving credit where credit is due. You on the other hand, are being lazy by trying to just hand-wave this away. Shame on you.

No shame on YOU.  See above.  Primary sources.  You go back and watch those debates, read all those pre-election papers if you want.  Most of the things he's doing now were campaign promises, and most of them are gonna be found unconstitutional real fast, like most of the things he's tried to implement.  I admit I'm not that sure what your logic is--it mostly seems to be arguing against things i've said (again despite a mountain of evidence supporting my point publicly available).  It's like you WANT me to dig up old articles and debate clips so i can be like SEE THERE!  But this is busywork--again this stuff is common knowledge.  Meanwhile transgendered folks are banned from the US military and you're like oh the source you cited is biased!  Okay maybe.  Are you claiming he DIDN'T ban those folks from the military?  Are you going to argue that this is somehow acceptable?

Are you claiming he didn't gut the EPA and put a climate-change denier in charge?
Are you claiming he didn't put Betsy Devos, who is anti public education, in charge of public education?
Are you claiming he didn't once say that Mexico wasn't sending us their best people but their "rapists" and "drug dealers" and "maybe some good people too," implying that most Mexican Americans fall into one of the first two?
Are you claiming that one of his goals is not to get stop n frisk nationally implemented, where stop-n-frisk clearly constitutes illegal search and seizure?
Are you claiming he hasn't threatened the press for speaking out against him?
Are you claiming that his chief strategist is not a known anti-semite?

These are all moves that dictators make, that fascists make.  Let's start here.  Tell me what you doubt and maybe I'll find a source for you.  One. Source.  To start with.

To summarize: the reason I haven't cited sources is because all of the things I were arguing were easily verified by things Trump had himself said.  It's like asking me to prove that the Great Wall of China exists; sure I could probably track you down some legitimate articles on its construction and preservation, but you know damned well it's there.  You're wasting my time.  This only blocks further progress and discussion and I don't appreciate it.  Hence, no, shame on you, for using slimy logistic tactics when you know damned well yours is the wrong side of the argument.

[Volki]

Like literally just said how he believed in stop 'n frisk for instance or some terrible things about varying groups of people.  This is all stuff he has repeatedly stated publicly so there is zero question as to its authenticity.

No shame on YOU.

[...]

Meanwhile transgendered folks are banned from the US military and you're like oh the source you cited is biased! 

[...]

Are you claiming that his chief strategist is not a known anti-semite?

[...]

These are all moves that dictators make, that fascists make.

LOL

I really don't get why you people can't just open a history book or even a dictionary. You twist completely innocent statements into "xenophobia" or "transphobia" or whateverphobia as if borders and reasonable discrimination are not legitimate things. Read your constitution. Learn about how the military chooses recruits. Stop parroting your talking points and ruining political discussions with your uninformed emotions.

[LigH]

Reasonable discrimination ... legitimate? Would you enjoy being "legitimately discriminated" (whatever that means, and whoever justified the rules about that) if you were the victim?

History books ... like, Germany 1933?

And, regarding borders:

[Rigwyn]

Literally every claim I made was directly supported by Trump himself during the debates.

We cite our quotes so that others may refer to those sources directly and see what the author of those statements said themselves. When quote someone or claim that someone said something, you should either cite the quote at time of writing or upon request or else retract your statement.. Yes, it's work.

Like literally just said how he believed in stop 'n frisk for instance or some terrible things about varying groups of people.

 I don't agree with stop and frisk in all cases.. I see this as something that should be imposed where needed.. Also, I'm ok with him taking positions that I don't necessarily agree with. Those positions will be challenged and may manifest or a different position may be negotiated. The travel ban is a good example of this. He took an initial position, it was challenged, and as a result, we ended up with a compromise.


 

I figured out pretty quick that Trumpers don't actually CARE about facts so I feel no need to now posthumously hunt things down. 

No need for facts when we can just stereotype and generalize. Is that what you are saying? If it's ok for you to do it, then is it ok for everyone else to do it too?

Meanwhile transgendered folks are banned from the US military and you're like oh the source you cited is biased!  Okay maybe.

It was pretty biased..

As for transgenders in the military, I don't really care. If they want to join they need to own up to what their physical genitalia says they are.. If they can't overcome that tiny obstscle, then they are probably not a good choice for military work. The military is not the Hilton.. Nobody caters to you there.

Regarding the epa and devos, I didn't follow this closely so I'll refrain from commenting for now. I know all about the opinions that are flying around, but not so much the actual facts.




I'm out of time right now.. Will reply later when I have more time.

Are you claiming he hasn't threatened the press for speaking out against him?

The press caters mostly to democrats. They're just being loyal to those who pay them. That's business. This is also why stations like cnn, msnbc, nytimes and the Huffington Post give good coverage to Democrats and bad coverage to republicans. Fox news is one of the very few news outlets that caters to republicans. Fox news is just as corrupt as all the other media outlets. If the news media press is siding with trump's opposition, then why shouldnt he fight back?

Also, when the Democratic national committie is giving loads of money to cnn and msnbc in the form of advertising dollars, who are cnn and msnbc going to favor? Do you think they will bias their news in favor of their sponsors? Yes, this is how business works. Do you really think they care more about providing accurate political news than gaining money from their political allies? For the answer, look at what they are doing.

Stevie Bannon - if he's a known anti semite, then it should be pretty easy for you to back up your claim.. He's alt right, but that's not the same thing as antisemitism.

By the way, calling someone an antisemite or racist without proof is called smearing someone, or defamation of character in certain cases. This is a very dishonest thing to do.

[Rigwyn]

Reasonable discrimination ... legitimate?

Would you enjoy being "legitimately discriminated" (whatever that means, and whoever justified the rules about that) if you were the victim?

No, but that's not how winning works.

And, regarding borders:

L0L

[LigH]

Journalists shall research and investigate ... just in case anyone still cares about facts.

[Ralas]

Riggy:  Your arguments are clearly designed to elicit an emotional  response.  You constantly demand sources without providing any yourself.  You gloss over things like banning transgender folks from the military as "how the military recruits."  You say that Stop and Frisk would be " Okay, where needed."  EG where there is more crime as in lower income communities which TEND not to be white.  Trump knows this very well.  My arguments are fact-based while yours mostly involve (intentionally?) mis-reading what I've written, or missing the point, and trying to send me on wild goose chases proving the existence of the Great Wall.  Yes, you get me worked up and then I can't logic very well, as seems to be your intent.  But you're not logicing well either--your claims on the effects of welfare, for instance, have been disproven time and time again.  Yet still you spout off some mumbo about how you THINK it works.  I have studied this extensively in my teacher education and you're wrong.  I'm not going to track down evidence on it for you to spout off some junk about how my source is presenting "alternative facts" or whatever.  See why i'm reluctant to engage?  Maybe it's laziness.  Maybe I'd be more inclined to do more work if it weren't a moot point now.  Or maybe I'm tired of you intentionally misunderstanding things.

Sarras:  You...people? Who exactly are you lumping me in with?  I've read lots of history books and I know our country's history of atrocity against those who are different.  I'm curious as to what you would consider "reasonable" discrimination?

I'm emotional because you and riggy are too busy insulting me to present good logical constructions.  Yes, this makes me emotional.  I'm human.  But how dare you call me uniformed, or insinuate that my emotions are clouding my logic?  AGAIN EVERYTHING I'M SAYING IS TAKING TRUMP'S WORDS AT FACE VALUE.*

*okay most things.

[Volki]

I'm curious as to what you would consider "reasonable" discrimination?

Reasonable discrimination ... legitimate? Would you enjoy being "legitimately discriminated" (whatever that means, and whoever justified the rules about that) if you were the victim?

Prime examples of what I'm talking about. Many of you haven't studied US laws, the Constitution, or even your own laws. Every adult should learn the laws of their land.

Discrimination is not inherently a bad thing. Everyone discriminates every moment of their waking day just to function. When it comes to law, discrimination involves individuals and groups. Discrimination may either be lawful or unlawful.

Refusing to grant a driver's license to an individual is considered reasonable when that individual cannot safely navigate streets in a vehicle. For example, we do not allow blind people to drive cars on public roads.

The military is even stricter when it comes to recruiting people. Instead of going on a case by case basis (excluding when waivers are applicable), the United States military focuses on statistics in order to waste the least amount of resources on candidates which are likely to not improve the military's fighting capabilities. Blind people are immediately rejected. People with lazy eyes are rejected. People on antidepressants or who have been on antidepressants to treat mental disorder are rejected. People who have had mental illness are rejected. People who were diagnosed with ADHD are rejected.

Basically, if you match the statistic of someone who would require medical attention prior to serving, is statistically more likely to commit suicide, is more likely to not be able to serve for a period of time due to medical issues, or will be more likely than the average recruit to drop out, you're not worth our military's time. Trans people are a huge risk to take in because, if it's someone who intends to transition while in the military, they will be unable to serve at full capacity for at least one of the four years people normally sign on for. Secondly, but very importantly, they have many times the rate of committing suicide than an average person. Thirdly, there is a large statistical proportion of trans people who have mental illness, much greater than the non-trans population.

Europe's militaries are not even comparable to the US military. The militaries that belong to EU countries are by far much weaker.

You don't have a right to serve in the military. It doesn't exist to make people feel good about themselves. It exists solely to protect the nation. It is probably the most collectivistic part of American culture. The individual is not important in the military. If I had any say in it, I'd bar trans people from entering the military, and I'd force parity in standards between men and women to weed out the weak. The military is the one place individualism does not belong.

I'm emotional because you and riggy are too busy insulting me to present good logical constructions.

It's impossible to do so when your claims are not based on logic. All we can do is point out how absurd your statements are.

[Rigwyn]

Is this passive aggressive trolling Ralas? Or maybe you're just not interested in forum debates?

As for me and Sarras calling you out on bs? That's not planned or anything, it's just how forum debates flow. I don't mean to come across as being mean or anything. It's just frustrating... I want to understand the logic behind your point of view, but you're hiding it.

Oh well...

[Ralas]

Just tired of you guys not actually taking the time to read what i'm posting, or responding with non-sequiturs and red herrings (relative to the things I'm saying, I mean.)  And then you insult my logical prowess?  Demand sources without providing any of your own?  (Again when my claims are primarily word-for-word only what Trump himself has stated).  I'm done.

It's impossible to do so when your claims are not based on logic. All we can do is point out how absurd your statements are.

But you're not, that's the thing.  You're going off on tangents about the dictionary definition of "discrimination" when you know damned well it takes on a loaded meaning in this context.  You're saying stuff that has little to nothing to do with the things I've said.  And I'm done.

I'm done.

[LigH]

Discrimination means rejecting a person regardless of their physical or mental ability to fulfill a task, but for reason unrelated to their task.

There are tasks which require an aptitude test to avoid the risk of a desaster caused by incompetence or inability to fulfill it. Driving a car in public traffic belongs to this category. Denying a drivers license to a person who is mentally unable to grasp the traffic rules, or physically unable to handle a car safely, is not discrimination, but protection of public safety. Denying a drivers license to women only due to their gender is discrimination, because it doesn't respect an individual ability of handling a car safely.

A pity that governing a state does not belong to this category, obviously ...

[Volki]

You're going off on tangents about the dictionary definition of "discrimination" when you know damned well it takes on a loaded meaning in this context.

If you think it takes on a loaded meaning, you know absolutely nothing about your own laws. Being fired for having a tattoo is called legal discrimination. Illegal discrimination occurs when an individual is fired due to belonging to a protected class, such as for being a specific sex or race. It can even be legal to discriminate against an individual for being a member of a protected class if not doing so would harm the business.

Denying a drivers license to a person who is mentally unable to grasp the traffic rules, or physically unable to handle a car safely, is not discrimination, but protection of public safety.

So what word would you use to describe the process of denying a certain category of people from driving but allowing people who are not in that category (and don't fall into any other disallowed categories)?

In the United States, it's called reasonable or legal discrimination. People under the age of 18 are denied the right to vote. That is legal discrimination. There is a distinction between legal and illegal discrimination. Denying women the right to vote has been considered illegal discrimination for a long time. Whether or not discrimination is reasonable can affect the legality of that discrimination, but reasonable discrimination is not the same as legal discrimination.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

Certain kinds of discrimination must be outlawed in order for them to be considered illegal. This has been amended in order to outlaw other kinds of discrimination. Even if discrimination is not illegal, it is still considered discrimination.

Even provinces in Canada recognize this: https://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/bulletins_sheets_booklets/bulletins/Pages/when_is_discrim_body.aspx#Reasonable%20and%20justifiable%20discrimination