(November 10, 2016 at 5:53 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 5:51 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: No I would not. Nor did I.

It is not racist for a sovereign nation to physically secure its borders.
It is not racist to escort foreign nationals who enter a country illegally back to the countries of which they are citizens.
It is not racist to deny foreign nationals social services available to native or naturalized citizens.
It is not racist to exclude foreign nationals from participating in the political affairs of their host nation.
It is not racist to restrict immigration to skilled and talented applicant who can positively contribute to society.
It is not racist to limit the number of legal immigrants to that which can be reasonably assimilated.
It is not racist to stop people ideologically opposed to a country's principles of governance from entering that country.
It is not racist to deport foreign nationals that have committed crime back to the countries of which they are citizens.

No, sorry, but there is implicit racism in advocating for at least some of what's on the list.

Adding the qualifier "implicit" can be misleading. If you mean that some of those policies would disproportionately affect some demographic groups then you are correct. Effective immigration policies will always affect the populations of neighboring countries more than the populations of distant ones. That does not make them essentially racist. The question is not whether or not there are disparate effects; but rather, if those disparate effects result from fairly or unfairly applied policies.

(November 10, 2016 at 5:55 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 5:51 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: No I would not. Nor did I.

It is not racist for a sovereign nation to physically secure its borders.
It is not racist to escort foreign nationals who enter a country illegally back to the countries of which they are citizens.
It is not racist to deny foreign nationals social services available to native or naturalized citizens.
It is not racist to exclude foreign nationals from participating in the political affairs of their host nation.
It is not racist to restrict immigration to skilled and talented applicant who can positively contribute to society.
It is not racist to limit the number of legal immigrants to that which can be reasonably assimilated.
It is not racist to stop people ideologically opposed to a country's principles of governance from entering that country.
It is not racist to deport foreign nationals that have committed crime back to the countries of which they are citizens.

So, I simply go out on a limb and assume you know the exact terminology he used to make all of the above claims. Don't play stupid. You're only fooling yourself since nobody else will be fooled by that pathetic attempt of yours.

So your objection isn't really with the policies themselves; but rather, how an inept non-politician presented them. You value form more than substance.

Personally, I'm a fan of public protest, but it seems that it should be done in furtherance of some achievable goal. I really don't think these particular protestors are going to make Trump say, 'Golly, people don't like me. I decline the presidency.'

Boru

(November 10, 2016 at 4:48 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 4:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Saying everyone who voted for Trump is a racist bigot is just stupid.

If racism and bigotry plays a large role in any candidate's or party's narrative, the ones voting for them are at least comfortable with that part of the package. I wouldn't know what else to say about people who heard his comments on Mexicans and muslims, his constant mockery of certain people, such as the disabled journalist he parroted in one of his speeches.

It's abundantly clear what this person represents, what he plans to do to minorities, how he thinks about women. So, yes. I can't help feeling contempt for everyone having heard all of this, witnessed all of this and still voted for that man. At the very least they don't mind and that's the most benign explanation I can come up with.

But that's the thing. I said "They very reluctantly voted for Trump." "They did not like Trump." "They were forced to choose between what they felt was the lesser evil of 2 very bad choices." 

...And the comments he made, etc, were the reason why these good people I know did not like him and hated the fact that he was the candidate. 

I guess feel free to judge them if you want, feel free to say my father and my friends are racist bigots. You don't know them. I do. I choose not to judge.

(November 10, 2016 at 2:46 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 2:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote: They did not "pick" Clinton.  Bernie lost.  She won.  Face it.  It was the same stupid process when Clinton lost to Obama in '08.

They did however influence the primaries (by generally siding with Hillary from the start). That can have an impact. Had Bernie been treated fairly by the DNC, then perhaps we would be having better days now. Anyway, it's just speculating. No one can really tell what would be happening now if Bernie had been able to win the primaries.

Where is it written that they cannot have a preference?  You had a life long democrat and a life long independent and you are wondering why they chose the democrat?  Seriously???

(November 10, 2016 at 6:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: But that's the thing. I said "They very reluctantly voted for Trump." "They did not like Trump."

I don't want to attack your parents. Sadly I have to pick this up, since you present that example for the second time. It doesn't matter how reluctant they were. If they didn't like Trump or Clinton they could have stayed at home. By voting for Trump they were endorsing what he represented thoughout his campaign. They contributed to the victory of a man spewing nothing but hatred and exclusion as the main ticket he was running on.

I could never do that. I despise people doing something like that. Quite a big issue for me, given that my family was persecuted some 80 years ago. Never, never in my whole life, will I muster any kind of understanding for people taking that train. Nor do I want to. They are aiding and abettíng that mindset. They are aiding and abetting hatred, exclusion and resentment against whole demographics. Their reasons for doing so don't matter to me at all, since it was a voluntary decision to go out and vote for that creature.

(November 10, 2016 at 6:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: But that's the thing. I said "They very reluctantly voted for Trump." "They did not like Trump." "They were forced to choose between what they felt was the lesser evil of 2 very bad choices." 

...And the comments he made, etc, were the reason why these good people I know did not like him and hated the fact that he was the candidate. 

I guess feel free to judge them if you want, feel free to say my father and my friends are racist bigots. You don't know them. I do. I choose not to judge.

There were plenty of choices.  There was the choice not to make a choice.  There was the choice of Evan McMullin.  There was the choice of Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein.  There was the choice of asking Mitt Romney to run again.  There was the choice of rallying against Donald Trump before he got as far as he did.  Let's not pretend there were only two choices.  The choice people chose was to 'reluctantly' support a bully.  A sexist, racist, xenophobic bully.  Doing so reluctantly means you still do so.

I just love it when someone deigns to make something personal, shares damning specifics, and then gets upset when people tell them what they should have already known.

Isn't there an "I'm with the Racists" tshirt or something out there, somewhere? Stocking stuffers for "reluctant" trump voters.

Trump enjoyed double the voting rate amongst Black and Latino voters that Romney had. And considering the closeness of the election, it would be reasonable to conclude Trumps 'What do you have to lose?' remark was the clincher for many of those voters.

So, are there thoughts along the lines of "if only they knew and appreciated what I know they would not have voted that way" in the minds of these protesters in the streets ??

(November 10, 2016 at 7:51 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Trump enjoyed double the voting rate amongst Black and Latino voters that Romney had. And considering the closeness of the election, it would be reasonable to conclude Trumps 'What do you have to lose?' remark was the clincher for many of those voters.

I wonder why these immortal lines come to mind when reading this. Especially the clincher part.

Quote:She had my balls in a vise, but she left the dick
I guess it's still hooked on, but now it shoots too quick