The Trump Presidency

thethe said:
I'm fine with immigration as long as those immigrants support themselves. I do not feel that people should get to come into this country and receive benefits from taxpaying citizens.
Click to expand...

why do you single out immigrants from third world countries...is there something particularly odious about us
 
nsacpi said:
why do you single out immigrants from third world countries...is there something particularly odious about us
Click to expand...

The third world country comment was out of line and it was my conspiracy theory thoughts blurting out.

I don't think any immigrants should be entitled to benefits from taxpayers.
 
nsacpi said:
And what do we do with the native born who lose their jobs or for whatever reason find themselves in need of the social safety net, including those who have never paid into the system.
Click to expand...

I'm supportive of a safety net for US citizens. The parameters of those though are worthy of debate.
 
nsacpi said:
I have lived in Berkeley and Oakland and have seen in person the destructive actions of hard left groups and anarchists. I'm not sure there is anyone around here who would not denounce the violence of such groups. Some elements of those groups were present in Charlottesville. To focus on that is to miss entirely what really happened there.
Click to expand...

But the focus is not on them at all. And that also misses what happened there.
 
thethe said:
The third world country comment was out of line and it was my conspiracy theory thoughts blurting out.

I don't think any immigrants should be entitled to benefits from taxpayers.
Click to expand...

so a legal immigrant is not entitled to send their children to a school funded by taxpayers?
 
LOLGOP‏ @LOLGOP 5m5 minutes ago

It's important to blame people willing to stand on both sides of Donald Trump.

DHWyKf6XgAI1M1J.jpg
 
thethe said:
Now you are just getting into semantics. You know exactly what I meant by entitlements.
Click to expand...

public education meets pretty much every definition of a publicly provided entitlement...but suppose someone comes here legally...holds a job for several years...pays taxes including taxes into the unemployment insurance system...gets laid off...as a matter of public policy should their claims on unemployment benefits be different from citizens?
 
nsacpi said:
public education meets pretty much every definition of a publicly provided entitlement...but suppose someone comes here legally...holds a job for several years...pays taxes including taxes into the unemployment insurance system...gets laid off...as a matter of public policy should their claims on unemployment benefits be different from citizens?
Click to expand...

Yes - There should be a time frame when they are not eligible for benefits but after they pay into the system I'm all for them getting benefits if they fall on hard times.

This is of course with just legal immigrants.
 
thethe said:
Yes - There should be a time frame when they are not eligible for benefits but after they pay into the system I'm all for them getting benefits if they fall on hard times.

This is of course with just legal immigrants.
Click to expand...

Time frame? You seem to be backing away from your claim immigrants should not have eligibility for benefits. Most immigrants (other than children or the elderly) start paying into the system very soon after they get here. Not that there aren't abuses. And those should be dealt with. By changes in law if necessary. But in general there is not abuse by immigrants of the benefits system in this country. No more than native born people gaming the system.

And we don't come here as part of a covert program by liberals and Democrats to tilt the political system. Some liberals and Democrats may think that. But that is naive wishful thinking on their part.
 
nsacpi said:
Time frame? You seem to be backing away from your claim immigrants should not have eligibility for benefits. Most immigrants (other than children or the elderly) start paying into the system very soon after they get here.
Click to expand...

There needs to be a time period where they are not eligible for benefits. Doesn't matter if they work immediately.

And illegals should never receive benefits here in all forms.
 
Hawk said:
The bolded statement is where I get off the bus (and the perfect example of the equivalence I was referencing, so thank you for that). Do you not see where claiming that an individual is "aligned" with white supremacy is defamatory? How is that relevant beyond the context of the rally? Do you think that it is?

Your objection is to the players, not the game, and that's duly noted and perfectly reasonable.

Anyways, I agree. Why all the hair-splitting? Why is Trump's rebuke suddenly not a rebuke? Show me where, specifically, he refused to criticize white nationalists or neo-Nazis?

Maybe it's because I'm too rational. Maybe it's because I'm not sensitive enough. But it's really easy for me to separate the Nazis from the White Nationalists from the White Supremacists from the ALT-Right from the Redneck Revolt from the Anti-FA from the BL Movement. I can put the good players here, and the bad actors there, and the legitimate grounds for protest here, and the illegitimate grounds there. I don't need (or want) to blend it all together to make sense of it all.
Click to expand...

Who were the good players in Charlottesville?

It's interesting that you cite your superior rationality, but still object to the statement about honoring the confederacy.

The Confederacy was, explicitly, an insurrection with the goal of creating and maintaining a society that deemed slavery as the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization."

Monuments to the Confederacy, and the veneration of Confederate symbols (as with the flag in our state and others) honor the Confederacy, which was an explicit expression of codified white supremacy.

So in elevating them, we both honored the history of this explicit system of white supremacy and, quite often, did so in a specific context that was intended to promote and uphold a contemporary system of white supremacy. If you scratch the surface of when and why these symbols were elevated, and over whose objections, it's clear as a bell.

Fast forward to today, when those same symbols and markers are cherished by people who advocate an explicitly white supremacist worldview.

Taking a legal position that these symbols are allowed to be displayed by others has been litigated and re-litigated and is pretty well understood. Supporting the continued elevation of symbols of white supremacy in our public spaces (which is what "liking" them means, right? We're not talking about aesthetic preferences here, are we?) given the context provided above is categorically different. It doesn't make one a white supremacist, per se, but it does align one with 150 years of white supremacy. That may be unpleasant, but I don't see how it is defamatory.
 
Anyone who doesn't think free thought and speech are under seige in this country has been asleep for the last 10 years.

I mean, I just read the list of micro-aggressions that will get you suspended at a college campus.

I just read that a google employee got fired because he asked a thoughtful question.

I remember the CEO of mozilla as fired because he said he didn't support gay marriage.

I am being told that not wanting to tear down a statue of Robert Lee makes you a nazi

c'mon people.
 
I've asked twice and have gotten one incomplete answer...

but are we willing and ready to start tearing down any monument of a slave owner?
 
Julio3000 said:
Who were the good players in Charlottesville?

It's interesting that you cite your superior rationality, but still object to the statement about honoring the confederacy.

The Confederacy was, explicitly, an insurrection with the goal of creating and maintaining a society that deemed slavery as the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization."

Monuments to the Confederacy, and the veneration of Confederate symbols (as with the flag in our state and others) honor the Confederacy, which was an explicit expression of codified white supremacy.

So in elevating them, we both honored the history of this explicit system of white supremacy and, quite often, did so in a specific context that was intended to promote and uphold a contemporary system of white supremacy. If you scratch the surface of when and why these symbols were elevated, and over whose objections, it's clear as a bell.

Fast forward to today, when those same symbols and markers are cherished by people who advocate an explicitly white supremacist worldview.

Taking a legal position that these symbols are allowed to be displayed by others has been litigated and re-litigated and is pretty well understood. Supporting the continued elevation of symbols of white supremacy in our public spaces (which is what "liking" them means, right? We're not talking about aesthetic preferences here, are we?) given the context provided above is categorically different. It doesn't make one a white supremacist, per se, but it does align one with 150 years of white supremacy. That may be unpleasant, but I don't see how it is defamatory.
Click to expand...

I dare say Confederate symbols today would be regarded as "quaint" if they were not being used by white supremacists and neo-Nazis to advance their cause. There are people who have a sincere desire to protect Confederate symbols independent of any political agenda. I think it is a weird hobby. But one I can respect. And I respect the fact that those people are very concerned the adoption of those symbols by white supremacists and neo-Nazis is placing those symbols in jeopardy. I doubt very much that the white supremacists and neo-Nazis share that concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top