• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:430]Senate removes phrase 'white nationalist' from measure meant to screen military enlistees

W_Heisenberg said:
Senate removes phrase 'white nationalist' from measure intended to screen military enlistees - CNNPolitics

"The Republican-controlled Senate quietly cut the phrase "white nationalist" from a measure in the National Defense Authorization Act, which was intended to explicitly address the threat of white nationalists in the military, altering the language of a House-passed amendment before passing the massive military spending bill Tuesday.

The House amendment, which was passed in July, was drafted to explicitly study the feasibility of screening for white nationalist beliefs in military enlistees.

But the final version of the bill passed by the Senate and sent to President Donald Trump for his signature now only requires the Department of Defense to monitor for "extremist and gang-related activity," rather than specifically referencing white nationalism."

White nationalism is a problem and the refusal of the Republicans in the Senate to acknowledge it is another sign where the Republican Party is headed.
Click to expand...

Where any other gang related groups specifically named in the bill and not removed?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
The principal threats from extremist groups and gangs are that a) their allegiance is to their own group and not to the Republic, b) the political ideologies associated with white nationalism are at odds with the system put in place by the founding fathers, and c) they are inclined to use violence to achieve their political objectives instead of resolving their differences peacefully.

Clearly, you must see the logic in excluding these types of people from the military?

With respect to maintaining a military based on the concept of civic nationalism, yeah, excluding racist nitwits from the military also makes a lot of sense. I do not in any way find it odd that Trump supporters appear to have a problem with insisting that the phrase "white nationalist" be used. Every day you guys prove to everyone that you are in fact a bunch of racist nitwits.

With respect to the general idea of white nationalists being a problem, yes, they are a problem, and yes they are more of a threat than other political groups.

And, I have NO idea why you and other Trump supporters keep choosing this particular hill to die on, but I'm starting to consider the possibility that Trump supporters are, in fact, racist jerks.

Notable extremist attacks and plots in 2019 | Southern Poverty Law Center

The radicalization of white Americans - Vox

View attachment 67275965
Click to expand...

Do you have the incidents? Who is The Investigative Fund? Who heads it? What are his political leanings? I can't be expected to just believe a chart. White supremacy is about as much of a problem as the KKK today. IOW, a nuthin' booger, But...lefties like to think they are heroic and stopping imaginary problems so they can think they are some sort of heroes.
 
Paradoxical said:
Do you have the incidents? Who is The Investigative Fund? Who heads it? What are his political leanings? I can't be expected to just believe a chart. White supremacy is about as much of a problem as the KKK today. IOW, a nuthin' booger, But...lefties like to think they are heroic and stopping imaginary problems so they can think they are some sort of heroes.
Click to expand...

This is the main person behind the Investigative Fund:

David Neiwert, The Investigative Fund, Author at Reveal

These are the people behind the organization that published the findings.

Staff | Reveal

This is the methodology used by the Investigative Fund:

How we analyzed domestic terror incidents | Reveal

Now, where is your data?

It's time for you to put up or shut up.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
This is the main person behind the Investigative Fund:

David Neiwert, The Investigative Fund, Author at Reveal

These are the people behind the organization that published the findings.

Staff | Reveal

This is the methodology used by the Investigative Fund:

How we analyzed domestic terror incidents | Reveal

Now, where is your data?

It's time for you to put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

David Neiwert is a freelance journalist based in Seattle. He is a contributor to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project and the author of numerous books, including And Hell Followed With Her: Crossing the Dark Side of the American Border, winner of the 2014 International Latino Book Award for Nonfiction. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, the American Prospect, Salon, and numerous other publications.

'nuff said
 
Paradoxical said:
Do you have the incidents? Who is The Investigative Fund? Who heads it? What are his political leanings? I can't be expected to just believe a chart. White supremacy is about as much of a problem as the KKK today. IOW, a nuthin' booger, But...lefties like to think they are heroic and stopping imaginary problems so they can think they are some sort of heroes.
Click to expand...

Might I suggest that you start your education with "FBI struggles to confront right-wing terrorism " and go on from there?
 
Paradoxical said:
David Neiwert is a freelance journalist based in Seattle. He is a contributor to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project and the author of numerous books, including And Hell Followed With Her: Crossing the Dark Side of the American Border, winner of the 2014 International Latino Book Award for Nonfiction. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, the American Prospect, Salon, and numerous other publications.

'nuff said
Click to expand...

So we'll totally ignore the

Through public databases and Freedom of Information Act requests, we collected primary court and law enforcement documents for almost every incident and carefully examined them, in combination with credible news coverage, to check whether each entry met the FBI criteria that define domestic terrorism. Incidents that met the definition were included, regardless of whether prosecutors filed terrorism charges. Some incidents inevitably involved judgment calls. To adjudicate those, we turned to a panel of experts: William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at the Syracuse University College of Law; Bruce Hoffman, director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University; and Daryl Johnson, former senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, now the owner and CEO of consulting firm DT Analytics. They provided guidance on whether to include or exclude borderline cases, such as those related to hate crimes, mental illness and confrontations with law enforcement.
[SOURCE]
​

bit and go on from there.

In short, "I don't like the author so I'm not going to look at the evidence.".

REALLY "'nuff said.".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
So we'll totally ignore the

Through public databases and Freedom of Information Act requests, we collected primary court and law enforcement documents for almost every incident and carefully examined them, in combination with credible news coverage, to check whether each entry met the FBI criteria that define domestic terrorism. Incidents that met the definition were included, regardless of whether prosecutors filed terrorism charges. Some incidents inevitably involved judgment calls. To adjudicate those, we turned to a panel of experts: William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at the Syracuse University College of Law; Bruce Hoffman, director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University; and Daryl Johnson, former senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, now the owner and CEO of consulting firm DT Analytics. They provided guidance on whether to include or exclude borderline cases, such as those related to hate crimes, mental illness and confrontations with law enforcement.
[SOURCE]
​

bit and go on from there.

In short, "I don't like the author so I'm not going to look at the evidence.".

REALLY "'nuff said.".
Click to expand...

See my above comment. This classification nonsense is just to cover ISIS and make it seem like nutsos in the US are just as bad. It's PC nonsense
 
Tigerace117 said:
Cling to your birtherism and your confederate flag bud. Keep blithering about how non racist you fantasize shrieking about how the first African American president was a secret Muslim commie is. The ignorance of your claims is downright hysterical.
Click to expand...

Keep lying and making **** up because you lack a real argument. [emoji2369]
 
Paradoxical said:
Right wing terrorism is a bullshirt story, like CNN reporting on something. They include all kind of nutsos in their terrorist category and say they are right wing. It's all liberal BS. They way they classify a terrorist is BS.
Click to expand...

I've always been an admirer of those who could actually practice the "If Reality Isn't What I Want It To Be Then Reality Is BS" philosophy and manage to both not giggle continuously AND stay out of "The Home".
 
Paradoxical said:
See my above comment. This classification nonsense is just to cover ISIS and make it seem like nutsos in the US are just as bad. It's PC nonsense
Click to expand...

I've always been an admirer of those who could actually practice the "If Reality Isn't What I Want It To Be Then Reality Is BS" philosophy and manage to both not giggle continuously AND stay out of "The Home".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I've always been an admirer of those who could actually practice the "If Reality Isn't What I Want It To Be Then Reality Is BS" philosophy and manage to both not giggle continuously AND stay out of "The Home".
Click to expand...

Projection.
 
Re: Senate removes phrase 'white nationalist' from measure meant to screen military enlistees

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Hmmmm. So youre saying White Nationalists are not bad people? Interesting... But given you are a Republican. Understandable..
Click to expand...

Indeed, they're what are now known as "very fine people" to most of the Trump base.
 
JustHanging said:
Yep. If we're going to look at why this measure is being removed, we only need to look at Trump's campaign strategy:

Trump and G.O.P. Candidates Escalate Race and Fear as Election Ploys


Obviously Trump is going to help his base.
Click to expand...

Now, lemme see before I respond just who wrote this blog...............BRB................

Well, well, well. Whooda thunk??? It's from none other than the New York Times!!! LMAO

Get back to me when you have something from a serious blogger.
 
Paradoxical said:
Now, lemme see before I respond just who wrote this blog...............BRB................

Well, well, well. Whooda thunk??? It's from none other than the New York Times!!! LMAO
Click to expand...

You might want to learn something about how to evaluate information sources. Read this, and at least try to be as knowledgeable as 12 year olds:

Evaluating Websites - Velma Bell Hamilton Middle School - LibGuides at Madison Metropolitan School District

And then you won't need to trust me when I tell you that Stormfront is not a good information source.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Again..

Classic projection from you.
Click to expand...

Trump is constantly projecting, so it isn't surprising people who share his values and principles are doing the same.
 
JustHanging said:
That's what's known as a Tu Quoque Fallacy. Maybe try putting together a coherent argument before you reply?
Click to expand...
You're trying to appear knowledgeable and it doesn't suit you. Instead you should focus on what the Democratic candidate for President actually said.
 
JustHanging said:
You might want to learn something about how to evaluate information sources. Read this, and at least try to be as knowledgeable as 12 year olds:

Evaluating Websites - Velma Bell Hamilton Middle School - LibGuides at Madison Metropolitan School District

And then you won't need to trust me when I tell you that Stormfront is not a good information source.
Click to expand...

Ummm, your previous link was to the New York Times. A well know far left wing newspaper who, like CNN and MSNBS, is stocked with radical left wingers intent on having Trump removed from office. I call the "reporters" bloggers and have seen better articles from bloggers.
 
Paradoxical said:
Ummm, your previous link was to the New York Times. A well know far left wing newspaper ...
Click to expand...

Dang, you're working extra hard today to be one of those people Trump really loves eh.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
You're trying to appear knowledgeable and it doesn't suit you. Instead you should focus on what the Democratic candidate for President actually said.
Click to expand...

Look, I understand, you are incapable of putting together a coherent argument, so you're forced to rely on fallacious reasoning.

The post you replied to was about Trump and the Republican party's use of racism and fear as campaign strategies, thus of course they want White Supremacist removed, that's their base. I provided a reputable source. Heck, they Republican party has been using the Southern Strategy to gather all the racists under their banner for over 1/2 a century.

So factually both Trump and the Republican Party see you, your family, your friends, as cowardly racists. Do you mind me asking why you support a group and a person who thinks so lowly of you and your family?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom