• 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!

Turns out Steven Miller's family were refugee immigrants

ataraxia said:
So surely you must disagree with the Trump proposal to get rid of the courts hearing the cases of asylum seekers at ports of entry.
Click to expand...

if he is doing it at ports of entry then that does violate how the law is written.
 
ataraxia said:
What is dishonest? Trump wanted a complete Muslim ban. He got elected to do it. He Only backed off and submitted a watered down and reworded version when the courts told him he could not do it.
Click to expand...

no he didn't and there was no muslim ban. The SCOTUS even said that was the case when they upheld the decision.
again please just stop with the dishonesty.
 
ludin said:
no he didn't and there was no muslim ban. The SCOTUS even said that was the case when they upheld the decision.
again please just stop with the dishonesty.
Click to expand...

There was a Muslim ban. That was the initial proposal. What the Supreme Court upheld was the watered down version the Trump administration was forced to submit after the initial proposal was ruled unconstitutional.
 
ataraxia said:
How are "the times" different now than in the past that we should now just shut the door on anyone fleeing persecution, warfare, famine, etc...?
Click to expand...

Unemployment, downward pressure on wages, social welfare....

Lots of things. Surely you don't think nothing has changed in the last 200 years? That would fall under willful ignorance.
 
JasperL said:
I don't actually agree. It's a form of pulling up the ladder after you made it up
Click to expand...

:shrug: you are merely saying the same thing I am, then.

But as I said on another response, maybe hypocrite isn't the best term, so spoiled, entitled, ignorant and ungrateful asshole works for me as well, for both men actually.
Click to expand...

I would certainly agree with that as applies to Trump. They are or are not those things, however, regardless of their position on the best application of immigration policy. People do not become evil simply because they come to a different political conclusion than you do.

And the Obama/slaves example was as bad as anything I've seen in a long time, just for the record.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the example was to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the logic that one must always support any policy which has ever impacted your family in such a way that you yourself are either a partial result, or can be said to have benefited. And, as your own reaction demonstrates, it was effective in that purpose.
 
KevinKohler said:
Unemployment, downward pressure on wages, social welfare....

Lots of things. Surely you don't think nothing has changed in the last 200 years? That would fall under willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean. The US economy have never been better. It's certainly doing much better than 200 years ago.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: you are merely saying the same thing I am, then.

I would certainly agree with that as applies to Trump. They are or are not those things, however, regardless of their position on the best application of immigration policy. People do not become evil simply because they come to a different political conclusion than you do.
Click to expand...

Depends on the "political conclusion" doesn't it? Miller's "application of immigration policy" that involves demonizing brown skinned immigrants has everything to do with that alternative label.

The purpose of the example was to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the logic that one must always support any policy which has ever impacted your family in such a way that you yourself are either a partial result, or can be said to have benefited. And, as your own reaction demonstrates, it was effective in that purpose.
Click to expand...

It's the worst example I've seen in quite a long time. And if pulling the ladder up after you make it isn't a form of hypocrisy, what is? Or if you prefer, you can use my alternative label if we're going to get hung up on the correct term.
 
ataraxia said:
I am not sure what you mean. The US economy have never been better. It's certainly doing much better than 200 years ago.
Click to expand...

I...don't even know how to grace this with a comment.


Are you suggesting open borders would be fine, minus the criminal element?
 
KevinKohler said:
I...don't even know how to grace this with a comment.


Are you suggesting open borders would be fine, minus the criminal element?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. We may be talking about somewhat different thingshere, and that’s why it may seem like we are talking past each other. The problem of illegal immigrants is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed. It’s like the problem of speeding drivers. But it is is not so significant as to warrant this level of drama- calling for Berlin Wall type of barriers, treating the folks caught without regard to even basic human rights, and militarization of the border like we were at war or something. This was a problem that peaked back in 2007, and has been dropping since. There is actually now a net negative immigration from the US to Mexico. So I am having a real tough time understanding all this level of drama and angst all of a sudden. Yeah, sure- maybe we can increase more staffing at the border, or more and better surveillance equipment. But what we are getting now is the equivalent or roadside executions of drivers who speed even mile over the 55 mph speed limit- and if someone objects, saying that they don’t want people respecting the law. But this level of drama and draconian actions are not respect for the law. It’s just raw paranoia, and is not necessary.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
Depends on the "political conclusion" doesn't it? Miller's "application of immigration policy" that involves demonizing brown skinned immigrants has everything to do with that alternative label.
Click to expand...

If so, I haven't seen it. I have seen lots of lefty's claim that being skeptical of the benefits of additional immigration automatically makes one racist, but since that is an incredibly stupid argument so clearly based on their desire to avoid dealing with the implications of policy by launching baseless ad hominems, I tend more to dismiss those who make it.

It's the worst example I've seen in quite a long time. And if pulling the ladder up after you make it isn't a form of hypocrisy, what is?
Click to expand...

So indeed, Michelle Obama is a hypocrite, then?

As, I suppose, is single individual who has ever made less than $15 an hour, who advocates for increasing the MW to that number. Having gotten into the job force and worked their way up by developing skills and experience, they now obviously wish to deny that opportunity to others.

Probably it's because they hate brown people.
 
cpwill said:
If so, I haven't seen it. I have seen lots of lefty's claim that being skeptical of the benefits of additional immigration automatically makes one racist, but since that is an incredibly stupid argument so clearly based on their desire to avoid dealing with the implications of policy by launching baseless ad hominems, I tend more to dismiss those who make it.
Click to expand...

You're not looking. For some reason, white supremacists love what Trump is doing, and it's not because immigration from Europe is going to go down.

So indeed, Michelle Obama is a hypocrite, then?
Click to expand...

Because she opposes the great benefit of having generations of blacks sold into slavery, their kids sold from them, beaten, raped, lynched, whipped, etc. Yes, a hypocrite. That's very comparable to Jews and millions of other immigrants and refugees coming here as free people the moment they set foot in America.

As, I suppose, is single individual who has ever made less than $15 an hour, who advocates for increasing the MW to that number. Having gotten into the job force and worked their way up by developing skills and experience, they now obviously wish to deny that opportunity to others.

Probably it's because they hate brown people.
Click to expand...

Whatever. The argument that Miller is not a hypocrite is straightforward enough without crap analogies.
 
JasperL said:
You're not looking. For some reason, white supremacists love what Trump is doing, and it's not because immigration from Europe is going to go down.
Click to expand...

Because White Supremacists got behind Trump, being an immigration hawk is racist.

This is a terrible argument.

Nazis believed in large state intervention in the economy. Ergo, anyone who wants Medicare-For-All hates Jews.

:roll:


Because she opposes the great benefit of having generations of blacks sold into slavery, their kids sold from them, beaten, raped, lynched, whipped, etc. Yes, a hypocrite. That's very comparable to Jews and millions of other immigrants and refugees coming here as free people the moment they set foot in America.
Click to expand...

If the argument is "because a set of historical incidents has led to your birth in the United States, where you can succeed, you must therefore support anything that resembles or can be compared to the policy instrument by which your ancestors came here, or else you are a hypocrite", then the logic applies even where the results are not what we like.

That's why the logic is so. Very. Stupid.
 
cpwill said:
Because White Supremacists got behind Trump, being an immigration hawk is racist.
Click to expand...

That's not the argument.

If the argument is "because a set of historical incidents has led to your birth in the United States, where you can succeed, you must therefore support anything that resembles or can be compared to the policy instrument by which your ancestors came here, or else you are a hypocrite", then the logic applies even where the results are not what we like.

That's why the logic is so. Very. Stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes, your logic is stupid. Amazingly in fact.
 
JasperL said:
That's not the argument
Click to expand...

Sure seemed to be your argument. Miller loathes brown people because white supremacists came out for Trump.
 
JasperL said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Arguments-about-Arguments are the dumbest arguments. To point out, however:

JasperL said:
Miller's "application of immigration policy" that involves demonizing brown skinned immigrants has everything to do with that alternative label.
Click to expand...
cpwill said:
If so, I haven't seen it. I have seen lots of lefty's claim that being skeptical of the benefits of additional immigration automatically makes one racist, but since that is an incredibly stupid argument so clearly based on their desire to avoid dealing with the implications of policy by launching baseless ad hominems, I tend more to dismiss those who make it.
Click to expand...
JasperL said:
You're not looking. For some reason, white supremacists love what Trump is doing, and it's not because immigration from Europe is going to go down.
Click to expand...

Sure does seem like that's your argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom