• 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!

White Nationalist, Richard Spencer turns on Trump after racist tweets.

Trumps a douche, I’ll prolly vote for him again in 2020

Exactly. No one especially likes the guy, but compared to this crap coming down from the Democrats, he looks like Jesus Christ himself. lol
 
AOC+3 is bringing down the party to push a progressive globalist agenda, and it will insure Trumps re-election. She’s a dope

AOC is going to end up in jail if she's not careful. They've already got her on half a dozen campaign violations. Yeah, she's a dope alright. I kind of think she's a bit too stupid to push much of anything. I mean, that's what you get for winning the political equivalent of American Idol.
 
AOC is going to end up in jail if she's not careful. They've already got her on half a dozen campaign violations. Yeah, she's a dope alright. I kind of think she's a bit too stupid to push much of anything. I mean, that's what you get for winning the political equivalent of American Idol.
...and her opponent was a bigger dope. Now in 2020 she’ll be running against a Winner...AOC’s 15 min. are over.
 
Greetings, Moot. :2wave:

Nah, never happen! :rofl:

It's happening now, Polgara. ;)

Look at them, they're tripping over themselves trying to protect a racist while denigrating four young women of color.
 
It's happening now, Polgara. ;)

Look at them, they're tripping over themselves trying to protect a racist while denigrating four young women of color.

Those women do not appear to be overly concerned with his comments about them, though. I don't like the trend that I've been seeing from both sides, since a lot of it looks like "why don't those women just keep their mouth shut and let us run things since they're new to the job," but they have freedom of speech just like everyone else, so if their voters are happy with them, why should anyone else care? Sheesh!
 
Is anyone buying that Trump is just a moderate?
If trump is a radical, I am sure you have more than some offensive languge and the opinions of a radical to back your faith in this bold claim, yes?
 
If trump is a radical, I am sure you have more than some offensive languge and the opinions of a radical to back your faith in this bold claim, yes?

Do you think your language is cordial? Because I don't.

The only people even suggesting that Trump is a moderate is a white supremacist. So where do you stand?
 
Those women do not appear to be overly concerned with his comments about them, though. I don't like the trend that I've been seeing from both sides, since a lot of it looks like "why don't those women just keep their mouth shut and let us run things since they're new to the job," but they have freedom of speech just like everyone else, so if their voters are happy with them, why should anyone else care? Sheesh!

I totally agree, polgara.
 
The only people even suggesting that Trump is a moderate is a white supremacist.
That seem like a very radical position, but I would like to explore your thinking.

So where do you stand?
As I understand it, being a moderate is contrasted with a being a radical. This is to say, one who takes actions departing markedly from the usual. In the context of a president this threshold can be quite low as extremes are unlikely to take power. In terms of mainstream figures in modern American politics: a Bernie Sanders might be said to be a left-wing radical. Ron Paul might be said to be a right-wing radical. From there one can always expand out, a no-new immigrant policy such as that suggested by Anne Coulter would be even more easily called radical. Or UBI by Andrew Yang. Want to get even more fringe and yes we have Richard Spencer types wanting a white ethno state or Willem Van Spronsen's open boarders.

Trump though by any standard is a moderate. Right leaning overall no doubt, but non-traditionalist, centerist on many issues, non-interventionist, a social liberal, protectionistic and far from obsessed with race, let alone enacting policies or actions based on it (a racist in the meaningful sense).

What is he a radical on exactly... Illegal/uncontrolled Immigration(he's pro controled immgration last I checked)? With what the same postions of 90s democratic administration by more insights?

In terms of my view being formed based on me being a white supremacist. I fail to see the logic. I do not consider myself one. I do not associate with any(as far as I know). Trump is not a white supremacist. He does not associate with white supremacists(as far as I am aware). There is no connection. Do white supremacists like trump? I don't know I've never really spent much time with one. I suppose Richard Spencer does, but so what? He's not connected to administration and they are most certianly not on board with his radical ideas. Would they see him as a moderate - of course, he is one and that's bad for radicals. It would be his most disliked trait.
 

What's a progressive globalist? Is that codespeak for something?
I remember as a kid, crackpots used to stand on the corner handing out mimeographed screeds where they were yelling about "internationalists".
Is "globalist" just another word that means "internationalist"?
 
That seem like a very radical position, but I would like to explore your thinking.


As I understand it, being a moderate is contrasted with a being a radical. This is to say, one who takes actions departing markedly from the usual. In the context of a president this threshold can be quite low as extremes are unlikely to take power. In terms of mainstream figures in modern American politics: a Bernie Sanders might be said to be a left-wing radical. Ron Paul might be said to be a right-wing radical. From there one can always expand out, a no-new immigrant policy such as that suggested by Anne Coulter would be even more easily called radical. Or UBI by Andrew Yang. Want to get even more fringe and yes we have Richard Spencer types wanting a white ethno state or Willem Van Spronsen's open boarders.

Trump though by any standard is a moderate. Right leaning overall no doubt, but non-traditionalist, centerist on many issues, non-interventionist, a social liberal, protectionistic and far from obsessed with race, let alone enacting policies or actions based on it (a racist in the meaningful sense).

What is he a radical on exactly... Illegal/uncontrolled Immigration(he's pro controled immgration last I checked)? With what the same postions of 90s democratic administration by more insights?

In terms of my view being formed based on me being a white supremacist. I fail to see the logic. I do not consider myself one. I do not associate with any(as far as I know). Trump is not a white supremacist. He does not associate with white supremacists(as far as I am aware). There is no connection. Do white supremacists like trump? I don't know I've never really spent much time with one. I suppose Richard Spencer does, but so what? He's not connected to administration and they are most certianly not on board with his radical ideas. Would they see him as a moderate - of course, he is one and that's bad for radicals. It would be his most disliked trait.

Given Trump's long history of racism, his flagrant abuse of power and denigration of the rule of law and the constitution and his undermining of almost every democratic institution, you're just spinning your wheels if you think you're going to con anyone besides his avid followers into thinking he's a moderate. He's not just a radical...he's a bonafide extremist on steroids.

Racial views of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

Column: Suddenly, conservative lawyers are condemning Trump for abuses of power - Los Angeles Times
 
What's a progressive globalist? Is that codespeak for something?
I remember as a kid, crackpots used to stand on the corner handing out mimeographed screeds where they were yelling about "internationalists".
Is "globalist" just another word that means "internationalist"?

I believe he was using Alex Jones talking points.

giphy.gif
 
Geezus, man. I don't think I've ever seen a reach, this far! :doh

Given that Kushner is Jewish, it isn't much of a reach for him given his post history and the implications of what he is saying is pretty clear. I have never been able to understand the fascination some have with the Jews controlling everything conspiracy theory.
 
Literally, "running the White House"....

Report: Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner 'running' White House

But why? Oh, money!

Jared and Ivanka, Who “Sacrificed” Everything to Join the White House, Made $135 Million in 2018 | Vanity Fair

You didn't see Kushners 'Peace Plan Proposal', which called for Stephen Schwartzman to become the new King of the Palestinians?

Given that Kushner is Jewish, it isn't much of a reach for him given his post history and the implications of what he is saying is pretty clear. I have never been able to understand the fascination some have with the Jews controlling everything conspiracy theory.
Given that Trump is President, this is a crock!
 
Given Trump's long history of racism, his flagrant abuse of power and denigration of the rule of law and the constitution and his undermining of almost every democratic institution, you're just spinning your wheels if you think you're going to con anyone besides his avid followers into thinking he's a moderate.

Racial views of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

Column: Suddenly, conservative lawyers are condemning Trump for abuses of power - Los Angeles Times
I do appreciate your detailed reply. The problem for me is the case laid out is simply a construction of rhetoric. I am going to go back a while, but when I say Woodrow Wilson was a radical and extreme racist. It's far from empty rhetoric. It's a provable claim. There is not a single claim in the lot you gave that shows trump to have meaningful racial bias let alone ones to counteract the many weighted counter points to any such conclusion. You might has well has said x minority doesn't vote for him as evidence.

Let's take the first 5 examples:

- 1973/1978 court cases for racial discrimination. In neither case is this pointing to a conviction/statement nor a named at fault party being trump. Trump being in top position only adding to how unlikely, if there was discrimination it was based on his actions. So yes, baring a lot more details this is meaningless smear. Are you trying to claim Trump has not provided housing, businesses opportunity, charity, money etc to people based on race? Of course not as there is plethora of evidence to the contrary.

- "Birtherism" The claim promoting this(I do not), especially back before it was widely debunked makes one a racist is complete bunk. There was plenty of fuel for that fire before one gets into racism. No one denying Obama grew up in Indonesia or has a foreign father. And as can be seen by political attacks on Ted Cruise being born in Canada or McCain Panama, this is politics theater not racism.

- central park 5 He's racist because he will not apologize for wanting harsh punishment for horrific rape by people who confessed? Yes they were innocent, a lot of innocent people get convicted. Our justice system needs reform. This is not racial outside a smear.

- "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people"Are you suggesting the Illegal immigration trade doesn't do all of those things in extremely high numbers? You may want this to be about Mexican Americans but the statement isn't its about Mexican Americans it's about the Illegal immigration trade. You know the actual target of his concerns/actions.

- Mexican-American judge This is a racist statement, but it's far from evidence one is a racist as it clearly expressing a genuine worry not unfounded bias. If Judge Curiel is a strong advocate of political positions trump opposed I would hope he would have recused himself, but I don't fault trump for not believe him. Many legal professionals in this country often wear bias with pride no matter how disheartening.

Meanwhile,

President Trump has worked with both side of ideological spectrum, promoted, emboldened and worked with people regardless of race to implement policies he was voted to endorse toward what he believes will make America better and less racially tense. Many metrics showing positive results. He's a moderate by most measures, especially if we comparing and contrasting him to modern presidents and presidential candidates.

In any case, I appreciate the brief exchange it has helped to clarify how some see the political centre in a much different place. To me a right-wing extreme means something more akin to an islamic theocracy attempting to move a society toward 'traditional' norms by force. A left wing extreme a European style legislation of progressive ideals both radical in their attempt to control expression/actions of others to meet an ideological ideal. Thus by being open to both progressive and traditional ideas, open to being wrong, honest even crude with ones expression, maintaining a sense of hope, giving the benefit of the doubt were all signs of being moderate(on either side of the poltical divide).

It seem though for many(right and left) such attributes are now being rebranded as the radical extremes. It seem like controlling one expression to meet an ideological standard, enforcing a personal sense of morality is now being sold as "moderate"? Wanting a sense of honest interplay some evil. I would guess this has even broader implicatons too, and who I saw as a moderate democrat you would see radical and vice versa.

Confusing times. :peace
 
Given that Kushner is Jewish, it isn't much of a reach for him given his post history and the implications of what he is saying is pretty clear. I have never been able to understand the fascination some have with the Jews controlling everything conspiracy theory.

Stay on topic. The most influential person in Trump's WH is Kushner, hands down. Kushner wasn't a suitable choice for Senior Advisor to the President, for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he was denied a security clearance based upon confirmed issues with foreign influence. If you rush to place a halo above Kushner's head, solely based on his ethnic/religious affiliations, then that makes you as blind as someone who would demonize him for it.

Kushner's security clearance was denied due to concerns of foreign influence: report | TheHill
 
What's a progressive globalist? Is that codespeak for something?
I remember as a kid, crackpots used to stand on the corner handing out mimeographed screeds where they were yelling about "internationalists".
Is "globalist" just another word that means "internationalist"?

Hmm, timely post, given that 'International Moneyman of Mystery' Jeffrey Epstein was arrested less than 2 weeks ago, for supplying children to other international moneymen of mystery. Now, what were those crackpots warning about in the 1960s, Check? Hm?

Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery - Nymag
 
Given that Kushner is Jewish, it isn't much of a reach for him given his post history and the implications of what he is saying is pretty clear. I have never been able to understand the fascination some have with the Jews controlling everything conspiracy theory.


Can anyone pick out the Rothschild in this photo?

hugohaas1925a.jpg
 
Stay on topic. The most influential person in Trump's WH is Kushner, hands down. Kushner wasn't a suitable choice for Senior Advisor to the President, for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he was denied a security clearance based upon confirmed issues with foreign influence. If you rush to place a halo above Kushner's head, solely based on his ethnic/religious affiliations, then that makes you as blind as someone who would demonize him for it.

Kushner's security clearance was denied due to concerns of foreign influence: report | TheHill

I agree that he shouldn't be a part of the cabinet, my point is you seem to have an obsession with Jewish people. If my perception is wrong, then I'm truly sorry for any offense, I just can't help but believe that is the case because most of your posts seem to revolve around Jewish people in some way.
 
I agree that he shouldn't be a part of the cabinet, my point is you seem to have an obsession with Jewish people. If my perception is wrong, then I'm truly sorry for any offense, I just can't help but believe that is the case because most of your posts seem to revolve around Jewish people in some way.

Well, thanks for being civil about it Nap, I truly do appreciate it. I feel as though we're being lead into a climate where a person's personal identity shields them from legitimate criticism, and perhaps that has driven me to become a tad more extreme in my views, than I was several years ago. When Ilhan Omar made the most benign comments suggesting that political lobbying is about money, people jumped all over her for saying something we all know to be a simple truth. This disturbs me.
 
I do appreciate your detailed reply. The problem for me is the case laid out is simply a construction of rhetoric. I am going to go back a while, but when I say Woodrow Wilson was a radical and extreme racist. It's far from empty rhetoric. It's a provable claim. There is not a single claim in the lot you gave that shows trump to have meaningful racial bias let alone ones to counteract the many weighted counter points to any such conclusion. You might has well has said x minority doesn't vote for him as evidence.

Let's take the first 5 examples:

- 1973/1978 court cases for racial discrimination. In neither case is this pointing to a conviction/statement nor a named at fault party being trump. Trump being in top position only adding to how unlikely, if there was discrimination it was based on his actions. So yes, baring a lot more details this is meaningless smear. Are you trying to claim Trump has not provided housing, businesses opportunity, charity, money etc to people based on race? Of course not as there is plethora of evidence to the contrary.

- "Birtherism" The claim promoting this(I do not), especially back before it was widely debunked makes one a racist is complete bunk. There was plenty of fuel for that fire before one gets into racism. No one denying Obama grew up in Indonesia or has a foreign father. And as can be seen by political attacks on Ted Cruise being born in Canada or McCain Panama, this is politics theater not racism.

- central park 5 He's racist because he will not apologize for wanting harsh punishment for horrific rape by people who confessed? Yes they were innocent, a lot of innocent people get convicted. Our justice system needs reform. This is not racial outside a smear.

- "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people"Are you suggesting the Illegal immigration trade doesn't do all of those things in extremely high numbers? You may want this to be about Mexican Americans but the statement isn't its about Mexican Americans it's about the Illegal immigration trade. You know the actual target of his concerns/actions.

- Mexican-American judge This is a racist statement, but it's far from evidence one is a racist as it clearly expressing a genuine worry not unfounded bias. If Judge Curiel is a strong advocate of political positions trump opposed I would hope he would have recused himself, but I don't fault trump for not believe him. Many legal professionals in this country often wear bias with pride no matter how disheartening.

Meanwhile,

President Trump has worked with both side of ideological spectrum, promoted, emboldened and worked with people regardless of race to implement policies he was voted to endorse toward what he believes will make America better and less racially tense. Many metrics showing positive results. He's a moderate by most measures, especially if we comparing and contrasting him to modern presidents and presidential candidates.

In any case, I appreciate the brief exchange it has helped to clarify how some see the political centre in a much different place. To me a right-wing extreme means something more akin to an islamic theocracy attempting to move a society toward 'traditional' norms by force. A left wing extreme a European style legislation of progressive ideals both radical in their attempt to control expression/actions of others to meet an ideological ideal. Thus by being open to both progressive and traditional ideas, open to being wrong, honest even crude with ones expression, maintaining a sense of hope, giving the benefit of the doubt were all signs of being moderate(on either side of the poltical divide).

It seem though for many(right and left) such attributes are now being rebranded as the radical extremes. It seem like controlling one expression to meet an ideological standard, enforcing a personal sense of morality is now being sold as "moderate"? Wanting a sense of honest interplay some evil. I would guess this has even broader implicatons too, and who I saw as a moderate democrat you would see radical and vice versa.

Confusing times. :peace
It's easy to see why you're confused, you're a Trump apologist blinded by fake news.

By definition, Trump is a far right extremist.

Far-right politics - Wikipedia

Extreme Right | Defining Extremism | ADL
 
Well, thanks for being civil about it Nap, I truly do appreciate it. I feel as though we're being lead into a climate where a person's personal identity shields them from legitimate criticism, and perhaps that has driven me to become a tad more extreme in my views, than I was several years ago. When Ilhan Omar made the most benign comments suggesting that political lobbying is about money, people jumped all over her for saying something we all know to be a simple truth. This disturbs me.

I think issue with Omar isn't the 1 comment but the regularity she uses anti-semitic stereotypes like dual loyalty, Jews hypnotizing the world, Jewish money controlling the levers of power, etc. This isn't a new allegation from that one comment but something that has been an on going issue with her. Jewish leaders had to confront her about her rhetoric back when she was a Minnesota house rep.
 
I think issue with Omar isn't the 1 comment but the regularity she uses anti-semitic stereotypes like dual loyalty, Jews hypnotizing the world, Jewish money controlling the levers of power, etc. This isn't a new allegation from that one comment but something that has been an on going issue with her. Jewish leaders had to confront her about her rhetoric back when she was a Minnesota house rep.

What you're describing is the misinterpretation of her comments, by other people. For example this tweet

"its all about the benjamins baby"

was misinterpreted as 'the Jews use money to control government'.

It's unfair Nap. You must take her comments at face value, and not credit her as positing a 1,000 year old 'canard' when she didn't.

All lobbying is 'just about the benjamins', but by restricting speech that pertains to the Israeli lobby, you and others are actually fulfilling a stereotype about Jews controlling people. Do you see what I'm saying here?
 
Back
Top Bottom