Is Donald Trump a racist and a bigot?

Tim Spalding made this claim in another thread, so I asked for proof.

One note to add: When we say a person is a racist, what do we mean?

1) That he made one racist comments
2) That he made twenty racist comments
3) That every comment he makes about a specific race is negative
4) That every comment he makes about anything is racist and could fit a ten yottabyte drive

No, he's an opportunist.

Now that might be true.

I can't see into his soul, but I suspect his racism is largely merely opportunism and egoism. He doesn't believe in the inferiority of women, Mexicans or Muslims so much as the in the inferiority of everyone to himself. Attacking these and other groups doesn't irk him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was laying off some other groups for political reasons.

However, yes, he has made numerous racist statements and actions—more than a few and less than a yottabyte, as you put it. And, unlike some others who've "slipped" (such as Maine's governor, Paul LePage), he doubles-down and intensifies his bigotry when questioned.

>1 barney67: Tim didn't say that Trump was a racist in that thread, but he did denounce his "loudly proclaimed and completely open" racist statements which isn't really deniable. For proof you can go any debate or speech he's given in this political season.

>1 barney67:

In judging whether someone is a racist, I'm more inclined to look at his actions rather than what comes out of his mouth.

"the inferiority of everyone to himself"
Well, yes, that's pretty clear, isn't it? Polticians are fairly narcissistic. Obama certainly is, as in his refusal to listen to advisers about fighting terrorism when they clearly know better.

It takes a large ego to want to be president. And, perhaps, a certain amount of stupidity. Leaders have to be a little puffed up to get the job done. The meek may inherit the earth, but they'll get swallowed up in politics.

As you know, I don't care for the man. But I have had enough of the accusations of racism and sexism. The unholy trinity of race, class, gender needs to be taken down so we can get back to talking about the facts and how life is actually lived.

Was Jefferson a racist because he owned slaves? I don't know. But we've all been taught to admire him.

I've heard Trump say some sexist things, I guess. He seems to have a problem with women, but also with people in general. Hard to tell. The guy's such a showman, such a carnival barker, that's it's hard to know what he really believes.

I haven't heard any racist statements unless you're referring to his remark about deporting every Muslim in America. Hard to believe a guy as smart as Trump meant that seriously. Therefore it was calculated to achieve an effect. He's good at that. Like a behaviorist. Like an advertiser.

Push the button, get the banana.

6 -- Good point.

I would guess that a person who started a thread of this nature is probably very racist and very, very defensive about it.

In judging whether someone is a racist, I'm more inclined to look at his actions rather than what comes out of his mouth.

Maybe we don't want to give him power before we see how he'll use it :)

If what we say doesn't matter then lying is a virtue.

I would guess that a person who started a thread of this nature is probably very racist and very, very defensive about it.

Let me remind you of the Terms of Service. You are not allowed to call a member names. You can call a statement or idea a name, but not a person. You know this. Don't do it.

>10 timspalding:

True dat!

>11 southernbooklady:

Who said it didn't matter? But there's a saying that actions speak louder than words. It's a question of the weight to be put on each.

>13 lilithcat: Who said it didn't matter?

Saying something you don't really believe to win an election or achieve some goal suggests an "ends justify the means" strategy.

there's a saying that actions speak louder than words

Sure, it is usually invoked when we are comparing what a person has done with what he/she says he/she is. But speech is a kind of action. Especially in an election season.

>12 timspalding: I think 9 is borderline; but nonetheless I think given you're 'one of the folks' position here in this group you might want to be less autocratic and not simply say, 'Don't do it.' Those are asshole words.

ETA: Besides, I am pretty sure you agree with what I said in the post.

>6 lilithcat: "In judging whether someone is a racist, I'm more inclined to look at his actions rather than what comes out of his mouth."

If one takes this literally, it would mean Dylann Roof would not be considered a racist until the moment he shot up a church.

>16 theoria: I agree. Why not start a new thread asking if trump is sexist? The thread itself is nonsense, and seems to me a cheap effort to provoke. (And wouldn't it be nice if the only racists in the US were those who made it explicit.)

Any implicit racists in mind, Rick?

'They' aren't had to sniff out.

^ 1-18

I think you all are playing darts and no one has hit the center yet - except Tim - who insinuates that Trump is a narcissist. That one word really does sum up who and what Trump is.

He is a reality show host. This whole campaign of his is a reality show type of performance art, dedicated by himself to himself.

If Trump has any personal opinions that could possibly exist outside of his creamy narcissistic center then they would be classified as liberal and/or populist by most people. So that is nice.

The thing is - if in the unlikely scenario Trump is elected POTUS then I don't think anyone would have a reasonable starting point to predict what he would do or not do. He might just take advice straight up from knowledgeable people in each field and rubber stamp their advice as he would have no clue what to do differently if anything.

OTOH, with a President Trump, we might see him go all Napoleon/Hitler/Mussolini and then have to be arrested and carted off. It would be a bitch, would it not, if the first thing out of Trump's mouth after being sworn in is "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

What I am saying is - narcissism comes in different flavors and we can never know how dangerous this one is until someone gives him power of a Presidential level.

I am unconvinced that a President Trump is any more likely than a President JGL53. But I will be convinced by the facts if the actual facts show up on November 8.

>20 JGL53: lqarl

>17 RickHarsch: One almost wishes the Presidency on Trump. The Tea Party pitchforks would expect him to live up to his promises. He would have about six months to "Make America Great Again" before their guns would come out.

>15 RickHarsch:

Whether Tim agrees with the sentiment is entirely otiose.

Interesting to compare Trump activities during the civil rights era with Sanders':

...one of the biggest federal housing discrimination suits to be brought during that time, put a spotlight on the family empire led by its 27-year-old president, Donald Trump, and his father, Fred Trump, the chairman, who had begun building houses and apartments in the 1930s. The younger Trump demonstrated the brash, combative style that would make him famous, holding forth at a news conference in a Manhattan hotel to decry the government’s arguments as “such outrageous lies.” He would also say that the company wanted to avoid renting apartments to welfare recipients of any color but never discriminated based on race...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-...

>23 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Are you sure?

Pretty much certain.

Is pointing it out otiose, grumpy?

ETA: I think Jesse is enough a friend I can call him grumpy without violating TOS, but if he prefers charges I plead guilty of involuntary violation of TOS.

I prefer crotchety.

Despite the rocking chair granny connotations?

>29 RickHarsch: it's whittlin' ole grand daddy connotations.

I can see the young JW whittlin and snarlin like an ole timer

Litmus test: Jesse, do you whittle?

A serious question: has there been any correlation demonstrated between narcissism and bigotry? That is, are narcissists more likely to be racists, sexists, xenophobes, etc., than non-narcissists? Conversely, do racists, sexists, xenophobes, etc. have a higher percentage of narcissists among them than the general population does? I'm not sure where you would start looking for data on the subject; studies of people with narcissistic personality disorder, perhaps?

>32 krolik:.

No...

This conversation reminds me of a co-worker from my mid 20's. J had a good 15 years on me and would regularly tell me I was entirely too young to be as bitter and cynical as she thought I was. I was never quite sure how to respond to that... "Don't worry, J, I'm sure I'll grow into it..."

Edited for x-post.

>33 artturnerjr: Google is your friend: "narcissism and racism"

>35 theoria:

Indeed it is. Googling "narcissism and racism wiki" is even better, coughing up this highly relevant passage:

Research has examined factors influencing tolerance, in particular ethnic tolerance, prejudice, and trust. Authoritarian personality has been associated with prejudice and intolerance. Education has an inverse association which is stronger in established democracies than in emerging. Different groups are viewed differently and including illegal groups in tolerance surveys may reduce tolerance levels in all countries except the United States. Increased contact with other groups increase tolerance. Increased perception of threat, including from the home land of an ethnic minority, reduces tolerance. Competition over jobs reduces tolerance and occupational segregation reduced ethnic conflicts and ethnic prejudice in studies in the United States and Yugoslavia. Tolerance is increased by democratic stability and a federal system. Increased ethnic heterogeneity increases tolerance up to a point but beyond this tolerance decreases. The negative effect of increased ethnic heterogeneity is stronger when looking at larger areas such as nations compared to smaller areas such as neighborhoods. This may be due to the contact effect being relatively more important at local levels while the threat effect becomes more important in larger areas. One study, published by Carl Bell, revealed that "racist attitudes may be indicative of a narcissistic personality disorder or of a regression to primitive narcissistic functioning secondary to environmental forces."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Research_on_influencing_factors

I asked for proof of Trump's open and loudly proclaimed racism and biogtry, to paraphrase our leader Tim.

I don't know if Tim meant to fuse the words racism and bigotry. I'm surprised that my dictionary defines bigotry only as intolerance of opinions different from one's own. In that case, most people are bigots.

I'll stick to racism since that's the accusation so many people like to make today. Is Trump a racist? More specifically, has he made racist statements? I don't follow the news all that closely, not like I did. I can't think of any racist statements, open or hidden, Trump has made. I'm not a big fan of reading between the lines, subtexts and hidden meanings, so let's keep it simple and ask whether Trump has made any racist statements. So far, no one has brought up any.

I remember one statement about his desire to deport all Muslims living in America. You can't call that racism because Islam isn't a race. It's a religion. You could call it an anti-Muslim comment. He retracted it the next day, but still.

>37 barney67:

has he made racist statements?

Well, for starters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-ab...

I don't consider the Huffington Post reliable. Try again. A more mainstream source.

>39 barney67:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/04/trump-stands-by-views-dangerous-mexic...

Better? If not, there are links in the Huffington Post article to other websites. You can also check YouTube. This stuff is very widely documented.

I would have accepted AP, New York Times, USA Today, etc. since I know you're biased against Fox. Whatever.

Would you quote the statement(s) you find racist?

^

- Missing the point, guys. Trump is about as racist as the late George Wallace.

I.e., not really.

Wallace said a lot of really racist things - mainly dog-whistles, but he was never really much of a racist. At the beginning of his political career he was the liberal guy in Alabama politics - the pragmatic one who tried to talk sense to people - until he saw that was getting him nowhere in a hurry. Then he began saying what he had to say - to win in Alabama - and became a successful politician - a winner - which was his goal, and pretty much his only goal.

One can surely view Wallace and Trump as amoral opportunists who are or were oriented to narcissism rather than to desiring to be leaders based in some principled views.

Really, one is foolish to take ANYTHING a politician says at face value. They are generally scum analogous to the proverbial used car salesman.

Except for a few of them. E.g., Bernie Sanders. You can take that mudderflocker's word to the bank, make a deposit and earn considerable interest.

lol.

>41 barney67:

I know you're biased against Fox.

Not without reason.

Would you quote the statement(s) you find racist?

"...{T}hey're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people" is disingenuous and misleading at best, racist at worst. I lean toward the latter interpretation.

>42 JGL53:

Oh, I agree. I agree even more fundamentally with what said >4 timspalding: said: "He doesn't believe in the inferiority of women, Mexicans or Muslims so much as the in the inferiority of everyone to himself." "Misanthrope" is, I think, a more accurate characterization of Trump than racist, xenophobic, or whatever. Trump is filled with contempt with everyone who isn't as great as he is, which, in his view, describes everyone other than himself. The adulation of his supporters unfortunately only increases this sentiment.

The statement in 43 isn't necessarily racist because he isn't criticizing all Mexicans, all Mexican immigrants, or even all illegal Mexican immigrants. Obviously you see the quaifying phrases. It isn't their race he's criticizing, it's the behavior of a certain number of illegal immigrants. You could ask whether these people exist or whether Trump is inventing them.

>45 barney67:

You could make that argument. But, as I indicated above, I feel that it's mischaracterizing Mexican immigrants, making it sound as though the majority of them are drug lords and/or rapists, which I'm reasonably sure is not the case. It may not be straight-up racist (and please note that at no point am I making the argument that Trump actually believes any of this stuff), but it's cynical and opportunistic and it panders to the racist stereotypes of Mexicans held by too many Americans, which IMHO is just as vile and dangerous, if not more so. That is, if this sort of thing were being said by some random ignorant racist, it would bother me a lot less than it does hearing from Trump, whom I genuinely believe knows better.

>45 barney67: The statement in 43 isn't necessarily racist because he isn't criticizing all Mexicans, all Mexican immigrants, or even all illegal Mexican immigrants.

"They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people." Heck, just "some, I assume, are good people" is an incredibly bigoted statement against any group. "Some white people, I assume, are good people", for example. The certainty and lack of qualifying phrases on the previous statements just amplify that: "They're rapists".

"Some white people, I assume, are good people"

Isn't this true? Some are, some aren't. So?

>42 JGL53: - Missing the point, guys. Trump is about as racist as the late George Wallace.

No, your missing the point. Despite the first post in this thread, Tim never said that Trump was racist only that he had made racist statements.

"Tim never said that Trump was racist only that he had made racist statements."

What's the difference?

The statement in 43 isn't necessarily racist because he isn't criticizing all Mexicans, all Mexican immigrants, or even all illegal Mexican immigrants. Obviously you see the quaifying phrases. It isn't their race he's criticizing, it's the behavior of a certain number of illegal immigrants. You could ask whether these people exist or whether Trump is inventing them.

Look, it's not all Jews I'm against. It's only the rich, money-grubbing, filthy, loud-mouthed communist Jews with the big noses who run the media, killed Christ and drink the blood of Christian children. Not all Jews. After all, I'm the least antisemitic person you have ever met!

I'm not sure at this point who if anyone is "winning" this "argument", but in reading over this thread I would have to say I am. Though that could just be prejudice speaking.

> 20 You had it won at #20--now it's yours to lose.

> 53

Are you comparing me to Hillary Clinton? If so then that is a filthy insult up with which I will not put - and I would claim a violation of the TOS.

Tim?

51 -- Heh. Well...no. That isn't quite it, is it? That's what you heard, but that's not what Trump said. I don't mean literally. I know you're making an analogy. I mean you did a bad Trump imitation. You got the complaining right but not the complaint. Actually, you exaggerated the complaining.

Which in itself is telling. The post suggests a certain mind that reads between the lines before reading the words themselves. There's nothing between the lines but white space -- and thefore a chance for the reader to create his own meaning. I suppose we all do it. Strong feelings and partisanship can get in the way of clear thought.

I see this all the time. Readers misinterpret what I say, they assign it meanings it doesn't have, put words in my mouth, set up straw men, jump to conclusions, write impulsively, battle imaginary boogeymen, blow off steam. Often they don't even get the vocabulary right. Literally they can't read literally. I tell them to go back and read my post again. They do, but sometimes they simply repeat themselves. They think they are reading verbatim, but they aren't. I've even been accused of redefining words to suit my own purproses -- and this after quoting the dictionary! Curiouser and curiouser.

It must be annoying to see me write "Is that what it says?" repeatedly. But we have to start on common ground, agreeing on what a particular text actually says, before analyzing its merit. Otherwise what's the point?

I hope this thread has shown that accusations like "racist," "bigot," and "sexist," among others, ought to be used carefully, precisely, and sparingly. It's really just name calling, isn't it? I thought we were past that.

>48 barney67: Is it true? The person who said that statement, taken literally, isn't sure. That's what "I assume" means.

So?

Exactly. If you find yourself asking "why was this said?" you need to remember that human communication isn't all about the literal meaning, especially when people are saying obviously literally true things.

> 55 Readers misinterpret what I say, they assign it meanings it doesn't have,

It's funny how that's never your fault.

Sometimes things don't mean what they literally say. The Southern Strategy as stated by Republican strategist Lee Atwater:

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now that you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is that blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Stuff like that has a long history of infecting political discussions.

>50 barney67: What's the difference?

Pretty much what you asked about in the first post. Namely that not everyone that makes one racist statement is a racist. And if we limit the discussion to racist statements we can actually discuss what someone actually is on record as saying instead of having to read their minds.

> 57

Yes I agree. That politically-incorrect thing is real. E.g., more than once when I have made a reference to race - or to sex - in what some asshole "sensitive" person believes is contextually inappropriate - then I have gotten immediately labeled a racist or sexist. It has been pointed out by people smarter than I am that generally the problem is among younger, college-educated children who are trying to take some higher ground, morally-speaking, and thus are seeking approval from their cohorts and just getting general praise for being so sensitive to how certain speech "hurts" put-upon minorities (or in the case of women, put-upon majorities).

But there is such a thing as racism and sexism. Such bad attitudes do exist and it is necessary and proper to label them as such. But there is a real debate here as to what is what.

I think Trump's statement's on Mexicans can be defended as not necessarily racist, knee-jerking notwithstanding. His take on Muslims is somewhat, to say the least, problematical. However, even there, let's be honest. He is a politician running for office and wants to win. He knows he must appeal to the very most ignorant republican voter, so he says what he sees is necessary. I've no doubt that he harbors no ill-will toward Muslims specifically. I suspect he even has rich friends who are Muslims and/or he has business "deals" with rich Muslims.

If Trump has any real filthy prejudices I suspect poor people are at the top of the list.

And women.

Trump does seem to have a problem with respect regarding women and not so much with men per se. I think that is real. Trump is fine with women who flatter him or tell him they like him, will vote for him, and don't get in his face in any way. Those that do? - he immediately goes for the specific "women are bimbos" language. Or "she's just on her period" jokes. Etc. And Wow - that is hard to defend. Even when you have women spokespersons and women surrogates.

But I am told (and I have not said this) that women like bad boys. And Trump certainly qualifies. So a certain goodly percent of his supporters are women. All I can say is "Go figure."

"It's funny how that's never your fault."
– That is funny, isn't it? Did I ever say it's never my fault?

If a reader has a problem with what I wrote, he should quote my post, then describe the problem he has. I don't mind objections when they're reasonable. But it's hard to respond when someone misreads or misinterprets what I wrote.

"human communication isn't all about the literal meaning, especially when people are saying obviously literally true things."

– I don't know what this means because it looks like a contradiction divided by a comma.

I know that not every meaning is literal. There's metaphor, simile, hyperbole, suggestion, irony, insinuation, Clintonspeak. But on a forum like this, words are what we have to go on. If someone says that Trump makes racist statements, I would like to see those statements. Then I would like to see it explained why the statement is racist. This seems obivous to me. It's a simple, declarative sentence, stated casually as if it were self-evident. Well, it isn't. Doesn't this thread prove that? That one ought not to blurt out accusations without some justification?

If you were accused, wouldn't you want the same scrupulousness applied? Or have you let yourself off the hook, the rules don't apply to you, because it's impossible that such a thing would ever happen?

"Namely that not everyone that makes one racist statement is a racist."
– How many racist statements does a person have to make before you or anyone else calls him or her a racist? What's the qualifying amount?

human communication isn't all about the literal meaning, especially when people are saying obviously literally true things.

– I don't know what this means because it looks like a contradiction divided by a comma.

If I tell you "Dogs bark.", it's not to inform you about a property of dogs. You know that, because I know you know that dogs bark. What I do mean by it is context-dependent, but there's a good chance I'm denigrating dogs. I told you something obviously literally true, so you should look deeper.

If someone says that Trump makes racist statements, I would like to see those statements. Then I would like to see it explained why the statement is racist.

The first is reasonable. The second is slightly less. But your persisting in denying our explanations does not mean they haven't been explained.

The funny thing is that the statement that is most racist, taken in the most bloody literal way, you've been arguing against. "Some of them, I assume, are good people" is equivalent to "I assume some of them are good people", which literally means "I lack the evidence to say as a statement of fact that some of them are good people."

I'm unaware of denying explanations. Run them by again.

I get the "dogs bark" example. It's a good one. But it doesn't apply here.

"bloody"

Aha! A Brit! Now why would a Brit spend time arguing American politics on an American web site? I would never do the opposite. I don't care at all about British politics. But I do think Kate Middleton is attractive. And I like Tony Blair, though he is a man of the left.

You may be right about this point: When he says, "I assume," that suggests he has no personal experience with illegal aliens. As far as I know, neither do I. Do you?

On other hand, he owns hotels. How can he not have experience with illegal aliens?

>61 barney67: If he assumes that some of "them" are good people then it suggests that he has better evidence that many of them are bad people.

>61 barney67: And I like Tony Blair, though he is a man of the left.

I doubt whether many people "of the left" would still classify Tony as one of them.

>61 barney67: Aha! A Brit!

Wow. What a leap. Completely wrong, too; while I'm told that I have been in the UK as a child, I haven't actually been out of the US as an adult.

When he says, "I assume," that suggests he has no personal experience with illegal aliens. As far as I know, neither do I. Do you?

By that logic, "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people." suggests that he does have personal experience with illegal aliens, as drug mules, criminals and rapists.

Really? I've never heard anyone but a Brit use "bloody" as an expletive. Remarkable.

>65 barney67:

Never heard an Australian speak? A Kiwi? An Indian? An Irish? A South African (although with Afrikaaners it tends to come out more like "bleddy")?

But while it's not as common in US parlance as elsewhere, prosfilaes is certainly not the only person from across the pond who I have heard (or in this case read) using it.

He is an opportunist who cares more about his image than the country. Don't let him be our president, please!

Never heard an Australian speak?

I have my iPhone set to the male Australian voice. It bugs the heck out of my son.

across the pond

Are we in a 1920's musical?

>68 timspalding: Are we in a 1920's musical?

Talking about Trump? Seems like it!

>69 John5918:

No, the phrase "across the pond."

I wish we were in a musical, not real life, with Trump. Maybe Sondheim could do it justice. I'm not sure Cole Porter could handle Trump.

No, but I have heard Jamaicans say "mon."

"I have my iPhone set to the male Australian voice. It bugs the heck out of my son."
-- Ha!

>70 timspalding: the phrase "across the pond."

Would you say it is archaic? It's not something that one hears every day, but still not unheard of, I think, at least on our side of said pond. Perhaps it's a generational thing.

>68 timspalding:

I say "across the pond" all the time, but I'm pushing fifty, so am feeling a bit archaic myself. :)

>70 timspalding:

I'm sure Brecht and Weill would have a good time with him.

>68 timspalding: I have my iPhone set to the male Australian voice. It bugs the heck out of my son.

i have mine set to the female australian voice. sometimes i make her give me directions just to hear it.

Here's an account of Mr Trump that may help to settle the question posed by >1 barney67: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/central-park-five-donald-trump-jo...

Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, DJ welcomes Americans who might want to escape the United States of Trump. Emigrants should pick location carefully if they accept the offer, though, as there are a least few Cape Bretoners whose ancestors hail from the same Hebridean Isle as the Donald (incl. moi), and I think I see some physical resemblances. (Be nice now--one can at least grant that he was handsome as a young man.) Imagine the newly arrived Americans encountering Trump lookalikes at bakery and post office, and thinking they've been rendered permanently paranoid.... :D

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cape-breton-donald-trump-canada_us_56c568a3e...

>76 margd: I'm hoping to resettle in Toronto or Vancouver.

There are a few of us there, also, I'm afraid--but nowhere the concentration of Cape Breton*. (A cousin there says, "If he is a distant relative I hope it is as far back as when we all swung in the trees. He seems to live closer to that period than the rest of us." :-)

* Also, some of our number went on to New Zealand--be warned! ;-)

Most of the US citizens that I know personally are horrified, embarrassed and disillusioned about the whole performance. Living overseas as most of them do they are also acutely aware of how the rest of the world is viewing the USA, not just the tragi-comedy of Trump and the election circus, but the increasingly xenophobic attitudes being played out there.

There's not much xenophobia in America. From a distance, it's almost impossible to know what's going on, esp. if you are relying on the foreign press, which is notoriously anti-American. No press is a window on the world. It is, at best, a peephole.

Edited to fix typos.

>80 barney67:

If you say so. But I'm not relying on the foreign press, I'm just reporting what US friends and colleagues are telling me.

I wonder what the foreign press is? Would Uzbekistan Today be one of them? Slovenia's Delo? 'There's not much xenophobia in American.' and '...the foreign press, which is notoriously anti-American.' in the same post is hilarious.

As is the fact that anyone who watched Fox would see it from the horse's mouth. Who needs the foreign press?

81 -- Find new friends.

64 -- I assume he's referring to what he sees in the news, which is probably negative. That would also answer your comment:

"I assume some of them are good people", which literally means "I lack the evidence to say as a statement of fact that some of them are good people."

If he says, "I assume some of them are good people," that could be because everything he hears and sees about illegal immigrants is negative – aside from the obvious negative that they are illegal. Saying they're illegal immigrants is a statement of fact, not a value judgment.

One can be a good person to some degree and still be an illegal immigrant. You can break the speed the limit and be a good person. But what you're doing is illegal and you may get caught and punished.

The quantity of illegal immigrants creates a problem, no matter how ethical or law-abiding they may be. If Trump believes all illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals

If by context you mean, "it sounds like he's saying" or "what he really means is" then I can't go along with that kind of thing.

By the way, not all dogs bark. The old, the sick, the reticent, the preoccupied. Not all breeds bark either. The basenji doesn't.

Edited to fix typos.

Just for laughs (I hope that's OK), here's a new friend. A basenji. And he barks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVSnYrFQ9Vg

Not much of one. Looks like a good boy though.

Here's another dog barking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMlhBq4xb-A

>84 barney67: Find new friends.

Because the old ones disagree with you politically? What a strange criterion for me to use regarding my friends and colleagues.

>88 John5918: I suspect your friends are reading a lot of US newspapers. I suspect that a lot of them have read about Trump saying racist things.

88 -- Not because they disagree politically, but because their comments reflect bad judgment which cold manifest in other areas. I've spent most of my life around people who disagree with me.

I don't mean that you in particular should abandon your friends. But I wouldn't give much weight to the judgment of a person who seriously thought America was xenophobic. If there's one country which is not xenophobic, it's America. I've never seen xenophobia my whole life in America. We don't fight wars over religion. We don't fight unresolvable, hundred-year-old conflicts. We're incredibly diverse, unlike, say, Finland.

Finland:
Pop: 5 million
Ethnic groups: Finn 93%, Swede 6%
Religions: Lutheran 78%, None 19%
Languages: Finnish, Swedish

(World Almanac)

Edited to fix typos.

Is there a non-racist way to criticize illegal Mexican immigrants? Or is every negative comment about them automatically considered racist?

This is from the link someone gave in a previous post:

“The crime is raging and it’s violent. And if you talk about it, it’s racist,” Trump told Fox News.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best,” he said during the announcement. “They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting." “Some of the people coming here are very violent people, not all.”

...Rubio saying Trump’s comments about Mexicans were “offensive, inaccurate and divisive.”

>90 barney67: If there's one country which is not xenophobic, it's America.

19th century anti-Catholicism ( http://www.catholicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/nast-anticatholic.jpg ) and anti-Irish hostility ( https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ff/35/3e/ff353e09fb5a3771398977b259341... ).

The Chinese Exclusion Act 1882

Early twentieth century nativism:
Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race
The Immigration Restriction League
The Dillingham Commission
Eugenics movement (aimed at immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Eugenics... )

Immigration Act of 1924

theoria: It is clear that barney67 is simply not paying attention to reality.

>94 StormRaven: In that case, he would do well to read Desmond King, Making Americans: Immigration, Race, and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy.

>91 barney67: Is there a non-racist way to criticize illegal Mexican immigrants? Or is every negative comment about them automatically considered racist?

Any time that you make a sweeping generalization about a racial group, it's probably going to be racist unless it's a trivially true statement like "illegal Mexican immigrants are all here illegally".

93 -- I assume you're going to apply that same rigorous research to the rest of countries of the world. I await for the forthcoming gigantic list. I'm sure you are as highly motivated to put down other countries as you are to put down America.

I'm not very satisfied by the New Oxford's definition, but it's a start: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race."

Did you have to read it more than once? A sure sign of a poorly written sentence.

"some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting"

This sounds like Trump is basing his judgment on the experience of border guards who apparently have concluded more negative than positive judgments about illegal aliens.

It's like the TV example. "Some of them I assume are good people, but TV gives me only negative stories. Like everyone else, I judge by what I see and hear."

Or: "Some of them are probably good people, but that's not what the border guards tell me. Are they exaggerating? Lying?"

>97 barney67: - I assume you're going to apply that same rigorous research to the rest of countries of the world

Irrelevant. You said that America is not xenophobic and theoria showed how historically the US has been very xenophobic and there's no reason to think that has changed.

In another context, one might debate just how to express group generalizations which are true on a statistical level. That is to discuss the line between "the blacks are criminals!" and a cool-headed observation that, indeed, the rate of crime (or at least prosecuted and convicted crime) is higher among blacks than some other groups.

In this regard, there are some measures of higher criminality among immigrants that could be cited, alongside other that point the other way, such as the statistic that a higher percent of natural-born citizens are incarcerated than immigrants (A.K.A. "The naturals are criminals!").

But, sorry, Trump's whole approach is so obviously vile and racist that I regard any defense of Trump here as pointless and offensive. If you don't feel this way, I can't really help you. I tolerate an enormous amount of political variation around me. But, for me, Trumps attacks on women, immigrants and muslims and so forth aren't a debate topic, but a vile attack on human decency. (Today's bit about killing muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood was another such moment.)

I am disgusted that any percentage of Americans think this guy is right, and afraid for my country as well.

>101 timspalding: one might debate just how to express group generalizations which are true on a statistical level.

Well you'd have to show that correlation = causation. If there were statistical evidence that rates of crime were higher among blacks, you'd have to show how their race was the relevant factor. As opposed, say, to their economic status. The Mexican immigrant comments were clearly racist by that litmus test. If we were facing hordes of Canadians illegally crossing the border Trump would just shrug. He wouldn't be talking about those Canadian rapists.

But, for me, Trumps attacks on women, immigrants and muslims and so forth aren't a debate topic, but a vile attack on human decency. (Today's bit about killing muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood was another such moment.)

He is an ugly character, through and through. I'd say he's a caricature of an American, but people keep taking him seriously. It floors me.

>101 timspalding: Today's bit about killing muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood was another such moment

I hadn't seen that report, but it has a dangerous historical forerunner. The 1857 Indian uprising was in part sparked by the belief that new British rifle cartridges, which the Indian troops had to bite before inserting into the rifle, were greased with animal fat.

>103 John5918:

Yeah, there's some garbled memory of the Sepoy Rebellion in there, but it's a story that's—apparently incorrectly—attributed to General Pershing in the Philippines. ( http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp )

Needless to say, they now sell ammunition that with a pig-fat paint tip, for the extra-racist gun nut.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, now that Trump has bloviated his version of this story--it's some kind of swaggering, wishful projection--it could stir up more hate and create further headaches. I can imagine State Department employees and diplomats in various embassies slapping their foreheads and saying, "Oh God, I hope we don't have to answer for this."

At least Trump hasn't threatened to burn a Koran. (Yet.)

Edited for format error

>103 John5918:, 104 There is much more to the cartridge issue than all that. The most important point is that the rebellion was already coming (there had been a serious one in Vellore in, I think, 1806, as well as the Moplah rebellion in the 1840s, which though not a soldier-led rebellion indicated discontent with increasingly exasperating British 'changes' forced on Indians), and it's likely that though most British officers thought 'their' men could never be 'disloyal', more perceptive Brits likely wondered when, not if, the rebellion would occur. The Indian soldiers were well and systematically abused, poorly paid, poorly fed, and over-uniformed. The Pershing bullshit is bizarre, but anyway their actually WAS an issue regarding the content of grease, only not all the British were so oblivious. The original content of the grease for these new cartridges that were to be introduced was vegetable oil and wax, but 'Later the manufacturers discovered that tallow from beef and pig fat was a cheaper option' (The Great Uprising, Pramod K. Nayar, Penguin Books, 2007--this seemed the better of the two books I have on hand as the other is two enormous volumes and rambling, whlie this is closer to a contemporary guide than a detailed history, the 150 years of event and research distilled). Canning, the Governor General of India himself wrote in February of that year that there might be some truth in the issue of the cartridges. What actually happened was that some with the grease was probably tested by a small number of India soldiers at worst, but the actual greased cartridges had yet to be issued. But such was the depth of discontent among sepoys that they had very good reason to believe the worst of whatever they heard and in this case what they heard was indeed based in fact. The British Commander-in-Chief actually ordered the cartridges be 'ungreased', which indicates that there was a serious problem. In this case the belief that the British were of nefarious motive is not true to the extent they did not intend to religiously debase the soldiers in a sneaky way, but throughout the following near century they did some horrific things of the same kind, including the actual simple act of having agents start riots between Moslems and Hindus using the simply expedient of tossing a dead pig into a mosque and a dead cow into a temple. This was done on numerous occasions.

I doubt Trump knows much of this, other than the part that Islam prohibits eating pork.

>106 RickHarsch: Yes, I agree with most of that. Most accounts say that the cartridge grease issue was just a spark or a trigger, and that it certainly was not deliberate British policy to disrespect religion in any way, but the deep underlying issues were there ready to blow at the lightest touch.

As for the Pershing stuff, I had never even heard of that. A US friend told me after mass this morning that he had heard of it but had always been aware that it was apocryphal. Like you he doubted whether Trump was aware of any of the background, although he did tell me that if Trump wins he is seriously considering selling his house and settling outside the USA.

Edited to add: But then he's apparently one of the ones, according to >90 barney67:, whose "comments reflect bad judgment which could manifest in other areas". That's what working for an NGO helping the poorest of the poor all over the world does for you. Should be banned.

>107 John5918:

he did tell me that if Trump wins he is seriously considering selling his house and settling outside the USA.

He isn't the only one. If Trump wins, then America has become something very different than I thought it was, and something I don't care for very much.

>108 artturnerjr: As an opponent of US foreign policy from the 1810s or so--not personally until the late 1970s, so retrospectively it goes back that far--I have already left, later than I had wanted but finally back in 2001 and for good. At the same time, I think that Trump is exciting people more than any other candidate and so his supporters are spurred to action: let's say 90% of Trumpites get out to vote--that would be oppose to something under 50% for the rest (perhaps Sanders gets a bit more than 50%). Based on this speculation, I think you are all safe for now. But whoever is elected, whichever non-Trump, all in the country who are not deranged need to find someway to reduce the numbers of people who would support Trump by a great deal. There's a growing ugliness at the very least. I don't expect the US I would want ever to emerge, but I still hope the nation will sooner rather than later become benign globally. Short of that, at the very least, the Republican party is in need of its FDR.

>109 RickHarsch:

I think the rise of Trump has been a real wake-up call. I think they are many of us here that were previously unaware what a large percentage of the electorate are:

- profoundly gullible

- generally (and perhaps willfully) ignorant

- woefully ill-informed

- unconcerned regarding the mental health of their leaders

- unaware of the signs of narcissistic personality disorder

- unconcerned about racism, xenophobia, and misogyny

- racists, xenophobes, or misogynists themselves

- unaware and/or unconcerned about the tactics of demagoguery and/or fascism

- unaware that one of the primary responsibilities of the POTUS is to be a diplomat and that a candidate for said office should demonstrate some skills in that area of endeavor

- unable to spot a bully

- more than one of the above

- all of the above

Even if that represents a smaller percentage of the electorate than it seems, it's not a pretty picture. As to we move forward with these folks, I haven't a clue.

>110 artturnerjr: It would be interesting to see all the lists that folks here alarmed by Trump could compile. One thing though that has long been apparent is that people quite often align themselves politically against their best interests over high emotional octane issues like abortion and gun control. And how dull many seem to be about the term 'big government'. There is, in other words, a rational basis for this irrationality. That's part of it anyway...I think.

>110 artturnerjr: Mr Trump's campaign appears to be modeled on right-wing talk radio and the conspiracy theory galaxy of the digital universe. He knows his Republican audience and speaks its language.

>111 RickHarsch:

There's certainly a discernible pattern to it. As Frank Herbert famously wrote, "fear is the mind-killer". Trump is very cognizant of this idea and has been able to use it very effectively for his personal gain. I just wish he'd go do it somewhere else... like Antarctica. :)

>112 theoria:

That's certainly true, and it makes the outrage at the rise of Trump by the Republican establishment that much more hilarious. As enamored as these folks say they are of the Bible, they appear to have skipped over the part that talks about reaping what one sows.

"But, sorry, Trump's whole approach is so obviously vile and racist that I regard any defense of Trump here as pointless and offensive. If you don't feel this way, I can't really help you. I tolerate an enormous amount of political variation around me. But, for me, Trumps attacks on women, immigrants and muslims and so forth aren't a debate topic, but a vile attack on human decency. (Today's bit about killing muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood was another such moment.)

This sounds excessive and extreme to me. You're trading one excess for another. A vile attack on decency? I'm not even sure what that means. You think any defense is pointless and offensive? I'm not sure I was defending him. I am interested in the truth. Not everyone is. Not a debate topic? Hmm. To you it's self-evident, then, to the point where it isn't up for debate. You must wonder why many people don't feel that way, unless you are equally dismissive of them.

It's dangerous stuff to turn politics into religion and to see the other side as evil and yourself as good. This is not to say that morality and politics have nothing to do with each other. Of course they do.

But to say that Trump is not only "attacking immigrants" but doing so in a "vile and racist" way is to view the world through ideology and partisan opinion rather than your own eyes and ears. He wasn't attacking immigrants. He was criticizing illegal Mexican immigrants who commit criminal acts, and, perhaps, illegal Mexican immigrants in general because of the problems that their presence itself causes—problems that aren't a reality to you because they affect people most in California, Arizona, and Texas, and you live in Maine.

The words "illegal alien" and "illegal immigration" ought to provoke at least some outrage no matter who is uttering them—outrage against those who are breaking the law. The numbers of illegal immigrants ought to generate some serious questions about the serious consequences that affect the entire country.

All kinds of questions have been raised by the decades-long influx of illegal Mexicans, questions about protecting our border, terrorism, drugs, crime, job loss, unemployment, welfare, budgets, voting, citizenship—and perhaps most of all who is in a position to do something about these problems and why don't they. These are important subjects and problems that need to be discussed, not frivolously dismissed because you think someone's feelings are going to get hurt. There's more at stake here than hurt feelings.

When Trump brings up the subject of illegal immigrants, many people think about the problems and questions that I mentioned above, and that Trump wants to try to solve them. Others hear only that Trump is a racist who hates Mexicans.

It ought to be possible to discuss these problems without being called a racist and without living in fear of being called a racist. When Johnny Cochrane did this kind of thing, many people chastised him for "playing the race card." Even OJ did — at first. Playing the race card closes off debate. It can even help you get away with murder.

Edited to fix typos.

>115 barney67: 'He was criticizing illegal Mexican immigrants who commit criminal acts, and, perhaps, illegal Mexican immigrants in general because of the problems that their presence itself causes—problems that aren't a reality to you because they affect people most in California, Arizona, and Texas, and you live in Maine.' If that is a serious statement you have only added to the problem a lot of people are having relating to you. You simply refuse or fail to understand what Trump said. And the problem is that your failure or refusal leads to jaw-droppingly obtuse statements. You write things, probably having fun playing at being provocative, that are so unreal they are increasingly difficult to answer, as if, say, you look at the white chalk and insist it is black--people roll their eyes, signal each other that the person is cuckoo and go away. You have been lucky so far that people have treated you with more respect than your posts deserve.

Just had dinner with two more of my US friends, both Catholic missionaries, and their sentiment is very much akin to that of Rick, Tim, artturnerjr and most of the other US people posting here, rather than that of barney67.

>115 barney67: That was actually very well said. However, it's not what Trump has been saying. Trumps statements show none of the nuances that you seem to want them to have. Perhaps you are blinded by what you want Trump to be saying so you can't actually hear what he actually is saying?

Rather than a black hole Trump is a white hole. I.e., he spews forth an incredible amount of bullshit at an incredible speed, no one has a freaking clue what will come out next and no one has a clue if and when the white hole will either possibly disappear, implode, explode or what.

And the only way to stop him, apparently, will be to elect one of the most accomplished liars and money-grubbers in modern American political history. What a totally fucked-up country the United States of America has become.

I am not going to move to another country because, for me, that idea has some real downsides, logistically-speaking.

But I am thinking maybe a move to extreme northwest Washington state or to extreme northeast Maine may be in the works for me. (just so if things really blow up all I have to do is walk across the border and ask for asylum. lol.)

118 -- Thanks? I'm not trying to be Trump's apologist. I think the guy's a douche-bag. I doubt that he hates Mexicans. I'm sure many of his employees are Mexicans and illegal Mexican immigrants.

You could say he’s playing to the crowd and the crowd, seeing the problem, hopes that Trump will come along and solve it. That doesn’t make them racists, though I agree that some of them probably are. What do you expect from people? Perfection?

We all know what Trump is doing. It's not all that different from what politicians and others have always done with the tools of rhetoric and persuasion. Trump is good at it. He's been on TV for how many years? You might think the other candidates aren't doing similar things but they are. Students think that Bernie Sanders is somehow going to arrange a free colledge education for them. So which crowd is more deluded?

One point that is important to me in this thread is that if people want the word "racist" to mean something, and there seem to be many, then they need to use it carefully and sparingly.

117 -- As a lapsed Catholic, I find that disappointing but not surprising.

Michael Ian Black (https://twitter.com/michaelianblack) was asked this, and he started with

1. Proposing banning an entire religion from entering USA.
2. Referring to Mexicans as rapists and murderers...
3. Falsely saying thousands of Muslims in NJ celebrated 9/11.
4. Made fun of a disabled reporter for being disabled
5. Innumerable misogynistic attacks on women including making fun of Carly Fiorina's face.
6. Obama birther.
7. Many RTs of white supremacists including chart showing false murder statistics of black on white murder.
8. Advocated the murder of Muslims by dipping bullets in pig's blood before shooting them.
9. Supported the idea that Muslims should be registered in some kind of database.
10. When speaking to a Jewish group said, "I'm a negotiator like you people" and said, "Is there anybody in this "Room who doesn't negotiate deals? Probably more than any room I've ever spoken."

I'm sorry he stopped there. I think you could go on a lot longer.

>120 barney67:

Other countries with advanced economies offer free college. Our country offers K-12 education for free. So why is this so deluded?

Trump's own Christian denomination defies him on immigration policy (Guardian)

>121 barney67:

Why?

>122 timspalding:

When speaking to a Jewish group said, "I'm a negotiator like you people" and said, "Is there anybody in this "Room who doesn't negotiate deals? Probably more than any room I've ever spoken."

I actually missed this one. This from a man that lives in a city that has a larger Jewish population than Jerusalem. Probably thought he was giving them a compliment, too. Wow. Sometimes I'm not sure if I'm reading the real news or The Onion.

A really interesting article that gave me a great deal of insight regarding some of the things that were puzzling me back in >110 artturnerjr:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/15/i-asked-psychologists-to-...

(hint: it's not about logic)

> 127

What the basic psychological truth seems to be is that the average person today is not evolved particularly much beyond the basic apish psychology dating back to our misty beginnings when our ancestors were swinging from god damn tree limb to tree limb, one tiny DNA difference from the ancestors of modern day chimps.

I don't think I can argue with that.

You shave an ape, you out it in a suit and add a red tie, BLAM, you got yourself the typical republican politician. And replace the suit with a exercise warm-up suit or a T-shirt and cap with racist slogans and you've got yourself the typical republican "base" voter.

Add a modicum of sophistication to the above and you can just replace the word "republican" with "democrat".

>128 JGL53:

Agreed. At the risk of sounding like an elitist prick, it seems that many of us (most of us?) are still dominated by our "lizard brains" more than we care to acknowledge.

America is one of the greatest countries that has ever existed. We produced Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Helen Keller, John Steinbeck, Bob Dylan, Miles Davis, and scores and scores of other amazing human beings. If people used their higher brain functions for more than ten seconds at a time, they'd realize we can do a whole hell of a lot better than Donald Freaking Trump.

>100 jjwilson61: Meh. Humans are a tribal species, and are distrustful of other tribes. Of course Americans are xenophobic; all humans are xenophobic. If that's not what you mean, then I think you need to establish that Americans are more xenophobic then other humans.

In 1907, 1.3 million Europeans entered the US. In 1910, 13.5 million immigrants were living in the US. The population of the US in 1910 was just under 100 million. That is a hell of an immigration rate; one might note that "Immigration to the EU-28 from non-member countries was 1.7 million in 2013"* for 500 million people. Currently the US sustains a legal immigration rate of about a million a year for 300 million people.

Were we dicks to the Chinese? Yes. Who wasn't? You are talking about the time of the Opium Wars and European parks in China labeled "No dogs or Chinese"** and the Japanese colonizing China. I don't think that says much about now.

Now, Chinese-Americans make up 3.8 million people, 1.2% of the American population. For contrast, 2.3 million Chinese are in the EU***, and Japan, much closer to China, has less than a million Chinese, less than 1% of their population. The US is the nation with the third most foreign Chinese, after the much closer Thailand and Malaysia. If we are so xenophobic, why did the Chinese choose us to immigrate to? Why did we let them?

I won't deny historical or current xenophobia in the US. But I don't think you began to make the case that we are unusually xenophobic, that against the backdrop of the UKIP election success, the French anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic issues and everyone else's problems, we stand out strongly.

* http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_migran...
** For historical accuracy, signs read stuff like "Rules for Parks: 1. No Chinese ... 9. No dogs." Less direct and punchy.
*** Chinese Immigration into the EU: New Trends, Dynamics and Implications, page 26

>130 prosfilaes:

the French anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic issues

I have to say that it's difficult for me to imagine something like France's hijab ban* taking place here in the States (although perhaps less so in the last several months).

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_France

>130 prosfilaes: Of course Americans are xenophobic; all humans are xenophobic. If that's not what you mean, then I think you need to establish that Americans are more xenophobic then other humans.

I'm not sure anyone is claiming that the USA is more xenophobic than other nations, simply that it is very xenophobic, in contrast to >80 barney67: "There's not much xenophobia in America".

Europe is pretty bad at the moment, and I am appalled at some of the attitudes in my own native UK. The ridiculous move to leave the EU is in part driven by this type of paranoia.

But ironically some of the poorest (and under some definitions most "tribal") nations are doing the most to welcome (or at least to reluctantly take care of) the strangers in their midst. The Middle East is flooded with refugees, and many African countries are hosting far more refugees proportionately (compared to both population and wealth) than any of the rich western nations who are whingeing so much.

>132 John5918: I'm not sure anyone is claiming that the USA is more xenophobic than other nations, simply that it is very xenophobic,

It's not meaningful to say that the USA is very xenophobic without any point of comparison. Such statements are a tool people like Donald Trump and bigots use to slander groups; it is possible to discuss whether illegal immigrants are commonly criminals, but not whether they are very criminal (not claiming that they are more criminal then any other group.)

I think the problem is the hypocrisy. You have the statue of liberty and you have Donald Trump. Abkhazia, for one example, probably does not advertise itself as a place that welcomes anyone from anywhere.

We're not going to make much progress without an accurate definition of racism. Toward that end, I started a thread on that subject.

This is a thread about whether Trump has made racist statements.

It's mostly a thread about whether or not it's enough to say that not all Jews drink the blood of Christian children, or what.

Well, no. At first it was about more than that.

I don't know if an anti-Semitic remark is the same as a racist remark. At least a month ago I saw the video clip of Trump making those awkward comments that you mentioned, which to me came pretty close to anti-Semitism.

Scientific studies link sexism with racism. If you're a sexist, you're likely to harbor racist attitudes, too. Both are also linked to personality traits. Authoritarianism and domination desires.

Sexist people accept hierarchical structures; they believe people have a place within the social group and should stay in it. They think your place in the social hierarchy is what you deserve and that their place is superior to yours.

Racists share these attitudes. In one study done in Australia following 2009 race riots against Arabs, data backed up all the above and found racism is not related to the "Dark Triad" traits (i.e., psychopathy, narcissism, & Machiavellianism), and concluded racists are not evil, they just feel superior.

Brain scientists have told us that conservative people predominately exhibit a preference for authority and hierarchical order. And that these preferences are neurological.

So, it's to be expected that a narcissist who feels superior to everyone else is likely to be both a racist and sexist. Such people describe themselves in masculine terms, even when female. Words like "strong," "brave," "determined" are used by men. Words like not "cooperative,"compassionate," or "sentimental," are employed by women in describing themselves.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that someone who describes himself a conservative, displays narcissistic attitudes and behaviors, makes sexist and racist remarks, aggrandizes himself and tries to put others "in their place" using insults and bullying language, and employs denigrating epithets when referring to folks not like himself is both sexist and racist.

If all that paragraph doesn't scream Duh Donald at you, then check yourself for those personality traits.

119 -- I read some of this and then quit because it's so obviously wrong and because it's doesn't have much to do with this thread. I've tried to comment on sexism in the Feminist group, but those people aren't interested in analysis.

And by the way, that last sentence comes very close to a personal attackk, which can only weaken your beliefs and assertions. Implication, insinuation, yeah, not too nice, eh? The heartless lovers of humanity.

But that part does relate to the thread. So many people find it necessary to feel superior to Trump. It isn't enough for them to disagree and explain why. They have to feel superior to justify not voting for him. Maybe I'm guilty of it, too. I don't like the guy. But I doubt that he's a racist. No more than any other candidate.

>140 barney67: If you want me to actually read the message your responding to when its really far back, you should add a greater than sign before the number.

>140 barney67: 'And by the way, that last sentence comes very close to a personal attackk, which can only weaken your beliefs and assertions.' Not necessarily. If someone is self-evidently a dipshit, calling him a dipshit does not weaken beliefs and assertions.

>140 barney67:

So many people find it necessary to feel superior to Trump.

If I am not superior to someone like Donald Trump in the things that I consider to be important (compassion, empathy, humility, understanding my fellow human beings and using that understanding to make the world a better place), then I have failed utterly in life.

143 -- You can live your life without having to compare yourself to other people.

>144 barney67:

You certainly can. But it can be helpful to have role models. Anti-role models, too. :)

It is the Buddhists' conviction that enlightenment is the realization that all experience is a dream.

In that case trump seems to me a particularly nasty and nauseating part of the dream. Ditto anyone who would admire him.

We might could just leave it at that.

Completely off topic, but relevant to the little side conversation on the phrase "across the pond" for a few posts from >66 John5918: onwards, it appeared in a local newspaper headline in Britain just yesterday:

Locomotives imported from the other side of ‘the Pond’ to Newport

>140 barney67: I've tried to comment on sexism in the Feminist group, but those people aren't interested in analysis

That sounds very much like lumping a whole group of people together, which is what racism is with regard to race. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "Some posters on the Feminist group aren't interested in analysis"?

However I do get the impression from your posts on a number of threads that "aren't interested in analysis" is the way you interpret that they don't agree with your analysis. So actually it would be more accurate to say, "Some posters on the Feminist group don't agree with my analysis".

By the way, did you mean to refer to >119 JGL53: in that post, or did you mean >139 Limelite:?

I read some of this and then quit because it's so obviously wrong

Would you care to explain why it is obviously wrong? What is obvious to you may not be obvious to all of us, particularly as it refers to studies which have been done. Do you have references for other studies which refute them? Intuitively it seems to make sense that an individual would be fairly consistent across their attitudes and behaviour.

Ugh. Looks like he's got more than 40% in Nevada.

148 -- I didn't want to analyze 139 because it's a tangent, but since that's the way things often work, I'll try to be brief.

On the claim that conservatives and Trumps are narcissists: For eight years I've been hearing Obama called a narcissist. Talk about a guy who thinks he knows better. For how long were his advisers telling him his policy on Iraq and terrorism in general was wrong, and yet he refused to take their advice. You think that Bill and Hillary Clinton are not narcissists? Come on. They're like Boss Hog. Leaders, esp. presidents, necessarily have to have high opinions of themselves. Nuff said.

On the brain studies about conservatives: These were dismissed a long time ago. Moreover, for every study you show me, I can show you study showing the opposite.

On hierarchies: Believing in hierarchies does not make someone a racist or sexist. Nature is hierarchical. King of the jungle. Survival of the fittest. Nature red in tooth and claw. And among human beings, some are smarter, better looking, taller, more successful. One doesn't "believe" in hierarchies. One acknowledges them as a reality, like oxygen. Order: Nature is ordered, intricately so. So are we. Study anatomy sometime. Few subjects are more conservative than biology. And to quote Simone Weil, no conservative, the soul's first need is order. Authority: You can't escape authority. Everyone takes something on authority. You take those brain studies on authority. We are all subject to some authority: parents, teachers, bosses, mentors, the law, government. Few people like being told what to do. But few people get to do whatever they damn well please all the time.

This is a thread about whether Trump has made racist statements, not sexist statements. The post assume Trump is a sexist. Then it asserts that that because Trump is a sexist, he must also be a racist – and this is true because a study says so. Few people are going to buy that.

Ok, that's enough.

>150 barney67:

From the article I posted a link to in >127 artturnerjr:

The world can feel like a complicated place. There may be no good answers to the problems we confront individually and as a society. It is hard to know whom or what to believe. Things are changing, and the future might be different in unpredictable ways. For many people, this uncertainty is deeply unpleasant.

"People are just inclined to say, 'Okay, to hell with it. I'm not going to figure it out,' " {University of Maryland psychologist Arie} Kruglanski said.

That desire is especially strong among social conservatives, research shows. They want answers, more so than other people.

One way that psychologists measure these preferences is by giving people a questionnaire that poses statements such as, "It's annoying to listen to someone who cannot seem to make up his or her mind," "I dislike it when a person's statement could mean many different things" and "In most social conflicts, I can easily see which side is right and which is wrong."

Conservative subjects are more likely to agree with these statements, whether psychologists give this test in the United States, Germany, Italy, Belgium or Poland.

Over the years, conservative commentators have objected to this characterization of their beliefs. They argue that conservatism isn't a psychological condition, but a set of ideas with a rich intellectual history, developed across generations through rational deliberation.

For their part, psychologists have responded that they aren't dismissing conservativism as irrational. After all, just because people are predisposed to believe something doesn't make them wrong. Saying someone is more likely to find an argument persuasive because of their psychology doesn't invalidate the argument. As psychologists see it, the desire for simplicity is just a fact about the way people think — one that several decades of research has now confirmed.

There are links to the studies cited in the article. If you are aware of studies that contradict these, please post links to them. I'd like to have a look at them.

Many people, not just conservatives, seek certainty and have trouble dealing with uncertainty.

If you consider market economics conservative, then you must admit that conservatives in fact are not as Post 151 would like them to be, because market economies thrive on uncertainty, change, and newness. All those business leaders and CEOs that liberals say they hate, and that they claim all vote Republican, rely on the qualities I just mentioned. That contradicts post 151 which is referring to pseudoscience.

On the desire for simplicity I would refer you to people who try to drop off the grid. These are often Democrats, if not mostly Democrats. I refer you to Luddites, who also are mostly of the Left. I refer you to Henry David Thoreau, another man of the left, another hero of trying to simplify. I refer you to Steve Jobs, who wanted to bring elements of Zen minimalism to computer design.

Ok Ok?

Put simply, the characterization of conservatives in Post 151 is false. It refers to studies which are themselves false and pseudoscientific. I know enough about psychology to know that it deals in subjectivity and guesswork. That's not necessarily bad. It's the nature of the subject. But you should be careful when you attach the word "science" to something in the hope that people will automatically bow down before it. Even the hardest science involves speculation.

>127 artturnerjr: I've been trying to read on the subject for a little while. My dad, who I used to think was smart and reasonable, has fallen over an edge, it seems. So I've read Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think and I'm slogging through The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

I'll now be looking for Hibbing's Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences.

It's quite entertaining here to see the theories played out.

>152 barney67:

Referring back to your previous post (>150 barney67:):

On the brain studies about conservatives: These were dismissed a long time ago. Moreover, for every study you show me, I can show you study showing the opposite.

Okay. Let's see them. Again, I would sincerely like to take a look at them.

>153 2wonderY:

Thanks for those titles. I'll definitely keep an eye out for them. It's a fascinating subject.

>154 artturnerjr: Did you see this article?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/inquiring-minds-john-hibbing-physiol...

Chris Mooney quotes Thomas Jefferson

"The same political parties which now agitate the United States, have existed through all time," wrote Jefferson. "The terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural, as well as to civil history," he later added. "They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals."

>155 2wonderY:

Interesting article, and one that generally jibes with my personal experience (although it might be worth noting in this context that the PMRC (remember them?) was started by a (nominally) liberal woman).

Yeah, I can't imagine where anyone would have gotten the idea that Trump is a racist, fascist piece of shit from.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-retweets-pos...
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-declines-to-...

'Progressives naturally balk at the idea that hardworking people, suffering in a stagnating economy, might be driven by something something so dark as racism when the fact is that they have much more in common economically with people of color than this blowhard billionaire who’s selling some snake oil about “making deals” with foreign countries so America will be “great again.”'

'...there is also no doubt that the Democratic party’s coalition now and in the future is multi-ethnic and multi-racial and those who are hostile to that idea are simply never going to vote for the Democrats regardless of policies that may benefit them. Those people are motivated by the need to maintain a social status and cultural dominance that is rapidly disappearing.'

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/29/theres_no_more_denying_trumps_campaign_of_hate_h...

Huffpost: Here Are 9 Examples Of Donald Trump Being Racist
'He claims to have "a great relationship with the blacks," which is totally something a normal person would say.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b0...

I've said before that the Huffington Post isn't a reliable news source. In fact, it's not really a news site. It's more of a blog.

Christian Post: Donald Trump Is a Scam. Evangelical Voters Should Back Away (CP Editorial)
http://www.christianpost.com/news/donald-trump-scam-evangelical-voters-back-away...

Editors' Note: The Christian Post has not taken a position on a political candidate before today. We are making an exception because Trump is exceptionally bad and claims to speak for and represent the interests of evangelicals.

We the senior editors of The Christian Post encourage our readers to back away from Donald Trump.

…

Trump is a misogynist and philanderer. He demeans women and minorities. His preferred forms of communication are insults, obscenities and untruths. While Christians have been guilty of all of these, we, unlike Trump, acknowledge our sins, ask for forgiveness and seek restitution with the aid of the Holy Spirit and our community of believers.

On Sunday, Trump's apparent reluctance to disavow David Duke until late in the day was extremely distasteful. The Ku Klux Klan is an evil, unholy movement representing the worst of America. Anyone who will not immediately denounce their support is unfit to be president.

I'm surprised that evangelicals are voting for Trump. I wonder what their reasons are.

>163 timspalding:

Prejudice and frustration.

Many if not most evangelical christians are either mean as snakes, are completely gullible fools, and/or convinced they are special and chosen and thus above all people on earth.

But most of all they are, in the main, racists (the white ones). Some are so out of it they don't even understand they are racist or in complete denial. They are brainwashed, essentially, into hating all the evil people in the world, who are identified by certain labels - democrat, liberal, socialist, anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-christian and so forth. Their leaders pretty much identify for them the persons that deserve their hate.

And they will vote for whomever their leaders tell them to vote for. E.g., they may be told that Trump is far from perfect and maybe not even a christian, but that he can be used by the lord for a good purpose and they should vote for him - as opposed to HRC who is one of the most evil people on earth. And most will then happily go to the polls and vote for Trump because they are told it is part of god's great plan. Or they can just be told that Trump is a christian (of sorts) and they will accept that.

Another example of this was Romney. He is a mormon, something evangelicals are taught are the worst kind of heretics and sinners. But they were easily convinced that mormons were ok compared to secret muslims like Obama so most evangelicals were told to vote for a hated mormon and so they did. - Most of them, that is - there is evidence that a couple of million did not vote because they hated both mormons and muslims equally.

In a nutshell, christians (especially evangelicals/fundamentalists) are not called sheep for nothing. And a christian (fundie/evangelical) is not called "a child of god" for nothing either. When it comes to their religion they act as if they were children and their leaders are their parents.

>160 barney67: I've said before that the Huffington Post isn't a reliable news source

Yes, you've dismissed it before, but what is your evidence that it is any less reliable than many other news sources? While I don't read it every day, when my attention has been drawn to articles about which I have some particular interest or knowledge I have found it to be pretty good.

Yes, you've dismissed it before, but what is your evidence that it is any less reliable than many other news sources?

It doesn't agree with his counterfactual and bigoted world view, and thus must be wrong.

>165 John5918: Well, for one thing, I remember its founder and editor in chief, Arianna Huffington, quite well, and she's not worth paying attention to. She admits her bias up front. She has no background in journalism and no degree.

Second, the site has a political bias. (Wikipedia)

Third, as I already mentioned, it's more of a blog, not a news site. It's a political blog. (Wikpedia)

This all so obvious. There's nothing wrong wth liking a liberal blog full of liberal editorials, but don't mistake it for real news sources.

>150 barney67:

Despite your assertion that the cognitive neuroscience studies having been "debunked," I am here to un-debunk them

Quite the contrary to your position, they have been repeatedly confirmed. Repeated confirmation of experimentation results, leads to a robust theory. Science lives by the axiom, "Prove me wrong."

As of this date (to my knowledge) no credible objective demonstration to the contrary exists. And here's a recent article that reiterates the findings regarding conservatives and liberals/progressives in a highly readable and accessible way. (Repubs. and Dems.)

The relationship of the "conservative brain" to patriarchal and hierarchical orientation (besides general fearfulness) is undisputed. The link between those characteristics and sexist and racist attitudes and behaviors, likewise. Please follow your own research path to those links.

My facts are correct and my logic is valid, and your dismissal of them is premature and doesn't come from offered counter-evidence.

>168 Limelite: When someone is this confident about something, esp. pertaining to science, they are almost certainly wrong. Your claims just don't fly because they are just that -- claims, beliefs and, I believe, hopes.

If you know anything about science, and I'm not sure you do, you know that science is provisional, particularly the newer, more nebulous fields of psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience. Interesting work -- but extremely speculative.

To claim, with certainty mind you, that there even is such a think as a "conservative brain" and a "libral brain" is an absurdity wrapped around an oversimplifition filtered through politics. It's another way of saying "I'm OK, you're not, therefore you are wrong and I don't have to listen to you."

Few opinions strike me as more arrogant, anti-intellectual, and close-minded. And reeking of totalitarianism.

edited on second thought.

>160 barney67:, >167 barney67:

In >39 barney67: you basically say the same thing, that you don't trust the Huffington Post. In >41 barney67: you give a list of sources you find reliable.

Are you aware that the Huffington Post article in >38 artturnerjr: contains links to the Washington Post, CNBC, Fox News, NBC, Boston Globe, NY Times, Tampa Bay Times, and Twitter posts made by Trump himself?

And the one in >159 timspalding: contains links to USA Today, Business Insider, CNN, the White House, Washington Post, NBC, NY Times and Jerusaem Post.

Would you consider some of these sources to be reliable? Actually in >41 barney67: you have accepted USA Today, NY Times and Fox.

>171 John5918: Aggretators can edit stories, just like newspapers can edit stories they get from the AP. If you want to quote from the Washington Post, for example, go to the Post site and link to it. Don't do it through an aggregator.

There are not a lot news sources I'm completely against, because I think they're all biased to the left and so it makes little difference, but the Huffington Post is one I absolutely won't read or take seriously. I'm talking now about hard news sources, not blogs, magazines, or analysis.

If it makes you feel any better, which I doubt, I have the same reaction when my uncle tells me I should read the Drudge Report and Newsmax, neither of them traditional, hard news sources.

Given Mrs. Huffington's admitted bias, and the other points from Wikipedia, I don't think anyone should make her site their primary news source. If you need to be told want to think about the news, that's different, but I can think for myself. I encourage everyone to try to do the same thing.

If you're looking for an aggregator of political opinion, try realclearpolitics.com. That site is where I go to for the lastest polls results. Real Clear has also aggretors for science and sports. These sites load very quickly. No ads!

If it makes you feel any better, which it won't, RealClear does link to the Huff and Puff Post.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.realclearscience.com/
http://www.realclearsports.com/

Hm. Wikipedia:

The site's founders say their goal is to give readers "ideological diversity". However, this claim been disputed by observations of a conservative bias in the content it displays.

I prefer the Grauniad and Auntie Beeb. Oh yes, and Al Jazeera to get a news perspective that is not biased towards the western world.

Well, considering they link to the New York Times, the Wasingtonn Post, the Huff Post, Mother Jones, Slate, the Daily Beast, and the New Yorker, the accusation of "conservative bias" must come from a paranoid imagination unused to dealing with the facts.

Al-Jazeera is a good news source for terrorist to use. The rest of us know better.

>175 barney67: the accusation of "conservative bias" must come from a paranoid imagination unused to dealing with the facts.

Actually it comes from the same source that you use to justify your accusations of bias against the Huffington Post in >167 barney67:, namely Wikipedia. I would not normally cite Wikipedia as a reliable source in this type of situation, but I did so since you clearly value Wikipedia's judgement.

Al-Jazeera is a good news source for terrorist to use. The rest of us know better.

Actually Al Jazeera is remarkably impartial. It does a pretty good job of maintaining a degree of objectivity while avoiding the western bias found in most international news media.

I don't want to argue whether Wikipedia is always right or always wrong, because it's neither. All sources are imperfect. I find Wikipedia more trustworthy when it comes to objective, reliable, verifiable, simple facts, like the average rainfall in Toronto. These facts can be located and verified elsewhere. The more subjective the subject, the more debatable Wikipedia becomes.

If it comes down to debate, it's up to the reader to look at the footnotes in a Wikipedia entry to determine whether the source is trustworthy, whether it has been borrowed from accurately, and whether the topic at hand leans more to the objective side or the subjective side. And that's only the beginning of one's thinking. I take it for granted that readers know how to distinguish between objective (the rainfall in Toronto) and subjective (the success of a presidency). Between those two bookends are many volumes.

I also know that most people lack that kind of time, which is one reason why everyone has to take some things on authority. All the more reason to choose one's authority carefully rather than to pretend authority doesn't exist or that only some people rely on it.

A radical skeptic questions everything. An idiot questions nothing. I would not want to be either.

I don't think you're going to get much support for Al Jazeera in America. You can quote it, but people won't take you seriously. I wish that no one took it seriously. Very likely what you call "not a wester bias" is an "anti-Western bias." And really, with Al Jazeera, how could it be any other way? They have no interest in objectivity. But they do have an interesting in putting down the west, something they share to a lesser degree with western journalists. There are enough sources in America for Americans to read.

In the past, the eggheads who created news, science, education, and so on had more confidence in objectivity than they do today. Not a lot more, but more, depending on the field. The Encyclopedia Britannica was respectable. On the contrary, many or most schools today teach that there is no such thing as objectivity. In the early nineties when I was in grad school, the university's journalism students were being taught that. There are many fields where this assumption has hardened into an iron rule.

Most of the people on this forum don't know how to think. That's why they call me names. That's why our presidential candidates are Clinton and Trump. Most people in the human race don't know how to think. They know how to function in their jobs, but take them out of their fields of expertise, and they are lost, lost, lost.

>177 barney67: If it comes down to debate, it's up to the reader to look at the footnotes in a Wikipedia entry to determine whether the source is trustworthy,

Something, of course, that can not be done with the Huffington Post.

There are enough sources in America for Americans to read.

The idea of systematic bias doesn't concern you at all, huh? You do realize that johnthefireman is not in the US, and as a British-born African would be equally logical in dismissing all your American sources. It would make it a bit hard to have a discussion.

The Encyclopedia Britannica was respectable.

The Encyclopedia Britannica was respected. Of course, after the 11th Edition, they bowed to pressure from Catholic groups and censored a lot of the negative information about various medieval Popes and about how the Vatican was the last place that had castrati. And The myth of the Britannica well documents how a lack of updates, and half-assed updates where a rewrite was needed, left the EB of the 1960s a mess.

Most of the people on this forum don't know how to think. That's why they call me names.

Broadly accusing most people on the forum of not knowing how to think is of course the way to raise the level of discussion.

I was listening to a FiveThirtyEight podcast recently and was disturbed to find someone using "Cruz is a pussy" as an example of Trump's "straight talk". Even among attacks on the person, one can call them a "war-monger" or a "Chamberlain" or a "paleoconservative" and be relatively clear about what you're targeting. Calling someone a "pussy", besides the misogynist problems, is a generalized epithet; what exactly someone means by that besides they're "a bad person in a non-masculine way" is unclear. It's a way to avoid actually discussing the real issues.

>178 prosfilaes: "The idea of systematic bias doesn't concern you"

No. It used to. After working in the news business, I have an idea of the kind of people who work there. Those people naturally learn toward the left. It's something I accept.

I don't pay much attention to the news anymore. Or politics. Bad for my health. I gave and I had enough.

SNL nails it.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/914043

Univision Asked Hillary Clinton And Bernie Sanders If Donald Trump Is A Racist. Here’s What They Said.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/09/3758489/trump-racist-question/

So it surprises that Trump's liberal opponents would call him a racist. What surprises me is that you find it significant.

"I said basta"
Really? Mrs. Cliton uses Spanish in everyday conversation? What a phony.

"I called him out when he was calling Mexicans rapists"
Nope. That's not what he said.

She says he has been "trafficking in prejudice" but never uses the word "racist." Typical Clinton. Imply but don't say directly.

Sanders didn't use the word either, but he suggested as much.

>183 barney67: Nope. That's not what he said.

"They're rapists". That's what he said, with they referring to the people that are coming to the US from Mexico. To interpret his statements generously and hers narrowly is pretty partisan.

She says he has been "trafficking in prejudice" but never uses the word "racist." Typical Clinton. Imply but don't say directly.

Given that you started this thread, I think that's a no-win situation for her, given that you jumped all over people calling him a racist.

Mrs. Clinton said that he called Mexicans rapists. That's false. He called some illegal aliens from Mexico rapists, which as far as I know is the truth. If you can prove that no illegal alien from Mexico has ever been arrested for rape, I would like to see it.

>185 barney67: He said "they're rapists". He did not say "some of them are rapists." She said "he was calling Mexicans racists", not "he was calling all Mexicans racists". As I said, your selective literalness here is problematic.

>185 barney67:

As I put it above, "Look, it's not all Jews I'm against. It's only the rich, money-grubbing, filthy, loud-mouthed communist Jews with the big noses who run the media, killed Christ and drink the blood of Christian children. Not all Jews. After all, I'm the least antisemitic person you have ever met!"

Glad to see he's continued the "I'm the least|most X person you ever met." Recent examples include "most Presidential." Really.

We all know that Trump speaks in hyperbole and oversimplification. I don't like it either, but it's not totally different from other candidates currently or in the past. Voters themselves think this way, so it's no surprise that they would feel sympathetic.

>188 barney67: hyperbole and oversimplification...it's not totally different from other candidates currently

Agreed--it's not totally different except for the "Mexican" and "rapist" part. Which is precisely why some people are objecting.

What are the statements from other candidates about Mexicans and/or rapists that are comparable? Or that even meet the criterion (a very low bar) of "not totally different." Please furnish some examples.

It's the content of the speech that is the crux of the matter, not a specious scholastic argument about a shared rhetorical strategy (hyperbole and oversimplification).

Do you have some examples, or is this just a rhetorical exercise of Barnsplaining?

>189 krolik: "a specious scholastic argument about a shared rhetorical strategy (hyperbole and oversimplification)"

That's certainly not I did. Hyperbole and oversimplification are so common that they don't require "scholastic" arguments.

If you mean the use of specific words, I agree that the other Republican candidates haven't used them, nor have they used the content of his accusations. I agree that they're nothing like Trump. They're not salesmen like Trump. But I have seen Sanders and Clinton use equally inflammatory rhetoric and insinuation. You don't see it because of your partisanship. Most liberal rhetoric is inflated and inflammatory because it relies more on emotion than on reason. That's exactly what Trump is doing. He knows that Americans don't do a lot of heavy thinking. But they are familiar with TV commercials and reality shows.

Is it true that some illegal Mexican immigrants have been accused of rape? I think so. Is Trump lumping them all together to make them seem more threatening? Probably. Does that make him a racist? No.

>190 barney67: Is it true that some illegal Mexican immigrants have been accused of rape? I think so. Is Trump lumping them all together to make them seem more threatening? Probably. Does that make him a racist? No.

Well, if you ask me, lumping people together to make them seem more threatening, ie implying that a whole race shares this characteristic, is racism. Whether deep down he is a racist or whether he is only using racism as a means to an end, who knows, but if it swims like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck and shits like a duck, well, it's probably, er, a duck.

>190 barney67:

Is it true that some illegal Mexican immigrants have been accused of rape? I think so. Is Trump lumping them all together to make them seem more threatening? Probably. Does that make him a racist? No.

As I indicated way back in >46 artturnerjr:, I tend to think his cynical pandering to racist stereotypes is worse than actual racism. Racism generally stems from ignorance; Donald Trump is not an ignorant man. He is stirring up racial resentment among Americans to get what he wants and he doesn't care who gets hurt in the process. I do not have words for how utterly despicable I think this is.

Is it true that some illegal Mexican immigrants have been accused of rape? I think so. Is Trump lumping them all together to make them seem more threatening? Probably. Does that make him a racist? No.

Lumping all of an ethic group together with the worst members of that group to smear them all is almost the very definition of racism.

>190 barney67:

Thus, instead of giving counter-examples to refute my claim, you say simply that they exist but I can't see them, because of my partisanship.

Let's assume that you're right. OK, I am blinded by partisanship. My bad! I don't get it.

Would you have the kindness to enlighten me, and give me some examples, so that I can see?

I think we can all agree that Mr Trump is a demagogue.

> 192 "Racism generally stems from ignorance"
This is the source of much wrong thinking.

"He is stirring up racial resentment among Americans to get what he wants and he doesn't care who gets hurt in the process"
Is that also true of Johnny Cochran and everyone on the defense at the OJ trial?

To repeat the point, Trump was not criticizing all Mexicans. If you heard it that way, you're jumping to conclusions. He knows that illegal immigration has caused a lot of problems. That, I think, is a consensus view that is not debatable.

>196 barney67: illegal immigration has caused a lot of problems. That, I think, is a consensus view that is not debatable

I can't speak for whether it is a consensus view in the USA, but there is no global consensus. It could certainly be described as a right wing view.

Is it "illegal immigration" which has caused some problems ("some" being different from "a lot"), or is it a minority of illegal immigrants who have caused some problems? Again, see the danger of lumping a whole group of people together?

The very term "illegal immigration" is itself loaded. While it may be technically correct to describe someone who is in a country without papers as "illegal", there are people fleeing situations where they have no opportunity to get legal papers, and then when they arrive as refugees, asylum seekers or whatever in a rich and peaceful country there is no way for them to get their status legalised. Catch 22? Are these people the problem, or are the systems they are fleeing and arriving in the problem?

Or is it in fact the people who are stirring up the racial and anti-immigrant resentment who are causing the problem? It's rather more complicated than the right wing sound bites.

illegal immigration has caused a lot of problems. That, I think, is a consensus view that is not debatable

It is very debateable, because it is wrong.

>196 barney67:

>192 artturnerjr: "Racism generally stems from ignorance"
This is the source of much wrong thinking.

I'm not quite sure what I am supposed to conclude from this statement. Are you arguing that racism does not generally stem from ignorance? That racists are correct in assuming that one race is superior to another? Please clarify.

"He is stirring up racial resentment among Americans to get what he wants and he doesn't care who gets hurt in the process"
Is that also true of Johnny Cochran and everyone on the defense at the OJ trial?

I don't know. I am not a student of the O.J. Simpson murder case or of Mr. Cochran. I am not trying to make the case that it has never occurred in the history of civilization that a person of color has used the same kind of tactics that Trump is using. I am trying to make the case that what Trump is doing is dangerous and immoral. Bringing up a case in which someone who is black, Hispanic, Native American, or whatever has used these tactics does not invalidate my argument regarding Trump.

197> You need to spend more time in California. I think that you're so wrong about so many things because you continue to view America through the past problems of South Africa.

>199 artturnerjr: "what Trump is doing is dangerous and immoral."
I take it you are not a fan of free speech.

No one is forced to listen to Trump. There's no such thing as an involuntary protest.

"Are you arguing that racism does not generally stem from ignorance? "
Ignorance can cause racism, but so can knowledge and experience. I see racism as another form of hatred. People aren't taught to hate. It comes naturally. That's why you will never be able to eliminate it, not by laws, education, guilt, shunning, or persuasion. So you might as well move you on and stop beating a dead horse. A future without racism is Star Trek stuff.

>201 barney67:

I take it you are not a fan of free speech.

No, I'm generally a big fan of free speech. Hate speech, not so much. I'm also not a big fan of demagogues that incite violence and then play dumb about it, make light of it, or try to place the blame for it on someone else.

I see racism as another form of hatred. People aren't taught to hate. It comes naturally. That's why you will never be able to eliminate it, not by laws, education, guilt, shunning, or persuasion.

Ironically, that was part of the point of the article that I posted a link to in >127 artturnerjr: that you ended up denouncing.

>202 artturnerjr: "Hate speech, not so much"
Well, if you're going to tolerate free speech, that means tolerating opinions you dislike. If there are people who riot simply because someone they disagree with is coming to town, that's their hangup.

By the way, there is no thing as hate speech. Hate exists. Speech exists. Two different subjects.

>203 barney67:

By the way, there is no thing as hate speech. Hate exists. Speech exists. Two different subjects.

Then the government of United States and that of numerous other countries are agreeing on a fiction?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#By_country

>204 artturnerjr: There is no such thing as college football. College exists. Football exists. Two different subjects.

>205 southernbooklady:

:D

> 204
It surprises you that lawyers try to create their own reality?

>191 John5918:

Amen.

I'm starting to wonder why anyone bothers with barney67 any more. He'll post something stupid and unsupported by facts, someone will point that out and provide citations showing barney67's assertion to be wrong, and then barney67 will just march blithely on repeating the same now-debunked claims while asserting himself to be the only rational person around. It would be comical if his posts weren't in support of such vile agendas.

That's not what he always does. Sometimes he just edits out the offending portions.

>209 StormRaven:

It isn't about arguing with the poster themselves, it's about the audience. Not everyone who reads threads here does so enough to remember names, or realize that there is no response because someone is being ignored by the group. If someone posts something offensive and ridiculous and no one contradicts them, it seems like everyone is tacitly agreeing with what they say.

I don't have the energy to continuously argue like that though. So thanks to everyone who keeps bothering!

>211 Settings:

I don't have the energy to continuously argue like that though. So thanks to everyone who keeps bothering!

I just hate this line of argumentation that says just because what Trump is saying isn't super-blatantly racist (which, in and of itself, is highly debatable - to my knowledge, he hasn't used any straight-up racial slurs, but he's said just about everything short of that), the way he is provoking people to violence is okay, or somehow not his fault. He is like a sadistic little kid that is throwing scraps of food at a pack of starving stray cats, knowing full well they are going to claw each other to pieces over them, and then when they do, steps back and says, "What? I didn't make them do that!" Despicable.

It used to be that Republicans (like Nixon) stood for law and order. Today's leader of the Republican Party (Mr Trump) calls for lawlessness among his supporters, who respond by beating people and threatening members of the media. (Eg., Mr Trump pondered the question of whether to kill protesters at one of his rallies -- he finally decided against it. At another rally, he said he wanted to punch a protester. He bragged at one point that he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot people and he would not be hurt at the polls).

There's been an aura of symbolic and physical violence around Republican politics since the Reagan era, epitomised most recently by the seditious Bundy bandits. Why have today's conservatives and the Republican Party embraced lawlessness? Is it the corrosive influence of the Tea Party's siren song?

>203 barney67: There is no such thing as a dog foot. Dogs exist, feet exist. Two separate things.

>213 theoria:

It used to be that Republicans (like Nixon) stood for law and order.

It would seem that they now stand for the New Order (some of them, anyway). I'm just waiting for the Brownshirts to make an appearance.

>211 Settings:

Thanks, Anoplophora. I sometimes wonder why I bother. Your post helps answer that question.

>213 theoria: You think that Republicans stand for lawlessness, but not the Clintons?

>212 artturnerjr:
"he is provoking people to violence"
He is? By talking? Don't you think that adults are past the point where they get their feelings hurt? Shouldn't they able to exercise some degree of tolerance and self-control? Of are these questions too "outrageous and ridiculous" for the scholars of this forum to consider?

Does anyone here believe in free speech? I haven't had a law class since school, but this is basic stuff. People who commit violence acts are responsible for their behavior. Or are you suggesting that because they are black or Mexican they are not responsible for their behavior, that they need special treatment, that they are so weak and irresponsible that they require some kind of kid-gloves paternalism and self-pity?

Because that, sport, is racist to the bone.

Edited: typos.

>200 barney67: You need to spend more time in California. I think that you're so wrong about so many things because you continue to view America through the past problems of South Africa.

I'd love to spend more time in California. Beautiful place. But I did live in another west coast state for two years, where I had some exposure to immigration issues, not least because I used to attend a Catholic parish which was part of the sanctuary programme. Inspiring.

I don't think I view the USA through the past problems of South Africa. I do think there are some broad but not detailed parallels with your country's racial history, but I'm baffled that you manage to link South Africa with immigration issues in the USA. If I were thinking of non-US countries hostile to immigration I would think first of my own native UK and a number of other European countries. If I were looking for countries which have tried to do the right thing by immigrants, Jordan, Lebanon, Kenya, Uganda and the like would spring to mind immediately.

>203 barney67: By the way, there is no thing as hate speech

There is. It is speech which is hateful in itself and which incites hatred. It can be and often is a precursor to violent acts.

Lots of hedging and weasel words here. Let's see:

super-blatantly racist - as opposed to racist
straight-up racial slurs - as opposed to racial slur
in and of itself - meaningless logorrhea & tautology
symbolic violence - huh?
the seditious Bundy bandits - Al Bundy?

Trump exaggerates? And you don't?
Brownshirts - them again!
isn't super-blatantly racist - super blatantly!
he's said just about everything short of that - everything? meaningless logorrhea & tautology
the New Order - Calling Alex Jones....
Despicable - Calling Daffy Duck
It used to be that Republicans (like Nixon) stood for law and order - Well, except for that one time...
his supporters, who respond by beating people - oh?
the corrosive influence of the Tea Party's siren song - Oh, brother. Hyperbole. And a mixed metaphor. Songs don't corrode. Rust corrodes. You might have said "deafened by the siren's song" or "distracted the siren's song" or "driven mad by the siren's son"

John, will you ever stop talking about Africa? Is there any way to persuade you that Africa is not a template for the US or anyone else?

>218 barney67: "he is provoking people to violence"
He is? By talking?

One way of provoking violence against a community is to create a narrative which paints them as being "other", and on top of that as being bad, dangerous, a threat, inferior, or what ever. I can't believe you are not aware of how this has happened in many parts of the world. It was a precursor to genocide in Rwanda. It is how many regimes fomented popular antagony towards other groups - Jews, Slavs, Romanies, homosexuals, Muslims, Arabs, Communists, blacks. By talking.

And it's not about "getting their feelings hurt". It's about creating an atmosphere of threat and sometimes actual violence against them.

Shouln't they able to excercise some degree of tolerance and self-control?

Maybe. But have you never seen the mob mentality in action? Self-control goes out of the window fairly quickly when emotions are being fanned, especially when it is being done deliberately and often quite cleverly. People can be manipulated. That's why we have advertisements and spin doctors.

>221 barney67:

Is there any way to persuade you that the USA is not an exception which is not in any way linked to the rest of the world; nor is it exempt from global dynamics? Is that what they call "US exceptionalism"? You certainly seem to be a proponent of it.

But my mention of Africa in >219 John5918: was to try to understand why you (not me) had linked South Africa to US immigration in >200 barney67:, something which I hadn't done, as I explained.

America has ALWAYS been friendlier to immigrants than most other countries because WE ARE THE MELTING POT! I doubt there is a country more diverse ethnically, racially, religiously. Ever been to Florida?

Did you read my post about Finland? Most countries are homogenous. That's not true of the US. This patchwork quilt of people have managed to survive for over 200 years with only one Civil War, having far surpassed other countries in happiness and prosperity - and tolerance. Our tolerance has been tested - who else can say that? That's with a population of people from countries all over the world who think differently, talk differently, dress differently, worship differently. This list goes on and on. How can anyone dare call America xenophobic? Absurd!

Barney, if you could, I'd appreciate it if you could respond to my posts >189 krolik: & >194 krolik: with some examples.

>224 barney67:

It's precisely because you claim the high moral ground and that so many of you are from immigrant backgrounds that many people are both confused and appalled to see how the USA is no longer welcoming immigrants. Australia also seems to have dropped the ball.

Let me not mention any other big continents beginning with A, but small, poor countries like Lebanon and Jordan are setting an example when we see how many refugees they have taken in in proportion to their population size and wealth. Mind you, you might have to look at Al Jazeera to see stories like that actually getting air time anywhere.

> 224 ...I doubt there is a country more diverse ethnically, racially, religiously (than the US)...

Not so--see:
A revealing map of the world’s most and least ethnically diverse countries
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-...

On the upside, the USA IS among the most tolerant:
5 insights on the racial tolerance and ethnicity maps, from an ethnic conflict professor
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/17/5-insights-on-the-r...

>216 John5918:

Thanks for being one of the many people who make these threads worth reading.

>227 margd:

Here's a list of countries by immigrate population sourced from a 2013 UN publication. The US has the largest immigrant population due to our large overall population, but is only 14.3% immigrants. Many other countries including the UAE (83.7%), Kuwait (70%), Qatar (73.8%), Bahrain (54.7%), Singapore (42.9%), Saudi Arabia (31.4%), Switzerland (28.9%), Australia (27.7%), Israel (26.5%), New Zealand (25.1%), Kazakhstan (21.1%), and Canada (20.7%) have higher percentages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population

And here's a list of countries organized by a Religious Diversity Index. The United States is nearer to the middle than the top.
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/04/04/religious-diversity-index-scores-by-country/

Safe countries: Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada.

Unsafe countries? The rest in that paragraph. Immigration and diversity haven't worked out too well there, have they?

>229 barney67:

"Safe countries: Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada."

Plus Kuwait, Singapore, and Qatar. (Edit: And the UAE)
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Global-Peace-Index-Repor...

"Unsafe countries? The rest in that paragraph. Immigration and diversity haven't worked out too well there, have they?"

This is such poor logic I can't even begin to unpack it.

he is provoking people to violence"
He is? By talking? Don't you think that adults are past the point where they get their feelings hurt? Shouldn't they able to exercise some degree of tolerance and self-control? Of are these questions too "outrageous and ridiculous" for the scholars of this forum to consider?

One would hope... but these are Trump supporters we're discussing. They're not particularly noted (nor their candidate) for tolerance or self-control. And given that Trump has stated he'll cover legal fees, what's the consequence of hauling off on someone?

>218 barney67: wrote: "he is provoking people to violence"
He is? By talking?

"Donald Trump briefly faced the threat of criminal charges on Monday night, as efforts grew across the political spectrum to check his increasingly violent rise on the eve of key US primary elections.

Police in North Carolina were reportedly investigating whether the Republican frontrunner should be prosecuted for incitement after an African American protester was hit in the face as he was escorted out of a rally in Fayetteville last week.

Trump has previously said he would like to punch protesters “in the face” himself, expressing nostalgia for a time when those causing disruption would be “carried out on a stretcher”. In common with other recent incidents, he offered to pay the legal fees of the assailant involved on Thursday." http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/donald-trump-briefly-threatened-c...

>198 StormRaven:

I don't think anyone disputes that illegal immigration causes problems. The question is whether, in aggregate, the benefits outweigh the problems—which, IMHO, they do—and whether "solving the problem" can be done morally—which, IMHO, it cannot. As with free trade, Trump is on the wrong side of the economics, supporting xenophobia against the facts. And, as with much of the rest of his program, his "solutions" to immigration are at variance with both human decency and the facts and possibilities of the world.

Many other countries including the UAE (83.7%), Kuwait (70%), Qatar (73.8%), Bahrain (54.7%), Singapore (42.9%), Saudi Arabia (31.4%), Switzerland (28.9%), Australia (27.7%), Israel (26.5%), New Zealand (25.1%), Kazakhstan (21.1%), and Canada (20.7%) have higher percentages.

The list rather disproves itself.

The Gulf states that headline the list—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE—are not tolerant melting pots. They're nasty oligarchies, where large segments of the oil-rich elites refuse to engage in ordinary occupations, but import low-wage foreign to take out their trash, make their meals and have sex with (often by rape). They NEVER become citizens, and are barely protected by law as guests. A foreign worker in a Gulf state is a powerless thing, without real rights and liable to be replaced by another disposable individual if they make the slightest fuss. Here's a representative article on the abuse of domestic workers from the Human Rights Campaign: https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/16/gulf-states-fail-protect-domestic-workers-se...

Other special cases dot the list. Kazakhstan—and Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics—are not full of immigrants because they're fundamentally tolerant, melting-pot societies, but because they are the remnants of a transnational empire that fell apart. One can hope that this happenstance makes them tolerant, but their "immigrants" are not like those of a place like the USA or Australia.

As for NZ, Australia, Canada and the US—great. They've got a lot of immigrants, and, unlike many other states with high immigrant populations, if you went back in the generation, they'd show more immigrants still. They are utterly different from the ugly gulf regimes or the disrupted ex-Soviet states.

I am, however, surprised you didn't trumpet Vatican City, where 100% are immigrants. What a model state!

>234 timspalding:

"The list rather disproves itself."

What is being disproven? I don't intend to make any point besides that the United States is not the most diverse country when measured by the number of immigrants. It's an extension of Margd's point.

Well, it's apples and oranges. A Roman salt mine was a diverse place too—probably more diverse than California. So what?

>234 timspalding: The Gulf states that headline the list... are not tolerant melting pots

I think the myth of the USA as "tolerant melting pot" might look different from the perspective of African slaves and their descendants, or Native Americans, to name but two groups. But even accepting that it might have been generally true for immigrants in the past, it is getting increasingly difficult to recognise it in current US attitudes to immigration and immigrants, and indeed to "the other" in general.

A foreign worker in a Gulf state is a powerless thing, without real rights

Looks to me as if, with the current anti-immigrant hysteria, the USA and much of Europe is moving in a direction where immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers labelled "illegal" will have no real rights.

They have the right to look at Macedonia.

>237 John5918: Looks to me as if, with the current anti-immigrant hysteria, the USA and much of Europe is moving in a direction where immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers labelled "illegal" will have no real rights.

In the USA "anti-immigrant hysteria" has been as constant as its open-immigration policies. The hysteria simply tends to be focused on whatever unfortunate ethnic / cultural group is currently inciting our xenophobia. Right now it is Mexicans and Muslims, but it's been Irish Catholics, Chinese, even Russians. Basically my impression is that we don't like immigrants who are poor. Worse, if they are poor and not white. But being poor seems to be their chief sin.

>239 southernbooklady:

Immigration and periodic resistance to it has been one of the main themes of American history.

But just to say that is to point out a difference between the US and virtually every other country. Continual mass immigration, and not just from neighbors, but from all over the world, is not a normal thing in a modern history. Coming from a US perspective, you might imagine it is, and that we've failing at something other countries, "not being racist like us," got right. By and large, that's just not the case.

By the way, I never got to Switzerland and Israel, touted as high-immigrant on that list. Switzerland's big "immigrants" are from the nation-states of the national communities that already make up its four-nation system. Israel's "immigrants" come from all over, but they are only allowed to come because they are Jews. That Switzerland has a lot of French, Italians and Germans, and Israel has Jews born in Poland or recently acquired from ex-Soviet states—helpfully replacing the need to hire Arabs—doesn't speak to a special tolerance for the other, but, actually, the exact opposite.

>240 timspalding: Continual mass immigration, and not just from neighbors, but from all over the world, is not a normal thing in a modern history.

As an aside, Mary Beard makes the case for Rome as a nation of citizens, not ethnicity, in her latest book, S.P.Q.R. But that's going pretty far back.

>240 timspalding: you might imagine it is, and that we've failing at something other countries, "not being racist like us," got right

If I gave that impression, I apologise. I am equally critical of my own native land, Britain, and of many European countries in their current aversion to immigrants. Likewise Australia. I'm truly appalled at the general western attitude towards and treatment of immigrants these days.

I think, though, as I said somewhere above, the USA has tried to claim the high moral ground on this ("Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me", etc), so you are rather an easy target when you fail to live up to these claims. And this thread is about Donald Trump, not David Cameron, so it does tend to concentrate on the USA.

>241 southernbooklady:

Sure. And, as you say, it's a long way back. But, apart from a very few cities—maybe only Rome and Constantinople—the Roman Empire didn't involve a lot of immigration. Citizenship expanded by being extended to more and more people, farther and farther out.

At the height of empire, someone from the obscure provinces, like St. Paul could be a Roman citizens, presumably because his family had some prominence in Samosata, but Rome itself swarmed with Jews and others who weren't citizens.

Also, as often noted, Roman citizenship was widely given because it was also relatively weak. Roman citizens didn't have much political control, and they had to be actually in the city of Rome itself to exercise it. By contrast, Athenian citizenship was tightly controlled because it was so powerful.

The other immigration factor was the resettlement of retired Roman soldiers in select spots of the Empire. This had a number of goals and effects. But it was more an instrument of central control than a immigration as we know it.

>242 John5918:

Likewise Australia.

Australia currently has a net overseas migration of about 168,200 per year - Which exceeds its natural increase per year of 148,900 (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0). And that net overseas migration includes a humanitarian program this year of 25,750 refugees (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-29/fact-check-syria-largest-refugee-intake-julie-bishop/6786074). Which is significantly proportionally higher than that of counties like the US and the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate). And most of them are from non-Western cultural and ethnic backgrounds - China and India being the two largest sources (https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/migration-trends13-14-glance.pdf). All of which is overwhelmingly supported by the Australian people (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australians-overwhelmingly-support-immigration-but-not-illegals-20150429-1mvqa0.html).

One of the key reasons WHY it is supported however, is because people feel like they have control over population inflows. If you want a high migration society, which is supportive of immigrants, the evidence suggests you can't allow uncontrolled and unauthorised immigration. That is, losing control of your borders creates the anti-immigrant reaction, not so much high migration itself (even high refugee intakes).

So if you want societies to take more refugees and migrants more generally - You have to be able to impose control over the numbers and identities of those who come. That is the humanitarian approach. Anything else is highly likely to cause human misery, either by deaths in transit (as occurred now for those going to Europe and previously for those going to Australia) or by rejection of migrants in host countries (as is also occurring in Europe and America). There remains the need to avoid consequentialism - The outcomes should not be used to justify things to get them which are unconscionable in themselves. But supporting open borders is not going to lead to humanitarian outcomes - The more likely outcome is increasing high votes for xenophobia as shown by recent German and US trends. Which is a very bad place to be going to.

>244 hf22:

Yes, although such immigration is new in Australia. I just read up on the "White Australia Policy" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy ) and it is pretty depressing stuff. The US didn't need to pass a special law to allow non-white war brides to reside in the country! The US is now 37% non-white. Australia is, what, under 10%?

That is, losing control of your borders creates the anti-immigrant reaction, not so much high migration itself (even high refugee intakes).

Maybe. Although some options are open to Australia that just aren't open to other countries. For the US to "close its borders" is virtually impossible. The "physical" options are laughable. The best we could do is institute a massive new system for screening non-citizens out of jobs and punishing individuals and companies that hire them. That would, in turn, require a major change in how the US relates to the states and to businesses, and rip apart tens of millions of families too. We can't paddle ourselves off into the ocean.

You have to be able to impose control over the numbers and identities of those who come. That is the humanitarian approach.

Australia's policies are largely designed to bring in skilled, well-to-do foreigners. You let in some outright refugees—a requirement of international law. But economic migrants without bank accounts and degrees aren't admitted. This isn't a commitment to diversity, or humanity. Rather, to this American, it strikes me as the extension of British attitudes toward high-class non-whites. Yes, a Raja was an Indian, but he wasn't quite the nigger like a poor Indian was. "Class over race" is not much an improvement.

In any case, I see nothing humanitarian in an immigration policy designed to help those who don't need help, and which, in fact, contributes to the skills and wealth drain on poor countries.

>245 timspalding:

I just read up on the "White Australia Policy"

Yes, multi-ethnic immigration is a post WWII thing in Australia. And mostly because we ran out of white people who would come – Populate or perish was the idea. Not necessarily a proud historical fact, though it was in fact a left wing policy at the time (i.e. rich capitalist imperialists didn’t care what colour their workers are as long as they were cheap – Poor democratic labourers who had to live with and compete for jobs with newcomers took a less enlightened view however).

Australia is, what, under 10%?

30% foreign born (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3412.0Chapter12011-12%20and%202012-13), which makes about 10% of other than European background. But trending up – As I say the majority of the present intake is non-Western and has been for some time.

For the US to "close its borders" is virtually impossible.

This meme is widespread, but mostly ideologically self-serving. The people who tell you the problem is too big to solve, will tell you it is too small to worry about if trends change. Sometimes, like here, they try both. But if you want a sovereign country, being able to control borders is a pretty minimum requirement, and not much harder than many other things which are done.

You might not like what may be required for it to be done, but it undoubtedly could be done.

Australia's policies are largely designed to bring in skilled, well-to-do foreigners. You let in some outright refugees—a requirement of international law.

Well there are two different things – An economic program and a refugee program.

The economic program is on the basis of it being mutually beneficially, but does still markedly change the cultural and ethnic make-up of the country. A racist or a xenophobic country would not operate such a program. It is not humanitarian, but it is not racist.

The refugee program is humanitarian and nothing else however. And no it is not a requirement of international law. These are refugees resettled from international camps under the UN system – Not people coming direct to the country (i.e. the boats, as it were, have been stopped by eliminating the prospect of resettlement in a rich country). 12,000 of them from Syria for example this year.

I don’t see however that economic migrants, who are neither refugees nor economically desired by a host country, have a moral right to be accepted into a host country which democratically decides otherwise.

As a Catholic, following the principle of the universal destination of goods, I certainly accept there is an obligation to share wealth and opportunity to those in poorer countries. But I don’t see why accepting economic migrants is the best or only way of doing that. Indeed I would have thought helping people where they are, without the social and cultural dislocation inherent in migration, would be far the preferred method.

Requiring people to leave their homes and land, to which they have cultural and perhaps spiritual connections, does not seem to me to be an ideal approach to global wealth redistribution.

>245 timspalding: You have to be able to impose control over the numbers and identities of those who come. That is the humanitarian approach.

What nonsense. "I was a stranger and you made me welcome" (Matthew 25:35). That is the humanitarian approach.

But if you want a sovereign country, being able to control borders is a pretty minimum requirement, and not much harder than many other things which are done.

You confuse "sovereign" with "small." Russia, Brazil, Canada, and China can't "control their border." It's not because they aren't sovereign.

You might not like what may be required for it to be done, but it undoubtedly could be done.

You confuse "not like" with "immoral." Really "ending" illegal immigration to the US would require a racist police state.

The refugee program is humanitarian and nothing else however. And no it is not a requirement of international law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

Australia is a signatory.

the boats, as it were, have been stopped by eliminating the prospect of resettlement in a rich country

Guardian: Could Australia's 'stop the boats' policy solve Europe's migrant crisis?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/22/could-australia-stop-the-boats-poli...

Five years later Australia has implemented one of the harshest border policies in the world. It is characterised by three core points: turning or towing back boats of asylum seekers at sea; forcing asylum seekers to live in detention centres across the Pacific in Nauru and Papua New Guinea; and guaranteeing they will never be resettled in Australia.

As a Catholic, following the principle of the universal destination of goods, I certainly accept there is an obligation to share wealth and opportunity to those in poorer countries. But I don’t see why accepting economic migrants is the best or only way of doing that. Indeed I would have thought helping people where they are, without the social and cultural dislocation inherent in migration, would be far the preferred method.

I see no way to a general Catholic principle. And your fashioning of one strikes me as the Samaritan insisting that, rather than taking the man to the inn, someone else should provide on-site medical care.

But, yes, generous foreign aid is an important corrective to — Oh shit…

Guardian: Budget cuts to foreign aid put Australia on track for least generous spend ever
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/may/14/budget-cuts-to-foreign-aid-...

"Record cuts outlined in the 2015 federal budget will see Australia’s foreign aid relative to income fall to the lowest levels since the creation of a formal aid program more than 40 years ago."

>246 hf22: The people who tell you the problem is too big to solve, will tell you it is too small to worry about if trends change. Sometimes, like here, they try both.

It is not a contradiction to say that a problem is too difficult to solve and not important enough to worry about. Like food purity; there are levels of permitted mercury and arsenic in the food that you eat, because reducing it to zero cost too much and has too little benefit.

But if you want a sovereign country, being able to control borders is a pretty minimum requirement, and not much harder than many other things which are done.

Meh. There have been sovereign countries for centuries without that ability. The level of tracking necessary to follow menial labor crossing borders is pretty new. The Schengen Area is a group of 26 sovereign countries that basically have no internal border controls.

The US has 12,000 kilometers worth of borders, including over 3,000 with Mexico, in the world's most frequently (legally) crossed border. As I believe has been pointed out in this thread, the hard part is not just the border; the US, like many other countries, have people come in legally and then neglect to leave when their visa ran out.

You might not like what may be required for it to be done, but it undoubtedly could be done.

Are you offering Australia as a target to show the US is willing to use nuclear weapons? Conquering North America seems the easiest way, and we would want a country outside our future territory to demonstrate our willingness to use nukes to do so. Whether it could be done is not really the question; whether it's worth it to do so is.

On dear - Never interrupt self-righteousness with facts I see. As I don't actually care about nation states per se, nor am I against open borders myself, I will just stick to the facts as far as possible.

>247 John5918:

Irrelevant to the matter of economic migrants. Reality is greater than ideas, as you might have heard someone say. Here is the thing. A person in say Sudan might demand economic justice - That he or she not starve while others enjoy a surfeit of wealth (or related things).

If your answer to that demand is that they cannot have it while living with their home and culture, but rather they have to give up their home and practically speaking their culture as well, well then I don't think you are welcoming the stranger. I think rather you are committing an injustice.

>248 timspalding:

You confuse "sovereign" with "small."

No. If you can't control mass migration into a territory, you don't have sovereignty over it. You can hardly be said to govern it.

You confuse "not like" with "immoral."

I am keen to make the point that "I have scruples" is not the same as "It can't be done". Because when you confuse the two, the result will be that someone goes and does it without any regard the morality of the act.

Really "ending" illegal immigration to the US would require a racist police state.

I am afraid the evidence is not controlling your borders ends up with a racist police state. The ever increasing vote shares for anti-immigrant parties in Europe, who are pretty close to be being neo-Nazis, even now in Germany where they never had any traction post War shows this. As does Trump's popularity in the USA.

On the other hand, when you get it back under control, the xenophobic political parties die (c/f the now defunct One Nation in Australia). And greater numbers of refugees are able to be offered protection.

Australia is a signatory.

I am well aware of that, as I am of how it works, which you clearly are not. Could we not double down on ignorance please?

The Convention generally operates in regards to people who turn up on or within your borders (i.e. boat people in an Australian context, of which we now don't have any). Think pre WW2 Jewish refugees, in which context it was created (i.e. a never again kind of idea). For example, you can't return them to where they would be threatened. It does NOT require a signatory to offer to resettle any number of people who have claimed refugee status in other countries, as is provided by Australia's humanitarian program.

Five years later Australia has implemented one of the harshest border policies in the world.

During which time no one has been denied protection or returned to persecution, the Refugee Convention has arguably not been breached, thousands who otherwise would have died at sea have not, and the number of people actually resettled as refugees in Australia per year has doubled.

I see no way to a general Catholic principle.

And I see no way to getting Western countries to accept open borders. Germany lasted what, two days, before they pulled their offer to do so? Democratic reality is a bugger like that. About as much chance as the USA readopting Queen Elizabeth II as their constitutional monarch.

Budget cuts to foreign aid put Australia on track for least generous spend ever

Indeed. The joys of Government budget deficits. But I don't think anyone would dispute that a generous foreign aid program, say at least meeting the Millennium Development Goals if not significantly more, is far more politically achievable than open borders.

It is also worth noting that while the negative effects of immigration (and there are some) fall predominately on the poor members of Western societies, the costs of greater aid / wealth distribution could be imposed on richer people like you and I. That richer people are happy with open borders than relatively poorer people is not an accident, nor is it something that someone with a preferential option for the poor of all nations can ignore.

>249 prosfilaes:

It is not a contradiction

It is not a matter of it being a contradiction, but being a dishonest political strategy. It is one thing to argue for open borders. It is another to pretend small matters can't become large when a permissive approach is adopted, and then pretend nothing can be done about it once it has become large.

The Schengen Area is a group of 26 sovereign countries that basically have no internal border controls.

The EU in general, and the Schengen in particular, are explicitly about transferring sovereignty. EU member states are happy to lose a measure of sovereignty for other benefits. But they realise they are in fact losing a measure of sovereignty.

many other countries, have people come in legally and then neglect to leave when their visa ran out.

Yes, I think in Australia, visa over stayers outnumbered people coming by boat. But people, being not entirely rational, seem to care less about that. But be that as it may, immigration enforcement can be applied to visa overstayers without a police state.

Are you offering Australia as a target to show the US is willing to use nuclear weapons?

I think you will find Japan already provided that example.

And also accepts bugger all refugees despite having signed the Refugee Convention! And remains in compliance with that same Convention! Who would have guessed! Only 27 last year apparently (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/japan-rejected-99-percent-refugees-2015-160124070011926.html).

>250 hf22: 'I am afraid the evidence is not controlling your borders ends up with a racist police state.' Absolutely true. As the US is most manifestly a racist police state in relation to black people it is absolutely true that keeping the border open to slavery has made the emergence of a racist police state possible.

Are Lebanon and Jordan racist police states? Are Kenya and Uganda? If we go around the world and look at the countries which are hosting most refugees, are they all racist police states?

>252 John5918:

Sigh. I am not suggesting high refugee populations are intolerable. I am suggesting how they can be made politically sustainable. Those ultra right reactions are real, are bad, and can be avoided with thought. And if avoided, you can help more people.

More refugees, less hate. Better result.

As to your examples, last time I checked, Kenya has not lacked such reactions against say Somali refugees. Because for example they think the camps give cover to Islamic militants. So the concept would still hold in those types of contexts.

For example here it suggests racial profiling, police searches and threats of refoulment are not unusual for Somalis in Kenya (www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/what-it-s-be-somali-refugee-kenya). Sounds something like what many here would call racist and a police state. No?

And if Kenyans felt they had some control over migration, so they were not in fear of Islamic militants crossing over, the racism and police harassment would be reduced. No?

>250 hf22: Never interrupt self-righteousness with facts I see.

Statements like this come off as very self-righteous.

No. If you can't control mass migration into a territory, you don't have sovereignty over it. You can hardly be said to govern it. .... The EU in general, and the Schengen in particular, are explicitly about transferring sovereignty.

Fun fact: the EU and Schengen Zone are not coterminous, and neither is a subset of the other. If you're claiming that Switzerland is not a sovereign state, fine, but I suggest that you are no longer using a definition of sovereign that we're interested in.

The Convention generally operates in regards to people who turn up on or within your borders (i.e. boat people in an Australian context, of which we now don't have any).

Which really does bring its relevance to the US situation, which has 12,000 kilometers of border with people living close to both sides, to question.

(Interestingly the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne that covers part of Canada and the United States and there have been problems with their disinterest in assisting with border control.)

It is not a matter of it being a contradiction, but being a dishonest political strategy. It is one thing to argue for open borders. It is another to pretend small matters can't become large when a permissive approach is adopted, and then pretend nothing can be done about it once it has become large.

Perhaps you stick to the facts? It is an entirely honest political strategy to argue that a problem is too hard to solve and to argue that it's too small to solve.

I don't know what "open borders" and "a permissive approach" mean in this context, especially since you're arguing against three people. The use of vague words to avoid discussing actual policy is not a helpful political approach.

I think you will find Japan already provided that example.

To solve this problem, we need a 21st century example.

One could argue that it brings into question Australia's sovereignty if it can't stop a foreign power from reducing its cities to ash. You can hardly be said to govern a country if it could be annihilated at a moment's notice. Seems like a little limiting definition of sovereignty to use since the invention of the ICBM, but it seems as realistic as yours. What control do you have if you can't even keep your people from being slaughtered?

>254 prosfilaes:

Statements like this come off as very self-righteous.

What a wonderful way to insulate yourself from criticism.

Fun fact: the EU and Schengen Zone are not coterminous, and neither is a subset of the other.

I am aware.

If you're claiming that Switzerland is not a sovereign state

Giving up control of your borders to another entity, like the EU, is giving up an aspect of sovereignty. Switzerland however could withdraw from Schengen, so it would likely be better to say they choose not to police their borders, rather than that they cannot do so. As shown by various countries in the EU recently reimposing border controls.

But everyone in the EU, supporters and detractors, know they are transferring aspects of sovereignty like border control to the EU (and ultimately all sovereignty – ever closer union and all that). This is not a controversial matter – Indeed it is one of the explicit points of the thing.

Which really does bring its relevance to the US situation, which has 12,000 kilometers of border with people living close to both sides, to question

I don’t think too many Mexicans or Canadians are refugees at the moment, though clearly some refugees have transited via Mexico from land linked countries such as Guatemala etc at various times. The issue from Central / South America is generally economic migrants, to which the Convention does not apply.

It is an entirely honest political strategy to argue that a problem is too hard to solve and to argue that it's too small to solve.

There are what, like 60 million actual refugees in the world at the moment, and likely several billion who would like to be economic migrants (and many of those are indistinguishable from refugees when they try, by for example dumping their papers). If you pretend a permissive approach can be adopted because numbers are small, you create a massive pull factor, that the problem gets big quick. As just happened in Germany.

And then they say it is impossible to stop, while acknowledging it is no longer to small to worry about. It is dishonest.

I don't know what "open borders" and "a permissive approach" mean in this context

The quickly abandoned German approach of announcing all comers would be accepted is one example. Tim’s argument that economic migrants should all be accepted if they turn up is another. The blip in Australia’s policy where it tried to unwind its offshore detention regime once the boats had stopped coming, only to recreate the population flow which then required even harsher measures to stop them again, would be a third.

One could argue that it brings into question Australia's sovereignty if it can't stop a foreign power from reducing its cities to ash.

Sure. That is why sovereign countries have, you know, defence forces. And in Australia’s case, that includes making sure you keep on the quiet sufficient nuclear infrastructure to maintain nuclear breakout capability, in the event we lost (or suspected we might lose) the benefit the US nuclear umbrella. As do a large number of other countries (like Japan etc).

Being able to defend yourself is a key part of sovereignty. Countries don’t take it lightly. Did you imagine it was otherwise?

>255 hf22: What a wonderful way to insulate yourself from criticism.

Shrug. Is it pointless insult really criticism?

Giving up control of your borders to another entity, like the EU, is giving up an aspect of sovereignty.

The Schengen Zone is not the EU. How do you claim you know this fact and conflate them again in the next sentence?

So then one can give up such control and still be a sovereign nation. Thank you. That simply maximizing the amount of "sovereignty" in this sense is valuable seems to be far from self-evident.

That the US borders should be porous with Mexico and Canada is a value. Those tens of thousand of square miles of wilderness have largely been scarred enough; those millions of people living on the border have enough trouble doing business on the other side.

I don’t think too many Mexicans or Canadians are refugees...

Non-responsive. That Australia can control its territorial waters, stopping boats miles away from landing, says nothing about the US border, that the US has zero ability to stop people walking up to.

The quickly abandoned German approach...

What do they mean in the context of the US-Mexico border that we were discussing?

And in Australia’s case, that includes making sure you keep on the quiet sufficient nuclear infrastructure to maintain nuclear breakout capability, in the event we lost (or suspected we might lose) the benefit the US nuclear umbrella.

In some sense, any state that is under another's nuclear umbrella is not really "sovereign". If Australia wants to maximize its sovereignty, I think it needs to be able to stand on its own two feet.

>256 prosfilaes:

Is it (sic) pointless insult really criticism?

It is a call to evidenced based discussion.

How do you claim you know this fact and conflate them again in the next sentence?

Seriously? Because it is the nature of the European Project and European Institutions. The EU is not one agreement, it is a mozaic of them, all of which have a slightly different coverage of countries in and out of the formal EU.

But despite that, all of the agreements and institutions are European, and form part of the European Project. And so, unless the coverage is germane to the matter at hand, they are generally identified as part of that self same thing.

So then one can give up such control and still be a sovereign nation.

But less so, particularly if the surrender of control is irreversible.

That simply maximizing the amount of "sovereignty" in this sense is valuable seems to be far from self-evident.

Sure. The whole European Project is based on the idea sovereignty can be exchanged for greater goods. But no one denies they are in fact exchanging sovereignty.

That Australia can control its territorial waters, stopping boats miles away from landing, says nothing about the US border, that the US has zero ability to stop people walking up to.

Facts, evidence, history even. You heard of it? Land borders have their own challenges, but they are not uniquely impossible to secure to a reasonable level. You might remember talk of an Iron Curtain? It was not just a figure of speech. Closed a massive land border right in the middle of bloody Europe with 1950's resources - A much greater challenge than the southern US border I would think (the northern border not needing such security).

What do they mean in the context of the US-Mexico border that we were discussing?

They mean that, if you implement policies which allow unrestricted economic migration, you will create a pull factor which will significantly increase unrestricted economic migration. To levels which are, at least politically, unsustainable when citizens don't feel they have any control.

If Australia wants to maximize its sovereignty, I think it needs to be able to stand on its own two feet.

Yeah. Hence the breakout capability.

>257 hf22: It is a call to evidenced(sic) based discussion.

Accusing your opponents of being self-righteous is hardly a call to evidence-based discussion.

Seriously? Because it is the nature of the European Project and European Institutions.

Yes, seriously. The fact is that Switzerland is not a EU nation, and you are willfully blurring that fact.

Facts, evidence, history even. You heard of it?

Yep. I've walked next to the Berlin Wall, so in fact, even the East Germans had zero ability to stop people walking up to their border. And you know, East Germany was a police state; 10% of its population was spies. And people still tunneled under the wall.

Closed a massive land border right in the middle of bloody Europe with 1950's resources

And doing so between the US and Mexico would probably be in violation of NAFTA. It would substantially screw with our economy; closing the world's most crossed border isn't going to be free. It might honestly be more practical to conquer Mexico and secure our new southern border.

They mean that, if you implement policies which allow unrestricted economic migration, you will create a pull factor which will significantly increase unrestricted economic migration.

Australia and US are different. Many people from Mexico in the US illegally are not immigrants. They work here, but their heart and family are still in Mexico. When the recession hit, a lot of them went home.

Personally, I tend towards not messing with citizenship but offering work visas to basically any Mexican who wants to apply for one across the border. By giving up most of the ability to control who works here, we get the ability to track them.

But to track some subset of the population you really have to track the whole population. Otherwise how do you tell if someone who doesn't have papers is an illegal or is a citizen who doesn't need papers?

>259 jjwilson61: We would then know pretty much everyone who is in the country legally. And if police take someone into custody, it shouldn't be that hard to find if they're citizens or illegal immigrants. I would hope that that would reduce the argument police deporting people they picked up and discovered they were illegal in the country if we already had a situation where very few were excluded.

>258 prosfilaes:

Accusing your opponents of being self-righteous is hardly a call to evidence-based discussion.

My comment, if you will recall, referred specifically to the failure to address the facts.

The fact is that Switzerland is not a EU nation, and you are willfully blurring that fact.

It would be better and more accurate to think of it as having joined some common European institutions but not others. The in / out of the EU bright lines are, well, fuzzier than your approach suggests.

And people still tunneled under the wall.

I think we can grant it provided a substantial measure of control of large numbers of migrants? Just from looking at the numbers of migrants from the eastern side of it before and after it was put up?

It would substantially screw with our economy; closing the world's most crossed border isn't going to be free.

Well, national and jurisdictional borders of any kind, come with economic costs. However I don’t think you have to go anywhere near actually closing the border, in order to create the political space to support a high migration policy (ensuring political support for high migration, not eliminating high migration, being my aim here). Just impose some controls – Know who is coming across and why etc. This allows you to turn away those who are a high risk of overstaying, and identify who have overstayed etc. Or at least provides the appearance of it, which for political purposes can often be as good.

Many people from Mexico in the US illegally are not immigrants.

Being an economic migrant, or a temporary migrant, is not the same as not being a migrant.

By giving up most of the ability to control who works here, we get the ability to track them.

Again, losing (or appearing to lose) control of who can come, creates the unfortunate reactions we are seeing. Even as compared to higher numbers with control or at least apparent. The US can, and should, offer work permits or citizenship to as many as it pleases. But it has to be able to make sure it, democratically, is able to decide (or appear to decide) how many and who to accept. At least if you don’t want anti-immigration feeling to be unleashed.

Otherwise how do you tell if someone who doesn't have papers is an illegal or is a citizen who doesn't need papers?

I am not sure of the lived experience in the USA, but here in Australia that reality has moved on with technology. In the 1980’s we rejected a national ID card (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Card), but since then the State has acquired far more ability to require people to identify themselves. For example you can hardly operate in the economy these days without a bank account, and a bank account requires a person to be identified for anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism reasons#. Not to mention every interaction with Government, Schools, Healthcare, public transport, car licences, getting into a pub, getting a mobile phone etc. Even fake IDs are harder, because in many of those interactions identification is being checked against centralised databases.

These days for better or worse, even in the west, we ARE being tracked. Operating as an official non-person can be made difficult, without imposing anything extra on ordinary citizens.

# The tax system has been crafted as to work against a cash or black economy, with the GST/VAT and withholding tax systems applying a high penalty to businesses dealing with unidentified payees.

>261 hf22: My comment, if you will recall, referred specifically to the failure to address the facts.

Grandstanding about how your opponents is refusing to address facts, especially as >250 hf22: makes quite clear, your opponents are making fact-based arguments, is self-righteous and unproductive.

The in / out of the EU bright lines are, well, fuzzier than your approach suggests.

Stunningly, they're not. The EU is entirely clear about its members; there's 28 member states, and Switzerland is not one of them. I don't really understand what's going on here; you've been caught making a minor factual error that's really irrelevant, why not admit it? The Schengen Zone is related to the EU, but it's entirely clear which countries are in the Schengen Zone and which are in the EU, and they're different sets.

I think we can grant it provided a substantial measure of control of large numbers of migrants?

Police states are good at providing a substantial measure of control. Can a police state willing to limit economic activity across a border severely virtually stop migration across a border? Sure. That doesn't seem relevant to the US-Mexico case.

Being an economic migrant is not the same as not being a migrant.

Coming to a country to temporarily work is different from coming to a country to be a permanent resident. We could play definitional games, but that's the point being made. Mexicans coming to the US in many cases aren't coming to be a permanent resident, unlike most poor people who travel long distances to a new country.

Just impose some controls – Know who is coming across and why etc. This allows you to turn away those who are a high risk of overstaying, and identify who have overstayed etc.

What exactly do you think we're doing right now?

At least if you don’t want anti-immigration feeling to be unleashed.

I'm sure we shouldn't let the blacks vote if we don't want the KKK to be unleashed. We could exile those expressing anti-immigration feelings violently, but nobody would want them.

>262 prosfilaes:

your opponents are making fact-based arguments

I don’t see that they are. What I see is moral grandstanding without regards for the facts.

I don't really understand what's going on here; you've been caught making a minor factual error that's really irrelevant, why not admit it?

It is not a factual error, it is a more useful way of approaching what Europe is. It is of course true that Switzerland is not an EU member, but it is untrue that it does not participate in common European Institutions (like Schengen) which are part of what makes up the common European project. The European project is, as they say, two or more speed. And joining Schengen is, as they also say, more Europe. While there are bright lines, there is also a continuum. Life is complex, and Euro politics especially so, you know.

Hell one whole line of argument against the UK not leaving the EU, as is being debating at the moment, is that you don't really leave the EU when you do so (because many of the things people find objectionable are actually under related but slightly different treaties than formal EU membership, or part of things they would like to sign back up to once technically out).

Police states are good at providing a substantial measure of control. Can a police state willing to limit economic activity across a border severely virtually stop migration across a border?

Not the point. The point is that it shows you can stop unauthorised border crossing to a large extent with a large and populated land border.

And you can still do that, while continuing to allow authorised border crossings, which is what legitimate economic activities would be. That leaves the risk of over stayers etc, but you can retain a lot more visibility over them than you can people going under fences in the middle of the night. Plus, people generally seem to get less excited over people who legitimately enter and they over stay, so they are less problematic from a political management POV.

We could play definitional games, but that's the point being made.

It matters less than one would think. Temporary migrants still tend to add to the total population over the medium to longer term (i.e. due to replacement and deciding to stay permanently after a time). Guest workers are not a zero impact on population and infrastructure.

What exactly do you think we're doing right now?

You have a lot of people coming in via illegal entry (http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf). Or better to say unauthorised - The entry of people claiming asylum being legal even when unauthorised. And it is this which people don’t like, and creates political management problems. No control and no knowledge over them.

I'm sure we shouldn't let the blacks vote if we don't want the KKK to be unleashed.

And there would be the moral grandstanding, even at the cost of immoral outcomes. If you want immigrants to be welcomed, and racism to be reduced, bring people along with you. Address and reduce their sometimes irrational fears.

But if you want more and more racism and violence, pour scorn and hatred on those who are more socially and perhaps economically disadvantaged than you#. Hate breeds only hate. Moral grandstanding only brings an empty satisfaction – It will never bring social cohesion or progress.

#Wealthier people, like myself, usually being pro-immigration. The economic benefits often accrue to those already richer, higher levels of education and travel tends to cosmopolitanism, and wealth insulates people from any negative impacts. I even get the encouragement of the universalist intellectual framework of Catholicism, which values the worth of each person over the value of any nation state, leading to for example my Church diplomatically being very in favour of global governance. So, you know, I am perfectly OK with high levels of immigration. I just don't think it is productive to impose it, without proper respect for their human dignity and democratic rights, on the poor in either the developed or developing world. Because I can only see that ending badly - With anti-immigration politics and attitudes growing when they can be shrunk.

>263 hf22: I don’t see that they are.

As I said, self-righteousness.

It is not a factual error, it is a more useful way of approaching what Europe is. It is of course true that Switzerland is not an EU member,

Then, yes, it is a factual error. We agree that Switzerland is not an EU member and it was wrong to characterize it as such. We are agreed that it is part of the Schengen Zone, which is a part of a mess of European plans largely orchestrated by the EU. If we are going to talk about facts, let us get our facts precisely correct and not blur distinctions.

The point is that it shows you can stop unauthorised border crossing to a large extent with a large and populated land border. And you can still do that, while continuing to allow authorised border crossings, which is what legitimate economic activities would be.

Authorized border crossings frequently carry immigrants and drugs. A police state could stop border crossings at huge cost and limiting crossborder economic activity, but that's not a feasible model for the US-Mexico border.

And there would be the moral grandstanding, even at the cost of immoral outcomes.

So should we have let the blacks vote when it would rile up the poor whites?

I see no evidence that Donald Trump's plans are reducing violence. If we tell the anti-Hispanics that they are right to be worried, and we're building a huge wall at huge expense, why should I think that will reduce the number of anti-Hispanic crimes? Generally, telling people their attitudes against a group of people are justified are not a way to reduce bigotry.

But if you want more and more racism and violence, pour scorn and hatred on those who are more socially and perhaps economically disadvantaged than you#. Hate breeds only hate. Moral grandstanding only brings an empty satisfaction – It will never bring social cohesion or progress.

Factless grandstanding. I gave an example; the KKK is and throughout the 20th century was an organization of the socially and economically disadvantaged. Do you think it would have been better had Superman not attacked them and exposed them to ridicule, releasing all their secrets on his radio show? If we had not made it completely socially unacceptable to be a part of the KKK?

On the ground in Slovenia...there was virtually uncontrolled migration before this crisis. For instance, with our controlled borders it has been very easy to traffic women to here and mostly through here.

>264 prosfilaes:

As I said, self-righteousness.

An accusation which, on your own logic from >254 prosfilaes:, would make you very self-righteous. But your circular logic aside, I am still waiting for any attempt to engage with the evidence. I will not hold my breath.

Then, yes, it is a factual error. We agree that Switzerland is not an EU member and it was wrong to characterize it as such.

If I had so characterised, it would have been. But since I never did, the only factual error is your rather pitiful attempt to verbal me.

We are agreed that it is part of the Schengen Zone, which is a part of a mess of European plans largely orchestrated by the EU.

Which is what I said, and makes your repeated attempts at a failed gotcha rather silly.

If we are going to talk about facts, let us get our facts precisely correct and not blur distinctions.

I am writing short internet comments, not long form essays. I reserve the right to treat my interlocutors as having sufficient intelligence to recognise that I am focusing on the germane aspects of a matter, without giving long winded explanations of irrelevant assumed knowledge.

Authorized border crossings frequently carry immigrants and drugs. A police state could stop border crossings at huge cost and limiting crossborder economic activity, but that's not a feasible model for the US-Mexico border.

Immigrants are a lot harder to hide in authorised border crossings than drugs, and generally don't have the money behind them that drugs do. And so you don't have to stop border crossings, merely screen them (or a sufficiently large sample of them), using the many screening technologies we already use at for example air and sea ports.

Which no one pretends creates a police state. So could we stop with the mind numbingly stupid red herrings?

I see no evidence that Donald Trump's plans are reducing violence.

For fucks sake. I am not providing an apology for Trump. Trump is the problem - My suggestions are for a solution to Trump's politics. Like we successfully achieved in Australia to a large degree - Killing the xenophobic One Nation party, and increasing support for even larger economic and humanitarian migrant intakes. Is that clear?

Generally, telling people their attitudes against a group of people are justified are not a way to reduce bigotry.

Of course. Calling Mexicans rapists etc is a problem. How you solve that problem, stop that type of politics from resonating, is addressing the reasonable half-truth which lies behind it. Say not that Mexicans are rapists, but that "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come". That migrants will be screened, and people of bad character like with criminal convictions etc will be rejected.

In truth, such measures don't materially reduce crime rates, because immigrants are not generally any more criminal than native born citizens. But it will make people feel more confident, and will weed out some who will otherwise make the few high profile cases which people remember (people being bad at relative risks).

Do you think it would have been better had Superman not attacked them and exposed them to ridicule, releasing all their secrets on his radio show?

I have not seen any evidence suggesting scorn is a successful agent of social change. Do you? Because that a thing was done does not make responsible for any particular social improvement. Indeed, I find elite ridicule has the opposite effect, shown precisely by the popularity of Trump. That when you tell people that can't say or think things, they come back and say it angrier and with more feeling.

And even if it were effective, I still don't find ridicule of the poorer and more disadvantaged to be a moral response. The similarities between pouring scorn on those perceived as inferior to you because of wealth / education, and doing the same to those perceived as inferior to you because of race, is not lost on me.

No, respect the human dignity of all, and address the half-truth being used by evil better than evil does. Because scorn just fortifies people's belief their half-truth is the whole truth.

>265 RickHarsch:

I have no doubt you speak truth. But, accordingly to the logic of some posters here, nothing short of a police state could save these women from slavery. And so they will just have to suffer I suppose.

But then the merely stupid is never far away from being both stupid and evil. Personally I rather think resources and political will could save a great many such women, and that they should be helped and freed.

I have not doubt you sincerely desire an end to the trafficking of women.

The problem arises from extraordinary disparities of income together with patriarchal societal structures. Of course there are criminal routes and networks, in this case the route is Bulgaria to Serbia and fanning out from there (for the most part). But traffickers don't traffic in what people don't buy.

A great deal of the problem is on the wealthier end, where the hypocrisy is extraordinary. I helped a Slovene university write a report for the ILO about problems related to trucking and border crossings. The researchers would give me material to render into English. It got to the point where they would give me their primary sources at times and ask me to incorporate it into a report. One such item was a newspaper article from Austria about an Austrian trucking firm that was using drivers from poorer European countries to their east and paying low wages. The firm was known for the practice and had difficulty getting a license. The were only able to acquire one from Luxembourg, but with the stipulation that they did not drive on Luxembourg territory. I wrote it up--it was, of course, public information--and their ILO contact insisted that they drop the references to Austria and Luxembourg and disguise the company in the writing.

I tell this story because I believe it is typical.

>268 RickHarsch:

Again, I don't disagree, and I am sure what you report is accurate. Disparities of income, and men willing to buy sex slaves, are surely the drivers of this evil.

But as with so many of these problems, just because we can't eliminate willing buyers, does not mean we can't make a real difference with policing. We can't completely stop murders or rapes with policing either, but proper resourcing and political will for policing surely helps materially reduce it, and thus is more than worthwhile despite not being 100% effective.

>264 prosfilaes:

And just to demonstrate this stuff is not just my personal opinion, from Australia's leading centre left newspaper today#, The rise of Donald Trump in the US has similarities to the rise of Pauline Hanson in Australia two decades ago (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-rise-of-donald-trump-in-the-us-has-similarities-to-the-rise-of-pauline-hanson-in-australia-two-decades-ago-20160319-gnmh4m.html).

Like Trump, Hanson was a political novice who rocked the nation's establishment with repugnant views. Who can forget her claim that Asians were swamping Australia? Or Trump's claim that Mexico is exporting its rapists and criminals to the US, not to mention his call for a ban on all Muslim immigrants? ... But the kind of populist nationalism that is proliferating across Europe does not resonate in today's Australia. Hansonism is a spent force. Why? ... Australia's tough border protection policies have boosted public confidence in large-scale, legal and non-discriminatory immigration. The lesson: strict controls help dampen down xenophobia.

# The author, Tom Switzer, was actually in times past a centre right commentator. However since he switched his primary employment from the media to an academic role some years ago, he was been reliably centre left from an Australian perspective.

>266 hf22: An accusation which, on your own logic from >254 prosfilaes: prosfilaes:, would make you very self-righteous.

If you interpret a discussion about how another commentator is coming across in the same way as an attempt to dodge discussion by dismissal. I don't.

I am still waiting for any attempt to engage with the evidence. I will not hold my breath.

I don't see how smug self-righteousness helps the discussion. I gave you an example of how you were wrong, of how treating the KKK with scorn helped improve things. You can disagree with that without acting like it's not an attempt to engage with the evidence.

Which is what I said, and makes your repeated attempts at a failed gotcha rather silly.

You said "The EU in general, and the Schengen in particular, are explicitly about transferring sovereignty." That's calling the Schengen part of the EU. Then you said "The in / out of the EU bright lines are, well, fuzzier than your approach suggests.", which they aren't.

I am writing short internet comments, not long form essays. I reserve the right to treat my interlocutors as having sufficient intelligence to recognise that I am focusing on the germane aspects of a matter, without giving long winded explanations of irrelevant assumed knowledge.

Again, you conflate agreeing with you about the germane aspects of a matter with having intelligence.

If someone calls you out on something you said that was technically wrong, don't double down on it. Show that you know the fine details and if the distinctions were irrelevant, say that.

Immigrants are a lot harder to hide in authorised border crossings than drugs, and generally don't have the money behind them that drugs do. And so you don't have to stop border crossings, merely screen them (or a sufficiently large sample of them), using the many screening technologies we already use at for example air and sea ports.

I don't think immigrants are a lot harder to hide. Advanced technology lets you detect drugs by odor, whereas the smell of humans should be all over the place. It's amazing the amount of money that migrants have been known to pony up, and you can destroy drugs, whereas the migrants might just try again.

How does the screening technologies we already use at airports detect illegal immigrants?

You can handwave things, but it doesn't magically make it trivial. Right now, after passing a law providing for 100% of shipping containers at seaports to be inspected for nuclear weapons (surely easier to detect than humans), we're actually checking 4%. It's not easy.

Say not that Mexicans are rapists, but that "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come".

We will make the lives of the poor worse off, because of all the money we're spending on this security and economic activity we're dampening. But we will be successful at responding to their fears. That seems to be part of the argument against democracy, that we do stupid shit out of fear instead of letting people who really understand what's going on take good measures. Shouldn't we try to do better than the worst that democracy can offer?

I have not seen any evidence suggesting scorn is a successful agent of social change. Do you?

Yes; the KKK is an example. We made it socially unacceptable to be a part of, which is part of the reason it's so marginalized right now. Social pressure is an important part of the way we effect social change; if someone can't deal with the fact that part of my gaming group is two guys married to each other, that's their problem, and if they want to make a fuss about it, they don't get to hang around us.

I'm sure appeasement has been known to work, but I can't imagine the civil rights movement going better if more work had gone into making sure that "separate but equal" was really equal or that tests to vote were administered fairly.

That when you tell people that can't say or think things, they come back and say it angrier and with more feeling.

Then they lose their jobs, they lose their friends, they lose their social groups.

In 1996, I was asked what I thought about interracial dating. I gave the only answer I thought was acceptable in my society. Relatively recently, I learned that 50% of Americans didn't believe in interracial marriage at the time. But society had successfully told those 50% that they weren't really invited to share their opinion, and thus the next generation grew up knowing that there was only one socially-acceptable answer to that question, that it wasn't something that had to be pondered.

I still don't find ridicule of the poorer and more disadvantaged to be a moral response.

So you think ridicule of bigotry is a ridicule of the poorer and more disadvantage? Being stupid, which given prenatal and postnatal environments, frequently goes along with being poorer and more disadvantaged, but you're happy to ridicule them.

address the half-truth being used by evil better than evil does.

So people against Hitler should have gotten all Jews fired from being bankers? It's good to take action against people because of false beliefs?

>271 prosfilaes:

I gave you an example of how you were wrong, of how treating the KKK with scorn helped improve things. You can disagree with that without acting like it's not an attempt to engage with the evidence.

The fact that scorn was applied to the KKK does not prove said scorn helped defeat the KKK. This is not evidence. And so your comments were not an attempt to engage with evidence, because you did not provide any. And so I am still waiting for you to actually engage with actual evidence. Or at least realise what does and does not count as evidence.

That's calling the Schengen part of the EU. Then you said "The in / out of the EU bright lines are, well, fuzzier than your approach suggests.", which they aren't.

No, it is referring to the reality that the Schengen Zone is a part of a mess of European plans largely orchestrated by the EU. Which you have already acknowledged. And so the doubling down on a failed gotcha is silly.

I don't think immigrants are a lot harder to hide.

Simple economics and physics. Drugs are generally worth a lot more per unit of weight / volume required, and can be fitted in a lot more spaces / environments without dying. People are harder – Hand waving does not change this.

Advanced technology lets you detect drugs by odor, whereas the smell of humans should be all over the place.

Heat, life support requirements. Lots of ways, including ways already in operation.

It's amazing the amount of money that migrants have been known to pony up

If they could pay enough to outperform drugs, they either would not need to come, or would have enough money to get a Green card legally I would suspect.

How does the screening technologies we already use at airports detect illegal immigrants?

If we are talking overstayers, the requirement for passports and reasons for travel allow you to screen for high risk people. The ability to check bags and electronic devices lets you confirm stories.

If we are talking hidden entrants, well x-rays, infra-red etc can locate things otherwise hidden. Passive millimeter wave scanners are already being used to find people hidden in certain types of trucks.

It's not easy.

And there is it. Not free or easy of course. But not impossible. So you have conceded the point. Great.

That seems to be part of the argument against democracy

Authoritarianism! More like Trump than you might suspect!

The thing about democracy is that the people get to decide what they prioritise their money on, and change requires convincing them otherwise. Not you or me sitting as a benevolent dictator. And since you being benevolent dictator sounds far worse to me than democracy, and the chances of me getting to be one are slim, I think I will stick with democracy.

We made it socially unacceptable to be a part of, which is part of the reason it's so marginalized right now.

Still waiting for evidence for that. Like the polling data I provided for my contention – Real evidence. So do you have social science studies which back up your contention or not? Because if not your example is not worth nothing.

I'm sure appeasement has been known to work, but I can't imagine the civil rights movement going better if more work had gone into making sure that "separate but equal" was really equal or that tests to vote were administered fairly.

It is not about appeasement. It is about dealing with the reasonable half-truth which lies behind concerns. For example, I imagine some of the fear about racial equality was about wage competition. Deal with that – How you will promote a high wage economy as you increase the labour supply in formerly protected areas.

But society had successfully told those 50% that they weren't really invited to share their opinion, and thus the next generation grew up knowing that there was only one socially-acceptable answer to that question

Evidence? Data is not the plural of anecdote. Because things like Trump, who explicitly announces his reaction against political correctness, show it does not really work like that. That people can respond to elite social pressure by becoming MORE radical and extreme.

So you think ridicule of bigotry is a ridicule of the poorer and more disadvantage?

It can be. It can be merely moral grandstanding – Thanking God that you are not like those other inferior people.

Being stupid, which given prenatal and postnatal environments, frequently goes along with being poorer and more disadvantaged, but you're happy to ridicule them.

So poor people are stupid now? Your bigotry against the poor is bring up more and more tropes so familiar from racist discourse. I do not think that is an accident.

So people against Hitler should have gotten all Jews fired from being bankers?

People dislike modern financial structures for a reason, and still do if the current Democratic race is anything to go by, with its Jewish anti Wall Street candidate. So perhaps people who don’t want to create a Hitler should ensure financial structures are just, instead of creating favourable circumstances for demagogues to blame scapegoats.

As I say, deal with the real problem. Because otherwise evil actions will be taken based on false beliefs.

>272 hf22: The fact that scorn was applied to the KKK does not prove said scorn helped defeat the KKK. This is not evidence.

It is the exact same type of evidence that your Australia example is.

If they could pay enough to outperform drugs, they ... would have enough money to get a Green card legally I would suspect.

As a matter of fact, we don't sell green cards.

Authoritarianism!

Yeah, admitting that democracy may not be perfect is authoritarianism.

It is not about appeasement. It is about dealing with the reasonable half-truth which lies behind concerns.

Just like Chamberlain did. Don't give the blacks the right to vote until you've helped their white neighbors. Sounds just to me.

Evidence? Data is not the plural of anecdote.

Says the man who pounds on one example in Australia.

Because things like Trump, who explicitly announces his reaction against political correctness, show it does not really work like that. That people can respond to elite social pressure by becoming MORE radical and extreme.

Has Trump said anything about interracial marriages? Trump shows that everything won't be nice and easy, but he's not reopening doors our society has successfully closed. George Wallace already told us that everything won't be nice and easy, and Wallace's viewpoints lost even himself at the end of the day. Yes, change is hard, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen or shouldn't happen.

So poor people are stupid now? Your bigotry against the poor...

You object to moral grandstanding only when it's someone else doing it, I see. Drinking the water that was coming from the taps in Flint causes brain damage. The rich don't have that problem; if somehow that happened in a rich suburb, they could afford to have purified water delivered to their door instead of drinking tap water. The environments that the poor grow up in are not as conducive to brain development as the environments the rich grow up in.

So perhaps people who don’t want to create a Hitler should ensure financial structures are just, instead of creating favourable circumstances for demagogues to blame scapegoats.

I see; so anti-Semitism is the bankers' fault, and the last thing anyone should do when a demagogue comes up is stand against him and tell him and his followers is that they're wrong.

I've wasted enough of my life, digging up statistics for people who just don't care, to bother here.

>273 prosfilaes:

It is the exact same type of evidence that your Australia example is.

No, it is not evidence at all. My evidence is not that a policy was implemented, my evidence is that the policy worked. That polling and other data, as interpreted by experts, demonstrates greater level of border control resulted in greater public support for larger number of immigrants, and lower public support for xenophobic parties. Your claim however is just that – An un-evidenced claim.

As a matter of fact, we don't sell green cards.

Seriously? You are going to try another stupidly over-literal gotcha? Firstly, you pretty much can. It is called the U.S. Immigrant Investor Program (EB-5). Secondly, and more to the point, being a wealthy and desirable immigrant makes it easier to be granted access and residency. Both in the USA and pretty much everywhere else for that matter.

Yeah, admitting that democracy may not be perfect is authoritarianism.

I am the one suggesting how in a democracy we can get the most moral outcomes – I am not suggesting we just accept the lowest common dominator outcome. You on the other hand are the one saying screw democracy, the country should just do what I think is moral. So yes, that is the totalitarian instinct, and classically so.

Just like Chamberlain did.

Chamberlain did not deal with the reasonable half-truth behind a demand. He caved to the demand – The thing we are seeking to avoid.

Don't give the blacks the right to vote until you've helped their white neighbors. Sounds just to me.

If helping a disadvantaged group (i.e. disenfranchised blacks or immigrants), disadvantages a less but still disadvantaged group (i.e. poor whites or residents due for example to lower wages), while benefiting a privileged group (i.e. the wealthy due for example to lower wages), then you have two problems. One political and one moral.

The political one is that the second group will not support the change you want, and even if you get it, will be resentful in ways which will diminish the change (i.e. more racism or xenophobia). The moral one is twofold. The first aspect is that helping one disadvantaged group at the expense of another, while benefiting the privileged, is neither just nor moral. The second is that the racism and xenophobia caused, its structural causes, will be on you for creating the conditions for it to run rampant. When you could have done otherwise.

Which is to say, civil or immigrant must be granted in justice. But it is neither morally or politically defensible to do so at the cost of the poor while the rich benefit - There is a better way.

Says the man who pounds on one example in Australia.

The evidence that losing border control leads to racism / xenophobia is not just Australia – Polls all over the Western world (i.e. USA, Euro Area and Australia) show it. The evidence of how to fix that mainly comes from Australia, but that is mostly a function of it being the main place in the Western world where it has been fixed.

Has Trump said anything about interracial marriages?

Are you claiming that Trump, the Republican Party and the USA are free of racism? That reactions against political correctness don’t swing further than the old equilibrium? White supremacists seem quite happy with Trump, if Twitter is anything to go by, and most on this thread seem to agree he has said racist things. Is that not reopening doors?

The environments that the poor grow up in are not as conducive to brain development as the environments the rich grow up in.

Yeah, this is straight from the racist playbook, and you are not getting away with such bigotry. It is no different than the equally factually true claim that black people generally score lower in IQ tests. As do those who are poorer, or indeed if you tested our forbearers from 70 years ago. Which says more about the limitations of our ability to test innate intelligence than anything else.

I see; so anti-Semitism is the bankers' fault, and the last thing anyone should do when a demagogue comes up is stand against him and tell him and his followers is that they're wrong.

No, you need to tell them they are wrong. But you also need to fix the real problems they experience, so they actually come to believe you. It is not enough to just say the scapegoat is not at fault – You also have to deal with the real causes of the suffering which makes them want to lash out. Because otherwise bashing the scapegoat starts looking like it is worth a try.

I've wasted enough of my life, digging up statistics for people who just don't care, to bother here.

So you have nothing. That would be time to retract.

And as a hint – Opinions formed evidence-free on the basis you could get evidence if you searched are mostly garbage. Go first to evidence around the issue, and then seek to form an opinion, which can be tested in more detail.

Tribal Warrior. How does Donald Trump Win? Divide and Conquer
by Alex Altman. TIME subscribers only: http://time.com/4246080/tribal-warrior/

Article argues that Trump's "them-and-us" strategy is nothing new, but rather one he has employed all his adult life in business and politics--dissing and praising groups as needed, playing tribal instincts to have his way. One sees the damage domestically/politically. I shudder to think what may happen internationally if January finds him in the Oval Office...

>274 hf22: Chamberlain did not deal with the reasonable half-truth behind a demand.

You don't say. I guess the Sudetenland didn't have a bunch of German speakers who were hurt more by the depression than the other groups in Czechoslovakia. Silly me.

Yeah, this is straight from the racist playbook, and you are not getting away with such bigotry.

That's exactly why I don't bother with statistics; there have been thousands of articles on how lead is bad for the brain. It's a proven fact, but it's inconvenient for you, so you dismiss it. BTW, the argument that changeable environmental factors can affect human performance is straight from the anti-racist playbook, because it means that statistical differences on IQ tests and SAT scores between human groups can be caused by environmental factors subject to influence, rather than innate differences.

>276 prosfilaes:

Re Sudetenlsnd - And dealing with the reasonable issues of German speakers outside Germany might have helped pull the teeth of expansionism. The same as, while Putin is currently an expansionist thug, it remains helpful not to provide him with an excuse and support base by mistreating Russian speakers in Eastern Europe.

Re lead - That lead is bad for brains is a fact. That poorer people are therefore materially stupider is not, despite deficits in IQ testing. The spread of environmental impacts is more complex than that. In the USA poverty appears to dampen genetic IQ influence, whereas in someplaces in Europe like the Netherlands the opposite appears to be true. And in the non-USA west overall the impact is nominal (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151216082154.htm).

So go back and try looking at the evidence, rather than pushing self-supported prejudice.

Putin is an expansionist thug? What utter nonsense. I don't think you know what expansionism in the political sense even means.

Sudetenland? When? In the 30s? Poor Germans? Reasonable issues? Have you never had a Czech beer? Have a few and just stop trying to think--it is not working in post 277, in which you posit a fair issue facing Hitler regarding a phenomenon common throughout all nationalist EARTH--people of mixed nationalities. Of all the people in Europe in the latter 1930s who were getting screwed I don't think the radar picks up the Sudeten Germans.

>278 RickHarsch:

Yes. See Ukraine.

>279 RickHarsch:

Sudeten Germans were hardly the most hard done by people in the 1930s. But they felt the economic harm of the period more than some other Czechs, and that drove many to support irredentism and the Nazis.

And that support gave the legitimacy of self determination to Germany's expansionism. Woodrow Wilson and all that.

That appears to be the facts as presented by reputable historians. Your beer driven alternatives don't persuade.

No, my beer drivens don't persuade, but a paltry cry from a Sudeten German hardly echoes today.

>ukraine? expansionist? That's like Mexico going for Texas.

>277 hf22: The same as, while Putin is currently an expansionist thug, it remains helpful not to provide him with an excuse and support base by mistreating Russian speakers in Eastern Europe.

I.E. screw the nationalists in Estonia and Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. US sovereignty matters, but if you're a small Eastern European state dealing with the aftereffects of Russian imperialism, your sovereignty doesn't matter.

An ethnically Russian scholar at that University of Tartu writes ( http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/russians-estonia-twenty-years-after ) that the Russian speaking community in Estonia is composed of:

3. Estonian-speaking active and critical (thirteen percent). This group comprises the youngest and most active people who are economically secure, and speak Estonian but use it very little. Their identity of citizenship is weak; only half of them are Estonian citizens, and others name another country as their homeland, including Russia. They follow Estonian media but distrust it. They do not vote and they are ready to leave Estonia at any moment.

4. Little integrated (twenty-nine percent). This is the lowest-income group, comprising mainly blue-collar workers but also retirees and the unemployed. All age groups are represented here. Their language skills are poor and their citizenship is mostly undefined, which means that they were unable or unwilling to pursue any country’s citizenship after the collapse of the USSR. Members of this group attributes their lack of citizenship to inadequate learning ability that prevents them from learning the official state language. They are distinguished by their distrust toward state authorities, the lack of a sense of security, and pessimism. They are active consumers of both the local and Russian media, and mainly reside in the cities of Ida-Viru County and Tallinn.

5. Unintegrated passive (twenty-two percent). This group mainly comprises older people who do not speak Estonian, most of whom reside in Ida-Viru County. They are distinguished by their inadequate level of education and low self-esteem. Many of them have Russian citizenship and many of them consider Russia their only homeland. They are socially passive, cannot speak Estonian to officials, are not interested in Estonian life, and their main source of information is Russian television channels.

Rage by US citizens at Mexicans who don't speak English living here is to be respected; rage by Estonian citizens at Russians who don't speak Estonian is to be ignored. I'm happy to morally grandstand and talk about doing right by all groups, instead of just standing by the powerful ones.

And in the non-USA west overall the impact is nominal (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151216082154.htm).

So you link an article establishing that in the US, being poor is linked to lower IQs and treat that as if you've disproved my case? I'm glad that Northwestern Europe and Australia have managed to do better; the effect is not as widespread as I thought. But you overstate the range of the article; it samples a few of the richest nations, even in the west. It names the US, Australia and four EU nations, and among the already wealthy EU nations, it picks four of the eight richest (measured by median wage), all of which have above-average life expectancies among the EU. (There are 8 EU nations with a life expectancy of 81 years, including the UK, Germany and Netherlands, and 5 above that, including Sweden.)

I'm glad there are a few nations where the impact is nominal. But you've established the impact is not nominal on the part of the world I live in, and the nations in the study were among the one's you'd expect to see this effect the least.

Happy Easter! :D

http://time.com/4273123/mexico-donald-trump-burn-effigy/

Señor Trump is the Cepillín of US politics.

>281 RickHarsch:

Irredentism is just another form of expansionism. It could, after all, be used by Putin to reclaim as far as Germany. And would be too if he ever had a chance - After all he said (http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2005/04/25/2031_type70029type82912_87086.shtml):

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory.

So no, I will take reality, over your beer or otherwise driven alternatives.

I don't think speculation fits the definition of real, so I guess you're just a guy without a beer.

>282 prosfilaes:

I.E. screw the nationalists in Estonia and Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

No, just don't mistreat minorities, who by right of birth have as much claim to live in their homes as anyone else.

your sovereignty doesn't matter.

No, it does matter. But just as we need to manage the reasonable fears / issues of the majority, so do we need to manage the reasonable fears / issues of minorities. Respecting the human dignity and democratic rights of all citizens - You should try it sometime.

Rage by US citizens at Mexicans who don't speak English living here is to be respected; rage by Estonian citizens at Russians who don't speak Estonian is to be ignored.

No, neither is to be ignored, and all are to be respected. The aim is to find political solutions which eliminate this rage, which normally has causes other than language, so that social harmony can be achieved for the benefit of all groups in the community. But you are not interested in actually finding win / win outcomes - Just moral grandstanding.

So you link an article establishing that in the US, being poor is linked to lower IQs and treat that as if you've disproved my case?

No, that does not appear to be the finding. It does not appear to say that outside the US the poor do not have lower IQ scores, but that outside the US genetic influence is able to be expressed in the poor, which could still be consistent with them still having lower IQ scores overall (due for example to the limitations in testing innate intelligence I have already referred to).

The effect is not as widespread as I thought.

The effect is not caused by just lead in the environment or similar. The poor test lower for all sorts of reasons - Many to do with the limitations of testing innate intelligence. For example, the differential between the US and non-US west might suggest educational differences are in play, as schooling in poor areas appears to get less extra funding in the US than elsewhere.

What evidence like this should show you is that blanket claims the poor as a group are less innately intelligent post medical impacts can't be made as blithely as you have been - The evidence just does not back it up. Your prejudices might however, so I suspect you will have a hard time letting it go.

But you overstate the range of the article; it samples a few of the richest nations, even in the west.

In the real world, we work with the evidence we have, and assess probabilities from there. When you reject actual evidence on the basis on non-existent evidence, then you are in the realm of Creationists and their ilk. We have not found the missing link! No not that missing link you just found, the other one I just pulled from my arse! Just silly.

But you've established the impact is not nominal on the part of the world I live in

I have established the impact of being poor counteracts genetic differences in the part of the world you live in (i.e. being poor is presumably a bigger deficit in the US than elsewhere, and so overwhelms other influences). That does not establish they are in fact less innately intelligent post medical impacts like lead etc - Other "environmental" impacts distorted testing (i.e. like schooling etc).

But your preconceived ideas are not going to shift with evidence, as the evidence of this thread has clearly shown. But I do adapt with the evidence, as since this discussion appears fruitless, this will be my last contribution in regards to your comments.

>286 RickHarsch:

The man said what he said - Real thing on the Kremiln website and everything. Real tanks killing real people in Ukraine. Real missiles which his friends used to kill Australian and Dutch airline passengers as well.

But fuck them eh. Those innocent dead don't count, are not real, because you decide? No thanks.

>288 hf22: Nice switch. Speculation about irredentism (beyond Ukraine), bizarre speculation at that, is not real. 'Those innocent dead don't count.' That's rather silly, quite cheap.

John Kerry going on about the concerns of foreign diplomats about our upcoming election. In particular knuckleheads Trump and Cruz. If Trump somehow manages to bag the presidency I'm wondering if he'd get us tossed lock, stock and barrel out of some countries. It might be one way of closing down some of our over 900+ overseas military bases.

>289 RickHarsch:

It is not speculation at all - It is the explicit words of the Russian President. And those words cannot not be ignored, given how they have been backed with action in Ukraine.

The only bizarre thing here is you pretending Russian expansionism and irredentism in Ukraine does not exist, when it does beyond a shadow of any doubt.

>287 hf22: No, just don't mistreat minorities, who by right of birth have as much claim to live in their homes as anyone else.

There is no evidence that these people were born in Estonia. Nor is jus soli a universal practice; Australia, for example, abolished it on 20 August 1986. Lastly, it is questionable what moral right a state has to its invaders and their children; surely sovereignty gives a state the right to reverse to some extent changes done by invaders on their soil.

No, it does matter. But just as we need to manage the reasonable fears / issues of the majority, so do we need to manage the reasonable fears / issues of minorities.

By some miracle, the only place you're talking about "the reasonable fears / issues of minorities" is when they're part of a powerful majority; i.e. Russians. You gave Mexicans no such concern.

Respecting the human dignity and democratic rights of all citizens

I know, you don't bother thinking about using the correct words, but citizens are not what most of these Russian speakers are.

the poor as a group are less innately intelligent

I have no clue what that means, so that is obviously not my claim. I don't have any idea what "innately intelligent" might mean; if it has to do with genetics, then no, of course, I haven't been making any claim about the DNA of the poor. I'm pretty sure whatever it is, "innate intelligence" is not a property I'm concerned about.

In the real world, we work with the evidence we have, and assess probabilities from there. When you reject actual evidence on the basis on non-existent evidence, then you are in the realm of Creationists and their ilk.

You gave me a sample of six nations, one in group A, five in group B, and concluded that all nations in the West besides the one found to be in group A are in group B. I pointed out that the five nations in group B shared similarities in properties that should, given other studies, correlate with group B, and that these similarities aren't shared by many of the nations in the West, so the nation in Group A might be a better analog. In real life, when you have a paucity of data, people are going to disagree about how to extrapolate from it, but argument ad Creationism is always a solution when arguing your extrapolation is too hard.

>291 hf22: I did not deny events in Ukraine. Speculation beyond that, yes. The words of a leader to his people are often mere demagoguery. Russia has nowhere to go and they are going nowhere.

>293 RickHarsch:

You denied Russian actions there are expansionist, though they clearly are.

And many people dismissed Putin's words before Ukraine, and yet now the Russian flag flys over Crimea and a fair portion of eastern Ukraine.

If I were living in a Baltic state, which so few years ago were subject to Soviet oppression, I would not be making the same mistake (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/mobile/opinion/article/how-russia-sees-baltic-sovereignty/525643.html). Opportunists only need an opportunity after all, though admittedly one arising does not seem likely at this point.

>292 prosfilaes:

As I promised, I will not respond to your further nonsense. But I will point out you just put in a good word for ethnic fucking cleansing (i.e. deporting those considered to be the descendants of invaders).

That is seriously fucked up. Ethnic fucking cleansing. A crime against humanity as generally considered. Trump would be proud of you.

>295 hf22: As I promised, I will not respond to your further nonsense.

This statement is a lie. But I see you continue to use personal abuse instead of dealing with the argument.

But I will point out you just put in a good word for ethnic fucking cleansing (i.e. deporting those considered to be the descendants of invaders).

Not descendants. Invaders themselves; Estonia was illegally held through force of arms until 1992, and we're talking about people who moved in under the flag of the invader.

It's interesting; you didn't worry about the poor illegal immigrants in the US. Again, it's an outrage that the US isn't "sovereign" in your sense, but it's a moral outrage that I mention that Estonia might want to be sovereign in your sense. Why should the US make a huge fuss about its immigrants, who have nothing against it and no connections to a dangerous foreign power, and Estonia not make any about its, who are connected to Putin?

Trump would be proud of you.

Trump likes Putin; you propose that Eastern Europe take care of Russian immigrants, or else. Trump proposes a wall, and you vigorously promote it. I think Trump would be much prouder of you; if those losers in Estonia couldn't stop Russia from conquering them, why should real men like Trump care about them?

>294 hf22: That Crimea was Ukrainian, part of the Ukrainian nation, was a mistake; Kruschev put it under Ukrainian control in the mid 1950s, but not in anyway expecting it would one day become part of a separate nation. It's quite a unique circumstance. Russia going after it was not a typical instance of irredentism. As for the rest of the struggles in Ukraine, it may be ugly, but it is a response to EU/NATO expansionism, which bears directly on Russia's economic and security concerns. The 'troubles' in Ukraine do not make Russia an expansionist nation. In fact, Russia gave up a great deal of territory when the USSR split up and Russia has accepted most of the losses. Chechnya was another ugly situation, but considering the strategic nature of the Caucusus it is easy to understand Russia's refusal to accept Chechen independence. The problem is obvious: if it is okay for Chechnya, then what about Ingushetia, Dagestan, Balkaria, Cherkessia, North Ossetia, etc. Of course, being a former empire that still is of imperial mind they are hypocritical, supporting the split of Georgia into Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but they supported their independence rather than 'expand' into them.
I don't like Russia as a political entity, but to call them expansionist and irredentist is inaccurate.

ETA: After some thought, I would like to add that any further land grabs in Ukraine would be classed as irredentism, but in my opinion they are not actually motivated by irredentism but are fomenting disunity in Ukraine in response to, as i said, EU/NATO expansion.

>297 RickHarsch:

EU/NATO expansion.

The EU and NATO, for all their flaws, expand when sovereign nations elect to join them. Russia has in the Ukraine expanded by force of arms, on the basis it can accept client states in its "near abroad", but not actually independent states. Imperialist and expansionist to a tee. Now if they had sought a properly conducted self-determination referendum, and not the PR hoax they imposed, it would be a different matter. As would have it have been if they sought to protect the concessions in Crimea that were assured at the breakup of the USSR (i.e. the navel base etc). But as it is - Violent irredentism. Georgia is a little more complex however I will allow. Self-determination may well be on the side of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Now under the Cold War version of the Monroe Doctrine of course, the USA similarly sought to limit the freedom of States in its "near aboard", though without the outright conquest of States which sought other patrons. Which I presume you would accept was imperialist.

>296 prosfilaes:

Again ignoring your further nonsense, but doubling down on ethnic fucking cleansing is beyond the pale. Estonia was controlled by Russia / USSR roughly between 1721 to 1920, and then again from the 1940s until 1991. 250 years of the 270 years before 1991. So descendants - People whose families for generations may have know no other home. Whose roots for example may well go back longer than 98% of Australia's population in their own country. So deporting people because their are "foreigners", because of ethno-nationalism, is fucking ethnic cleansing and a bloody crime against humanity.

And yes, the concerns of Estonian nationalists need to be addressed, beyond simply abusing them. And yes, they likely do have real concerns, which morally not only can be addressed but morally should be addressed. But that does not mean we can throw our support behind any attempt at ethnic cleansing, anymore than we can support Trump's policies.

There is a difference between recognising people have real concerns, so that you can address them as to eliminate the hateful snake oil solutions they might otherwise jump at, and trying to sell them more hateful snake oil solutions.

Is this thread about anything anymore?

A moment of silence for Barney's OP...

Now:
>298 hf22: '...for all their flaws...' The EU and NATO have created an environment in which it is very difficult for a country to decide not to join. In the process they go into countries and are extraordinarily intrusive, a matter of sovereignty that some nations already regret (Slovenes do to a large degree, though it is impossible to know how the government likes it). In Slovenia, once the decision was made to vote to join, there was a Putinesque add campaign--every night, premier Anton Rop was on television with a US-style slogan (and no counter ads): home in Europe, safe in NATO. The result was near 99% in favor of joining the EU, 67% NATO. Had the two issues not been joined, it is likely NATO would have lost. The EU and NATO are perceived as a threat by Putin and Russia--I think to some degree that's overstated, particularly as in practice the EU behaves similar to Putin.

During the cold war, the US did not have what you seem to be calling a near abroad: they had the world. I guess we will have to disagree on how to view Crimea. I find it unpleasant, but complicated. I really don't think irredentism is the motivation nor is the goal the actual appropriation of territory. Certainly the would like Ukraine to be a client state. They see what they regard as US client states marching toward them.

>301 RickHarsch:

Re the EU, the fact is I am not personally a fan. Its preference for technocrats over democracy, which drive the kind of experience you refer to, mean I would not support membership if I were a citizen in a relevant country. But there remains a difference between expansion based on consent and that based on force of arms.

Re Crimea, when your rhetoric is all about reclaiming lost territory and glory, and then you go start reclaiming it as the opportunity arises? Well that does not seem a hard call to me.

Re the world being the US's sphere of influence in the Cold War, I'll grant that as fair.

>299 hf22: Again ignoring your further nonsense

I see that it is not easy for you to respond to me.

doubling down on ethnic fucking cleansing is beyond the pale

I guess moral outrage is only acceptable in the doses you deal out.

People whose families for generations may have know no other home.

People whose ancestors were in Estonia in 1940 are citizens. So are people who were in Estonia and chose to learn Estonian, take a citizenship class and take an oath of loyalty. They're not part of the discussion.

So deporting people because their are "foreigners",

Let's understand this; you can build a wall, separate them from the families, forcibly exclude them should they have to return home, but deporting illegal immigrants from Mexico is unconscionable. This is something you neglected to mention above. When exactly is it ethical to deport an immigrant that the government has given no right to stay? If they get past border security, they're here permanently? Please clarify.

Please explain your coherent model in treating immigrants. Because so far, you've given concrete rules about how Estonia must treat their immigrants well (least Putin) but US and Australia should feel free to abuse them.

the concerns of Estonian nationalists need to be addressed, beyond simply abusing them.

>277 hf22: The same as, while Putin is currently an expansionist thug, it remains helpful not to provide him with an excuse and support base by mistreating Russian speakers in Eastern Europe.

Let's always start by accusing them generically of mistreating Russian speakers in a way they can't defend themselves from and threatening them with Putin. How exactly do you plan to address the concerns of Estonian nationalists?

You've explained how two nations, built on imperialism and ethnic cleansing, should protect their borders vigorously from the poor. You've explained how a group of nations ravaged by imperialism and further threatened by imperialism should be sure not to upset their potential invader. And you, who has got all snide at moral outrage, have decided to respond to comments only with moral outrage instead of dealing with the contradictions of your position.

>303 prosfilaes:

Your inability to understand that you can address the real issues and concerns which give rise to xenophobia, without going along with it and implementing xenophobic policies, is the only cause of the contradictions you identify. It is presumably also why you refuse to consider going beyond moral grandstanding, to dealing with the type of approaches which the evidence shows would actually produce moral outcomes, and are left with either denigrating the poor or punishing foreigners.

Which is why I will continue not to engage with your further nonsense.

>304 hf22: Your inability to understand that you can address the real issues and concerns which give rise to xenophobia, without going along with it and implementing xenophobic policies, is the only cause of the contradictions you identify.

You've explained how two nations, built on imperialism and ethnic cleansing, should protect their borders vigorously from the poor. You've explained how a group of nations ravaged by imperialism and further threatened by imperialism should be sure not to upset their potential invader. Maybe that's the cause of the contradictions I identify.

Which is why I will continue not to engage with your further nonsense.

You lie. An honorable man would shut the fuck up, as he claimed he would, or deal straightforwardly with my claims, not pompously and hypocritically blow hot air, filling the void with the moral grandstanding he claims to detest.

>305 prosfilaes:

If you can't acknowledge that there are reasonable positions between entirely open borders and ethnic cleansing, then your comments are insane, and the only point worth making is that they are insane. Similarly if you can't acknowledge reasonable policies seek to address the real concerns of multiple groups of stakeholders with competing interests, all of whose human dignity must be respected, rather than just favouring one over the other in a false dilemma zero sum game. To engage with details based on your premise would only be to participate in that insanity. It is absolutely nuts.

And so, again, I will not engage with your further nonsense.

>306 hf22: And so, again, I will not engage with your further nonsense.

Again, you lie.

If you can't acknowledge that there are reasonable positions between entirely open borders and ethnic cleansing,

Then I'm probably a strawman, not a real person.

Can Estonia and/or the US deport non-citizen individuals who are in the country without permission of the government? To me it's ludicrous and cruel, even, to say that they can't, but should those people somehow end up on the wrong side of the line, they will be permanently separated from their homes.

so its ok to say anything

americans dont build walls,germans do

Germans built walls to imprison their citizens, while Americans need to use the rule of law to protect and defend our citizens. We do need to exclude illegal immigration. The world is too dangerous to do otherwise.

>310 JaneAustenNut: Wow! Does anyone read anymore? 'Illegal' migrants are far more law abiding the the 'average' USAmerican.

>311 RickHarsch:

I don't doubt you, and I don't think it matters either--immigration policy should not be decided by calculating edge-statistics. But do you have a citation for that?

>310 JaneAustenNut: As the son of a retired INS/USCBP officer (and whistleblower) who headed up the amnesty program for the Boston office in the '80s, I also take exception.

If you're worried about border controls vis-a-vis our "dangerous world," you might want to take a look at the case of whistleblower Julia Davis. To make a long story short: there are other issues that should worry you more.
http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=...

ETA: Please compare, if you will, with the following academic journal article by Prof. Peter Dale Scott
http://apjjf.org/2013/11/40/Peter-Dale-Scott/4005/article.html

>312 timspalding: I thought it was common knowledge, but I found this in a few seconds. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime...

>314 RickHarsch: The data is actually more complex, but from a few minutes of research, I think it's safe to say that at the very least, there's little to no support for the contention that immigrants (including illegal immigrants) are more likely to commit violent crime than the native-born. Here's a good backgrounder as of 2009:
http://cis.org/Announcements/ImmigrationAndCrimePanell

And some related links of varying quality: http://openborders.info/hispanic-crime-and-illegal-immigration-in-the-united-sta...
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/17/tom-tancredo/tancred...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/02/surprise-donald-trump-...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/truth-vs-perception-crime-rates-immigrants/

But JaneAustenNut's comment leads me to believe she's concerned primarily about terrorists getting into the country -- a familiar rhetorical issue featuring in immigration debates. And on that question, I once again refer all interested to >313 davidgn:

>314 RickHarsch:

I have no reason to doubt here, but I'm not seeing the really strong data you're seeing in that article. (Found elsewhere without paywall.) I agree with @davidgn's "it's safe to say at the very least" point. But I'm not seeing that it's common and established knowledge that illegal immigrants are "'Illegal' migrants are far more law abiding the the 'average' USAmerican."

>316 timspalding: I didn't read the article--I posted it quick as it looked to say what I believed to be true. If it is not knowledge, then it's not. It wouldn't be a surprise if the situation were more complicated. The main problem, I believe, is that the reasons for antipathy are not necessarily sound or pleasing. I also always believed that migrants generally were more law-abiding because of their circumstances: for instance, in my own case, I have a protest planned to draw attention to a problem in Izola, but I cannot risk arrest before I have citizenship: I don't want to be kicked out. But of course migrant groups are generally also the latest underclass so the historic pattern followed there is most crime/best boxers (a pattern that ended when racism entered the mix...).

>317 RickHarsch:

From looking at a few such articles it seems there are a number of statistical debates--separating legal and illegal migrants, figuring out what to measure, what to count (e.g., counting jail population omits people who were deported!), and situating things in their appropriate age- or state-context. I have no opinion how it comes out, but it looks like it is at least a myth.

>318 timspalding: Which is a myth?

There are armed guards on the border to Canada, yet no one calls Canada racist. Are they afraid we're going to steal their beer?

>320 barney67:

Perhaps because candidates for high office in Canada tend not to make racist statements?

Perhaps because, while they do have border controls as any country does, they are not talking about building a wall along the whole frontier to keep their neighbours out, and they are not portraying US citizens who come to their country as rapists and criminals?

>321 John5918: while they do have border controls as any country does

I grew up in Buffalo and let me tell you, I mourn the days when we could just ride our bikes over the Peace Bridge and show a driver's license or school ID. No passport required.

>322 southernbooklady:

Yes, my personal feeling is very much against borders and border controls, but I suspect that is a minority view.

>322 southernbooklady: You grew up in Buffalo? Really?

Really.

I remember a few years ago, a young Canadian customs official squirming in his new bullet-proof vest, lamenting that it's come to this, that such things must be worn...

Alas, I know Buffalo only from the famous? sentence: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo". Should I consider it for my next holiday trip?

>327 bnielsen: It's got a nice train station. Just like Detroit! :-p

ETA: Wow, they're actually restoring that now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Central_Terminal#cite_note-2
(ETA -- And Buffalo's replacement is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo%E2%80%93Depew_station )

Meanwhile, Detroit's continues to decay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Central_Station
(Replaced by this, if you can believe it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_station
Pretty sure Ann Arbor's is bigger.)

Buffalo 66

I've been through Buffalo on Amtrak from New York to Toronto, and I've had the chance to explore the town on the Canadian side of the border, but as yet I haven't had the privilege of visiting the US side properly.

We had meetings in Buffalo--Grand Island, downtown, suburbs. My favorite memory was walking along the NY side of the Niagara River, marveling that people and their dogs and their kids lived just across the street from it. The rapids get wilder and wilder as one proceeds until there are standing waves the size of refrigerators. You can cross a pedestrian walkway to islands just above the falls. There are quiet places one could wade before the water roars over the falls to the broken rock below. A neat way to experience the Falls.

>319 RickHarsch: "Which is a myth?"

That immigrants are a pack of criminals.

>332 timspalding: Ah...I see, thanks.

New York Times: Op-Ed Columnist: Is Donald Trump a Racist?

http://nyti.ms/2aCTJoI

David Duke: "I'm overjoyed to see Donald Trump... embrace the issues that I've championed for years."

https://youtu.be/OJ97gEFBH5k

Y'know, I find it disturbing enough to watch something like Triumph of the Will (https://youtu.be/GHs2coAzLJ8). But you can distance yourself from it. You can say, "Well, that's Germany in the 1930s. That's not here. That's not now." You feel a little better.

Then you watch something like this:

http://nyti.ms/2b2Vpbk

This is happening in the United States of America now. At rallies for the presidential nominee of one of our major political parties. It has to stop.

>335 artturnerjr: Fortunately, the election is "rigged" against him...

>336 theoria:

I read a really great book last year by a psychologist named Albert Bernstein called Emotional Vampires: Dealing with People Who Drain You Dry. Bernstein uses the notion of "emotional vampires" as a metaphor for people with personality disorders, based on the tendency of people suffering from said disorders to use people and seldom, if ever, give them anything back. In a chapter in the book entitled "Maturity and Mental Health", he opines that the essential component of both maturity and mental health is what he refers to as the perception of control:

To be psychologically healthy, we have to believe that what we do has some effect on what happens to us...{this perception}... usually leads to more productive action than believing what we do makes no difference.

Over time and with reflection, our choices get better, and we perceive ourselves as having even more control over our fate. This is the main benefit of growing up.

Emotional vampires never grow up. Throughout their lives, they see themselves as victims of fate and the unpredictability of others. Stuff happens, and they just respond to it. As a result, they have no opportunity to learn from their mistakes, and they just keep on making the same ones over and over.

Does this sound vaguely familiar in reference to the Orange One?

> 337

I read that one several years ago and I see I only gave it two stars.

Since I gave them both four stars two books I would recommend are "The Sociopath Next Door" and "The Myth of Sanity: Divided Consciousness and the Promise of Awareness", both by Martha Stout.

Books written by a woman - Theoria might be more down with such books than one by a mere man. lol.

The Myth of Sanity is excellent.

>338 JGL53:

The Sociopath Next Door is on my (rather lengthy) list of stuff to check out from the library.* Hoping to get to it sometime next year.

* https://amzn.com/w/1JCOG7SSF0DM0

Trump had a demonstration today a few blocks from my house. Went off on out local community of Somalis and other recent immigrants. It's so much worse when it's in your back yard.

>337 artturnerjr: Anyone who has access to nuclear codes should have a psych evaluation to establish their mental stability.

>341 timspalding: Many of us here have been concerned about your local Somali community. Are they okay?

>343 RickHarsch:

I'm sure they're feeling the heat. This isn't the first time they've come under this sort of attack. There's a rally for them today at city hall, which I'll be at.

Years ago, before she outed herself as a stupid racist, I made it a point go to the Paula Deen restaurant in a casino near me and, ironically, my waiter was a Black guy. I chit-chatted with him and found out he was a recent Somali immigrant. I had never seen anyone in person that was so very tall and skinny and black. He spoke English better than I do, and with a British accent.

I don't know if we have a Somali community here somewhere in Mississippi - probably not, but maybe.

>344 timspalding: I was half-joking...but realize that obviously they are not okay. How could they be with a presidential candidate in the vicinity who brings racial hatred to boil wherever he goes?