ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
That's very impressive FTS.

I mean, sure the gaps between the candidates are probably well within the margin of error, and other polls from SC show something different, but good job nonetheless.


The only thing worse than amateur election handicapping guy during election season is the candidates themselves.
 
That's very impressive FTS.

I mean, sure the gaps between the candidates are probably well within the margin of error, and other polls from SC show something different, but good job nonetheless.
.

Don't fret Cos, maybe Trump will blow it tonight and scramble the field making me look like a liar.
 
You were wrong by putting words in my mouth when you wrote that I said "Trump was being racist". And I never mentioned Islam at any point. I'm really not sure why you are doubling down on that inaccurate claim :flush::flush::flush:


Gotcha. "Racial fear mongering" and equating Wallace's depiction of blacks with Trump's depiction of Mexicans doesn't equal racism; and mentioning Muslims isn't the same as mentioning Islam.
 
It makes my head hurt how so many of you just ignore facts. I mean dude above literally tried to say no deaths ever have occurred due to Christians.

<Kermit sipping tea>

Not even close to what I said. As for Trump, he has flaws, but considering those flaws and as ill-qualified as he is, he is infinitely better than sanders, clinton and anyone else the other side promotes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: P19978
I seriously wonder what it feels like to be wrong on everything like you must feel.

There are numerous examples of Trump being racist with blacks, Latinos and using skin color to be divisive.

Also, racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges or rights among groups, the definition has expanded and to say because he is a bigot, makes fun of a religion, he's not racist? (Though numerous comments exist)

It makes my head hurt how so many of you just ignore facts. I mean dude above literally tried to say no deaths ever have occurred due to Christians. I mean beyond dumb, closer to insane. Same here, Trump makes numerous racist comments, and yet, he's not racist.

<Kermit sipping tea>



This is an interesting discussion, and if we can keep the ad hominem out, it could end up being pretty solid.


  1. You combined my argument with the previous poster’s argument. That’s fallacious. Please take my actual quotes based on what I provided.

  2. Can you that the definition of racism extends into the realm of religion or nationality if its operating component is not based on race or ethnic prejudice? That said, the definition for racism is still heavily contested, in fairness to you or anyone else wanting to make the connection to what Trump is doing. The 1978 article (that you quoted from) that determines what actually constitutes racism (from a UN perspective) mentions that discrimination must be based on racism or ethnicity. Without that basis, xenophobia is actually taking place. Also, I was writing in direct response to the implication that Trump was being racist towards Muslims and immigrants as pertaining specifically to From-the-Stands’ points. I never argued that Trump wasn’t being bigoted towards immigrants or Muslims, but rather offered that he was being xenophobic in both cases. If you want to make the case that Trump is on some level racist on the whole, have at it (there might some quotes available); but we were actually discussing whether his attacks on immigration and Islam were specifically examples of racism. The quote you took from Article 2 of the United Nations fully reads:
Racism includes racist ideologies, prejudiced attitudes, discriminatory behaviour, structural arrangements and institutionalized practices resulting in racial inequality as well as the fallacious notion that discriminatory relations between groups are morally and scientifically justifiable.

Article 2 reads:

Any theory which involves the claim that racial or ethnic groups are inherently superior or inferior, thus implying that some would be entitled to dominate or eliminate others, presumed to be inferior, or which bases value judgements on racial differentiation, has no scientific foundation and is contrary to the moral and ethical principles of humanity.

It looks like the “groups” mentioned does not extend to religions or nationalities and the UN (in article 3) seems to imply that the only way that extension exists if it is facilitated within an underlying racial component. In both cases, the prejudice is squarely defined in terms of race.


In regards to the specific discussion I was having with From-the-Stands, did you know that you’d have a better case of labeling Trump as an advocate of genocide, based on the United Nations official definition, than you would of proving him to be a racist when it comes to his positions on immigration and Islam? Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."


As I’m sure you know, there’s all sorts of room within this statement for someone to accuse Trump of loosely advocating genocide (from this definition) as pertaining to immigrants and Muslims if one measures the weight of that last definition of genocide regarding the transfer of peoples, in particular, children.

On a personal note, I believe Trump to be a divisive, manipulative man; I don’t support him, nor do I agree with most of his opinions; but I also don’t agree with arguments where people try to combine accusations without a basis for doing so. Trump has shown signs of xenophobia and even hinted at advocating the last defined extension of genocide pertaining to the transfer of people, but are his positions on immigration and Muslims actually examples of racism?
 
Will someone on the right please reassure me that Cruz won't be the next president? Tell me your party will do everything to keep him from getting the nomination.
 
This is an interesting discussion, and if we can keep the ad hominem out, it could end up being pretty solid.


  1. You combined my argument with the previous poster’s argument. That’s fallacious. Please take my actual quotes based on what I provided.

  2. Can you that the definition of racism extends into the realm of religion or nationality if its operating component is not based on race or ethnic prejudice? That said, the definition for racism is still heavily contested, in fairness to you or anyone else wanting to make the connection to what Trump is doing. The 1978 article (that you quoted from) that determines what actually constitutes racism (from a UN perspective) mentions that discrimination must be based on racism or ethnicity. Without that basis, xenophobia is actually taking place. Also, I was writing in direct response to the implication that Trump was being racist towards Muslims and immigrants as pertaining specifically to From-the-Stands’ points. I never argued that Trump wasn’t being bigoted towards immigrants or Muslims, but rather offered that he was being xenophobic in both cases. If you want to make the case that Trump is on some level racist on the whole, have at it (there might some quotes available); but we were actually discussing whether his attacks on immigration and Islam were specifically examples of racism. The quote you took from Article 2 of the United Nations fully reads:
Racism includes racist ideologies, prejudiced attitudes, discriminatory behaviour, structural arrangements and institutionalized practices resulting in racial inequality as well as the fallacious notion that discriminatory relations between groups are morally and scientifically justifiable.

Article 2 reads:

Any theory which involves the claim that racial or ethnic groups are inherently superior or inferior, thus implying that some would be entitled to dominate or eliminate others, presumed to be inferior, or which bases value judgements on racial differentiation, has no scientific foundation and is contrary to the moral and ethical principles of humanity.

It looks like the “groups” mentioned does not extend to religions or nationalities and the UN (in article 3) seems to imply that the only way that extension exists if it is facilitated within an underlying racial component. In both cases, the prejudice is squarely defined in terms of race.


In regards to the specific discussion I was having with From-the-Stands, did you know that you’d have a better case of labeling Trump as an advocate of genocide, based on the United Nations official definition, than you would of proving him to be a racist when it comes to his positions on immigration and Islam? Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."


As I’m sure you know, there’s all sorts of room within this statement for someone to accuse Trump of loosely advocating genocide (from this definition) as pertaining to immigrants and Muslims if one measures the weight of that last definition of genocide regarding the transfer of peoples, in particular, children.

On a personal note, I believe Trump to be a divisive, manipulative man; I don’t support him, nor do I agree with most of his opinions; but I also don’t agree with arguments where people try to combine accusations without a basis for doing so. Trump has shown signs of xenophobia and even hinted at advocating the last defined extension of genocide pertaining to the transfer of people, but are his positions on immigration and Muslims actually examples of racism?
Yea, no one read that. Pretty sure you're trying to say Trump isn't a bigot.

Numerous examples show otherwise towards races. Not hard to find, including blacks.

<rolls eyes>
 
This is an interesting discussion, and if we can keep the ad hominem out, it could end up being pretty solid.


  1. You combined my argument with the previous poster’s argument. That’s fallacious. Please take my actual quotes based on what I provided.

  2. Can you that the definition of racism extends into the realm of religion or nationality if its operating component is not based on race or ethnic prejudice? That said, the definition for racism is still heavily contested, in fairness to you or anyone else wanting to make the connection to what Trump is doing. The 1978 article (that you quoted from) that determines what actually constitutes racism (from a UN perspective) mentions that discrimination must be based on racism or ethnicity. Without that basis, xenophobia is actually taking place. Also, I was writing in direct response to the implication that Trump was being racist towards Muslims and immigrants as pertaining specifically to From-the-Stands’ points. I never argued that Trump wasn’t being bigoted towards immigrants or Muslims, but rather offered that he was being xenophobic in both cases. If you want to make the case that Trump is on some level racist on the whole, have at it (there might some quotes available); but we were actually discussing whether his attacks on immigration and Islam were specifically examples of racism. The quote you took from Article 2 of the United Nations fully reads:
Racism includes racist ideologies, prejudiced attitudes, discriminatory behaviour, structural arrangements and institutionalized practices resulting in racial inequality as well as the fallacious notion that discriminatory relations between groups are morally and scientifically justifiable.

Article 2 reads:

Any theory which involves the claim that racial or ethnic groups are inherently superior or inferior, thus implying that some would be entitled to dominate or eliminate others, presumed to be inferior, or which bases value judgements on racial differentiation, has no scientific foundation and is contrary to the moral and ethical principles of humanity.

It looks like the “groups” mentioned does not extend to religions or nationalities and the UN (in article 3) seems to imply that the only way that extension exists if it is facilitated within an underlying racial component. In both cases, the prejudice is squarely defined in terms of race.


In regards to the specific discussion I was having with From-the-Stands, did you know that you’d have a better case of labeling Trump as an advocate of genocide, based on the United Nations official definition, than you would of proving him to be a racist when it comes to his positions on immigration and Islam? Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."


As I’m sure you know, there’s all sorts of room within this statement for someone to accuse Trump of loosely advocating genocide (from this definition) as pertaining to immigrants and Muslims if one measures the weight of that last definition of genocide regarding the transfer of peoples, in particular, children.

On a personal note, I believe Trump to be a divisive, manipulative man; I don’t support him, nor do I agree with most of his opinions; but I also don’t agree with arguments where people try to combine accusations without a basis for doing so. Trump has shown signs of xenophobia and even hinted at advocating the last defined extension of genocide pertaining to the transfer of people, but are his positions on immigration and Muslims actually examples of racism?
Yea, no one read that. Pretty sure you're trying to say Trump isn't a bigot.

Numerous examples show otherwise towards races. Not hard to find, including blacks.

<rolls eyes>
 
In some ways this is true. Take the issue of immigration. What a liberal may pursue from a sense of guilt or other motivation (future voter support) a religious conservative may also pursue on moral basis.

Or what a liberal might support on a moral basis a religious conservative (or anyone else) may pursue on a different moral basis.

Trying to make people subscribe to a belief actually pushes them away.

Yup.
 
Z,

A great illustration and citation of many acts that have been done in the name of the faith that were not in line with the teachings of Christ. The acts you've cited are perfect examples. The underlying causes, intents and instigators of those events are subject to debate. Those relative to the Crusades would be a good example.
We all have to make a decision who to believe and who not to believe. Likewise, we can all find authors to support our assertions and beliefs. For me, writers such as d m murdock would not be my pick. To each his own.
Don't you think the people that committed those acts were convinced that they were doing right by God? We enslaved people and justified it using the Bible. We made women second class citizens and justified it using the Bible. We segregated people and used the Bible to justify it. We argue today about what constitutes a marriage and people use their religion to justify their claim that we should discriminate against people who don't fit their ideas.
The problem with tying any kind of state authority to religion in any way is that it gives those in charge of that authority that they somehow have the God on their side. Any student of history doesn't need to look very far to see example after example where that has proven to be not a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil_The_Music
Drudge Report linking an article saying Scalia is dead... Should be fun to watch Washington wrestle with his replacement seeing as the staunchest conservative Justice is going to be replaced by Obama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlbanyWildCat
I'm sure Obama will try to get it through but it will be tough with the Senate how it is. I think there are 54 Republicans so at least 4 will have to vote to confirm so I am sure there will be pressure to delay it until after the election. There are no rules that there has to be 9 justices. If there's a tie, it will just revert back to the lower court's ruling. Should make the election even more interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big_Blue79
Drudge Report linking an article saying Scalia is dead... Should be fun to watch Washington wrestle with his replacement seeing as the staunchest conservative Justice is going to be replaced by Obama.

Everything I've read is that the next justice won't be nominated until after the November elections. I can't imagine the Republicans would let it happen until them anyway.
 
Didn't know it was ok for SCOTUS to have 8 members. Makes for voting scenarios to end in ties... And how would a ruling that's tied end up? Not being snarky. Legitimately curious.
 
Well he's not felonious so he's got that over Hillary. He's not a socialist, so he's got that over Bernie.

You'd vote for Bern or Hillary over Cruz because _______ ?
I don't plan on voting. If elections weren't bought I would vote. And I would vote anyone over Cruz including Trump, Hillary, Bernie, Rubio, etc. Cruz is a zealot, a dominionist. A Cruz presidency scares the hell out of me. Look at some of the wackos that are backing him and then look at their beliefs.
 
Didn't know it was ok for SCOTUS to have 8 members. Makes for voting scenarios to end in ties... And how would a ruling that's tied end up? Not being snarky. Legitimately curious.

Tie generally means status quo remains. So if you won at the circuit court of appeals, you hold serve. Some big cases have happened with less than 9 justices anyways, like any time a justice recuses herself or there is a vacancy.

Anyway, huge news. I don't think there's been >= 5 Democrat appointed justices in decades. Alito should be the conservative figure head/intellectual leader now (although some think he has been for a while). Might see Roberts drift to the right (he's already far right on most issues, just not some high profile ones). Wish I had something pending at SCOTUS right now, would be a frenzy of activity trying to forecast.

Pending cases that could have been 5/4 - Texas abortion access case (other states now have similar laws); affirmative action case (Texas case back up at SCOTUS after an earlier ruling); the Cali public union case; Texas one person one vote case; Little Sisters of the Poor Obamacare (like Hobby Lobby but even more ridiculous).
 
More idiotic BS from McConnell. If the roles were reversed, he would lose his mind over such a notion:

"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president," McConnell said in a statement.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT