Fun Wikipedia fact, Democrat Party has been used as a slur since at least the 1940s. And I've been strongly opposed to the Democrats a lot longer than Trump has been in politics, so I reserve the right to call them the Democrat Party as an insult without having anything to do with Trump. I was there first.
What I haven't found out is why it's considered something to be offended by.
One thing I've learned in my long life is that, when a person is saying "You shouldn't be offended," he's being offensive.
I'm not as old as you so it's conceivable that I will change my mind later, but my current observation is that there are a bunch of whiny people who get offended at things that are not offensive in any rational manner. Like when a white girl has dreadlocks and gets roasted for "cultural appropriation". Sorry, white girl isn't the one being offensive.
Lots of Democrats believe lots of things. Most Democrats think that we should control illegal immigration. Opposing illegal immigration and wanting to do it with a wall are two different things. Also, the Trump administration opposes immigration on the part of nonwhites (if you are from Norway you're OK) unless you have specific skills that will help America. The don't oppose illegal immigration, they oppose immigration. What is the reason cancelling the legal status for children who are here in America because they have no other way of managing life-threatening diseases?
To demonstrate the utter insanity (and yes, racist xenophobia) of the present administration's immigration policy, look no further than the case of Jose Segovia Benitez, a U.S. Marine who was honorably discharged and is currently being held at the I.C.E. Processing Center in Adelanto, California, awaiting his deportation to El Salvador, a country he has not seen since he was a 3 year old toddler. Jose has lived almost his entire life in the U.S., graduating high school and then serving in Iraq.
When Jose took the oath of enlistment, he swore allegiance to the United States, swearing to defend the Constitution against all enemies. As far as I am concerned, this made him a U.S. National and should be recognized as one. The United States code provides: that the term "National of the United States" means (a) a citizen of the U.S., (b) a person, who though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States of America." (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22))
Not only did Jose affirm his "permanent allegiance" to the USA through his combat service in Iraq and his honorable discharge, he also continues to suffer from his service to the United States in the form of PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury. Jose now sadly has a police record due to actions he took as a consequence of his combat sustained brain injuries. Do to his criminal record, the I.C.E. is currently processing him for deportation to a country he has no memory of ever being in.
This is despicable, pure and simple! Jose served this country, putting his very life on the line. Any unfortunate subsequent actions ought to be grounds for mental health care and whatever other assistance any properly grateful country would be rushing to provide.
I love my country, but all too often it's hard not to be ashamed of it.
Also, the Trump administration opposes immigration on the part of nonwhites
What policy of the Trump administration opposes immigration of nonwhites? Never heard of that one.
Starhopper, To demonstrate the utter insanity (and yes, racist xenophobia) of the present administration's immigration policy,
The current administration is following the law. The law is the same now as it was under the prior administration. Trump is willing to change the law. Democrats are not since it would give Trump a win and it would remove something they perceive as giving them an edge with Hispanic voters.
Actually what I did was a standard left wing tactic:
“The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” [1]
I don't think whaddaboutism is an invalid strategy so long as it points out hypocrisy. A good example is Sean Hannity for years preaching that we need a proven conservative to run for office, but then promptly abandons said conservatives to back Trump. And oh how Hannity hated debt under the Obama administration. Suddenly I never hear him talk about debt these days. That's hypocrisy, and whaddaboutism is a perfect response to those critical of debt under Obama.
Same for immigration. If it's only a problem when the guy you don't like is in office, then it pretty well proves the problem isn't immigration policy. It's just an excuse to hate the enemy.
I don't think whaddaboutism is an invalid strategy so long as it points out hypocrisy.
Yeah, it doesn't make logical sense that calling attention to the fallacy of using a double standard could also be a fallacy. I guess when it comes to politics people tend to forget about being logic.
Legion of Logic said... Same for immigration. If it's only a problem when the guy you don't like is in office, then it pretty well proves the problem isn't immigration policy. It's just an excuse to hate the enemy.
Most of the progressive sources I read decried Obama's immigration policies. It didn't make it into mainstream media because 1) Obama did not insult the media, nor immigrants, every other day, and 2) the media generally supports such centrist positions.
bmiller said... Trump is willing to change the law. Democrats are not since it would give Trump a win and it would remove something they perceive as giving them an edge with Hispanic voters.
In what ways is Trump willing to change immigration law, and do they comport with his more rigorous enforcement of current law?
The only "win" being denied is the ridiculous wall.
18 comments:
There are certainly non-racial reasons for wanting to control illegal immigration.
Does anyone in the modern Democrat Party agree with this?
Probably. It is a Big Tent party, after all.
By the way, it's Democratic Party. To say or write otherwise is to reveal one's self as a right wing MAGA hat wearing extremist.
Dang it, I thought it was the other way around haha. They should call themselves "Democratics" then.
Fun Wikipedia fact, Democrat Party has been used as a slur since at least the 1940s. And I've been strongly opposed to the Democrats a lot longer than Trump has been in politics, so I reserve the right to call them the Democrat Party as an insult without having anything to do with Trump. I was there first.
What I haven't found out is why it's considered something to be offended by.
What I haven't found out is why it's considered something to be offended by.
Because Democrats thrive on being offended?
One thing I've learned in my long life is that, when a person is saying "You shouldn't be offended," he's being offensive.
"the other way around"
Really? I guess that's why any Republican who whispers the least criticism of their Dear Leader is immediately banished into the Outer Darkness.
One thing I've learned in my long life is that, when a person is saying "You shouldn't be offended," he's being offensive.
I'm not as old as you so it's conceivable that I will change my mind later, but my current observation is that there are a bunch of whiny people who get offended at things that are not offensive in any rational manner. Like when a white girl has dreadlocks and gets roasted for "cultural appropriation". Sorry, white girl isn't the one being offensive.
Lots of Democrats believe lots of things. Most Democrats think that we should control illegal immigration. Opposing illegal immigration and wanting to do it with a wall are two different things. Also, the Trump administration opposes immigration on the part of nonwhites (if you are from Norway you're OK) unless you have specific skills that will help America. The don't oppose illegal immigration, they oppose immigration. What is the reason cancelling the legal status for children who are here in America because they have no other way of managing life-threatening diseases?
To demonstrate the utter insanity (and yes, racist xenophobia) of the present administration's immigration policy, look no further than the case of Jose Segovia Benitez, a U.S. Marine who was honorably discharged and is currently being held at the I.C.E. Processing Center in Adelanto, California, awaiting his deportation to El Salvador, a country he has not seen since he was a 3 year old toddler. Jose has lived almost his entire life in the U.S., graduating high school and then serving in Iraq.
When Jose took the oath of enlistment, he swore allegiance to the United States, swearing to defend the Constitution against all enemies. As far as I am concerned, this made him a U.S. National and should be recognized as one. The United States code provides: that the term "National of the United States" means (a) a citizen of the U.S., (b) a person, who though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States of America." (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22))
Not only did Jose affirm his "permanent allegiance" to the USA through his combat service in Iraq and his honorable discharge, he also continues to suffer from his service to the United States in the form of PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury. Jose now sadly has a police record due to actions he took as a consequence of his combat sustained brain injuries. Do to his criminal record, the I.C.E. is currently processing him for deportation to a country he has no memory of ever being in.
This is despicable, pure and simple! Jose served this country, putting his very life on the line. Any unfortunate subsequent actions ought to be grounds for mental health care and whatever other assistance any properly grateful country would be rushing to provide.
I love my country, but all too often it's hard not to be ashamed of it.
Victor,
Also, the Trump administration opposes immigration on the part of nonwhites
What policy of the Trump administration opposes immigration of nonwhites? Never heard of that one.
Starhopper,
To demonstrate the utter insanity (and yes, racist xenophobia) of the present administration's immigration policy,
The current administration is following the law. The law is the same now as it was under the prior administration. Trump is willing to change the law. Democrats are not since it would give Trump a win and it would remove something they perceive as giving them an edge with Hispanic voters.
The Obama administration's immigration policy was "utter insanity (and yes, racist xenophobia)"
I've noticed that the standard right wing response to any criticism of the Trump administration is "Whaddaboutism".
I'm surprised you didn't counter with "Bu-bu-bu-but Hillary's e-mails!!!"
Actually what I did was a standard left wing tactic:
“The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” [1]
Better call Saul!
I don't think whaddaboutism is an invalid strategy so long as it points out hypocrisy. A good example is Sean Hannity for years preaching that we need a proven conservative to run for office, but then promptly abandons said conservatives to back Trump. And oh how Hannity hated debt under the Obama administration. Suddenly I never hear him talk about debt these days. That's hypocrisy, and whaddaboutism is a perfect response to those critical of debt under Obama.
Same for immigration. If it's only a problem when the guy you don't like is in office, then it pretty well proves the problem isn't immigration policy. It's just an excuse to hate the enemy.
I don't think whaddaboutism is an invalid strategy so long as it points out hypocrisy.
Yeah, it doesn't make logical sense that calling attention to the fallacy of using a double standard could also be a fallacy. I guess when it comes to politics people tend to forget about being logic.
Legion of Logic said...
Same for immigration. If it's only a problem when the guy you don't like is in office, then it pretty well proves the problem isn't immigration policy. It's just an excuse to hate the enemy.
Most of the progressive sources I read decried Obama's immigration policies. It didn't make it into mainstream media because 1) Obama did not insult the media, nor immigrants, every other day, and 2) the media generally supports such centrist positions.
bmiller said...
Trump is willing to change the law. Democrats are not since it would give Trump a win and it would remove something they perceive as giving them an edge with Hispanic voters.
In what ways is Trump willing to change immigration law, and do they comport with his more rigorous enforcement of current law?
The only "win" being denied is the ridiculous wall.
Post a Comment