Admiral X wrote:
My, what a stunning and witty retort. You really put me in my place.
Yes, the belief that everyone should be treated equally under the law. Novel concept, I know
Its a beautiful ideal. The problem is, we don't actually have that. We never have. And no, I don't mean "because SJWs are persecuting white men".
Their are injustices that we still need to redress, if we want actual equality. Unfortunately, the Right (those elements of it that are not simply openly fascistic) tends to prefer to act like we already have an egalitarian society so that they can avoid addressing any of the existing inequality, and frame liberals and progressives as anti-egalitarian for trying to do so.
You can't have a society that starts certain people off with massive advantages based on race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, disability, or inherited wealth, and then say: "Now let's treat you all equally, and if you fail, well, sucks to be you."
Its not a fair race if most of the contestants start out hobbled and certain people get a thirty-second head start.
Compared to the Trail of Tears, no, it isn't that bad. It would probably help if you (and others) didn't go into hysterics over everything. If you didn't, you might have noticed I actually mentioned what my actual stance on immigration was.
Is it as bad as the Trail of Tears? No, though we could end up their or worse if we keep going down the road we're on. But their
are parallels (the forced deportation of law-abiding people from their homes to dangerous conditions, for reasons that are heavily influenced by racism). Which was my point. One which evidently went "whoosh", right over your head.
And "better than the Trail of Tears" is setting the bar really fucking low.
In any case, its not just that specific example- you spent the whole thread trying to downplay or defend the repeal of DACA at every turn.
Only against unfair accusations or outright falsehoods. I am a fair-minded person in general, and as I once defended Obama in spite of not liking him as a politician, I now do the same for Trump.
Except Trump is utterly unworthy of the effort you put into defending him. Its not being fair to put equal or greater effort into defending someone who's
actually guilty.
Has Trump been accused of some things that are false, and some others that are not yet proven (but very well may be when all is said and done)? Yes.
But a lot of the accusations against him are valid, and confirmed as such. Sometimes by his own admission. Do you deny this? Do you deny that he condoned violence against protesters? That his administration has characterized the free press as the enemy? That he boasted on tape about molesting women? That he said a judge was unfit to judge him because of the man's ethnic heritage? That he tried to ban people from the US on the basis of religion? That he, by his own admission, fired Comey over the Russian investigation? That highly-placed members of his campaign and of his family met with Russians to get dirt on Clinton during the election?
Do you deny it?
Most of them are. And the hilarious thing is that it's actually making him look better as you flail about looking for something to hurt him with.
See above. Then either provide your arguments, with evidence from credible non-partisan sources, as to why those specific allegations (which are not a complete list by any means) are false, or stop lying and evading and concede.
What injustice? That people immigrated illegally and are now being faced with being sent back to where they came from? I mean, it kind of sucks, especially for the kids, but I'm not seeing a real injustice there unless I'm missing something.
People who came here as children, often brought here by adults, not by their choice.
Who have lived as law-abiding Americans for years, as part of our work force and economy, often serving in our armed forces.
Who were previously granted permission to remain.
Who are then threatened with deportation, often to countries they do not know, and to conditions of danger and poverty.
If you do not see what is wrong with that, then you have absolutely no right to call yourself an egalitarian.
Try me.
You keep giving me more examples in this thread ever time you post.
Like I said, I'm a very fair-minded person, and when I see someone being attacked unfairly, I tend to defend them. I also am really, really against double standards, so, yeah, you're damn right I'm going to point out when the Democrats are doing the exact same thing they attack Republicans over doing.
Again, you employ the false equivalency meme, claiming that the Democrats are the same as the Republicans in order to simultaneously (and contradictorally) attack the Democrats and defend the Republicans.
What you have not done is actually demonstrate how the Democrats' allegations are equally false or otherwise unfair. You have simply repeatedly asserted that they are, and then attacked me and liberals generally, calling me "hysterical" and insinuating that I am dishonest, rather than defend your claims with evidence. Because facts don't matter any more.
As I say so often myself when it comes to the regressive left, so named because that is how they act.
You use Alt. Right/Trumpian rhetoric like "regressive left", constantly post defending Donald Trump by attacking or equating him to his critics, dismiss allegations against him (without actually providing evidence to support your contentions, or even making consistent, specific arguments on the subject), defend blatantly racist policy like the repeal of DACA, and then you try to claim that no, you're not a shill for Trump, you're just being "fair"?
It doesn't work that way.
I guess it's that second one, then. Ideological filters at work.
I read what you say, and draw conclusions based on which side you consistently defend, and consistently echo.
That's not ideological filters, that's "reading comprehension."
You have yet to assert anything of substance. Just as an example, the accusation that Trump is a white nationalist/Nazi/whatever - the only thing you posted up as support for that was (and we'll just say this was something completely true and not made up by someone) what amounted to stormfags sqeeing over the idea that senpai is noticing them. The funny thing is that both you and they assert this based on the idea that he's talking in code or something like that.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Trump went on 60 Minutes and condemned racists, and when it came to Charlottesville, he condemned
all the violence, but thanks to extremism making people think they're somehow the good guys even when they do bad things to other people, that was somehow as good as saying he sided with the Nazis.
He gave equal blame to Nazis and "everyone else". His "condemnation" of them had to be dragged out of him by public pressure. Even other Republican politicians could see that this was wrong. Yet you, apparently, can't.
I'd say its pretty damn clear which side you're on here.
And I love how you focus on that one example and completely ignore the
half-dozen other specific, well-documented examples I gave, so that you can lie and claim I offered nothing specific.
You don't have a real argument. You just lie, repeat your assertions, and attack your opponents, in an attempt to obfuscate and disrupt the facts by shear quantities of mudslinging.
What allegations? What tape? can you post it?
What tape? WHAT TAPE? The fucking Access Hollywood tape that was played all over the news during the election. You know, "Grab them by the pussy"? Or as its called now, "being Presidential".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhsSzIS84ks
Oh, let me guess: it makes the Dear Leader look bad, so its "fake news".
This is some 1984-level shit.
I'm not a "Rightist." That's just something you tell yourself so you can dismiss anything I say. I'm going to paraphrase Neil Degrasse Tyson on this one and say that the nice thing about facts is that they are true whether you believe in them or not.
How very true. Its a pity you fail to see that you are on the wrong side of that equation yourself.
Not even going to bother responding to the rest of this.
Concession accepted, then.
