The Romulan Republic wrote:
He had to be pressured into explicitly condemning them after one of them drove a car ISIS-style into a group of peaceful protesters, murdering an innocent woman and injuring many others. He then tried to portray them as morally equivalent to their opponents, as though to deflect the brunt of the blame from them and to give them mainstream legitimacy.
So like I said.
Even other Republicans saw that this was wrong. Hell, white supremacists were reportedly delighted by it, and took it as the support that it was.
White supremacists are also delighted by the violence because it both feeds into their persecution complex and helps them to recruit others who feel likewise, and convinces them that the race war they want is starting.
Its pretty much just you who's apparently unable, or unwilling, to see it.
No, those of us stuck in the middle between all the extremists see it for what it is.
You want a citation that that immigrants are often leaving dangerous and violent situations? Really?
Yes, because often they come here for economic reasons, like the people who immigrate legally. You seem to be confusing immigrants with refugees.
Just admit that you made a mistake.
It's right there in the definition. Would you like me to re-quote it and emphasize that part?
Yet pretty much everything you post in this topic is either trying to downplay the severity of what Trump is threatening, attacking its opponents, or trying to change the topic. So if I reached a false conclusion about your motives, maybe its because you have given every indication that that is, in fact, your position.
No, I'm just rolling my eyes at the flailing about and exaggeration from the "progressives" who are trying to make it out to be something it's not. I am generally sympathetic to immigrants and would like to make it easier for people to immigrate legally. That being said, those who have immigrated illegally being sent back to their country of origin is not the end of the world, and represents immigration law being enforced. This particular issue helps to illustrate wonderfully why Obama using and abusing executive privilege to essentially pass law by himself was a horrible idea, and why policy like this should really be run through legislature, so it can't be so easily undone.
Do you, or do you not, support the deportation of 800,000-plus mostly law-abiding immigrants previously protected by DACA?
I see it as the same kind of abuse of power that I disliked Obama for exercising.
Except nothing like that, because a) my definition of ethnic cleansing was more accurate than yours',
Actually according to the definition you posted, mine is just as accurate as yours.
and b) Trump has, while not declaring himself a Nazi, pandered too and been supported by Nazis. On national television.
Really? When?
But the Trail of Tears is actually not the worst comparison for the worst case scenario of a DACA repeal. Oh, it will probably be done less messily, more high-tech., rather than physically marching thousands of people cross-country, so that's something, I guess. And doubtlessly one can claim that the Native Americans had a stronger claim on this land than anyone else.
And that's the defining factor of it. The Trail of Tears was the removal of Native peoples from their ancestral lands. These are people whose cultures developed in these areas and had been there for many, many generations. A somewhat interesting factor is that the Supreme Court actually ruled in their favor, but Jackson just ignored the ruling and had them moved anyway. And since he and the Army saw the Natives as less than human, they really didn't give a shit about casualties that occurred during the process. And all so the US could have access to the land. This immigration issue is nothing comparable to that because we are talking about people who by definition have come from a different country, and they are not being removed to take their land. They are not being treated as sub-human (to my knowledge), and they are essentially being sent back to their country of origin, rather than being moved to a completely different area that has been set aside for them, precisely because it is an undesirable location that white folks have already rejected for their own uses.
IIRC, Trump also considers Andrew Jackson a favorite former President.
A lot of more conservative leaning white folks do because of his
reputation from the War of 1812, and
the fact he paid down the national debt.
My entire point was that those two examples I gave are not comparable- that not all laws equally merit principled disobedience.
I think my point is that for me, something like this immigration law might represent that for you, while gun control is that for me, and the difference I'm making reference to is that you tend to choose much more extreme examples for your comparisons. My point as far as it applies to gun control is that I am very much aware that for all the talk from the "progressive" side about taking a stand against what they feel are immoral laws are all to eager to deny basically any other group that same stance to whatever they feel strongly about, such as the right to keep and bear arms. I saw a number of law enforcement agencies from local sheriff's departments, and city police up to state police say they'd refuse to obey what they saw as an immoral law because it represented a violation of civil rights of the people they serve. And while I might be on board with them for that point but still make a sarcastic remark about the fourth and fifth amendments being a thing, too, "progressives" were talking real big about the power of the Federal government and how we ought to send the army in and all that.
Of course now, at least some of you seem to have found the appeal of states' rights. That's basically what I'm getting at, because I don't really believe you are for that so much as you seem to want to continue enforcing
your sense of morality on others and are simply upset that the shoe is on the other foot at the moment.
You're the one who keeps engaging in it (and then misrepresenting me as doing so).
I'm not the one accusing others of being Nazis on very little basis.
Do you mean the hypocrisies you invented after misrepresenting and straw-manning my arguments?
And then you try to change the topic onto a gun control debate. Priceless.
No, I mean how you'll talk down about people wishing hurricanes on people they don't like based on their sense of morality, and then you turning around and doing the same thing.
Of course this is just taking you at your word of it having little or no impact.
