U of Chicago sends letter to incoming students

[KabeRinnaul]

And that, I believe, is a two-way street, is it not?

It is, but who are you directing that at? I'll grant that GK lashes out at you sometimes, but it seems to me we're pretty civil on the whole.

I had no idea "border security" and "enforcing the laws" were racist constructs.

They are not, in and of themselves, but it's not like he's never said anything else racist. The problem with Trump's approach to "border security" is twofold. One, the entire wall idea is childish and absurd. It's meant entirely to appeal to the ignorant racists among his followers. Two, and more importantly, he throws out sweeping generalizations that often denigrate the entire group he's talking about, and suggests punishing the entire group rather than risk trouble from minorities within them. That's pretty much racist by definition.

And yes, claiming that the Mexican government deliberately sends their criminals to us; suggesting that Mexican immigrants are criminals, drug addicts, and racists (but some are presumably good people); and requiring Muslims to be recorded in a special database, wear labels to identify their religion, and be under government surveillance; all of those things are racist. In fact, I think that last one can be called "fascist" and "Nazi" without hyperbole.

At this point, believing that Trump is not racist is evidence of willful ignorance.

Some people might be offended with "Hillary for President" being written in chalk somewhere. If people on college campuses have been traumatized by it, I'd like to see an article about that. I'd feel the same about them.

But who would be that angry about as mild a candidate as Hillary Clinton? She doesn't have a long history of easily-verified racist and sexist remarks, just a long and intense muckraking campaign targeting her. Anyone getting that upset about Hillary advertising is either sexist, or ill-informed and buying into the media circus that hounds her.

Do you have any actual in context quotes regarding what you're talking about? And your explanation as to why they're xenophobic and/or racist? I'd love to hear them.

See above links.

Is that the same as saying that bigoted, hateful, evil, greedy, <whatever> Republicans have ruined the country?

Aren't they? The bigoted, hateful, evil, greedy contingent of the Republican party I mean — I know there are many Republicans who are not those things. But those who are hateful, greedy, evil bigots have enough of a voice in the party that the rest shouldn't be surprised by the guilt-by-association at this point.

But no.

Saying "society has moved on and no longer accepts public displays of racism and sexism" is not the same thing as that. Unless, of course, you feel that public acceptance of racism and sexism are core ideals of the Republican party — or just the Trump faction.

[Gravekeeper]

I will give you that the scenario I laid out is highly unlikely, put it's still possible. My point is that, if an officer feels like his/her life is in danger when they are not working, then they should have the ability to defend it. Good, Bad or indifferent they would also be held accountable for any actions associated with it.

Cops are more likely to commit suicide than they are to be killed by someone else. So if we're going to base policy on highly unlikely scenarios in the interest of officer safety then they *shouldn't* be allowed to take their service weapons home with them.

The author in the Slate article (probably a left-slant to begin with, but that's beside the point as I'm trying to be fair here)

Dude, you linked a Townhall columnist. =p

But those who are hateful, greedy, evil bigots have enough of a voice in the party that the rest shouldn't be surprised by the guilt-by-association at this point.

And that is why I am very weary and very snappy in this election cycle. Trump was not an accident. The Republican Party has spent years paving the way for him with their policies and strategy. They embraced and normalized the hateful lunacy of the fringe right for political gain and even after the monster they created took over they still haven't had the integrity to stand up to it. Because with the GOP its always party before country.

They would rather burn down the country ( see congress ) and the party than admit fault or god forbid not toe the party line. Even when that line is wrapped around an anchor someone through overboard.

You'll excuse me if I am just appalled at what is going on in US politics and absolutely sick of right wing partisanship. I've watched every other forum I normally partake in descend into just the most virile racism and hate over the last several months. The most awful people I've ever seen crawling out from under their rocks and onto national television because Trump and the GOP have said their awful, hateful views are not only correct but perfectly acceptable.

So yeah, when I see the usual little partisan dances in the current political climate it does piss me off. I have no patience left for it. Your whole party is burning down around you and you've given the US perhaps the worst candidate in history. Admit responsibility for once in your political lives and do your damn job. You were elected to govern the country not destroy it.

So you'll forgive me if I see the claim that sensitive college students are the precursor to 1984 as patently absurd in the face of everything else going on. -.-

[s_stabeler]

I'm risking Godwin here, but it's worth noting who the last person who made people of a particular religion wear a symbol to identify themselves was. Having said that, I'm not sure if is racist as much as Nationalist to say that mexican immigrants are criminals, drug addicts and racists.

ultimately, however, the issue with Trump is simple. He doesn't actually care much about the consequences of what he does- "I've used the laws of this country to pare debt. … We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on The Apprentice. It's not personal. It's just business."- Donald Trump quoted in an article in Forbes. he's outright said in the past that a bank losing $2 BILLION lending to one of his companies "was the bank's problem, not mine"- he bought the company out of administration for 225 million. Nice deal if you can get it, I suppose, since it meant he still got an income from the company, without having to bother paying back the debt run up to build the company up. I'm guessing he will do much the same as President: do whatever he wants, and leave his successor to clear up his mess.

[mjr]

It is, but who are you directing that at? I'll grant that GK lashes out at you sometimes, but it seems to me we're pretty civil on the whole.

That is true, but I'm speaking in more general terms, and general political terms. I try to be fair in my statements, all I ask is the same.

It's possible to "agree to disagree" without thinking that the other side is dumb/sexist/racist, etc. Because in a large number of cases, the other side isn't dumb/sexist/racist.

They are not, in and of themselves, but it's not like he's never said anything else racist. The problem with Trump's approach to "border security" is twofold. One, the entire wall idea is childish and absurd. It's meant entirely to appeal to the ignorant racists among his followers. Two, and more importantly, he throws out sweeping generalizations that often denigrate the entire group he's talking about, and suggests punishing the entire group rather than risk trouble from minorities within them. That's pretty much racist by definition.

Again, though, "Mexican" isn't race. Just like "Canadian", "American", and so forth. Case in point: A lady I work with looks like she's from one of the Asian countries (China, I believe). However, she was born and raised in Kazakhstan. So, is she Chinese, Kazakhstani, or what??

And "Muslim" isn't a race, either. It's a religion. Just like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism.

At this point, believing that Trump is not racist is evidence of willful ignorance.

Is that the same sort of "willful ignorance" that says "Hillary doesn't lie, did nothing wrong/illegal, and never has?"

But who would be that angry about as mild a candidate as Hillary Clinton?

Irrelevant.

Aren't they? The bigoted, hateful, evil, greedy contingent of the Republican party I mean — I know there are many Republicans who are not those things. But those who are hateful, greedy, evil bigots have enough of a voice in the party that the rest shouldn't be surprised by the guilt-by-association at this point.

The problem is, there is that guilt by association. I mean, look at how often Republicans (in a general sense) who aren't elected (i.e. civilians) are labeled with those same things, and often worse.

[Kheldarson]

Is that the same sort of "willful ignorance" that says "Hillary doesn't lie, did nothing wrong/illegal, and never has?"

Nobody is actually saying that. In fact, most people do identify where she has lied or was wrong. In fact, she's even identified where she's been wrong.

What has been said, and verified, is that she is more honest than her opponent and is one of the more honest politicians in the field.

Irrelevant.

Highly relevant. Nobody would be upset over Bush's, or Romney's, or Obama's, or Hillary's name being plastered everywhere because none of them were/are trying to push divisionist, racist, and xenophobic rhetoric as a major part of their platform. So, yes, the majority feeling about a candidate is highly relevant when you're using their name.

Timing is important too: one wonders why his name was written around campus months ahead of the state's primary. That's not a typical campaign push time.

[mjr]

Nobody is actually saying that. In fact, most people do identify where she has lied or was wrong. In fact, she's even identified where she's been wrong.

Except when it comes to email. She's now given four different stories. Which one is true?

But hey, that's great to know. It's good to know "I accidentally broke the law" is now a valid excuse. Director Comey basically said so.

But to be fair, I'm willing to have you show me exactly where SHE said she's lied about something.

And going on her record of service as "selling point" is like a shady used car salesman saying, "yeah, but I'm helping people by selling them cars! I've been doing it for 25 years!"

[Kheldarson]

Except when it comes to email. She's now given four different stories. Which one is true?

But hey, that's great to know. It's good to know "I accidentally broke the law" is now a valid excuse. Director Comey basically said so.

But to be fair, I'm willing to have you show me exactly where SHE said she's lied about something.

And going on her record of service as "selling point" is like a shady used car salesman saying, "yeah, but I'm helping people by selling them cars! I've been doing it for 25 years!"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-email-server


And did I mention her service record? I said her platform. As in, what she says she stands for and is going to do when in office. She, like presidential candidates before her, is basically a centrist candidate. Bit more progressive, but overall, she's our standard nominee.

He's the one talking about kicking people out, building a wall, and creating religion based exclusions.

[KabeRinnaul]

Again, though, "Mexican" isn't race. Just like "Canadian", "American", and so forth.

And "Muslim" isn't a race, either.

If you think the kind of people who cheer at the idea of very big walls keeping the bad people out don't equate "Mexican" and "Hispanic" or "Muslim" and "Middle Eastern", that is also willful ignorance.

Is that the same sort of "willful ignorance" that says "Hillary doesn't lie, did nothing wrong/illegal, and never has?"

I never said that. Politicians lie. It's part of their game. However, some lie more than others, and it seems that Hillary is one of the most honest ones we have. This is the opposite of willful ignorance — this is me following up on the things I see about her and finding that the vast majority are either blown massively out of proportion, or are deliberate misrepresentation.

I'm quite certain that more lies are told about Mrs. Clinton than by her.

The problem is, there is that guilt by association. I mean, look at how often Republicans (in a general sense) who aren't elected (i.e. civilians) are labeled with those same things, and often worse.

Then it falls onto them to vote out the bigots, and demonstrate that the hateful ones don't speak for them.

[Gravekeeper]

Again, though, "Mexican" isn't race. Just like "Canadian", "American", and so forth. Case in point: A lady I work with looks like she's from one of the Asian countries (China, I believe). However, she was born and raised in Kazakhstan. So, is she Chinese, Kazakhstani, or what??

And "Muslim" isn't a race, either. It's a religion. Just like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism.

If that's seriously the best defense you can come up with you deserve the guilt by association. -.-

The problem is, there is that guilt by association. I mean, look at how often Republicans (in a general sense) who aren't elected (i.e. civilians) are labeled with those same things, and often worse.

Right, and why is that? If you're going to play hyper partisan sports teams for a decade to the complete detriment of your country and society as a whole; You don't get to step back, shrug and go "Wasn't me" after you succeed in burning everything down.

It wasn't the RNC that wanted Trump, it was the people.

As for Hillary, she's a firm centerist. If she had an R behind her name and a dick between her legs the GOP would be heralding her as the next Reagan.

[mjr]

If you think the kind of people who cheer at the idea of very big walls keeping the bad people out don't equate "Mexican" and "Hispanic" or "Muslim" and "Middle Eastern", that is also willful ignorance.

That's a sweeping generalization.

I never said that. Politicians lie. It's part of their game. However, some lie more than others, and it seems that Hillary is one of the most honest ones we have. This is the opposite of willful ignorance — this is me following up on the things I see about her and finding that the vast majority are either blown massively out of proportion, or are deliberate misrepresentation.

By using the hard left Mother Jones??

[mjr]

If that's seriously the best defense you can come up with you deserve the guilt by association. -.-

Why? Because it's not really refutable? Last time I looked on a form, Race/ethnicity and nationality were two completely different things.

Does that mean I can put guilt you by association when liberal groups libel and disparage Christians in general?

Or maybe when Hillary Clinton calls African American youths "Super Predators"?

Or any other number of things?

Right, and why is that? If you're going to play hyper partisan sports teams for a decade to the complete detriment of your country and society as a whole; You don't get to step back, shrug and go "Wasn't me" after you succeed in burning everything down.

See, now I think you're getting into subjective opinion. I don't think Republicans are detriments to the country or society. You do, because you likely don't like anyone with an R behind their name. I'm honestly not worried about being "politically correct". I'm more interested in being "correct".

As for Hillary, she's a firm centerist. If she had an R behind her name and a dick between her legs the GOP would be heralding her as the next Reagan.

In what universe is Hillary Clinton a centrist?

[Gravekeeper]

Why? Because it's not really refutable? Last time I looked on a form, Race/ethnicity and nationality were two completely different things.

Because "It's not TECHNICALLY racist by the strictest definition of the word" is a pretty piss poor defense. Like Kabe said the mouth breathers at these rallies certainly aren't making that sort of nuanced distinction with their hate.

Or maybe when Hillary Clinton calls African American youths "Super Predators"?

That was not okay either. You need to get off this binary partisan shit. Just because Trump's a narcissistic, racist clown doesn't mean Hillary is a paragon of virtue. Nor does Hillary's email crap mean she's somehow equal to Trump's life long career of corruption and bullshit.

Just because I criticize some aspect of what you consider the right doesn't mean I am hoorah blinders for whatever you think the left is.

See, now I think you're getting into subjective opinion. I don't think Republicans are detriments to the country or society. You do, because you likely don't like anyone with an R behind their name. I'm honestly not worried about being "politically correct". I'm more interested in being "correct".

Republicans have been pursuing a strategy of interfering with the function of government as much as possible then saying government doesn't work and everything is Obama's fault. Its not like its a secret. They flat out said they were going to do it when Obama was elected.

The least productive congress in history isn't a title they earned because people can't see past the R.

In what universe is Hillary Clinton a centrist?

Sanders had to push her left and one of the leading complaints about her with Democrats is that she isn't liberal enough. She does lean left on social issues but she's a bit of hawk and sits in the middle when it comes to international issues and defense issues.

She's very much a business as usual politician with a hawkish streak and some questionable corporate ties. But compared to the alternative? I mean cripes. I was no fan of Mitt Romney but at least when I looked at him I didn't seriously question if he was capable of running a Denny's, never mind the country.

If the GOP could have put together even one good candidate they could probably beat Clinton just via the sheer amount of baggage they have hounded on her for two decades. But the modern GOP does not produce leaders, it produces followers and extremists. Something its existing leaders learned too late this election cycle. Resulting in the clown car that was the primaries.

Conversely, if the Democrats could have put up anyone but Clinton there wouldn't even be an illusion of a horse race going on right now. They would be blowing Trump out of the water.

[mjr]

Just because Trump's a narcissistic, racist clown doesn't mean Hillary is a paragon of virtue.

Then people (mainly the media, but she's got supporters like this, too) need to stop acting like she is.

Nor does Hillary's email crap mean she's somehow equal to Trump's life long career of corruption and bullshit.

Unless potentially tossing national security to the wind is no big deal. As I think I said in a previous post, in a previous job I had, we had to go to a government contractor site. We had to sit through ITAR and other training, where if there was some violation it needed to be reported to the state department.

You're telling me that Hillary (who has now given FOUR separate reasons) doesn't understand national security implications, but I'm supposed to?

Or how about the guy recently who self-reported a violation? He got in some trouble and was discharged from the military.

To what level of scrutiny should we hold our public officials?

Just because I criticize some aspect of what you consider the right doesn't mean I am hoorah blinders for whatever you think the left is.

Some aspect? I think it's far beyond "some aspect". But since we're on the topic, what do you consider "the right"? If you think I'm so wrong about what "the left" is (and it's likely different here in the States than in Canada, where I believe you are), then why don't you tell me what you think "the left" is.

Republicans have been pursuing a strategy of interfering with the function of government as much as possible then saying government doesn't work and everything is Obama's fault. Its not like its a secret. They flat out said they were going to do it when Obama was elected.

When it came to taxes and spending, IIRC. I've said it before, and I'll stand by it: You can't really compromise when compromise means "Give me exactly what I want, or you're obstructing."

Compromise always involves "give and take". What concessions did the sides make? What concessions did they refuse to make? Maybe that's part of the problem.

Do you really think democrats won't try to do the same thing if a R gets in the White House?

The least productive congress in history isn't a title they earned because people can't see past the R.

Meh. Congress has had low approval ratings since Bush was in the White House. They always poll in the teens or low 20's as far as approvel.

Conversely, if the Democrats could have put up anyone but Clinton there wouldn't even be an illusion of a horse race going on right now. They would be blowing Trump out of the water.

This is probably true. But I guess it depends on the candidate. I wouldn't say "anyone but Clinton". There are some fairly weak Democrats out there.

[s_stabeler]

The issue is that Republicans have always proposed "compromises" that would either literally be what the Republicans wanted, or would functionally achieve the same result. like defunding- or delaying- the ACA. Quite apart from the fact that if the ACA was delayed, next time a similar situation occurred- and they could engineer it occurring before the delay would finish- they would demand the same thing- which would functionally repeal the ACA. Wheras the reason they wanted the ACA defunded is because it is actually fairly delicate- had it been defunded, then it would almost certainly have caused the failure of the legislation.

Another fact is that Republicans have repeatedly insisted on there being no tax rises to help cover the deficit, and insisting on cuts to welfare programs. A compromise would have been a mix of tax rises and benefit cuts. Instead, they insisted on it being covered purely by cuts.

but generally, no, I don't think the Democrats would have engaged in obstructionism on quite the same scale. They probably would have done some- the Minor Party is not supposed to be a doormat- but the Republicans seem to have turned engineering crises inot a not-so-fine art. ( technically, last time they were arguing over the budget, the only reason the US didn't officially go into default is the continuing resolution was passed before the markets opened, and you had Republicans actually saying the US defaulting on the National Debt would be a good thing.)

[mjr]

The issue is that Republicans have always proposed "compromises" that would either literally be what the Republicans wanted, or would functionally achieve the same result.

See, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm convinced both sides do this. In general, to say that Democrats don't do this as well is being disingenuous. Neither party seems to understand negotiation or compromise.

Here's a good example. If I'm out job hunting, and the salary I want is $100K, and the employer is offering $95K, I might start my negotiation at $105K. They might counter at $97K. They might make a hardline $95K offer.

If they make a $97K offer, I might counter at $102K.

If they're hard line on the $95, I might forego the other $5,000, and try to negotiate for something else (maybe another week vacation, or some sort of stipend, or maybe a remote day per week, or multiple remote days per week, to "make up for" the difference).

In other words, compromise is the basically the art of nobody getting exactly what they want, but feeling some sort of possible benefit from it. In my example, let's say I had to "give up" $5,000, and the employer had to "give up" an extra week of vacation.

We both benefited, though. Because I get an extra week of vacation, and the employer "saves" $5,000.