The First 100 days

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.

  1. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Wow. This is why the self-loathing white liberal might be the most obnoxious demographic in politics. The sanctimony is just off the charts. The urge of the white liberal to bash white conservatives, impugn their motives, and virtue signal must be so strong. It must make you folks feel so righteous. Of course, it's also a big reason why you got Trump.

    Are the TPers hypocrites on the budget? Yes, which makes them like 98 percent of people and 99 percent of liberals. But playing the race card? It's so shallow and ignorant.

    Let's look at this with some history and some logic. You may be 50 years old, but you approach political history like a 20 year old. Politics didn't start with George W. Bush and Barack Obama. What happened in 2010 is almost identical to what happened in 1994 and for almost entirely the same reasons, except it was 16 years later and less southern (which means race was probably less of a factor), and what happened in 1994 was in response to a white male who claimed to be a southern Baptist (Bill Clinton). A bunch of conservatives revolted against a guy who was demographically like them. If race was the overriding factor for a large number of them, then why would they do that? Suppose Hillary Clinton had won the 2008 election and pushed a similar agenda to Obama's. Do you think the TP movement wouldn't have occurred? Obviously, it would have. Hell, why do you think the TP voted for Trump over Hillary?

    Now flip the demographics back. Suppose Tim Scott became President of the United States. Would the TPers freak out and revolt? If race was a major factor, they should. After all, he's ethnically blacker than Obama, and of course culturally he's much blacker. He actually grew up in a black home and around black people. We know the TP wouldn't have freaked out if Scott became President. (Personally, if I could trade Donald Trump for Tim Scott, I'd do it in a heartbeat.)

    So in other words, the racial accusation is little more than an excuse for white liberals to brag about how righteous they are. But of course, the fiscal hypocrisy is real, so how do we reconcile it with the obvious reality that the racism narrative is nonsense? It's a difference of culture and worldview. TPers and their predecessors in 1994 viewed the Clintons and Obama as culturally hostile to any sort of traditional American values and, of course, most facets of biblical Christianity, and of course, that point is reinforced by very outward contempt by Clinton and Obama supporters (and sometimes by Clinton and Obama themselves) toward people who hold traditionalist views. That's the common denominator, not race. Tim Scott is viewed as friendly to those values and to biblical Christianity, so your TPer types like him and don't care about his race.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
    VYFan, ProdigalHorn, I35 and 2 others like this.
  2. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    I believe this to be true as far as the contempt towards religion from the Left. Yet they will use Catholics and Muslims as pawns to attack Trump as if they want our culture to be diluted by the values these immigrants would bring. I'm no fan of religion at all but this is how I see it. It's been said many times; if the immigrants from the ME and Mexico were uneducated Christian white people that wall would have been built by the Left decades ago.
     
  3. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Many on the left grew up with attempts towards Christian indoctrination. This likely colors their perspective and drives a disdain towards faith. There is a strong desire towards fairness in liberal circles thus on religion exalting itself over another will always be met with criticism. Religion is something best kept to oneself, IMHO. I won't be critical of your religion as long as you don't try to proselytize to me.

    Seattlehusker, a confirmed Catholic and Lutheran before forming my own perspective on life.

    I will say the attempts to paint Muslims with a single negative stereotype continues to be disappointing.

    As for this worldview change, I do believe that we are viewing the last gasp of the white male who has controlled society for eons. I'm not personally threatened by this change and continue to remind myself that others might be. This change is inevitable. Us white males need to learn how to take advantage of these changes rather than fight them since it's a losing battle.
     
  4. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    What is the white world-view? Every white guy I know is educated and ambitious without malice. That's the circle I run in. I'm half-Cuban but look all white. My world-view is to work hard and help my children with their upbringing and future. I obey our laws and pay my taxes. What is it that I must accept as change?

    As for the negative stereotype of Muslims, what did I say that was negative? I dated a Muslim from Pakistan and knew her family and friends well. Guess what? They are Republicans and they consider abortion to be murder and homosexuality to be a sin. They aren't terrorists though it appears they don't like Jews very much if you ask them about Israel. They are very devout Muslims (her mother wore traditional clothing). I have a feeling you wouldn't like it if 20 million more Muslims JUST LIKE THEM arrived on our shores.

    That's my point.
     
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    I wasn't commenting on you in particular but rather a broader world-view, most catalyzed in Trump supporters. It's a world view that immigrants, globalism and non-christian religions are the root of their personal ills. Each of these topics is perceived as a threat to their way of life. I experienced it growing up in small-town Nebraska where 2/3rd of the town was White and the other 1/3rd Mexican, typically migrant labor that stayed. I moved away 25 years ago and the same sentiment remains when I was last there 1 year ago. Often times, the problems are miscast. For example, globalism was unavoidable. Manufacturing jobs were impacted by globalism but cheap labor was a minor factor compared to automation. You don't hear about the latter because it's not an easy target. Where I grew up it was the transition from family farming to corporate farming that left a lot of farmers out of work.

    I suspect the world-view you have works whether you are conservative or liberal. It's certainly what I teach my children so we have that in common.



    Should I care whether a Muslim is conservative or liberal? Should it make me uncomfortable to be around them? Hint: I don't care and do spend a fair amount of time around them in my community and work. My experience is that the longer they are in the US they become Americanized. If the adult doesn't become more American then the children most assuredly do. I'm confident we can acculturate them like many immigrants before them. That's the strength of the American culture.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
  6. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    Maybe an American shouldn't care about a Muslim is a conservative or a liberal but my point is that hard left Liberals hate the white counter-part (aka The American Taliban) meaning these liberals do care about the demographic. My friends are Americanized and that is why I'm not worried about them being terrorists; but they are right-wing Muslims in the way that I suspect you dislike. Why are you welcoming them. What if 20 million showed up as I said and voted for Pence as President because of his religious views? Believe me, these people voted for Trump. Irony, they didn't see Obama as being a Muslim.
     
  7. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    I think they're paying me by the keystroke that I generate on this site. I'm doing great work!
     
    Seattle Husker and Mr. Deez like this.
  8. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Musburger could learn from you. :)
     
  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Lol. I was thinking the same thing. To be fair, I've written some lengthy posts in Musburger's threads before, but recently he's mostly been posting 20 minute videos, and that just doesn't incite me to write. I'm just not going to watch a 20 minute video from a source I question.
     
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    What can I say? You post a lot that needs to be corrected. Lol.
     
    OUBubba likes this.
  11. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Maybe I should care if we are letting "liberals" or "conservatives" into the US but I don't. That's not something we should be considering in the vetting process, IMHO.
     
  12. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    It's not the idea that they should be vetted on a political basis. It's that I feel the Left is holding their collective noses and demanding their entrance into our country because it enables them to attack Trump on Constitutional or even God Forbid, patriotic grounds ("It's Unamerican!") similar to those on the right who held their nose and voted for Trump because it was far preferable for the Gorsuch nomination than another racist such as Sotomayor.
     
  13. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    First, I appreciate your last two sentences and I feel you're probably the same way on that level.

    I can't speak for most people. But I don't understand why the idea that we should vigorously enforce our immigration laws including deterrents and impediments to entry should be considered a sign that people are blaming their personal problems on illegal aliens. I don't blame them. I've lived in Texas since 1970 and in Laredo from the time I was 12 - 17, then home for summer every year and numerous visits since then. I've grown up with them so to speak. But I don't compete in the marketplace with illegal aliens. They've done nothing to me. It's real simple to me. I want to see our laws enforced. Not mindless, unjust laws such as were fought by Dr. King, but normal laws that are CLEARLY being abused with an enterprise in place to bring them over and then to enable their presence here. It's almost a RICO violation if you think about it because LULAC and La RAZA along with people like Gavin Newsome and the entire sanctuary city phenomenon is clearly a coordinated attempt to circumvent existing law. Why should someone just ignore all of that?

    It is infuriating to me to be called a racist when I'm half-Cuban to hold these views. I consider that to be a political tactic. I also consider it to be intellectually lazy. EDIT: And if I was honest with myself (ok, here goes, I will be honest), I'd say the tactics of the Left have inflamed me on this issue. And it has inflamed millions of others. This is what spawns comments like, "Take America back" though that is not my rallying cry but I do understand it's roots in the POLITICS of America today.

    Do you consider our immigration laws (requiring an orderly entrance built around identification and the desire not to accept people with infectious diseases, who will be a burden on society as soon as they arrive; this is not to mention national security threats or cartel tentacles being extended into our country) to be unjust? Why does every country in the world have them. They are not inherently racist. We have a theoretical limit here in our country in terms of population and I am hoping someone is keeping an eye on that. An open border, all are welcome policy WITHOUT VETTING (which describes the de facto policy coordinated by the enablers for illegal aliens) is not going to fly.

    Here is an interesting opinion from a man who is known as an extreme environmentalist; an eco-terrorist if you will. His name is Paul Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watson):

    "Immigration is one of the leading contributors to population growth"

    http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and...the-nation-on-population-and-immigration.html

    "Captain Watson Speaks to the Nation on Population and Immigration

    With most of the major environmental organizations intimidated, reluctant, and decidedly voiceless on the issue, Captain Paul Watson spoke out on the Fox National News Network on May 15th in a broadcast heard from Maine to Hawaii on the issue of growing U.S. populations and the impact on both the U.S. and the global environment.

    Captain Watson took advantage of the current controversy over illegal immigration to point out the environmental concerns about escalating U.S. populations. He advocated reducing immigration numbers to a level that will achieve U.S. population stabilization.

    "The United States has the highest population growth rate of any nation with a 1.3% annual increase," said Watson. "This rate of increase, if it remains at this level will give the United States a population approaching or exceeding one billion by the end of the 21st Century."

    Carl Pope, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, argues that it does not matter how many people enter the United States because the world population is not affected because people move around.

    "What Carl is ignoring here is the reality that the United States is the highest per capita resource consuming nation in the world. Every new American increases global resource utilization," said Watson, "The United States produces 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Population stabilization in the U.S. is not only good for the United States, it is good for the planet."

    Paul Watson also pointed out that population growth contributes to urban sprawl and is the single greatest threat to species diversity.

    When asked why other conservation organizations would not comment on the issue, Watson said that it is a choice between being ecologically correct or being seen as politically correct, and unfortunately, most environmental organizations are more concerned with being seen as politically correct.

    One critic sent an e-mail to Captain Watson demanding to know what this issue has to do with protecting whales and marine life. "Stick to what you do best and don't get involved in this issue," the message said.

    Captain Watson responded by pointing out that escalating human populations are the greatest threat to the survival of oceanic species. More people means more pollution, more agricultural run-off, more fishing, more pressure to resume whaling, to lower seal populations, and it means more ships and more resource extraction.

    "The three most important ecological laws are diversity, interdependence, and finite resources. Diversity of species on this planet and the interdependence of these species is essential to the survival of all species, including our own. There are limits to growth and for human populations to increase means we must steal the resources and thus carrying capacity of the environment from other species. They must be removed to increase our numbers. This will result in less diversity and less interdependence and ultimately it will have grave consequences for humanity," Captain Watson said.

    "I don't say what it is popular to say," added Watson. "I don't hold right or left political values. I speak from an ecological perspective. Being concerned about population growth in the United States is an ecologically-correct position. There is nothing political about it."

    MARK SAY'S: Now you may totally disagree with his conclusions and think that migration to the US does not result in an NET INCREASE in pollution/consumption as contrasted them all just staying in Mexico but his opinion is interesting, he's clearly on the Left and as the article indicated, he was told to keep his mouth shut on this issue.

    Is he a racist?

    All that being said, I am in favor of a clear, achievable path for the Dreamers to become citizens. I know some Dreamers. I know they are scared. But in return I want NO MORE DREAMERS (of course there will always be some). Their parents are the one's to be blamed. Mexico is to be blamed because instead of HELPING THEIR OWN PEOPLE they are attacking Trump and acting all offended about it. Well, that's not my political problem. That is THEIR (meaning Mexico) political problem. The wall is just symbolic of the deal that must be made. No wall (literal or figurative) then no deal. Period. We're not going to agree to something that creates massive incentives for more to come. And I believe wholeheartedly that an amnesty deal with no barrier to entry for those who circumvent our laws will put us back in the same position.

    And Gavin Newsome knows it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
    ProdigalHorn likes this.
  14. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    This was what really irritated me about Seattle's post. It's a tired bromide, and I'm sure it's true in some cases, but it's a very convenient mantra for leftists to argue that all those people who voted for Trump are just bitter because their life isn't working out, and they think immigrants are stealing all their jobs. I'm sure you can find some people who see things that way, but it's an incredibly oversimplified and slanted interpretation.
     
    horninchicago likes this.
  15. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    As SH wrote, "Often the problems are miscast". That is exactly what he is doing. Of course, it is par for the course for libs to complain about an action while engaged in the very action complained about. In fact, it is laughably common.
     
    Sangre Naranjada likes this.
  16. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    Like I said, I'm not competing with them. It's not an issue for me and whatever problems I have in life are from an entirely different source; my own mistakes ("I do things my way and I pay a high price" John Mellencamp, Minutes to Memories) and maybe a couple of WHITE females...
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
  17. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    So much wrong with that line of thinking but it's an interesting and ironic argument to make to liberals. We need to reduce immigration to the US to protect the environment. LMAO!

    Now regarding the statement that the US is the highest per capita resource consuming nation. SMH. That's because the US is a prosperous nation that produces a shitload of economic activity. Liberals would rather have people starving in their communist utopias living 20 people in a grass hut as long as they don't consume any precious natural resources. A better statistic is resources consumed per $ of GDP. The US is quite efficient on that basis and those wonderful countries like China and India not so much.
     
    Sangre Naranjada and iatrogenic like this.
  18. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    Though Watson was attempting to make himself pure by saying he was only being ecologically correct, it is probably true that he distorts things. But as you mentioned, it is ironic and I only wanted to point out that there are many voices out there saying things you might not expect them to say. I like to put it all on the table and see if people are truly being consistent in different contexts or if they are just trying to win (which is what politics is all about).
     
    UTChE96 likes this.
  19. nashhorn

    nashhorn 1,000+ Posts

    Nice posts Bystand. Enjoyed reading them.
     
    bystander likes this.
  20. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    Agreed. He is technically correct but leaves out important context as is usually the case. Any improvement in economic conditions of a group of individuals will likely result in an increase in consumption of natural resources. He is taking credit for poverty and lack of opportunity as a reason for lack of consumption. It's a common argument by leftists. I am fine if they want to make the argument as long as they are transparent about the trade-off.
     
  21. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 1,000+ Posts

    I think he is just taking the argument about the environment used by leftists and then goring their other sacred ox, illegal immigration, with it.
     
  22. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    I'm a leftie. I have no issues with enforcing our immigration laws. Given where we've come to, I think there should be some compassion in how we go about it. There's a poop ton of middle ground. I think a "give" is the DACA "kids". I think deporting a significant amount of others is fine. I have no problem with border protection. But, I think a wall is too simplistic. Our net migration is 0 or negative now anyway. We need to penalize people who hire illegals. Until there is an actual penalty that serves as a deterrent for the enablers we're going to have the problem.
     
    militaryhorn likes this.
  23. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    If that's the case then I applaud his brilliance.
     
    iatrogenic likes this.
  24. VYFan

    VYFan 2,500+ Posts

    Conservatives did not like Thurgood Marshall, but do like Clarence Thomas. They did not like Barack Obama; they do like Alan Keys or Ben Carson. They don’t like Maxine Waters; they do like Star Parker. They don’t like Sheila Jackson Lee; they do like Condoleezza Rice.

    How many examples would it take to prove that conservatives like conservatives, completely unaffected by whether they are black or white?

    How many white liberals like the black conservatives I listed above?
     
  25. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    The Left says whites only like Uncle Tom's. You can't win.
     
    horninchicago likes this.
  26. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    There is no doubt in my mind that he is taking a very narrow point of view. It does sound like he's saying poverty is not his concern and in this instance, it's Mexico's problem. Let them stay there, be poor and consume less.

    And it makes me think of things like I was saying before; why is Mexico so worried about how we treat illegal immigrants instead of taking care of them themselves? They don't seem to mind everyone saying it would be devastating for Dreamers to be sent to Mexico yet they get offended when someone calls it a ****-hole country (ignoring the hordes that are risking their lives with the coyote method to escape to this purportedly racist country of ours). The political narrative makes no sense because it's built around pride and insults.
     
    Garmel likes this.
  27. bystander

    bystander 2,500+ Posts

    Gracias amigo.
     
  28. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Sarah Sanders in yo face --
    "If you guys have real concerns about leaking out classified information, look around this room. You guys are the ones that publish classified information, and put national security at risk"

     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
    UTChE96, iatrogenic and Garmel like this.
  29. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    That Obama guy somehow keeps accomplishing more amazing things out of the WH than he did while in the WH

     
  30. Garmel

    Garmel 1,000+ Posts

Share This Page