President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Uncle Ted]

I'm sorry man but the thought that the wall supporters are poor victims of misunderstanding and malinging is hogwash. You bring up tribalism and "othering" other frequently, but seem oblivious to the reality that forces, in power, on the right are the true kings of division and identify politics. That speaks to the real fear of outsider groups.

Not all sides are all the same or equally well or ill-intentioned. Not all side are equally culpable. Yes, motivations are often complex, but let's not sugar coat the power of anger and fear, which Trump is wielding. Trump is your guy for tribalism. He goes for people's worst instincts with his lies, appeals to emotions etc. His rhetoric from a president is unmatched, and represented a new low in public discourse. He's worse than feared social justice activistists or cultural marxists (a made up derisive term that showed in the words of the last synagogue shooter).

Frank, you be nice to Swampfrog! If you run him off I won't be happy. I like his pictures.

[swampfrog]

Frank, you be nice to Swampfrog! If you run him off I won't be happy. I like his pictures.

Don't worry. I think I understand where he's coming from. I think the current rise of the far right is in response to crazy far left, I think he sees it in reverse. Doesn't matter, the polarization needs to stop. Crazy on either side is potentially very dangerous and needs resistance. I don't like the tactics of painting with such a broad brush. Labeling people as a group as racist, alt-right, etc. I don't completely disagree with his position on Trump, I also believe he's dangerous, but mostly because of ignorance. He doesn't have the personality to emerge as a totalitarian, too lazy--but he could lay down a path for one.

Jonathan Haidt said nuance is the word of the year, and I agree with him. If you want a look at what the crazy on the left looks like when it takes control, watch this documentary in three parts (which are linked in the caption).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk

I think the intersectionalists are significantly more dangerous than Trump. The far right do indeed play identity politics, but the left is more insidious IMO.

This thread from Eric Weinstein explains it well.

Embedded Tweet

Right now cancerous ideas are ubiquitous as institutional models are collapsing simultaneously from Journalism to Universities to Political parties. These bizarre ideas are flowing like water (Open and Zero immigration are both cancerous as an example).So, we are fighting that.

I am the first to admit that I cannot always keep my footing out here. If you can, your a better human than I am. Really. I know I’m not up to the task as I am being pulled apart by all those I respect who need Left/Right institutional or media anchors which seem to be going mad.

If there’s one thing I do that‘s most confusing it‘s this: I am consistently fighting bigoted SJW oppression theories not because I fear them the most. Quite the contrary. I fear that SJWs are trying to antagonize far right bigots to give their lazy oppression ideology relevance.

The benefit of the previous progressivism was that we had the extreme right down to a few guys with Tiki torches. We got gay marriage, co-education, female choice over work, reproductive rights, etc... and then came the confused & bigoted issues like “Whiteness”. Which is insane.

If you wanted to antagonize out-of-work patriots in swing states who have been screwed over by coastal boomers, intersectional oppression theory is maximally efficient. You could elect a Trump by demonizing white skin, patriotism, Christian values, military service & masculinity.

I’m not a republican. I’m some flavor of progressive. But I do my best to love all my fellow Americans, including the SJWs and the patriots demonized by the SJWs. I love the US which has at times been horrible to my family *because* I’ve traveled the world. And even with warts...

...she’s amazing. So there you have it. I’m thoroughly multicultural but because of that, I learned through that lens why Patriotism is not to be discarded when you find your nation has lied to you. Instead it’s time to pick up tools and get to work fixing her up. Hence: the IDW.

[SeattleUte]

Too often the discussion about a wall becomes a stupidly binary "wall vs. no wall" debate. I think most of us who detest Trump's pointless grandstanding (a beautiful, 30' high wall from coast to coast, paid for by Mexico) acknowledge the importance of a wall in some places, a fence in others, and nada in many other areas (there are hundreds of miles currently with no barrier whatsoever and the number of illegal crossings is, I'm told, negligible). Spending billions on a complete wall would be total waste, and not just because that would comprise only a small percentage of the total border. Trump should acknowledge that and apply the funds saved for other purposes, including detection and immigration/asylum processing. But's not nearly as sexy for the stupid part of his base, so he panders away.

Wrong! I oppose all walls. America does not stand for walls. Walls are un-American. Worse! Walls don’t work. They just don’t. America, tear down your walls! All walls must come down. Walls, a pillar of barbarism.

[frank ryan]

The far right do indeed play identity politics, but the left is more insidious IMO.

Don't be blind to the ascendency of the violent right. The most recent synagogue shooter thought he was opposing cultural marxists, and used that terminology.

I'll leave this here for people to dismiss.


Right-Wing Extremism Linked to Every 2018 Extremist Murder in the U.S., ADL Finds
Right-wing extremists killed more people last year than in any year since 1995

Right-wing extremists were linked to at least 50 extremist-related murders in the United States in 2018, making them responsible for more deaths than in any year since 1995, according to new data from the ADL.

In its annual report on extremist-related killings in the U.S., the ADL’s Center on Extremism reported that at least 50 people were killed by extremists in 2018, including the 11 individuals killed in the fatal anti-Semitic attack at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. The tally represents a 35 percent increase from the 37 extremist-related murders in 2017, making 2018 the fourth-deadliest year on record for domestic extremist-related killings since 1970.

Last year saw the highest percentage of right-wing extremist-related killings since 2012, the last year when all documented killings were by right-wing extremists.

Right-wing extremists killed more people in 2018 than in any year since 1995, the year of Timothy McVeigh’s bomb attack on the Oklahoma City federal building.
“The white supremacist attack in Pittsburgh should serve as a wake-up call to everyone about the deadly consequences of hateful rhetoric,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “It’s time for our nation’s leaders to appropriately recognize the severity of the threat and to devote the necessary resources to address the scourge of right-wing extremism.”

Last year’s murders at the hands of right-wing extremists reflect an ongoing trend. ADL’s Center on Extremism, which has aggregated data going back to 1970, shows that over the last decade, a total of 73.3 percent of all extremist-related fatalities can be linked to domestic right-wing extremists, while 23.4 percent can be attributed to Islamic extremists. The remaining 3.2 percent were carried out by extremists who did not fall into either category.

https://www.adl.org/news/press-relea...e-us-adl-finds

[Commando]

OMG... You are right! There is a connection between Hillary Clinton

DURHURRR GOOD ONE

[wapiti]

Tariffs (corporate taxes on importers) suck. None of the things Trump is trying to wring out of the Chinese is worth the cost of the new corporate taxes he is imposing.

No, tariffs are not paid for by the Chinese.
No, companies cannot simply move the supply chain out of China.

Trump sucks.

[swampfrog]

Don't be blind to the ascendency of the violent right. The most recent synagogue shooter thought he was opposing cultural marxists, and used that terminology.

I'll leave this here for people to dismiss.


Right-Wing Extremism Linked to Every 2018 Extremist Murder in the U.S., ADL Finds
Right-wing extremists killed more people last year than in any year since 1995




https://www.adl.org/news/press-relea...e-us-adl-finds

I wish I had the time and energy for a longer reply. I don't. Mostly we are going around in circles on these topics anyway. I don't disagree with the problem of right wing extremism. I don't think I even disagree with your representation of how significant a problem it is. Given that, I still think the danger brewing on the far left is worse. A mob hasn't been unleashed yet, but the signs are there. The far right violence is heinous, but so far has been limited to individuals and I have seen no evidence of their ability to congregate in nearly the numbers that the left has shown. If a leftist mob reaches fever pitch and the genocidal impulse is activated it won't be pretty.

I think we disagree on right extremism causes and to what extent it permeates the conservative base at large. I don't believe most Trump supporters are white supremacists, nor even white nationalists. To paint them thusly is too broad a brush. I think there is a difference between white nationalism and concern for American culture erosion, insofar as American culture consists of the principles of Western democracies. One of the fundamental traits of the typical westerner is trust--in a lot of things, including each other and the future. To the extent that populations increase via immigration and that sense of innate trust is not adopted by immigrants, the culture is weakened. Many immigrants come from societies where that trust is non-existent and has to be fostered. Internally, intersectionalists appear hell bent on eroding that trust.

I will continue to read what you post and read the references you suggest. My wading into political thought is recent, but pretty intense. I will likely cut back on my responses (not that I was posting at a high level before). I'd rather be out shooting pictures and posting some of the results.

[Eddie]

I wish I had the time and energy for a longer reply. I don't. Mostly we are going around in circles on these topics anyway. I don't disagree with the problem of right wing extremism. I don't think I even disagree with your representation of how significant a problem it is. Given that, I still think the danger brewing on the far left is worse. A mob hasn't been unleashed yet, but the signs are there. The far right violence is heinous, but so far has been limited to individuals and I have seen no evidence of their ability to congregate in nearly the numbers that the left has shown. If a leftist mob reaches fever pitch and the genocidal impulse is activated it won't be pretty.

I think we disagree on right extremism causes and to what extent it permeates the conservative base at large. I don't believe most Trump supporters are white supremacists, nor even white nationalists. To paint them thusly is too broad a brush. I think there is a difference between white nationalism and concern for American culture erosion, insofar as American culture consists of the principles of Western democracies. One of the fundamental traits of the typical westerner is trust--in a lot of things, including each other and the future. To the extent that populations increase via immigration and that sense of innate trust is not adopted by immigrants, the culture is weakened. Many immigrants come from societies where that trust is non-existent and has to be fostered. Internally, intersectionalists appear hell bent on eroding that trust.

I will continue to read what you post and read the references you suggest. My wading into political thought is recent, but pretty intense. I will likely cut back on my responses (not that I was posting at a high level before). I'd rather be out shooting pictures and posting some of the results.

I think this is one of the issues I find most frustrating in the criticism of Trump and Trump supporters.

Are some of his followers racist? Most definitely. Is everyone who voted for him or who wears a MAGA hat a racist? Most definitely not.

But that is how they are painted. And when we go to extremes to paint everyone so broadly, all we are doing is increasing the chasm that needs to be bridged. We're creating more reasons fall into tribalism versus identifying issues behind which we can unify.

I get it. It's politics. We want to take power from those who have it, so we demonize and vilify them and focus on any little facet we can to find reason to do so. And all it does is serve to polarize us as a country.

Both sides do it, to be sure. But that polarization and demonization of the opposing viewpoint is just going to lead to each side becoming more firm in their stance, returning fire, and ultimately a greater challenge for us as a country to overcome.

[Uncle Ted]

Tariffs (corporate taxes on importers) suck. None of the things Trump is trying to wring out of the Chinese is worth the cost of the new corporate taxes he is imposing.

No, tariffs are not paid for by the Chinese.
No, companies cannot simply move the supply chain out of China.

Trump sucks.

I blame Chuck Schumer for encouraging Drumpf.

[frank ryan]

I wish I had the time and energy for a longer reply. I don't. Mostly we are going around in circles on these topics anyway. I don't disagree with the problem of right wing extremism. I don't think I even disagree with your representation of how significant a problem it is. Given that, I still think the danger brewing on the far left is worse. A mob hasn't been unleashed yet, but the signs are there. The far right violence is heinous, but so far has been limited to individuals and I have seen no evidence of their ability to congregate in nearly the numbers that the left has shown. If a leftist mob reaches fever pitch and the genocidal impulse is activated it won't be pretty.

I think we disagree on right extremism causes and to what extent it permeates the conservative base at large. I don't believe most Trump supporters are white supremacists, nor even white nationalists. To paint them thusly is too broad a brush. I think there is a difference between white nationalism and concern for American culture erosion, insofar as American culture consists of the principles of Western democracies. One of the fundamental traits of the typical westerner is trust--in a lot of things, including each other and the future. To the extent that populations increase via immigration and that sense of innate trust is not adopted by immigrants, the culture is weakened. Many immigrants come from societies where that trust is non-existent and has to be fostered. Internally, intersectionalists appear hell bent on eroding that trust.

I will continue to read what you post and read the references you suggest. My wading into political thought is recent, but pretty intense. I will likely cut back on my responses (not that I was posting at a high level before). I'd rather be out shooting pictures and posting some of the results.

Does being a white nationalist qualify someone as being a racist?

[swampfrog]

Does being a white nationalist qualify someone as being a racist?

I've read definitions of white nationalism that I believe would qualify as racist and definitions that I wouldn't. So I'll define some terms as I understand them for clarity and try to distinguish at least two. Since entire books have been written on the nuance of these words, it's unlikely the following will be complete and nuanced sufficiently.

Racism = The belief that color of skin implies a superiority (or difference?) such that differential treatment under the law is justified

White nationalism(1) = The belief that the mixing of skin color alone degrades society which justifies seeking a "nation" of people of a similar levels of melanin
White nationalism(2) = The belief that systems/cultures based on Judeo/Christian values, enlightenment ideas, and democratic process, etc. are at risk by the immigration of persons unwillingly or incapable of integrating into such a society and agreeing to maintain these standards, values, and freedoms.

I believe the first definition qualifies as racist and the second not. If the belief is that mixing of genes in itself causes some kind of danger or degradation of society and must be therefore be mitigated by legal means, I believe that to be a racist position. If the belief is that the immigration of persons who promote a culture or system of belief incompatible with Western ideals should be controlled and limited, I do not believe that to be a racist position. I believe the ideals that Western systems have implemented are necessary to maintain multiculturalism peacefully without devolving into competitive tribalism. Assimilation is key and absolutely necessary which requires a necessary majority of positive examples to propagate the model. The pride in and desire to maintain a "nation" of people willing to hold onto those ideals is warranted for it is a commodity that has been scarce throughout the history of the world. It is not difficult to discover a history replete with examples of mass bloodshed over the smallest of differences (see Rwanda).

By coincidence only did these ideals make their most recent emergence from Europe among people that just by happenstance had less melanin than others. It therefore can be referred to as "white" ideals or "Eurocentric" ideals, but I prefer human, enlightenment, or democratic ideals. Cultural systems and many other ideas are often named for their place or people of recent origin, and in itself is should not be problematic, but can lead to confusion (which could be argued is indeed problematic). For a recent example, see universities willingness to adhere to the "Chicago Principles". Obviously these are not principles that are unique to the University of Chicago, but as the foremost significant entity to encode and adopt them, the name sticks.

[frank ryan]

I've read definitions of white nationalism that I believe would qualify as racist and definitions that I wouldn't. So I'll define some terms as I understand them for clarity and try to distinguish at least two. Since entire books have been written on the nuance of these words, it's unlikely the following will be complete and nuanced sufficiently.

Racism = The belief that color of skin implies a superiority (or difference?) such that differential treatment under the law is justified

White nationalism(1) = The belief that the mixing of skin color alone degrades society which justifies seeking a "nation" of people of a similar levels of melanin
White nationalism(2) = The belief that systems/cultures based on Judeo/Christian values, enlightenment ideas, and democratic process, etc. are at risk by the immigration of persons unwillingly or incapable of integrating into such a society and agreeing to maintain these standards, values, and freedoms.

I believe the first definition qualifies as racist and the second not. If the belief is that mixing of genes in itself causes some kind of danger or degradation of society and must be therefore be mitigated by legal means, I believe that to be a racist position. If the belief is that the immigration of persons who promote a culture or system of belief incompatible with Western ideals should be controlled and limited, I do not believe that to be a racist position. I believe the ideals that Western systems have implemented are necessary to maintain multiculturalism peacefully without devolving into competitive tribalism. Assimilation is key and absolutely necessary which requires a necessary majority of positive examples to propagate the model. The pride in and desire to maintain a "nation" of people willing to hold onto those ideals is warranted for it is a commodity that has been scarce throughout the history of the world. It is not difficult to discover a history replete with examples of mass bloodshed over the smallest of differences (see Rwanda).

By coincidence only did these ideals make their most recent emergence from Europe among people that just by happenstance had less melanin than others. It therefore can be referred to as "white" ideals or "Eurocentric" ideals, but I prefer human, enlightenment, or democratic ideals. Cultural systems and many other ideas are often named for their place or people of recent origin, and in itself is should not be problematic, but can lead to confusion (which could be argued is indeed problematic). For a recent example, see universities willingness to adhere to the "Chicago Principles". Obviously these are not principles that are unique to the University of Chicago, but as the foremost significant entity to encode and adopt them, the name sticks.

Meet someone who calls themself a white nationalist and you've met a racist. It's really just that, a politically correct term for racists.

[Uncle Ted]

Yeah, they should just raise taxes on gas by a couple bucks/gallon instead... then I might be more motivated to buy a tesla.

Leave it to the Dems to remove motivation to buy a Tesla...

Illinois might start charging $1,000 per year to own an electric vehicle: 'It's outrageous'

Aproposed hike in Illinois’ annual registration fee for electric vehicles, from $17.50 to $1,000, is being called unfair by current EV owners, and a sales disincentive by manufacturers — just as the new technology is beginning to gain broader traction.
[...]
The legislation, introduced this week by Democratic Sen. Martin Sandoval of Chicago, would raise about $2.4 billion in annual transportation funding, according to its backers. Sandoval did not respond to a request for comment Thursday on the proposed EV registration fee hike.
[...]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...509-story.html

Why do the Dems hate the environment so much?

[Eddie]

Leave it to the Dems to remove motivation to buy a Tesla...


https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...509-story.html

Why do the Dems hate the environment so much?

I thought you already established that electric vehicles are worse for the environment than your diesel vehicles.

As a side note - when will the government start using tax breaks to encourage the purchase of diesel vehicles?

[Uncle Ted]

I thought you already established that electric vehicles are worse for the environment than your diesel vehicles.

As a side note - when will the government start using tax breaks to encourage the purchase of diesel vehicles?

Yes, electric vehicles are worse for the environment than my clean diesel vehicles. Libertarians, like myself, love the environment. It is those dirty gas powered ones that we need to get everyone to stop driving.

I always try to use the red diesel in my truck since it was designed for off-road... They should just make red diesel easier to buy.