The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm still waiting for the explanation of how "renegade Jew" is offensive/bigoted/anti-semitic/whatever. The burden of supporting that argument lies with those who make it. Until that explanation is given, whether or not I've read the article remains irrelevant.

Actually, I'm pretty satisfied leaving it right here. We've discovered your default reaction to criticism of Breitbart/Trump/etc... and surely you should be able to apply that to why your fascination with the definition of "renegade" doesn't matter when context is the entire point.

I made my point. I'm happy with it.

 

[chipbennett]

Actually, I'm pretty satisfied leaving it right here. We've discovered your default reaction to criticism of Breitbart/Trump/etc... and surely you should be able to apply that to why your fascination with the definition of "renegade" doesn't matter when context is the entire point.

I made my point. I'm happy with it.

This has nothing to do with my alleged "default reaction" to criticism of Breitbart/Trump/etc. It has to do with what still remains an utterly specious claim of anti-semitism on the part of Breitbart and Steve Bannon, based on nothing more than a published headline with the phrase "Renegade Jew". The only point that you've made is that you are unwilling or unable to explain how "Renegade Jew", used in that context, is offensive/bigoted/anti-semitic/whatever.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This has nothing to do with my alleged "default reaction" to criticism of Breitbart/Trump/etc. It has to do with what still remains an utterly specious claim of anti-semitism on the part of Breitbart and Steve Bannon, based on nothing more than a published headline with the phrase "Renegade Jew". The only point that you've made is that you are unwilling or unable to explain how "Renegade Jew", used in that context, is offensive/bigoted/anti-semitic/whatever.

I didn't start that conversation. I pointed out your use of semantics to explain it away (only because I've seen you do it before, and it irked me to see it again.)

You can get that answer from the people you were arguing with before. If you want my opinion on the "renegade jew" situation: I think it was intended to be used in a negative connotation, given the outlet that used it and the person they used it against.

I've gathered that your opinion on it is "This is what 'renegade' literally means, and using the literal definition, it can't possibly be negative." (Denotation)

(I also don't think that's your real opinion on it. I think it's the one you're using to beat the argument to death.)

 

[chipbennett]

I didn't start that conversation. I pointed out your use of semantics to explain it away (only because I've seen you do it before, and it irked me to see it again.)

Insofar as I'm using semantics, I am countering semantics with semantics. The argument as-presented thus far, is limited to, "Breitbart, and therefore Steve Bannon, is anti-semitic because Breitbart once published an article with the phrase Renegade Jew in the headline."

You can get that answer from the people you were arguing with before. If you want my opinion on the "renegade jew" situation: I think it was intended to be used in a negative connotation, given the outlet that used it and the person they used it against.

Of course it's intended to be used in a negative connotation; it is an article written to be critical of the subject. But a "negative connotation" does not demonstrate an intent to be anti-semitic.

I've gathered that your opinion on it is "This is what 'renegade' literally means, and using the literal definition, it can't possibly be negative." (Denotation)

(I also don't think that's your real opinion on it. I think it's the one you're using to beat the argument to death.)

No. I agree that the article, and its headline, are intentionally negative. It is an editorial that is critical of its subject. Do I really need to point out that being critical of/negative toward someone does not constitute being offensive/bigoted/anti-semitic toward that person?

 

[Ericpwp]

Allegations of racism were leveled. I have yet to see a smoking gun. It seems to be the default go to these days. I would like to know if it was true, but all's I got is circumstantial he said, she said.

As for the registry, I'm faint on details, but visitors are not citizens. It is the federal governments job to protect the borders. If there was a known threat from France, Fuji, or Finland I would expect the same.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Allegations of racism were leveled. I have yet to see a smoking gun. It seems to be the default go to these days. I would like to know if it was true, but all's I got is circumstantial he said, she said.

As for the registry, I'm faint on details, but visitors are not citizens. It is the federal governments job to protect the borders. If there was a known threat from France, Fuji, or Finland I would expect the same.

Why would you want to know if it's true, if it would have no bearing on your opinion?

 

[T.Lex]

As for the registry, I'm faint on details, but visitors are not citizens. It is the federal governments job to protect the borders. If there was a known threat from France, Fuji, or Finland I would expect the same.

So, yeah.

This system appears to dedicate increased resources to certain geographic, predominantly Muslim, areas. This will either require more resources (personnel, tools, etc.) or diversion of resources from other areas.

I believe the key is - going back to your point about visitors not being citizens - each visitor from one of these countries becomes imbued with reasonable articulable suspicion to justify an investigation. Totally constitutional (basically). But probably not good resource management.

Also, it is unclear to me whether this would apply to citizens who travel abroad and return. It almost sounds like it is entry/exit alone that is the determining factor, not status as citizen. I could be wrong - and am open to correction - but a citizen returning from one of these countries could be subjected to the heightened scrutiny. Again, probably constitutional, but doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, yeah.

This system appears to dedicate increased resources to certain geographic, predominantly Muslim, areas. This will either require more resources (personnel, tools, etc.) or diversion of resources from other areas.

I believe the key is - going back to your point about visitors not being citizens - each visitor from one of these countries becomes imbued with reasonable articulable suspicion to justify an investigation. Totally constitutional (basically). But probably not good resource management.

Also, it is unclear to me whether this would apply to citizens who travel abroad and return. It almost sounds like it is entry/exit alone that is the determining factor, not status as citizen. I could be wrong - and am open to correction - but a citizen returning from one of these countries could be subjected to the heightened scrutiny. Again, probably constitutional, but doesn't sit well with me.

And this is just the beginning. Trump hasn't even taken office yet, and this is what they're talking about. I wonder how this will look in 4 years?

 

[T.Lex]

4 years? You mean when Pence is running as an incumbent?

 

[Ericpwp]

Why would you want to know if it's true, if it would have no bearing on your opinion?

I'm calling BS on that.

 

[bwframe]

And this is just the beginning. Trump hasn't even taken office yet, and this is what they're talking about. I wonder how this will look in 4 years?

Like President Trump being reelected. Maybe Pence, if The Donald retires after one term.

 

[Ericpwp]

Also, it is unclear to me whether this would apply to citizens who travel abroad and return.

For better or worse I would think that mechanism is already in place.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm calling BS on that.

Lots of people would like to believe that about themselves, but far too often, they don't live up to it. And some just act like it would make a difference to them, but that's just an act. They actually hope in secret, what they condemn, in public. I think INGO has fair number of those types.

 

[Ericpwp]

Quite the allegation.

 

[indiucky]

I keep hearing racism is the reason for the Trump victory yet Hillary seems very white to me.....We need to find out the exact ratio of whites that need to vote Democrat to keep this charge from being brought forth.....I don't assume racism is the reason a very, very, very high percentage of blacks vote Democrat and I hope these charges of racism don't make me rethink that position....I have always thought it was policy driven and not race driven and I would hope folks would give non college educated white folk the same courtesy.....

And now for some crow eating courtesy of those that deplore us...........

[video=youtube;SZIWtpbovzY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZIWtpbovzY[/video]

I love history...

 

[indiucky]

Looks like fellow Scots Irish Democrat James Webb is pondering the same thing...Worth watching....

[video=youtube;CJEOgHhmYmI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJEOgHhmYmI[/video]

He makes a compelling case that "white Privilege" doesn't apply to all whites...Especially those of my ethnic makeup....

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Regarding the 3 million illegal votes:

Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by 'Illegal Aliens'? : snopes.com

Essentially as it has been, a claim without evidence.

 

[printcraft]

Regarding the 3 million illegal votes:

Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by 'Illegal Aliens'? : snopes.com

Essentially as it has been, a claim without evidence.

Were there any illegal votes?

 

[Ericpwp]

Essentially as it has been, a claim without evidence.

As was admitted. Still waiting for the evidence.

 

[Kutnupe14]

As was admitted. Still waiting for the evidence.

So believe it, until it's prove false, is how some people, will view that "fact."