2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

ancapailldorcha

Saipanne wrote: »

Is Sanders totally out now?

PopePalpatine wrote: »

No, Hillary is (including superdelegates expected to support her) 80 delegates short of the nomination. FiveThirtyEight gives her a 94% chance of winning California's primary: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/

Mathematically, he can still win the Democratic nomination. In effect, it is Hilary's.

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Who is the bolded aimed at? Virtue signalling your fellow travelers? No one cares at this point, I certainly dont, islamophobia doesnt exist, ditto misogyny, xenophobia, its pretty much meaningless terminology in the post Trump landscape.

I hate to break it to you, but they do exist - and your posting history has a number of great examples. You seem to be under the impression that saying "Islamophobia doesn't exist" or "xenophobia doesn't exist" allows you be be a bigoted racist.

Once again, for the umpteenth time among Trump supporters, you argument is not with me here - it is with the English language. Until you can convince Oxford & co that these words don't exist, they do. You dislike Muslims on the basis of their being Muslim, therefore you are an Islamophobe. That is how language and the world works.

You support him because you think it allows you to be a bigot and claim it doesn't exist. You don't actually know much of any of his stances, proposals or policies - you have been asked for them on many occasions and have yet to give any kind of decent answer. But much like good old Brian earlier, that holds about as much weight as telling the teacher your dog ate your homework. It's about as realistic as someone trying to convince you that ISIS doesn't exist.

Carry on though pretending to yourself, everyone else here saw through you a long long time ago.





But hey, why don't you put this to bed and (finally) let us know what policies, proposals and stances of Trump's you support?

ancapailldorcha

Keep it civil please.

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

I hate to break it to you, but they do exist - and your posting history has a number of great examples. You seem to be under the impression that saying "Islamophobia doesn't exist" or "xenophobia doesn't exist" allows you be be a bigoted racist.

Once again, for the umpteenth time among Trump supporters, you argument is not with me here - it is with the English language. Until you can convince Oxford & co that these words don't exist, they do. You dislike Muslims on the basis of their being Muslim, therefore you are an Islamophobe. That is how language and the world works.

You support him because you think it allows you to be a bigot and claim it doesn't exist. You don't actually know much of any of his stances, proposals or policies - you have been asked for them on many occasions and have yet to give any kind of decent answer. But much like good old Brian earlier, that holds about as much weight as telling the teacher your dog ate your homework. It's about as realistic as someone trying to convince you that ISIS doesn't exist.

Carry on though pretending to yourself, everyone else here saw through you a long long time ago.





But hey, why don't you put this to bed and (finally) let us know what policies, proposals and stances of Trump's you support?

"Bigoted racist", "Islamophobe" :rolleyes: Im not afraid of Islam, maybe you could call me an Islamo-loathe, as I'll happily admit to loathing it, and all cults for that matter, they are subversive and insidious fifth columns within a nation, and need to be brought to heel.
There is no legal or systemic misogyny, anti Islam or race based legislation(aside from against white males) in the West, therefore those things dont exist in a meaningful sense. There is no direct negative action against any of those groups from the state or courts or business, so for all intents and purposes they dont exist, its victimhood of the imagination and a handy epithet to show how moral and righteous one is, as is evident on this thread with the constant signalling emanating from certain quarters.

I dont need "permission" from Trump to be a "bigot", Trump has brought the anti pc backlash into the mainstream, add left wing internet censorship attempts, its only going to be a position that grows so long as people value freedom. The whole 1970's-civil-rights-fight-with-no-actual-civil rights-violations-to-fight- era is dead.


"carry on pretending". Now thats insulting, I pride myself on being blunt and honest, I haven't been pretending to be anything, now I dispute your commie buzzwords, but that is different from claiming I hide my true opinions, out of some attempt at pandering for "respectability" or what have you.

Border control, anti globalism. And before you go and post something Trump said from fifteen years ago that "contradicts" that, its irrelevant. As I have outlined countless times, if Trump does renege on those positions, nothing will have been lost as nothing was done about them in the first place, at minimum he has brought those issues into mainstream discourse and he can then be added to the scrapheap as another failed lying politician, end of Donald Trump. Donald Trump is merely piggybacking on those ideas, his real opinion(if it differs) is irrelevant, he has support so long as he continues on the path he is on, no one is wedded to Donald Trump, its not a personality cult. Trump has come from nowhere because he is exploiting the gap in the market, nothing more.

B_Wayne

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Trump as Politician(National interest) ≠ Trump as Businessman(Self interest)

That should hold true for every politician, only it doesnt, which facilitates the rise of Trump who advocates for national interest.

The fact that Trump has no real interpretable policy of any kind, isn't concerning? The fact that he relied entirely on hate speech to develop his following. This includes going after a judge on his very own fraud case. He actually comes across as even more untrustworthy and disingenuous than the average politician.....

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"Bigoted racist", "Islamophobe" :rolleyes: Im not afraid of Islam, maybe you could call me an Islamo-loathe, as I'll happily admit to loathing it, and all cults for that matter, they are subversive and insidious fifth columns within a nation, and need to be brought to heel.

Your argument is with the English language, not me. This isn't the first time, or the second or third or fourth that you and other Trump supporters have misinterpreted the English language.

Is·lam·o·pho·bi·a
izˌläməˈfōbēə,is-/
noun
dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

There is no legal or systemic misogyny, anti Islam or race based legislation(aside from against white males) in the West, therefore those things dont exist in a meaningful sense.

Kind of hilarious that you are claiming that Islamphobia does not exist because there is no discriminatory legislation against them... while arguing to introduce discriminatory legislation against them!

Again though, you argument is at odds with the English language. I'm going to invite you to play the same game as Brian and tell me where either of the definitions below (or Islamophobia above) mentions anything about legislature or systemic trends.

mi·sog·y·ny
məˈsäjənē/Submit
noun
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
"she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny"

rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"
synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism
"Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"

And in true form, you do claim that racism exists... but only against white people. Standard 'hard men, real talk' backed up by a victim complex. Nothing new here.

There is no direct negative action against any of those groups from the state or courts or business, so for all intents and purposes they dont exist, its victimhood of the imagination and a handy epithet to show how moral and righteous one is, as is evident on this thread with the constant signalling emanating from certain quarters.

Again, you don't seem to understand what the words you are talking about mean. See the game above, and give me your answers.

I dont need "permission" from Trump to be a "bigot", Trump has brought the anti pc backlash into the mainstream, add left wing internet censorship attempts, its only going to be a position that grows so long as people value freedom. The whole 1970's-civil-rights-fight-with-no-actual-civil rights-violations-to-fight- era is dead.

This sentence literally disproves your own point. By making so much noise, Trump is giving a mouthpiece for those who hate others for being different, be they women, foreigners or Muslims (or all three), thus making it seem more acceptable to those following. It makes you and others like you feel validated.

"carry on pretending". Now thats insulting, I pride myself on being blunt and honest, I haven't been pretending to be anything, now I dispute your commie buzzwords, but that is different from claiming I hide my true opinions, out of some attempt at pandering for "respectability" or what have you.

The bolded part is one of the most hilariously lacking in self awareness things I have ever read on boards, well done! "Don't stereotype people, that's what they do in Russia" to paraphrase Bart Simpson.

Border control, anti globalism. And before you go and post something Trump said from fifteen years ago that "contradicts" that, its irrelevant.

Except it 100% isn't. We are right back to the "nothing he did before running for president counts, except for his business career which does count, except for his business failures which don't count, except for his things I do like which of course count, apart from his things that I don't like or that don't support my argument, which don't count."

Like I said, no less transparent than "my dog ate my homework".

As I have outlined countless times, if Trump does renege on those positions,

On which positions? "Border control, anti globalism" is all you have given. Again you have failed to go into any details. Which aspects of border controls and isolationism, which specifics that he has mentioned, are you interested in?

Is it the torturing of families? Is it the building of a wall that would bankrupt the US in record speed (something Trump's a bit of an experienced pro in... oh no wait, his business record doesn't matter this time!)? Is it attempting to stop all Muslims from entering the US? Is it taking jobs out of Ireland?

You don't seem to have thought any of this out, despite being provoked for months to do so by multiple people on here. You continuously fail to give any detailed policies or proposals of his, which after this amount of time makes it appear that all you care about it "F!#@ all those Muslims and foreigners!!", the fact that all you can still tell us about what you support about Trump is "Border control, anti globalism."

A bit of detail might actually give you a shred of credibility.

nothing will have been lost as nothing was done about them in the first place,

I live a two hour drive from the US, on the side that they are not concerned about (because it's where a bunch of their residents go for health care). If you think there is no border control into the US, you know less than you are letting on.

at minimum he has brought those issues into mainstream discourse and he can then be added to the scrapheap as another failed lying politician, end of Donald Trump.

What issues, that he has never met a good Mexican?

Donald Trump is merely piggybacking on those ideas, his real opinion(if it differs) is irrelevant,

Which brings me right back to what I said already... You support him because you think it allows you act as a bigot and celebrate ignorance, while claiming the likes of misogyny and Islamophobia do not exist.

he has support so long as he continues on the path he is on, no one is wedded to Donald Trump, its not a personality cult. Trump has come from nowhere because he is exploiting the gap in the market, nothing more.

So let me get this straight...

- You don't care much if he believes what he says.
- You don't care and/or even know much of anything about his policies.
- You don't care much about what he actually says, as evidenced by not being able to talk in any meaningful detail about his policies.
- You post videos where you claim he is saying something, when he says nothing of the sort, and fail to expand on that or reply when called out on it.
- You claim to support him despite you already admitting that he is a serial liar, even in your own eyes over 75% of the time.
- Your posts largely worship what he is saying, even when it is not what he is saying at all.
- He is a cookie cutter example of a narcissist who seeks validation at all times, and insists on putting his name and image on everything he touches.

And yet you claim that this is not a cult of personality?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
"A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods to create an idealized, heroic, and at times worshipful image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise."

Good luck with that one. :pac:

Billy86

B_Wayne wrote: »

The fact that Trump has no real interpretable policy of any kind, isn't concerning? The fact that he relied entirely on hate speech to develop his following. This includes going after a judge on his very own fraud case. He actually comes across as even more untrustworthy and disingenuous than the average politician.....

JP has already let us know that is the reason he supports Trump.

As for your last sentence, there is a reason he is listed as telling the full truth 2% of the time on Politifact, and tells half truths or lies over 90% of the time.

Just to quickly compare with the other three biggest names in this race:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

- Trump tells the truth/mostly true 8% of the time. Cruz does 22% of the time. Hillary does 50% of the time. Sanders does 52% of the time.
**Any given statement Trump makes is nearly three times less likely as Cruz to be honest and correct, over six times less likely as Clinton, and 6.5 times less likely than Sanders.

- Trump tells mostly false/entirely false/outright lies 60% of the time. Cruz does 34% of the time, Hillary does 13% of the time, and Sanders 12%.
***Any given statement by Trump is almost twice as likely to be false or a lie than Ted Cruz, is over four times more likely when compared to Hillary, and more or less spot on 5 times more likely than Sanders.

But one of his biggest successes has been promoting the importance of willful ignorance to his fanbase, leading to satirically ironic situation like them referring to Cruz as 'Lying Ted Cruz' despite Trump being about five times the liar Cruz is. There is no need for details or analysis when you are running a cult of personality. Just look through this thread for plenty of examples.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Where does it says 'extremists', 'terrorists' or 'Islamists', Brian? Does it say it anywhere, Brian?

Brian, this word salad is not fully coherent. Are you trying to say you think all Muslims are bound to Jihad and thus none should be allowed in Europe or the US? Despite the fact that 99.995% of them are not?

If that is what you are trying to say Brian, thank you for letting us know your true colours and that you also enjoy discriminating against people based solely on their religious beliefs. You seem to be struggling with this one, Brian, but that would put you right up there with Trump for being the exact opposite of religiously tolerant

Where did Trump's statement say Islamists, Brian? Ignoring the questions I put to you in the last post only makes you look more and more like a clueless fool. I even said in that post you would try to ignore it, because you can't answer it, Brian.

Brian, where did Trump's statement from his official website say anything about 'Islamists' or 'extremists'? Because it kept mentioning Muslims, Muslims, Muslims... not extremists.

Where did Trump mention Islamists, Brian? Where did he mention anything that wasn't attempting to blanket ban all Muslims from entering, Brian?


Brian, I'm going to ask you what I asked in my last post all over again.














Brian, you are attempting to claim Trump's statement was about Islamists and not Muslims because he is, as you put it, "all for religious toleration". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had decided what it said before even reading it, which to be fair wouldn't put you at a disadvantage against many Trump fans.

So Brian, here is the full statement, taken from his own website. I've put mentions of the word 'Muslim' in bold - there are three. Now you go ahead and underline the words 'Islamist', 'extremist' or 'terrorist'. You know, words that differentiate the actual Islamic extremists terrorists from the other 99.995 odd percent of them.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration




Now, unless you have found any mentions of those words in Donald Trump's official statement from Donald Trump's official website Brian, you should just accept and admit that your notion he is only talking about Islamic extremists and not Muslims as a whole, was entirely incorrect and then just be done with it... but somehow I figure that won't be the case. Brian, I think you are going to keep trying to ignore this but the fact is, you are not good at shifting subjects.

You said Trump was only talking about extremists, terrorists and Islamists Brian. So Brian, where does he mention any of those three words in his statement above?

Donald Trump has made it very clear that Islamism is the threat posed to America the fact that you are not able to see that only tells us all that you have no real interest in combatting the root cause of extreme Islam.

You may have had a point that Muslims are not integrating into American society so labeling all Muslim Americans as extremists is xenophobic but that is not what Trump is doing, his message is aimed directly at the Jihadists that threaten American lives and the Nation itself.

Trump is not a religious man even though he has a lot of gravitas within conservative communities. Trump statements are designed to reclaim the Republic from the march of Wahhabism which has infected the public school system in America.

To put it another way American Muslims are publicly following their own Sharia law over the laws and rights of other American citizens. This is occurring within a very small number of Muslim communities and not as large as in France or Britain although it is noticeable and therefore it poses a serious threat to the safety of all people living in both America & Europe.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Donald Trump has made if very clear that Islamism is the threat posed to America the fact that you are not able to see that only tells us all that you have a no real interest in combatting the sources of extreme Islam.

Where did he mention Islamists in his statement, Brian?

He mentioned Muslims, Brian. Three times he mentioned them. No mention of Islamists, is there?

You actually think you're doing a good job of attempting to change subjects Brian, don't you? You said he is "all for religious toleration" - sorry, but you have been proven wrong beyond debate. And the reason I say that is because you refuse to debate it.

You may have had a point that Muslims are not integrating into American society so labeling all Muslim Americans as extremists is xenophobic but that is not what Trump is doing, his message is aimed directly at the Jihadists that threaten American lives and the Nation itself.

There you go again Brian, where in his statement does it specifically mention he is only refusing to tolerate Jihadists but will support Muslims, Brian? Where does it say that in his statement?

Trump is not a religious man even though he has a lot of gravitas within conservative communities.

There you go again Brian, trying to fit what Trump is around what you want him to be.

"I believe in God. I am Christian. I think The Bible is certainly, it is THE book..First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica Queens is where I went to church. I’m a Protestant, I’m a Presbyterian. And you know I’ve had a good relationship with the church over the years. I think religion is a wonderful thing. I think my religion is a wonderful religion."
- Donald Trump

"[I go to church] as much as I can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there’s a major occasion. And during the Sundays. I’m a Sunday church person. I’ll go when I can."
- Donald Trump

Yes, this Donald Trump...

Trump statements are designed to reclaim the Republic from the march of Wahhabism which has infected the public school system in America.

I take it you can back this statement up with reliable sources and statistical information. And yes Brian, much like your "he is all for religious toleration" comment, I will be asking you this over and over if you fail to provide one.

To put it another way American Muslims are publicly following their own Sharia law over the laws and rights of other American citizens. This is occurring within a very small number of Muslim communities and not as large as in France or Britain although it is noticeable and therefore it poses a serious threat to the safety of all people living in both America & Europe

But Brian, Brian... I thought this was only about Jihadists? You're quickly moving that to a wider set now, Brian... it's only a matter of time before you tell us how you really feel!

JPNelsforearm

B_Wayne wrote: »

The fact that Trump has no real interpretable policy of any kind, isn't concerning? The fact that he relied entirely on hate speech to develop his following. This includes going after a judge on his very own fraud case. He actually comes across as even more untrustworthy and disingenuous than the average politician.....

Hate speech doesnt exist.

Akrasia

Saipanne wrote: »

Effectively out, then!

He requires a spectacular move at the convention which convinces loads of 'superdelegates' to move to his side.

Not likely, but you never know, especially if Hillary or someone very close to her is indicted for the Email malarky, or if some other scandal pops out of the ether, or even if her polling figures continue to plummet against Trump. Sanders might be able to argue successfully that he is the better candidate for the GE.

It's about as likely as we thought Trump getting the nomination was about 6 months ago.

Akrasia

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Hate speech doesnt exist.

Of course it does.

The issue is whether we should care if someone is expressing such an opinion in public. If it's an elderly relative at christmas, it makes no difference. If it's a populist politiian trying to drum up political support to actually enact his racist and bigoted world view, then it certainly does matter.

I'll give you an example of hate speech.

"All the friends family and relatives of JPNelsforearm are potential terrorists and terrorist sympathisers. We should stop everyone who has any connection with this JPNelsforearm ethnic group from entering our country until we can figure things out."

Even if I meant every word of that, it would be inconsequential because I'm an internet nobody with zero power. But If I was a president of, lets say, the worlds most powerful country, then such speech is certainly more of a threat to the JPNelsforearm ethnic group.

PopePalpatine

Ah, so a bunch of scumbags shouting "N****R N****R N****R! OUT OUT OUT!" is not hate speech. Got it. :rolleyes:

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

Your argument is with the English language, not me. This isn't the first time, or the second or third or fourth that you and other Trump supporters have misinterpreted the English language.

*pedantry*

And in true form, you do claim that racism exists... but only against white people. Standard 'hard men, real talk' backed up by a victim complex. Nothing new here.

Nope, what you term "racism, misogyny etc etc, is just free speech, nothing more. There is no actual, tangible, physical, legal racism/misogyny/anti Islam.

The only group legislated against are white men. Not a victim complex, merely pointing out facts. If business, education and government are not legislating against you, you are not a victim of discrimination.

Again, you don't seem to understand what the words you are talking about mean. See the game above, and give me your answers.

Dictionary definitions of obsolete terms relating to speech, not laws, grand, live your life by a dictionary, I live mine by tangible things, like law.

This sentence literally disproves your own point. By making so much noise, Trump is giving a mouthpiece for those who hate others for being different, be they women, foreigners or Muslims (or all three), thus making it seem more acceptable to those following. It makes you and others like you feel validated.

"hate", nope, I just dont buy into the victimhood hierarchy.

The bolded part is one of the most hilariously lacking in self awareness things I have ever read on boards, well done! "Don't stereotype people, that's what they do in Russia" to paraphrase Bart Simpson.

No, its just all of your buzzwords stem from cultural marxist/sjw academia.

blah:

If Trump secures the US southern border and deports as many illegals as possible he will have fulfilled part of his pledge on immigration.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform



As regards Globalism, tearing up NAFTA, TPP as he has hinted at or implied on countless occasions would go some way towards his goal of redressing the US trade deficit.

As I have said before and I'll repeat myself, Trump is the least worst option on the gorunds that he might do something, with the bonus of annoying earnest types who genuinely believe he is literally hitler. Its almost as if the Bush and Obama Godwin years have ceased to exist and this discourse is breaking some new and scary ground..


You're partly right, what Trump says or stands for is really irrelevant, its the people he riles up, what they stand for, what their attitudes are, the media coverage he generates, all of the protesters against him, what they stand for, people like yourself banging on about "misogyny" and "racism", "Islamophobia" where none exists. Even if Trump does nothing so what? What will have been lost? Four years of a Hillary presidency? ha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjYLWadz5Yc

JPNelsforearm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ah, so a bunch of scumbags shouting "N****R N****R N****R! OUT OUT OUT!" is not hate speech. Got it. :rolleyes:

Nope., its a bunch of scumbags shouting insults.

JPNelsforearm

Akrasia wrote: »

Of course it does.

The issue is whether we should care if someone is expressing such an opinion in public. If it's an elderly relative at christmas, it makes no difference. If it's a populist politiian trying to drum up political support to actually enact his racist and bigoted world view, then it certainly does matter.

I'll give you an example of hate speech.

"All the friends family and relatives of JPNelsforearm are potential terrorists and terrorist sympathisers. We should stop everyone who has any connection with this JPNelsforearm ethnic group from entering our country until we can figure things out."

Even if I meant every word of that, it would be inconsequential because I'm an internet nobody with zero power. But If I was a president of, lets say, the worlds most powerful country, then such speech is certainly more of a threat to the JPNelsforearm ethnic group.

No, again, not hate speech. A government can restrict any foreign group they like from entering their state, that is their prerogative.

Saying you will not allow someone to enter your state is not a threat, no one is forcing you to travel there, there is no threat implied. Its just a statement of border policy, which every sovereign nation is entitled to.

Akrasia

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No, again, not hate speech. A government can restrict any foreign group they like from entering their state, that is their prerogative.

Saying you will not allow someone to enter your state is not a threat, no one is forcing you to travel there, there is no threat implied.

Trump was asked if he included Existing US citizens in his muslim ban and he said 'everyone'

JPNelsforearm

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump was asked if he included Existing US citizens in his muslim ban and he said 'everyone'

If he tried to legislate against US citizens from re-entering the US, It would possibly be unconstitutional(they are assassinating US muslims overseas without a trial as we speak, so who knows), but also would have some precedent in executive order 9066 and Japanese internment. Its still not hate speech though, the President is empowered to deny entry to anyone whom he deems inadmissible, it'd probably be challenged in the Supreme court, but for all intents and purposes the US is at war with the muslim world as it was with Japan.

It would be sectarian law and heavy handed, as the internment of Japanese was racist and heavy handed, but there is a legal basis for that type of discrimination against US citizens. It would be a retrograde and anti freedom step if he did it, though not "hate speech"

Black Swan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

If he tried to legislate against US citizens from re-entering the US...

The US President does not "legislate," the US Congress does.

Brian?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Hate speech doesnt exist.

Congratulations. You've reached peak nonsense.

Of course hate speech exists. Is it your contention that curbing speech in any way is PC?

JPNelsforearm

Brian? wrote: »

Congratulations. You've reached peak nonsense.

Of course hate speech exists. Is it your contention that curbing speech in any way is PC?

Prove "hate speech" exists, its an entirely recent phenomenon in Europe, and non existent under US law. Its an artificial distinction promulgated by anti free speech leftist agitators. Free speech means freedom to hate.

ancapailldorcha

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ah, so a bunch of scumbags shouting "N****R N****R N****R! OUT OUT OUT!" is not hate speech. Got it. :rolleyes:

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Nope., its a bunch of scumbags shouting insults.

There is a specific part of the charter prohibiting referring to people with this term. Please refrain from using it in future.

Brian?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Prove "hate speech" exists, its an entirely recent phenomenon in Europe, and non existent under US law. Its an artificial distinction promulgated by anti free speech leftist agitators. Free speech means freedom to hate.

I don't need to prove hate speech exists, there are laws in most western countries against it. Free speech should never be limitless, inciting hatred or violence should be illegal as it is in Europe.

Why is the left automatically anti free speech?

JPNelsforearm

Brian? wrote: »

I don't need to prove hate speech exists, there are laws in most western countries against it. Free speech should never be limitless, inciting hatred or violence should be illegal as it is in Europe.

Why is the left automatically anti free speech?

And you have people locked up for historical debate, comedy routines, jokes on twitter, legislation "regulating" the internet and what you can and cannot say etc etc,. Who is the arbiter of what is inciting "hate" or "violence", because as we have seen, the courts and legislature in Europe are patently incapable of impartial judgement. Such liberal democracy, what a shining example we are to China and Russia, when we enact the very same speech restrictions.


They are the ones cheerleading and enacting this legislation, both here and in the US, any real liberals, libertarians etc are generally framed as "the right". Even taking this thread as an example, or Boards as a whole, 99% of posters who cry about "hate speech" or "muh racism" are leftists.

Having speech restrictions is pandering to the moral majority, nothing more, it doesnt solve anything, doesnt stop racist thought, thoughts of holocaust denial, misogyny etc etc, it just throws people in jail for dissenting from whatever opinions are deemed acceptable to the moral crusaders of the day.
And as we have seen in Ireland, and the West in general, moral crusades change with the generations, so speech laws are just a rod the next generation of moralists to wield over ever increasing segments on the population whose thought can be deemed heretical.

Brian?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

And you have people locked up for historical debate, comedy routines, jokes on twitter, legislation "regulating" the internet and what you can and cannot say etc etc,. Who is the arbiter of what is inciting "hate" or "violence", because as we have seen, the courts and legislature in Europe are patently incapable of impartial judgement. Such liberal democracy, what a shining example we are to China and Russia, when we enact the very same speech restrictions.


They are the ones cheerleading and enacting this legislation, both here and in the US, any real liberals, libertarians etc are generally framed as "the right". Even taking this thread as an example, or Boards as a whole, 99% of posters who cry about "hate speech" or "muh racism" are leftists.

Having speech restrictions is pandering to the moral majority, nothing more, it doesnt solve anything, doesnt stop racist thought, thoughts of holocaust denial, misogyny etc etc, it just throws people in jail for dissenting from whatever opinions are deemed acceptable to the moral crusaders of the day.
And as we have seen in Ireland, and the West in general, moral crusades change with the generations, so speech laws are just a rod the next generation of moralists to wield over ever increasing segments on the population whose thought can be deemed heretical.

I can't debate you on this because you're points are too broad. We start with you defending Trump's use of hate speech and end with you decrying modern societies attempts to regulate hate speech as some sort of thought crime. I can't keep up. You appear to be lashing out at everyone and everything that isn't Trump

JPNelsforearm

Brian? wrote: »

I can't debate you on this because you're points are too broad. We start with you defending Trump's use of hate speech and end with you decrying modern societies attempts to regulate hate speech as some sort of thought crime. I can't keep up. You appear to be lashing out at everyone and everything that isn't Trump

Fine I'll stick to Trump, but he is really irrelevant, he is a vehicle for ideas, as is any politician.

Trump hasnt used hate speech. You can keep saying he has, but its a meaningless moral judgement with no basis in fact. He is protected by the first amendment, you might as well charge him under every foreign law, guilty of promoting sodomy, gambling, yep, Donald Trump, its ridiculous.

All regulation of so called hate speech is thought crime, you can pretend its not, speech is not action, you are punishing someone for thought and vocal expression of their thought, which is just moralism at the end of the day.

InTheTrees

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

If he tried to legislate against US citizens from re-entering the US, It would possibly be unconstitutional(they are assassinating US muslims overseas without a trial as we speak, so who knows), but also would have some precedent in executive order 9066 and Japanese internment.

Possibly? You don't think a religious test for entering the USA might possibly go against the first amendment?

JPNelsforearm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Possibly? You don't think a religious test for entering the USA might possibly go against the first amendment?

My saying denying them, and others, re-entry to the US might possibly be unconstitutional is based on the fact targeted killings of US citizens have been deemed ok. They are assassinating US muslim citizens overseas without trial on the basis of their membership/affiliation of certain organisations, eg the Alwaki father and son. That, in my opinion, definitely goes against the first amendment, yet a judge ruled that their killings could not be challenged. If targeted killings without trial have been given the green light, is a blanket travel ban really that unfathomable?

InTheTrees

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

If targeted killings without trial have been given the green light, is a blanket travel ban really that unfathomable?

A religious test to enter the USA will violate the first amendment.

Not to mention violating most of the principals the country was founded on.

InTheTrees

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

My saying denying them, and others, re-entry to the US might possibly be unconstitutiona

"Them"? How do you find out who they are? You have to ask everyone what religion they are as they enter the USA dont you?

Thats really going to work well.