Is Trump a fascist?
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Right. Hispanics are one issue voters.But only because Republicans adopt these anti immigrant policies. If it weren't for that, they would be natural Republican voters: religious, conservative, family oriented, concerned about crime. Republican policy on Mexicans is the only thing that makes them natural Democrats.
80% of Hispanic voters have an unfavorable opinion of Donald Trump. 44% have an unfavorable opinion of Ted Cruz. 30% have an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.Right. Hispanics are one issue voters.
So yeah, it looks like right wing Christian republicans are not really incompatible with Hispanic values while Trump's anti Mexican screeds have obviously turned Hispanic voters against him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/wapo-univision-poll-2016/en/?tid=a_inl
Not true at all. Trump has said after he's done building his wall he wants to make legal immigration into America easier and quicker. Right now takes 5+ years to legally immigrate, he wants to cut that down to 2 to 3 years.But only because Republicans adopt these anti immigrant policies
Think of it as a carrot/stick approach
Your post is unresponsive and full of straw men, as usual.Sorry but let's review your argument: you made a claim that Mexican illegal immigrants are more likely to break the law because they entered illegally. That is stereotyping, and it is false. The data shows they are LESS likely to break the law. Your argument was based on collective racial character assassination in furtherance of a false stereotype.
You then made a similar stereotypical argument about Muslims, again, not based on any data.
You are living proof of what I criticized in Trump and his supporters and your post above is Exhibit A.
You just don't get it. Your argument, like Trump's, stereotyped illegal immigrants. You then stereotyped Muslims.Your post is unresponsive and full of straw men, as usual.
No Fuji you don't get it, and by that I mean you don't get the nature of your entire participation on this board. People don't debate with you here, they respond to your posts (which is not the same thing). You can't be debated with, because it's not possible to join issue with someone who can't stay on topic and who won't proceed from what you actually say. Your postings are akin to a prankster who goes about reversing traffic direction signs at intersections for a lark. Responses to your posts are nothing more than setting the signs in the right direction again. The responding posts are not for you, they're for rational readers to absorb.You just don't get it. Your argument, like Trump's, stereotyped illegal immigrants. You then stereotyped Muslims.
If I knew you personally, I'd be a little concerned about your mental well being.
(And yes, Fuji, this would be an ad hominem argument if I was arguing with you, but I'm not.)
And yet you did write this piece of blatant stereotyping, these ARE your words:
Bud: "a) He has not bad mouthed Mexicans as a class. In fact, he says their leaders are smart for exporting their problems to the US. He has bad mouthed the qualities and activities of those who have entered the US illegally (which, one would think, makes them criminals - btw it's hard to remember such a coalescence of support for criminals in the history of the western world). Is it so hard to accept that those would break the law to enter the US might also have already broken some other laws, or be prepared to do so?"
The data shows that they are LESS likely to commit crimes, but through stereotyping you argued they should be suspected.
You got caught stereotyping, now you are upset about being called on it.
Bud: "a) He has not bad mouthed Mexicans as a class. In fact, he says their leaders are smart for exporting their problems to the US. He has bad mouthed the qualities and activities of those who have entered the US illegally (which, one would think, makes them criminals - btw it's hard to remember such a coalescence of support for criminals in the history of the western world). Is it so hard to accept that those would break the law to enter the US might also have already broken some other laws, or be prepared to do so?"
The data shows that they are LESS likely to commit crimes, but through stereotyping you argued they should be suspected.
You got caught stereotyping, now you are upset about being called on it.
Fuji, you clearly don't know what stereotyping is, or you're having a lark pretending not to know.And yet you did write this piece of blatant stereotyping, these ARE your words:
Bud: "a) He has not bad mouthed Mexicans as a class. In fact, he says their leaders are smart for exporting their problems to the US. He has bad mouthed the qualities and activities of those who have entered the US illegally (which, one would think, makes them criminals - btw it's hard to remember such a coalescence of support for criminals in the history of the western world). Is it so hard to accept that those would break the law to enter the US might also have already broken some other laws, or be prepared to do so?"
The data shows that they are LESS likely to commit crimes, but through stereotyping you argued they should be suspected.
You got caught stereotyping, now you are upset about being called on it.
If I say that everyone serving a sentence in a federal penitentiary has been convicted of violating the law, that's not a stereotype, it's a fact. It's why they are there.
If I say that everyone who entered the US illegally has broken the law, that's not a stereotype, that's a fact. They define themselves by their actions, not their race.
To observe that someone who has already found a reason compelling enough to them to cause them to break the law could be reasonably expected to break the law again, especially if they were faced with similar considerations, is just common sense. It's the common sense of expecting people to act reasonably consistently according to a reasonably consistent personal moral code. If illegal aliens were the law abiding stalwarts you want to misrepresent them to be, they'd be turning themselves in and returning to Mexico, not resisting that result. Of course, their primary motivations for illegally entering the US are likely to be either escaping economic disadvantage or escape from prosecution by Mexican authorities. There is no reason to think they would be immune from such issues in the US. And how would a rational person expect them to respond to the same issues in the US? By scrupulously following the law? Laughable!
I'm not even going to get into the ridiculousness of crime stats about a group that misidentifies itself and hides in the community.
You'll have to show me that this counselling is helping you, Fuji, or I'm going to have to suggest you obtain other assistance.
Careful, he's going to report you...LOLIf I knew you personally, I'd be a little concerned about your mental well being
Realistically only a paedophile would find sexualizing a female one year old as normal behaviour. The suggestion this is normal is creepy to all parents.Only a pedophile would find what he said creepy
Bush lost the national popular vote and when it was evident that the review of Florida ballots by hand were pushing Gore into the winner's circle, Republicans called on their friend Justice Scalia to stop the manual count so that Bush could win. By ignoring the voters - Bush was elected by a biased judge not the people. Second election was fair however.
Why don't ignore your right wingnut modified history and simply check the internet. The recount was stopped by the supreme court with Scalia leading the charge. Even on international speaking tours, he constantly faced questions from law students why the courts interfered with the determination the election by voters.This is complete horseshit. There was a recount, Bush won by a small margin, and Al Gore knew he lost and therefore had to concede. Stop listening to biased left-wing news media
"In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop to the Florida recount. ..... The presidential election of 2000 had been decided, in essence, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice."
The case was document throughout the internet and a movie 'Recount' based on the actual events. As a block of electoral votes instead of split electoral votes based on voting patterns in many states - the Florida block gave Bush 270 votes and one more than he needed to win.
You realize you can make a breast joke with any sexual innuendo, dont you??Realistically only a paedophile would find sexualizing a female one year old as normal behaviour. The suggestion this is normal is creepy to all parents
Had he made a vagina joke that would be totally different
Even CNN (a left-wing media) concedes Bush won: http://cnn.it/1RVAzrTWhy don't ignore your right wingnut modified history and simply check the internet. The recount was stopped by the supreme court with Scalia leading the charge. Even on international speaking tours, he constantly faced questions from law students why the courts interfered with the determination the election by voters.
"In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop to the Florida recount. ..... The presidential election of 2000 had been decided, in essence, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice."
The case was document throughout the internet and a movie 'Recount' based on the actual events. As a block of electoral votes instead of split electoral votes based on voting patterns in many states - the Florida block gave Bush 270 votes and one more than he needed to win
CNN then goes on to say:Taken as a whole, the recount studies show Bush would have most likely won the Florida statewide hand recount of all undervotes. Undervotes are ballots that did not register a vote in the presidential race.
This goes against the belief that the U.S. Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush, or took it away from Gore
So its really Al Gore's fault for not pursuing this thing all the way to the endThe studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all. However, his legal team never pursued this action
You mean like when he joked he'd like to bang his daughter?You realize you can make a breast joke with any sexual innuendo, dont you??
Had he made a vagina joke that would be totally different
http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/12/10/donald-trump-mocked-bang-daughter-ivanka-trump-daily-show-video/
Your claim (and Trump's) that Mexicans who cross a border illegally will be more likely to commit rape, theft, and murder was blatantly racist stereotyping. It isn't a fact, the data shows they are LESS likely, but that didn't stop you and Trump from spewing that hate lie.Fuji, you clearly don't know what stereotyping is, or you're having a lark pretending not to know.
Video wont play.You mean like when he joked he'd like to bang his daughter?
http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/12/10/donald-trump-mocked-bang-daughter-ivanka-trump-daily-show-video/
Do you have transcript or alternate video??
Hey fuji, lets do some math. If I have 5 people committing crimes, and then suddenly I add 1 more person committing crimes, how many total criminals do I have??Your claim (and Trump's) that Mexicans who cross a border illegally will be more likely to commit rape, theft, and murder was blatantly racist stereotyping. It isn't a fact, the data shows they are LESS likely, but that didn't stop you and Trump from spewing that hate lie
You should hear about this thing we've got called the 'google'.Video wont play.
Do you have transcript or alternate video??
Trump daughter date or bang
http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trump-wont-stop-joking-about-banging-his-daughter/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diMp241gAcw
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/279091/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-photo-gross/
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/566af51d8795a249f6000222
I thought you were a Liberal, Franky?? And arent Libruls supposed to be open-minded to these types of things?? You know, 2 consenting adults wanna have sex, who are you to judge?You should hear about this thing we've got called the 'google'.
Trump daughter date or bang
http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trump-wont-stop-joking-about-banging-his-daughter/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diMp241gAcw
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/279091/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-photo-gross/
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/566af51d8795a249f6000222
Here's some more math: if you have one of twenty people committing crimes and you add five more people who DON'T commit crimes, did the percent of criminals go up or down?Hey fuji, lets do some math. If I have 5 people committing crimes, and then suddenly I add 1 more person committing crimes, how many total criminals do I have??
