A teaser excerpt of Gary Johnson’s interview with Nick Gillespie at FreedomFest has been published by reason.tv, with the full interview to follow tomorrow.
In the clip, the 2012 Libertarian nominee and likely 2016 candidate blasts Donald Trump’s views on immigration as being racist and hypocritical, and also predicts that most Americans will reject a Republican Party whose image is defined by candidates like Trump.
See above for why I don’t believe this is applicable to the discussion of real life immigration law in the real world at the international level involving thousands of square miles and millions of people.
You can support or not support whatever you want. The question is whether you would use government force to deport them, not whether you support them or not.
Would that apply equally to US states? Cities? Counties? Wards/Precincts? Want to be stopped and questioned every time you cross those borders? Get permission from their governments to have to enter them? Wait and apply for that approval?
Paul said: “The main point that appears to have been lost in the discussion of racism or whatever you want to call it is that whatever occupations they have they are not an invading army, and thus the prior quiz question about peaceful immigrants was perfectly fine.”
I only consider libertarians to be peaceful people.
“The fact that some of them support various government programs (just like many native born USAmericans) and that a few of them are violent or property criminals (just like some native born USAmericans) doesn?t make all of them an invading army, any more than USAmericans are invading army when they move between states, cities or counties.”
I disagree. I do not support any immigrant who is not an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist, or a small government constitutionalist. If this means that I do not support the majority of immigrants, then so be it. Adopt the right ideology if you want to win my support.
If an immigrant is a socialist, communist, fascist, or theocrat, I would favor their deportation, or barring that, I’d favor not allowing them to ever become American citizens or to register to vote.
I also do not support any natural born American who is not an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist, or a small government constitutionalist. If that means that I do not support most Americans, then so be it.
Now of course there are different degrees of bad, and this would vary from person to person. I’m just talking about what the ideal is, and if we don’t set any standard for what the ideal is, then we will never come close to getting it.
I want to live in a free society. This is NOT going to happen if we are surrounded by people who do not believe in freedom. We at least need a critical mass of the population to want to be free in order to have any chance of getting it.
The Libertarian Zone is the real answer to the problem.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/
Exactly!
Bingo.
Some are black also, especially in the Caribbean, but even a small percentage in Mexico. There are some with Asian or Middle Eastern heritage. All kinds of folks out there.
It’s besides the point though.
Mestizos are visibly different from people who are generally regarded as white or black, so it’s correct to describe prejudice against Mestizos as racism.
There have been many different arbitrary race classifications over the years. For example some of them had a “Malay” race, some consider American Indians a separate race, etc, etc. “White” people are “caucasians,” but in Russia and other ex-USSR nations people from the Caucasus area are considered nonwhite and “illegal immigrants” even though they are from Russia and from areas that Russia is fighting to keep from becoming independent. Go figure. But who is white exactly? Many Americans would not consider Arabs, Persians, people from the Indian subcontinent and many others who the USGov defines as white to not actually be white. Most white racists don’t consider Ashkenazi Jews to be white. What percentage black does someone have to be before they are officially black? At one time the “official” rule was 1/16, but how many people would really consider a white-looking person who is 1/16 black to be black? Are people from the Indian subcontinent a separate race or not? How about native Pacific Islanders?
In Mexico and throughout Latin America, social classes are closely related to race. Light skinned Hispanics who are entirely or almost entirely descended from Spaniards and other Europeans tend to be wealthy, and are generally not the people who immigrate to the US, especially “illegally” (ie without regime permission). Even in the cases where they do, they are generally not the people that racist (yes, racist) migrant bashers are so worked up about when they bash so-called “illegals.”
Indios (pure natives) are generally at the bottom of Latin American societies, but most Mexicans and central Americans are Mestizos – a mix of Indio and Spaniard. Mestizos are the bulk of the people facing economic pressures and immigrating to the US, most of them undocumented because so few slots are available “legally” relative to the demand. Generally, the mestizos who immigrate are people who have a rudimentary education and mostly work in low paying manual labor jobs, because those are the only jobs they can get. The people who are better educated/more well off in Mexico and Central America tend to be lighter skinned, and less likely to immigrate, especially “illegally.”
The prejudice that native born Americans have against these Mestizos is indeed of a racial nature, based on appearance and “racial” characteristics as well as the age-old xenophobic crap that gets brought up against all large waves of immigrants (Germans and Irish in the mid-19th century, southern and eastern Europeans in the late 19th and early 20th) — “taking jobs,” not speaking English, crime, disease, different traditions/religions/customs, etc.
Therefore, I believe it is correct to refer to it as racism, but is not correct that I said anything racist when I referred in the shorthand aggregate to “gardeners and maids.” The main point that appears to have been lost in the discussion of racism or whatever you want to call it is that whatever occupations they have they are not an invading army, and thus the prior quiz question about peaceful immigrants was perfectly fine. The fact that some of them support various government programs (just like many native born USAmericans) and that a few of them are violent or property criminals (just like some native born USAmericans) doesn’t make all of them an invading army, any more than USAmericans are an invading army when they move between states, cities or counties.
ac, there was a time when there were 4 races: Caucasian, Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid/Black, and Australoid. At least, that’s what I learned in elementary school. That may no longer be in vogue…not sure, I lose count!
When I was a kid, my family had an old set of 1968 encyclopedias (from 8 years before I was born!), and the section on race listed the first 3 categories (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid). There was no Australoid that I recall. I’m guessing that referred to Aborigines/Pacific Islanders.
Neither is “white” or “black” or “Asian” – because there is no such thing as race, and any racial categorization is a purely subjective social construct that evolves dramatically over time. Half the people we think of as “white” in the United States wouldn’t have qualified as such in the past, and a lot of the people we classify today as Hispanic or Latino would have been “white” Spaniards in the past.
I don’t know how many of you remember the baseball player David Justice, but when he first started his career with the Braves, I was in high school (about 50 miles from Atlanta), and one of the teachers at our school looked almost exactly like him. They weren’t quite identical, but if he had shown up at a baseball card show in a Braves uniform, he could have made a lot of money signing autographs. The funny thing was that he was considered by everyone to be white, while Justice was considered by everyone to be black.
“Andy Craig Post author
July 20, 2015 at 10:43 am
‘ btw, last I checked, Latino is not a “race.’
Neither is ‘white” or “black’ or ‘Asian’ – because there is no such thing as race, and any racial categorization is a purely subjective social construct that evolves dramatically over time.”
I think what the poster meant is that they looked like what most people would consider to be white.
There are people who are Hispanic/Latino who are basically white, some of them even have fair hair and eye color.
“Half the people we think of as ‘white’ in the United States wouldn’t have qualified as such in the past, and a lot of the people we classify today as Hispanic or Latino would have been ‘white’ Spaniards in the past.”
Most people consider a person to be white if they look white. Most people consider a person to be black if they look black. Etc…
ac, there was a time when there were 4 races: Caucasian, Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid/Black, and Australoid. At least, that’s what I learned in elementary school. That may no longer be in vogue…not sure, I lose count!
I don’t hear the term much any more, but the old term I recall was “prejudiced.” One might be prejudiced about ethnicities and/or races.
“” btw, last I checked, Latino is not a “race.” “”
Neither is “white” or “black” or “Asian” – because there is no such thing as race, and any racial categorization is a purely subjective social construct that evolves dramatically over time. Half the people we think of as “white” in the United States wouldn’t have qualified as such in the past, and a lot of the people we classify today as Hispanic or Latino would have been “white” Spaniards in the past.
Sure, we typically regard “Latino” as a collection of nationalities and “Hispanic” as the cultural/ethnic quasi-racial definition. Thus the contrived nonsense where Hispanic/not-Hispanic is listed as a different “ethnicity” question apart from “racial” identification on forms. “Racially” they have a thoroughly mixed heritage of primarily European and Native American, some African, and even Asian in some parts of South America. So what? That doesn’t mean calling it “racism” when someone expressed bigotry against that group is inaccurate- the whole point of objecting to “racism” is that they’re trying to ascribe a definition to a “race” when no such thing exists.
Here’s something interesting about Donald Trump that Libertarians with which Libertarians would be in agreement with him. Donald Trump apparently favors drug legalization. He does favor taxing drugs and using the money to fund education, but still, that is better than locking people in prison for possessing or selling drugs, and unless we get a Libertarian majority elected, we all know that the government is going to tax them if they are legal. I had not heard this about Trump favor drug legalization until I watched a video on YouTube about his views a few days ago. I tried to post the link to the video here but I don’t think that it posted. I will look for it and if I find it I will post it again later.
I’m not suggesting that anyone vote for Donald Trump, or that him favoring drug legalization makes him a libertarian, because he holds a lot of other views that are not libertarian, I’m just pointing out that it sounds like he is pretty libertarian on that particular issue.
btw, last I checked, Latino is not a “race.”
Your statement illustrates the fact that the left has developed a ‘Pavlov’s dog’ response to calling people ‘racist’. It’s like they have an insult-muscle, and it has gotten quite limp and flaccid. Suggesting that most [fill in the blank with the original of a type of illegal alien] do [fill in the blank with a kind of task] isn’t ‘racist’, because even if true, it probably deserves a much different epithet, one that the left no longer knows how to easily construct. Pulling out the old term ‘racist’ is so much easier, however.
I expect more amusing and childish words to come from his mouth in the upcoming weeks. I guess I need to “favorite” the Entertainment section of The Huffington Post.
I do find Trump amusing, mainly because he clearly makes the GOP establishment so uncomfortable, and I love watching them squirm. 🙂
However, if I actually thought he had a chance to win, I would be very concerned, as I it would be very dangerous to have someone that reckless and narcissistic in the White House.
In fact, Trump reminds me of the old “Dead Zone” character Greg Stillson (played by Martin Sheen):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj9M34DzAKo
L, I’d say it’s possible that Trump believes what he says today, even if he said something close to the opposite 3 years ago. He may have a complex and strong ability to rationalize, motivated by his desire to “win” and his addiction to the limelight.
It’s possible, but I don’t think it’s likely. Nevertheless, he may well have convinced himself that saying these things is the “right” thing to do. People commonly say things they know are false, but they do so because they believe the ends justify the means.
Trump puts the blow hard in blowhard.
Trump has such an enormous ego that he just can’t keep his mouth shut, and any filter he has has clearly worn off or been abandoned. The only reason anyone is supporting is because he’s willing to say what he means. He’s gonna run with that until people tire of it (many of us are already tired of it).
I expect more amusing and childish words to come from his mouth in the upcoming weeks. I guess I need to “favorite” the Entertainment section of The Huffington Post.
LOL, why would I be desperate to defend a statement I don’t care about?
I thought I made clear that I am agnostic as to whether Trump actually believes his BS or not.
But you still don’t explain why anybody would have a reason to mention this, now, in this election cycle. McCain’s day in the sun was 2008, old history by today’s standards. No doubt some people had such criticisms, but I hardly think any of them expect ANY candidate today to express those feelings. You are obviously getting desperate to defend the foolish statement that Trump himself just disproved.
I’ve seen plenty of conserative/tea party/patriot types question or openly dispute McCain’s war record.
You’ve explained absolutely nothing…unless you are saying that there is a substantial fraction of those voters who had a hankering for a candidate who would attack McCain’s war record. I am aware of no such group, which would make Trump’s statement illogical. Now, Trump’s statement may very well BE illogical, but right now it’s inexplicable as well. So, I think Trump simply disproved your statement.
John McCain is not well liked by a large segment of Republicans. Also, Trump is engaging a lot of people who are not regular Republican voters or have not been active voters at all.
It’s odd that you said that about Trump, that he will say anything to win. He just got through with criticising John McCain, not exactly a move I would imagine would endear him to many Republicans.
So, what is YOUR explanation?
It’s equally impractical to claiming that EVERY person in the US has a RIGHT to come to Nevada, now. Or that EVERY person in Alabama has aa RIGHT to come to Tuscaloosa County, now. And so on.
There were virtually no immigration restrictions in the US until they were passed for what no one bothered to try to claim were not openly racist reasons in the 1920s. The Mexico-US border was virtually unguarded until the Nixon years and the US-Canada border was pretty wide open until after 9/11. The alarmism is simply not warranted at all, and neither is the ridiculous scaremongering that distorts the actual statistics, as amply proven by the links I already posted.
No human being is illegal.
Again, see referenced links. The numbers don’t back up your claims. What’s more, even if they did, it still would not justify regime aggression against any individual. Who is initiating force when a willing employer hires a willing employee, a willing landlord rents to a willing tenant, etc? Them, or a regime that tries to interfere?
Given that this describes the US, I guess no one will be allowed to move – even down the same street – without regime permission. I guess that would be logical, though, if we presume that the regime is the legitimate owner or co-owner of the whole country and thus legitimately entitled to define crossing its lines in the sand as some form of trespass.
Already addressed this canard way above. You should have followed the links and spent some time exploring them.
You probably hadn’t thought about it, but supporting a regime that implicitly has a property stake in the entire territory it claims is beyond self-defeating.
We disagree on thar. There are self-proclaimed libertarians who disagree on any, or virtually any, libertarian position, but that does not mean there is no libertarian position on those issues.
That’s just silly. If anyone wanted to attack just one Republican candidate, it would be Jeb Bush, who will almost certainly wind up as the nominee. Trump earned the response he is getting with the tone of his comments, which is entirely deliberate, not just because he opposes migration freedom like all the other Republicans. Please stop pretending otherwise, because you aren’t fooling anyone (probably not even yourself), just making everything else you say appear less plausible.
An idea entirely of your own invention. It isn’t merely “the fact he is opposed to “illegal” aliens” that makes his statements racist, as has been explained too many times to count by multiple people in this thread.
I suspect he’ll probably be a sideshow.
Yes, THE libertarian position.
I dispute that claim, but in any case, libertarian principle is not based on a popularity contest, nor on who chooses to call themselves libertarians.
Both the moral and practical cases are overwhelming. See links way above.
That’s because they are illusory. Again, see those links, especially http://openborders.info/
I think it’s a laughable term that makes a failing attempt at conflating paleoconservative with libertarian. Paleo means older or original, so it sort of works for conservatives (as in Old Right). But it fails completely for libertarians. “paleolibertarianism” does not represent any kind of older or original libertarianism; the roots of libertarianism, for centuries before the mid-20th century when things got confused, were firmly on the left.
That’s a point I made earlier in the thread. Jim either had no idea what I was talking about or pretended not to understand me.
Likewise, another point that I made way above that Jim said he did not understand.
Certainly plausible. I don’t know what he actually believes, but I don’t think that actually matters. If the wave of hatred that he is riding actually manages to get him elected, he’ll keep riding it in office. In the more likely event that it crashes before it gets that far, it will still influence policy in that direction.
Good point. Also, didn’t Kyle pretty much admit that he did not know how many of the people he killed were actually combatants at all?
L, I’d say it’s possible that Trump believes what he says today, even if he said something close to the opposite 3 years ago. He may have a complex and strong ability to rationalize, motivated by his desire to “win” and his addiction to the limelight.
I agree with Knapp about Giuliani, but not Trump. The Donald changes his tune too often for me to believe he’s sincere. As I said earlier, I think he’s a demagogue, almost Machiavellian in his willingness to say or do whatever he thinks is necessary to reach his goals. (Which is still a pretty scary mindset for a politician).
Yep!
ABTW: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-politicians-who-scare-me.html
Taxpayer-funded ideological re-education, subsidies for state-favored political advocacy, and forcing people to do arbitrary things before they can legally, voluntarily interact with other people.
You know, libertarianism.
No ouch here. I made the statement, and it wasn’t racist. It’s a fact that most of the undocumented workers from Mexico, which Trump singled out in his bigoted comments, work in manual labor. The upper classes of Mexican society are either less motivated to leave Mexico or more able to find ways to immigrate legally if they want to live in the US.
I have been to every state in Mexico and have known a lot of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans of every sort, so I don’t just blindly generalize.
You gonna have these conditions for immigrants across state lines? County lines? City lines? Ward or precinct lines?
By what right does the US regime get to make these demands? At least under your zone/contract everyone agreed to it going in, so it’s like a homeowners association. Not so with the regime.
“paulie
July 18, 2015 at 5:02 pm
‘The Libertarian Zone contract basically solves the immigration problem, because:’
It doesn’t, because the USA is not the Libertarian Zone, nor do I see anything nearly as big as the USA becoming one. There are lots of people already here, they haven’t signed any contract, and if you make them sign your contract or leave you are violating their rights.
So regardless of what you or someone else think about the libertarian zone concept it does not do us any good in dealing with real life migration issues today in the real world.”
I disagree. While it is true that we don’t have a Libertarian Zone right now, and we are not likely to get one given the demographics of our present society (too many people who work for or contract with government, and too many people on various forms of welfare), this is not to say that at least some of the concept could be implemented in our present society.
I would favor an immigration contract that prohibits immigrants from collecting welfare or using Affirmative Action programs. I’d also favor a condition to citizenship that they pass the following classes:
1) A class on the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, and required memorization of the Bill of Rights (Could be taught by Michael Badnarik).
2) A free market economics class (Could be taught by members of the Ludwig von Mises Institute).
3) A 2nd amendment class, which would include going to a shooting range and learning how to use a gun (Could be taught by Gun Owners of America).
“The notion that immigrants are gardeners and maids is about as racist as you can get.”
Ouch! It is so easy to be human.
It doesn’t, because the USA is not the Libertarian Zone, nor do I see anything nearly as big as the USA becoming one. There are lots of people already here, they haven’t signed any contract, and if you make them sign your contract or leave you are violating their rights.
So regardless of what you or someone else think about the libertarian zone concept it does not do us any good in dealing with real life migration issues today in the real world.
I agree. Hypothetical libertarian societies are interesting to discuss, and someday, maybe we will see one (although I doubt I will live that long). However, they don’t really tell us much about what policies libertarians should favor now, in the very unlibertarian society we actually live in.
The immigrants that the bigots are most concerned about are the unskilled laborers from Mexico and Central America, typically undocumented. They get the jobs they can get, often gardeners and maids, and sometimes construction and factory work. A few end up succeeding in a variety of different fields, but as with past large waves of immigrants, most are in manual labor (at least in the first generation; their kids typically move up). There’s also racism around immigrants from the middle east, some of whom are more educated. But there aren’t really that many undocumented workers coming over from Mexico and Central America to get high tech or professional jobs – the exception being some of those who come over as little children and get a US education, but are still technically “illegals.”
Yes, there are also undocumented workers from Europe and East Asia, even Subsaharan Africa, but they aren’t usually who the migrant-bashers (Trump, for example) are pissing and moaning about.
The notion that immigrants are gardeners and maids is about as racist as you can get.
It doesn’t, because the USA is not the Libertarian Zone, nor do I see anything nearly as big as the USA becoming one. There are lots of people already here, they haven’t signed any contract, and if you make them sign your contract or leave you are violating their rights.
So regardless of what you or someone else think about the libertarian zone concept it does not do us any good in dealing with real life migration issues today in the real world.
Gardeners and maids are not an invading army. Give that old hobby horse a rest.
The old question on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz about immigration was about “peaceful people” crossing borders, it was not about just anyone crossing borders. So the real question is: How do you define a peaceful person?
After World War II, there were Nazis who immigrated to countries in South America, and the US government went so far as helping some Nazis immigrate to the USA under Operation Paperclip. Would you advocate for Nazis to immigrate to the country where you live? Hey, one could argue that these were hard working Germans, just looking to make a better life.
Does political ideology matter? I mean, once people are in a country, they will be able to lobby the government, and they will eventually be able to vote. So I would say that political ideology matters quite a bit. Even before they can vote, they can plug into the welfare system, and if they have any children, their children will be counted as American citizens, and they can be placed in public schools, receive government healthcare, etc…
Now some people will say, “Blame the welfare programs, don’t blame the people who use them.” Well, this does not really fly with me. I understand people can be thrust into a bad situation, but I blame both the government for having the programs, and I also still blame the people who use them.
Some people point out that there are natural born Americans that hold anti-freedom points of view, and who take various forms of government welfare, and this is true, and this is what led me to what I call The Libertarian Zone immigration policy.
The Libertarian Zone is a concept where people who hold a libertarian ideology live in the same geographic area, and they operate under a Libertarian Zone contract. The contract spells out the terms for living in the Libertarian Zone, which is basically, do not initiate force or fraud. The Libertarian Zone contract also spells out a defense mechanism to deal with those who break the Libertarian Zone contact. Violating the terms of the contract could mean having to pay restitution, and it could also mean exile (aka-deportation) from the Libertarian Zone, and in some cases, it could mean death. The contract violations would be taken to a fully informed jury, which consists of Libertarian Zone contact signers (service on juries would be part of the contract). Everyone in the Libertarian Zone would have to post bond (again, part of the contract), and if a contract dispute arose, the person who was found guilty of contract violation may have a bounty put on their head. Now a minor offense would not necessarily go to a bounty. Say a person committed a minor contract violation, if found guilty they could pay restitution and this could be the end of it. However, let’s say that they refused to pay restitution, or let’s say they committed a more serious contract violation. Well, this could lead to being exiled from the Libertarian Zone, as in the person would be forced to move out, and I they refuse to leave, it would be legal to use physical violence against them, including lethal violence if necessary. The people going after the serious Libertarian Zone contract violators would basically be bounty hunters, and they would collect a reward for going after the Libertarian Zone contract violator. Once a person was found guilty by a Libertarian Zone jury of contract violation, it would be announced that a bounty has gone up on the head of the contract violator, and anyone would be able to collect the bounty.
The Libertarian Zone contract basically solves the immigration problem, because:
1) It discourages non-libertarians from immigrating there in the first place.
2) If a person signs the Libertarian Zone contract, but later violates it, there would be penalties.
3) The same standard placed on immigrants to the Libertarian Zone would apply to people who were born in the Libertarian Zone.
The Libertarian Zone contract would mandate that there’d be no taxes, no welfare programs, no Affirmative Action or quotas, no foreign aid programs, no military (there could be voluntary security forces and voluntary LZ militias), no police (there could be private security guards, but they’d be held to the same standard as everyone else in the Libertarian Zone), and no vice laws. There’d also be no elections and no government to lobby. The only thing resembling a government would be the Libertarian Zone juries, and those would be randomly selected out of the Libertarian Contract signers. The bounty system would act as the enforcement arm of the Libertarian Zone juries. There’d be no professional judges or prosecutors and anyone could act as a Libertarian Zone contract enforcer/bounty hunter, so there’d be no “professional class” to do this, as in there would be no license fees to become one.
There could also be a clause in the Libertarian Zone contract that requires everyone to shun a person who has been found guilty of contract violation. If a jury finds somebody guilty, an announcement would go out to all Libertarian Zone contract signers to shun the guilty party. A minor infraction could require shunning until the guilty party has paid restitution, or at least demonstrated that they are in process of paying restitution. They would not be shunned as long as they make their restitution payments on time, however, if they do not pay, or if they are late with payments, then they will be shunned again.
I think that a system of restitution, shunning, exile, and bounty hunting, along with a well armed population, would produce better results than the so called justice system in which we currently live under.
How many immigrants could enter the Libertarian Zone? Part of that would depend upon how large the Libertarian Zone is. Let’s say that the Libertarian Zone is a floating platform in the ocean. Once the platform fits a certain capacity of people, it may not be practical to take on any more immigrants, unless there was some way to make the platform larger. So space constraints could become an issue in the Libertarian Zone. I think that as long as there are places for people to rent or purchase, that there would be room for more Libertarian Zone contract signers.
The key here is to discourage non-libertarians from wanting to enter the Libertarian Zone, and to have a mechanism to make sure that the people who live in the Libertarian Zone actually adhere to libertarian principles, as spelled out in the Libertarian Zone contract, and the “teeth” of the contract are the enforcement clauses.
Read more here:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/
Uh, pardon me, but are you aware of ANY person Chris Kyle killed who was “completely innocent”?
Well, it could be argued that no one is truly innocent, except small children. But the people Kyle killed were certainly innocent of committing aggression against the United States. And, just in case you’re wondering, no, expelling invaders from your homeland does not constitute aggression.
If you aren’t, just stop posting for awhile until people forget how nutty you sound.
You’re tying yourself in knots trying to put a non-racist spin on Trump’s comments, and somehow, I’m the “nutty” one?
First, in case it isn’t clear, I am not defending Trump as being (or no) a libertarian. Yes, I’m fully aware he is not, and come November 2016 I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate, whoever he is. (as I have done for nearly 40 years.) Instead, I was attacking the idea that the fact he is opposed to illegal aliens somehow made him a ‘racist’. It does not. Rather, the PC crowd have merely taken this opportunity to attack a Republican candidate that they suspect will play a major role in the upcoming elections. (which is why you don’t see this kind of attack against most of the other actual or potential Republican candidates, at least so far. The biased news media knows that ‘the boy who cried wolf’ effect exists, and to attack all of those candidates now would be ineffective.)
I agree that Trump himself is probably not a racist. Rather, he is a demagogue, who is doing what demagogues do, which in this case, means he is using racist claims to arouse support.
But, notice that you said you ‘changed your mind on immigration’. Check the Wikipedia article on Libertarianism; it refers to a term I had never heard called ‘paleolibertarian’, and the fact that some of them oppose free immigration. If you’re too young to remember the late 70’s, you probably won’t realize that this was a point of legitimate debate, which is why I must chuckle when you refer to “opposite of the libertarian position.” I don’t think that there is one, single ‘libertarian position’ on this issue. I also chuckle because I guess I qualify under the term ‘paleolibertarian’: Makes me feel old, if I didn’t already.
I am fully aware of the existence of paleolibertarians. Much like left-libertarians, they are right only to the extent they are libertarian. To the extent that they are left or paleo, they are wrong. Specifically, libertarianism is based on the NAP. Merely crossing a border does not violate the NAP, unless you believe the government is actually the rightful owner of all the land within its borders. If you do believe that, clearly you are not a libertarian, as such a view would allow for totally unlimited authoritarianism.
The source of the difficulty, as I recognized long ago, is there is a difference between:
1. Eventually opening the borders, AFTER this country has been changed from being a non-libertarian welfare-state… AND
2. Opening the borders, now, while America is still a welfare state and isn’t libertarian.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Arguing that the existence of the welfare state justifies restrictions on immigration is really no different than arguing that the existence of taxpayer-funded health care (like Obamacare) justifies restrictions on what people are allowed to eat, how much alcohol they are allowed to drink, whether they are allowed to smoke, and so forth.
I don’t oppose the former, but I did and do oppose the latter. You probably hadn’t thought about it, but supporting the latter is actually somehow self-defeating: Given the demographics of the typical illegal alien, they may very well have come from nations where the members of the public think the best way to run a country is for their particular group is to get control of the public, and then oppress the others. Why should they not? Presumably that has been happening in their respective countries for as long as they can recall, and a lot longer than that. It might not be so bad if those illegals were simply allowed in, but not given citizenship and not allowed to vote, but to give them the vote instantly might very well amount to letting the foxes into the henhouse.
The vast majority of native born Americans also support authoritarian government edicts. So, if we can’t allow in non-libertarian immigrants, should we also expel all non-libertarians that were born here? If not, why not? And if so, how do you propose we go about doing that?
Moreover, there is something wildly impractical about taking the position that EVERY person in the world somehow has the RIGHT to come to America, now. If you think that’s truly practical, explain why. (In other words, as opposed to merely allowing current illegals to stay.)
It is only “impractical” in the sense of being politically infeasible, given current public opinion. But that could also be said about many other libertarian positions, such as eliminating all taxes, eliminating all gun control laws, legalizing all drugs, and so on. Should we also abandon all of these “impractical” positions?
Many libertarians are re-thinking their immigration views, and some have found that stricter controls are warranted.; Some of them state that more strongly than I just did. I believe in open borders. still. I suspect the majority of libertarians are of that belief, or believe in a few controls. As far as the Libertaria Party, I don’t think the majority have huge problems with immigration at this time.
Jim, we’ve discussed Chris Kyle a few times here on IPR. Many of us share an opinion that he murdered many people who were “completely innocent”. I beleve it was wrong for him to kill anyone, as I believe our time in Iraq was (and still is) wrong.
Here are some links, if you’re interested in some other opinions.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/02/libertarian-vets-weigh-in-on-chris-kyle-iraq-war/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/?s=adam+kokesh
You said:
“However, since then, I have changed my mind on immigration, and I now agree with Paulie that there should be no restrictions on it. Having said that, immigration is merely one of the many, many issues where Trump’s position is basically the opposite of the libertarian position.”
Haaaarumph!! “…the libertarian position”? Read the following, from: http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/10/15/no-panaceas-libertarian-challenges-to-open-borders/
Pay particular attention to the first paragraph, where it says: “However, it seems that a growing segment of (mostly young) libertarians are becoming more vocal in their view that unequivocal support for open borders should be *the* libertarian position on immigration.”
[quote follows]
NO PANACEAS: LIBERTARIAN CHALLENGES TO OPEN BORDERS
Traditionally, libertarianism has welcomed a plurality of views on the immigration question. While nearly all free market proponents agree that current government policies restricting freedom of movement around the world are riddled with problems, we lack a consensus on what exactly these problems are and what should be done to solve them. However, it seems that a growing segment of (mostly young) libertarians are becoming more vocal in their view that unequivocal support for open borders should be *the* libertarian position on immigration. These libertarians tend to emphasize the moral case for open borders, though folks like Bryan Caplan have done a good job of presenting the economic benefits as well.
Unfortunately, advocates of open borders almost always fail to acknowledge important and fundamental tradeoffs when it comes to immigration. As Gene Callahan has written recently, it is strange that libertarian economists, who are usually eager to point out that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, “treat immigration as if it were immune to this principle, and argue as if unlimited immigration is simply an unalloyed bundle of benefits with no associated costs.” Advocates of open borders should recognize that not all opposing arguments are veiled conservative prejudices rooted in xenophobic hysteria and that there are practical downsides worthy of consideration. Here, I will discuss some of these legitimate challenges to open immigration. But first, a few disclaimers on what I will not be arguing.
[end of segment quoted]
You said:
” For example, it is considered perfectly legitimate to advocate sending the military to the Middle East to kill and maim thousands of people who are completely innocent. In fact, the people, like Chris Kyle, who carry out this violence, brag about it, and are publicly lauded as heroes.”
Uh, pardon me, but are you aware of ANY person Chris Kyle killed who was “completely innocent”?
If you aren’t, just stop posting for awhile until people forget how nutty you sound.
>>For instance, 25 years ago, the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz had a question on whether >>immigration laws should exist; the libertarian-leaning answer was that they shouldn’t.
>It was still on there when I first took the Quiz, approximately 20 years ago. It was the only >question that I gave a “No” answer.
>However, since then, I have changed my mind on immigration, and I now agree with Paulie >that there should be no restrictions on it. Having said that, immigration is merely one of the >many, many issues where Trump’s position is basically the opposite of the libertarian position.
>This article basically demolishes Trump from a libertarian standpoint:
First, in case it isn’t clear, I am not defending Trump as being (or no) a libertarian. Yes, I’m fully aware he is not, and come November 2016 I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate, whoever he is. (as I have done for nearly 40 years.) Instead, I was attacking the idea that the fact he is opposed to illegal aliens somehow made him a ‘racist’. It does not. Rather, the PC crowd have merely taken this opportunity to attack a Republican candidate that they suspect will play a major role in the upcoming elections. (which is why you don’t see this kind of attack against most of the other actual or potential Republican candidates, at least so far. The biased news media knows that ‘the boy who cried wolf’ effect exists, and to attack all of those candidates now would be ineffective.)
But, notice that you said you ‘changed your mind on immigration’. Check the Wikipedia article on Libertarianism; it refers to a term I had never heard called ‘paleolibertarian’, and the fact that some of them oppose free immigration. If you’re too young to remember the late 70’s, you probably won’t realize that this was a point of legitimate debate, which is why I must chuckle when you refer to “opposite of the libertarian position.” I don’t think that there is one, single ‘libertarian position’ on this issue. I also chuckle because I guess I qualify under the term ‘paleolibertarian’: Makes me feel old, if I didn’t already.
The source of the difficulty, as I recognized long ago, is there is a difference between:
1. Eventually opening the borders, AFTER this country has been changed from being a non-libertarian welfare-state… AND
2. Opening the borders, now, while America is still a welfare state and isn’t libertarian.
I don’t oppose the former, but I did and do oppose the latter. You probably hadn’t thought about it, but supporting the latter is actually somehow self-defeating: Given the demographics of the typical illegal alien, they may very well have come from nations where the members of the public think the best way to run a country is for their particular group is to get control of the public, and then oppress the others. Why should they not? Presumably that has been happening in their respective countries for as long as they can recall, and a lot longer than that. It might not be so bad if those illegals were simply allowed in, but not given citizenship and not allowed to vote, but to give them the vote instantly might very well amount to letting the foxes into the henhouse.
Moreover, there is something wildly impractical about taking the position that EVERY person in the world somehow has the RIGHT to come to America, now. If you think that’s truly practical, explain why. (In other words, as opposed to merely allowing current illegals to stay.)
There is right wing “political correctness” just as there is left wing “political correctness,” and both are bullshit.
Examples of right wing “political correctness” are “I support the troops,” and, “Support you local police department,” and automatic reverence for certain religions, etc…
Political correctness does have a real definition, but it’s been grossly overapplied as a term – many people use it in a way which is, ironically, its own sort of political correctness, making it unacceptable to oppose any type of bigotry without basically being ostracized as an authoritarian communist. The idea that the terms racist and racism are meaningless is an example of the levels of absurdity that this form of right wing political correctness leads people to. I guess these people think that Nazis, KKK, et al are merely “not PC,” or that more casual racism has simply disappeared?
I was discussing the general use of the neoconfederate flag in general, not its casual use in the Dukes of Hazzard in particular. I actually kind of like that show.
If you really want to talk free speech, there’s a hell of a lot more mischief coming from “campaign finance reform” than people trying to ban hate speech. Not that that can’t be a legitimate concern when there’s actual government action at stake, but the 1st Amendment and well-settled 1A precedents do provide a stronger bulwark against it (cf. Canada or the UK or Germany) than I think you’re giving it credit for.
Of course, I’m opposed to the “campaign finance reform” BS too, but if you think that’s the biggest threat to free speech in America today, you must not be paying attention to what’s being “taught” on college campuses these days:
http://scottlazarowitz.org/blog/2015/07/todays-college-campus-feminist-gestapo/
Should we be sad that blackface minstrel shows and sambo dolls are not as popular as they once were, too?
Are you honestly comparing The Dukes of Hazzard (one of the most consistently libertarian shows in the history of television) to a minstrel show?
And by the way, the reruns of the show have been pulled from the air, leading Ben Jones to resort to hyperbole almost as outrageous as yours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B47jNkhgaI
“Politically correct” is a nonsense phrase selectively invoked by conservatives to shield themselves against criticism. It’s a reflexive trigger to excuse and justify when Republicans say something bigoted and patently offensive, as Trump has. “That’s not racist, it’s just un-PC!”
While the phrase may have been hijacked (just as the Left hijacked “liberal” and the Right is now trying to hijack “libertarian”), political correctness is a very real phenomenon. As far as giving a precise definition, that’s difficult, since (like feminism, or socialism, or capitalism) it means different things depending on who is using it, and the context in which it’s being used.
Probably the best definition, in my opinion, is to say that it is the thorough rejection of the old “sticks and stones” maxim that kids used to be taught. There is now an increasingly popular idea that expressing certain ideas, or using certain terms, is actually more harmful, and less acceptable, than the use of physical violence. For example, it is considered perfectly legitimate to advocate sending the military to the Middle East to kill and maim thousands of people who are completely innocent. In fact, the people, like Chris Kyle, who carry out this violence, brag about it, and are publicly lauded as heroes. However, if, instead of calling for the killing and maiming of these people, one were to simply refer to them as “ragheads” or “camel jockeys” or some other pejorative term, that would not be considered at all acceptable, let alone heroic. So, the idea is that calling someone a name that might hurt their feelings is worse than actually inflicting violence on them, or even killing them. That is a clear example of political correctness.
Furthermore, such political correctness is antithetical to liberty, as Will Grigg explains:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/william-norman-grigg/the-tyranny-of-tolerance/
For instance, 25 years ago, the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz had a question on whether immigration laws should exist; the libertarian-leaning answer was that they shouldn’t.
It was still on there when I first took the Quiz, approximately 20 years ago. It was the only question that I gave a “No” answer.
However, since then, I have changed my mind on immigration, and I now agree with Paulie that there should be no restrictions on it. Having said that, immigration is merely one of the many, many issues where Trump’s position is basically the opposite of the libertarian position.
This article basically demolishes Trump from a libertarian standpoint:
http://scottlazarowitz.org/blog/2015/07/vote-for-the-donald-for-president-of-venezuela/
“Mark Axinn
July 17, 2015 at 12:13 pm
Andy.
As far as I remember fromin the early 70’s, everybody had “Kill” in HS.”
They actually did not have “Kill” or anything like that at my high school, because the high school did not have any grass fields near it, as in it was surrounded by asphalt and concrete, so it would have really hurt to play “Kill” on that surface. The school did have grass fields that they used, but they were a few blocks away from the school.
“Also, back then, only the ‘greasers’ and loose girls smoked cigarettes.”
People were not really known as “greasers” by the time I was in high school. That term was kind of a relic from the past by then.
My father went to high school during the “greaser” era, and he said that there was some kid in his school that wore leather jackets and drove a motor cycle and once drove his motor cycle through the halls of the school while school was in session. This kid apparently later went on to join one of the big “outlaw” motor cycle gangs.
He also said that there were kids who hide in these alcoves and take their shoes off, and they’d hit people in the head with their shoes and try to steal their lunch money. This was in a suburb of a major city.
“Here’s another fun sport we had for wintertime:
We used to steal cafeteria trays and go traying, which is like sledding except no way to control where the tray went, down this steep hill which was icy and very slick.
It was very important to remember to jump off the tray at the bottom of the hill before it crashed into a brick wall. :)”
I lived near a country club that had a big golf course at one point, and during the winter when it would snow there was a big hill at the golf course that was great for sled riding. If the snow was just right, you could get a pretty long ride, which if you took it to its longest point, it would end around where this pond on the golf course was. The pond would often ice over, but the sled would usually stop, or you’d just stop the sled by putting your arms in the snow or by jumping out of it, before it got to the pond. Well, one time I wanted to see how close I could get to the pond without going on top of it, only I accidentally went too far and started sliding out on to the pond. It was scary because I was worried about the ice breaking and I was not sure how deep the water was. So I ended up forcing the sled to stop before I got too far out on the pond and then the ice broke and I started sinking. This was pretty scary, but I managed to get out of the pond. My clothes were pretty wet but given that I was dressed really warm, and given that my adrenaline was pumping, I was not really that cold when I walked home.
One time I was on top of the big hill at that golf course and I was looking down over the other side of the hill, not the side that you’d sled ride down, but the other side, which was a much steeper drop, and which had a lot of trees and some rocks, and if you went down to the bottom, there was a creek. Well, on this occasion, I slipped on some ice, and proceeded to slide down this steeper and more dangerous tree and rock filled side of the hill on my rear end. It was pretty damn scary. I was sliding down and trying to avoid trees and rocks, and in some cases I bounced off of trees as I was sliding down this hill. Somehow, I managed to make it to the bottom without getting injured, and I stopped sliding before I got to the creek. I then scaled back up the snow and ice covered and tree and rock filled side of the hill very carefully, and returned to sled riding.
There were several patches of woods near this golf course, and a friend and I used to go in those woods and find golf balls, and there were a few times where we had accumulated a lot of golf balls and we sold them.
Andy, I’m cool with your not having a specific age…indeed, among the wisest sentences I can think of is: “I don’t know.”
Sounds like your lean is 11 or younger for full 2A rights.
You might want to think through the whole age of consent thing, though, since I suspect you’d want to have an older age for what constitutes statutory rape. You may need to have a range of ages for different behaviors.
Andy.
As far as I remember fromin the early 70’s, everybody had “Kill” in HS. Also, back then, only the “greasers” and loose girls smoked cigarettes.
Here’s another fun sport we had for wintertime:
We used to steal cafeteria trays and go traying, which is like sledding except no way to control where the tray went, down this steep hill which was icy and very slick.
It was very important to remember to jump off the tray at the bottom of the hill before it crashed into a brick wall. 🙂
This was in an upper-middle class suburb on Long Island.
I used to walk or ride a bicycle to school by myself from 1st grade through 12th grade. I never rode a bus to school, and the only time my parents drove to me school, outside of occasions when it was raining or snowing (and even then I often walked or rode a bicycle), was when I was in kindergarten. There were generally no crossing guards until you got close to the school, and even then the crossing guards (where they had them) were usually an older kid from the school, although a few places had an adult (usually a retired person), but even where there were crossing guards, I did not always take the route to school that would have had me entering the school grounds where the crossing guards were.
There were no security guards or cops in the schools back then (at least not in any of the ones that I attended, but that was the norm back then). There were no metal detectors or video cameras either, yet somehow we survived.
Every once in a while a fight would happen between kids, in which case teachers would break it up. A kid might have gotten yelled at or given detention, but nobody called the police.
I remember in high school we had to do a science project showing the uses of different tools, so for the project, I brought a hatchet to school. I walked into school carrying a hatchet, and stuck it in my locker, and I pulled it out and brought it to the science class when it was time. Could you imagine a kid walking into school with a hatchet today? Somebody would probably call the police on them and the kid would probably be arrested.
I recall at one point I had gotten a pocket knife (like one of those Swiss Army knife type of things, but no, I was never in the Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts), and I started carrying the knife around with me, and I brought it to school sometimes. I remembering forgetting that I had the pocket knife in my pocket while I was in school.
When I was in high school there was a sidewalk across the street from the school where some of the kids would openly hang out and smoke cigarettes. I was never into tobacco myself, but there were kids in my high school who smoked cigarettes and chewed tobacco (although I think it was only some of the guys who chewed tobacco, I don’t recall any of the girls doing that, although some of the smoked). Nobody smoked cigarettes inside the school, but they would regularly go to this sidewalk across the street from the school, in full view of the teachers and administrators, and smoke cigarettes. Some of the kids who chewed tobacco carried tobacco cans in their back pockets in school, and they would chew tobacco in class. Some of them would spit the tobacco in the water fountains which I thought was gross. Like I said, I was never really into tobacco, but I tried it just for the heck of it, but fortunately, I had enough sense to not take to it. I remember getting into conversations with some of the ones who used tobacco where I said, “You ought to quit that because you will get cancer some day.” Most of them did not care. Incidentally, this high school was not in what would be considered to be a “redneck” or low class area, it was in a middle to upper-middle, and in some cases, lower rich, suburb of a medium sized city in a northern state.
I had a friend who went to another high school in this same area who had what was known as a “dirt room” at his high school. The “dirt room” was a bathroom that did not work anymore, as in none of the toilets flushed, and none of the faucets worked in the sinks, but kids could go in there and smoke cigarettes, with the full knowledge of the school administration. They did not let just anyone go in the “dirt room” though, as if you were under 18, you had to get a signed permission slip from one of your parents to be able to use the “dirt room.” I had gone to the same school as this friend in 7th and 8th grade, but we ended up going to different high schools, and I ended up losing tough with him by 11th or 12th grade (I can’t recall which was the last time I spoke to him). I remember seeing him sometime around 9th or 10th grade (I think it was 9th) and he had started smoking cigarettes, and he told me that there was a “dirt room” at his high school, and that he had a pass to use the “dirt room,” and he even pulled it out and showed it to me.
Oh, here is something else from my school days that would get people in a tizzy today. When I was in elementary school in South Carolina we played this game at recess that was pretty violent. It was kind of like rugby, but it had less rules. It was known as “Smear The Queer” (I have no idea who named it that). It was basically run across a field and try to score a goal or touchdown, but if you had the ball people would try you by tackle you and rip the ball out of your hand, although you could throw or kick the ball (it was one of those round, red playground type of balls) to a teammate and then they would run with it to try to score. When I moved to Pennsylvania and attended 7th and 8th grade they played a game that basically had the same “rules,” or lack thereof, at recess, but they called it “Kill.” It was basically “Kill” the guy with the ball. Sometimes mini-fights would break out when somebody got tackled and people would try to rip the ball out of their hands. This was all done out in the open right in front of teachers and I never recall them interfering.
I recall another game called “Murder Ball” from when I was in elementary school in South Carolina. You’d take a tennis ball and soak it in water, and then people would stand against a wall, and people would throw the tennis ball and you’d have to avoid getting hit with it. It hurt getting hit with a wet tennis ball, particularly if you got hit in the face.
Can you imagine any of this stuff happening in today’s schools?
“Robert Capozzi
July 17, 2015 at 5:42 am
a: So if a 16 year old can drive an automobile, shouldn?t they also be able to carry a gun? ?My grandmother, who passed away at the age of 90, started driving at the age of 13.
me: Andy, in some ways, you are a MASTER politician, as you are adept at not answering direct questions, as you?ve done here.”
Wow, MASTER politician. I’ve never been called this before. Maybe I should run for office.
“It sounds like you are saying that 12 year olds do not have 2A protections, 13-15 year olds might, and 16 year olds do.”
The story that I mentioned above about my father purchasing a rifle back in 1959 happened when he was 12.
“Would you support or oppose a law that said 12 and youngers could not legally buy arms and could not tote them in public?”
This is actually kind of a difficult question. Our current society has become so used to people not being responsible and being treated like children, even after they are legally considered to be adults, that suggesting that anyone should have freedom, particularly if they are under the age of 18, sounds “radical,” even to some libertarians.
This reminds me of the quote from Thomas Jefferson: “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.?
It was not that many decades ago that a 12 year old could legally purchase and carry a gun in this country. This was the case back when “The Adventures Of Ozzie And Harriet” and “Leave It To Beaver” were current television shows.
Now obviously there’d have to be some kind of reasonable cut off, as I don’t think that anyone is going to say that a 4 or 5 year old should walk into a store and hand some cash to a person behind a cash register, and walk about with gun and ammunition, but then again, how many 4 or 5 year olds do you see walking into stores buying anything without a parent or older caregiver?
Perhaps by the time a person is capable of walking into a store by themselves and purchase something, they should be presumed to be able to purchase a firearm.
Back on The Libertarian Zone thread ( https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/ ) the topic of age of consent came up, and I suggested that it probably would be good to have an age of consent covered in The Libertarian Zone contract, that way it could alleviate controversies that could occur where some guy hooks up with some other guy’s teenage daughter (or similar situations), to the objection of the girl’s father. Age of consent is kind of an arbitrary thing, as different people could be capable of consenting at different ages, but I think that the majority of people would agree that there is some point where a person should not be able to give consent. I suggested that 18 should be the age of consent, since that is what has come to be considered the age of adulthood in our society, and I also suggested 18 as being the age that people could sign The Libertarian Zone contract, however, some suggested that 18 is too old for age of sexual consent, and that it should be 16. If a 16 year old is old enough, what about a 14 year old, or what about a 12 year old, or what about a 10 year old, or what about an 8 year old, or what about a 6 year old? Surely, nobody but the truly deranged would say that a 6 year old or an 8 year old or a 10 year is capable of giving informed consent.
I doubt that there is an easy answer to the question of what the age of consent should be, or at what age a person should be considered to be old enough to purchase a firearm or drive a car.
I gave examples of my father purchasing a rifle and ammunition at the age of 12 back in 1959, and of my grandmother driving a car at the age of 13 back in 1923 (before there were such things as drivers licenses and license plates). This may sound “radical” to a lot of people in today’s nanny state, but I would like to return to that America.
Now does this mean that I do not think that there should be an age of sexual consent law? No, like I said above, there probably should be some kind of guideline as to what constitutes statutory rape.
My understanding is that in the Heller and McDonald decisions (2008 and 2010) the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment did not _grant_ the RTKBA, it merely guaranteed its continued existence as it existed in 1789. So the question is, were 12 year olds legally entitled to possess weapons in that year. I would guess yes.
a: So if a 16 year old can drive an automobile, shouldn’t they also be able to carry a gun? …My grandmother, who passed away at the age of 90, started driving at the age of 13.
me: Andy, in some ways, you are a MASTER politician, as you are adept at not answering direct questions, as you’ve done here.
It sounds like you are saying that 12 year olds do not have 2A protections, 13-15 year olds might, and 16 year olds do.
Would you support or oppose a law that said 12 and youngers could not legally buy arms and could not tote them in public?
This is one that most everyone who has done a lot of petition signature gathering have been asked about by people who don’t like petitions or free speech.
Asking People to Sign a Petition to BAN PETITIONING!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFko0bd2dT8
Obama Supporters Sign Petition to Repeal the BILL OF RIGHTS to Support the President
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0he0cqHH20
Obama Supporters Petition to Repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT. Seriously! Watch!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpHOaW99ST4
Back on the original topic, the whole interview is up now:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/gary-johnson-interview-with-reasons-nick-gillespie-at-freedomfest/
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/16/the-trump-jillette-feud-of-july-201
Andy C.,
You’re ignoring the very clear trends.
See:
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/challenge-ideas-through-public-debate/
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/the-last-stop-for-free-speech/
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/internet-speech-threat-or-expression/
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/the-story-of-elisa-chan-a-victory-for-free-speech/
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/free-speech-advocate-dies/
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/overreaction-posits-bad-news-for-free-speech/
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/nfl-stands-for-free-speech-tradition/
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/federal-hate-speech-ban-on-horizon/
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/the-perfect-response-to-the-thought-police/
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/the-celebration-of-submission/
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/the-toxicity-of-words/
https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/dont-use-the-shooting-in-charleston-to-restrict-free-speech/
We are inching toward a hate speech ban, and I’ve only covered a few of the stories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
William Saturn said: “Ask yourself, would it be morally correct to arrest/fine Trump for what he said. I’m sure most here would not favor this (or would not admit to favoring it). However, if you asked this question to the masses, I am willing to bet that a majority would favor it”
Americans sign petition to repeal 1st amendment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tznR4wPeS4M
Who said mere words are dangerous? I think they’re wrong and subject to criticism. That’s all.
What exactly are you proposing – that people who say things others consider bigoted, shouldn’t be criticized (or criticized as harshly?) because that might possibly increase support for censorship? That people on one side of those sorts of arguments should engage in self-censorship or pull their punches simply because they’re in the majority?
I seriously haven’t seen anybody calling for Trump to be prosecuted for hate speech, or for the passing of hate speech laws in response to Trump. Anybody who is calling for it is more of an unserious fringe figure than Trump himself. We’re still a country where the Nazis can march through Skokie and Westboro can protest a soldier’s funeral and the Klan can burn crosses and you can fly a Nazi flag in your front yard, and even somebody like Donald Trump can run for President of the United States. Conflating mere unpopularity with the specter of censorship, cheapens the seriousness of real attacks on free speech.
If you really want to talk free speech, there’s a hell of a lot more mischief coming from “campaign finance reform” than people trying to ban hate speech. Not that that can’t be a legitimate concern when there’s actual government action at stake, but the 1st Amendment and well-settled 1A precedents do provide a stronger bulwark against it (cf. Canada or the UK or Germany) than I think you’re giving it credit for.
“Robert Capozzi
July 16, 2015 at 6:51 pm
Andy, why do you find it so hard to answer a straightforward question. Do minors have 2A rights? Can young ins buy and tote like adults or not?”
I would say that every man, woman, and responsible child ought to be able to own and carry firearms. Now the next question are, how do you define a responsible child, and for that matter, how do you define a person as a child?
Is a 17 year old a child?
How about a 16 year old? 16 year old can have the freedom to drive these big dangerous things with motors called automobiles? Automobiles can kill people? Automobiles can be just as dangerous guns, and even more dangerous than guns in some cases. So if a 16 year old can drive an automobile, shouldn’t they also be able to carry a gun?
Somebody will probably what about a 3 year old, or a 5 year old, or a 6 year old, should they be able to carry guns? I don’t think that anyone is going to agree with this without adult supervision.
One problem with the loss of liberty in this country is a lot older people who remember times when this country was more free in certain aspects end up dying out, and younger people born into times of less freedom just assume that this is the way things are, and will not understand that there was a time when there was more freedom on whatever issue.
There are of course some issues where there is more freedom now, but I am talking about overall trends.
My grandmother, who passed away at the age of 90, started driving at the age of 13. She did not have a drivers license or a license plate because such things did not exist back in those days. She drove for a long time before the average person was coerced into getting those things.
Now if you said to people today, “You know, I think that 13 year olds ought to be able to drive cars, and that they should not have to get drivers licenses or license plates.” most people would freak out and act like this is some kind of crazy thing, yet at one time in this country this was normal.
I’ve seen a loss of freedom in this country in my lifetime, and I am not really even that old (yet).
Jill, I understand that you are not advocating hate speech legislation. I am sure that Andy C. understands that I am not advocating any anti-boycotting legislation. I am merely saying that the tendency to cry foul over simple political differences seems much more prevalent today than it was, say, 20 years ago. I believe that a Congress could easily reflect the view that certain expressions are worse than certain crimes and so pass a bill that includes criminal sanctions against anyone who utters racist or homophobic “hate speech.”
We label speech as “racist” or “homophobic” and whenever someone utters such speech (or something close to it), suddenly that person is bad and must be ostracized and not trusted in society. Though they only committed a logical fallacy in speech, they are not to be tolerated at all. Meanwhile, people who commit violent crimes are rehabilitated and welcomed back with open arms.
Ask yourself, would it be morally correct to arrest/fine Trump for what he said. I’m sure most here would not favor this (or would not admit to favoring it). However, if you asked this question to the masses, I am willing to bet that a majority would favor it. Why? Because racism is wrong. Why is that? Because it is. Huck Finn thought it was wrong to help a slave escape and he felt bad for doing it. Why is that? Because he was told over and over that it was wrong and he did not question that line of thinking.
I suggest everyone here examine why they believe racist or homophobic words are so dangerous. Is it because they are wrong beyond explanation? Is it because they make people feel bad? Or is it because they caused the Holocaust?
http://www.theadvocates.org/immigrants-dont-make-u-s-less-safe
Andy, why do you find it so hard to answer a straightforward question. Do minors have 2A rights? Can young ins buy and tote like adults or not?
“… don’t trust anybody my age or younger. We’re all a bunch of narcissistic illiterate selfish idiots…” – Andy Craig
It takes a really big man to admit it! 😉
“Robert Capozzi
July 16, 2015 at 6:04 pm
‘a: Well, minors did carry guns in this country in the past. Where were you in 1959?
me: I was an infant. ‘
I guess I’m not asking the question well. It’s immaterial what people did in the past.”
It is really not immaterial what people did in the past, because that was the entire point of my comment.
a: Well, minors did carry guns in this country in the past. Where were you in 1959?
me: I was an infant.
I guess I’m not asking the question well. It’s immaterial what people did in the past. I’m simply asking you Andy whether you believe that minors have full 2A protections. Can they buy and tote arms in public with no restrictions? Would any law restricting minors from buying and toting be unconstitutional, in your view?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/16/the-trump-jillette-feud-of-july-201
I wasn’t around in 1959, but as a kid in the mid-90s I was regularly left unsupervised to ding targets in the backyard with a primer-only .22s out of my grandpa’s tube mag.
This wasn’t rural nowhere, it was a half-acre lot in the middle of a residential suburb (Nash, TX) And the local chief of police’s house was on the other side of the fence. Never got in trouble, and in fact it was totally legal within city limits provided I used the low-noise ammo that wasn’t too loud.
Granted, this was in East Texas.
@Jill
Thanks for the kind words, and don’t trust anybody my age or younger. We’re all a bunch of narcissistic illiterate selfish idiots, or so I’m told by Time Magazine. 😉
“Robert Capozzi
July 16, 2015 at 5:25 pm
Andy, I’ve heard of minors shooting before.
Your post seemed to imply that 2A should apply to minors buying and toting arms in public. That’s the part I’ve not heard before.”
Well, minors did carry guns in this country in the past. Where were you in 1959?
“Yes, but that doesn’t mean the reaction is beneficial or good for society. Especially when the reaction leads to the implementation of laws (hate speech legislation) that actually limit the First Amendment.”
That goes both ways. Anti-boycott sentiment such as you’re expressing, has also lead to plenty of bad laws before that restrict the freedom to engage in a boycott. From wiki:
“”For example, anti-boycott provisions in the Export Administration Act of 1979 and Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 in the United States forbid US companies and their subsidiaries from complying with or supporting a foreign country’s boycott of another country unless the US also approves of the boycott. The Arab League’s boycott of Israel has been the primary focus of these laws, though it applies to any “unsanctioned” foreign boycott.””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-boycott
There are also states that include “political viewpoint discrimination” in their employment and housing and public accommodation laws (not many jurisdictions do, but a few, most famously DC). Those are laws that already exist in the U.S., unlike “hate speech” laws. I don’t see any serious push to prosecute Donald Trump for a crime on the basis of what he’s saying, and there wouldn’t be any law to do it under anyway.
William, I’m not calling for laws against hate speech. I would never do that.
There has certainly been a lot of “reading between the lines” on this topic. For me, it’s simple: I don’t like what Trump said, and I feel like sharing that with anyone who’s interested. I made a point to shop at Macy’s the other day, although I don’t often, just because I’m free to support their decision. There’s no way in the world I’d ever watch a beauty pageant, so I don’t care about that. That’s pretty much it.
I admit that I think a little less of Trump supporters, including a brother of mine, but that will probably go away over time.
I kind of think it’s the Trump supporters who have gone “over-the-top” with this.
“In the past, if a man disagreed with his butcher politically, he wouldn’t throw a fit, boycott the butcher, and then try to destroy the butcher’s livelihood. ”
Are you sure about that? How about a butcher who serves blacks crica 1920? A Jehovah’s Witness in WWII? An outspoken pacifist in a conservative pro-war town in 1968? A Confederate-sympathizing butcher in the North (or vice versa) in 1863? I think history is replete with examples, both sympathetic and not so sympathetic, of people being driven out of business because they had offended their customers. I’m not convinced it’s really getting more common, or worse, and in fact I think it’s become tamer and less virulent. Used to be a lot more common for a “boycotts” to include picket lines and smashed windows and arson.
I do agree, most boycotts are do-nothing fads that have little effect and are often based on petty or nonsense complaints (“War on Christmas,” anyone?). When it’s based on a current political controversy, it usually more than cancels out by driving supporters of that viewpoint to rally around and “defend” the business in question anyway.
And it is absolutely part of the benefit of a liberal, pluralistic market society, that it enables people to work together through the price system and free exchange to cooperate with those they otherwise don’t like or don’t agree with, both domestically and internationally. That’s why I really don’t much go for the boycott thing myself- Chick-fil-a’s politics and theology aren’t my cup of tea. Chipotle pandering to biotech Luddites offends me, and I really don’t like Walgreens selling homeopathic sugar-pill frauds packaged as real medication. I certainly don’t approve of the Chinese or Saudi governments and all the things they do. But I’ve still bought things from all of them (directly or indirectly), when they have something I want to buy at a price I’m willing to pay.
But that doesn’t mean people are *wrong* if they decide they don’t want to support certain opinions or views or actions, and so stop doing business with somebody because of it. Pretty much everybody has that line somewhere- you probably wouldn’t cheerfully patronize the pharmacy run by Dr. Mengele or Charles Manson’s bakery. And how many libertarians do you know who make a point to boycott private business that ban concealed carry, or gun companies that have endorsed bad gun control laws? It’s really nothing more than the marketplace of ideas at work alongside the marketplace of goods and services. It isn’t some kind of indirect government censorship, or an attack on freedom of speech.
Former Republican Rep. Ron Paul on Wednesday blasted GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump as a “dangerous” authoritarian on a power trip who won’t value civil liberties the way a U.S. president should.
“I think he’s is a dangerous person,” said Mr. Paul, ….
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/16/ron-paul-calls-donald-trump-a-dangerous-authoritar/#ixzz3g60ZhaQH
William is correct.
Trump is not just a rascist; he’s a xenophobe as well.
Andy, I’ve heard of minors shooting before.
Your post seemed to imply that 2A should apply to minors buying and toting arms in public. That’s the part I’ve not heard before.
I’m just curious: Should there be no laws regarding the purchase and transportation of arms by minors, yes or no?
Andy C. quite wisely said in an earlier email:
>More broadly, if you’re a libertarian, you’ve almost certainly at some point defended the relatively unpopular libertarian argument against anti-discrimination laws for private businesses, by making the case that voluntary exchange and a free market and public reputation and boycotts, etc., will do better to punish invidious, obnoxious, hateful, or just plain unpopular behavior on the part of businesses, than coercive laws that make martyrs out of bigots. It’s a hard argument to make to non-libertarians, and it has some limitations historically when you’re talking about the era of state-mandated segregation, but as to today I think it’s a valid and important point to make.
The nice thing about America is that a racist like Donald Trump can run for President. And the nice thing about being sentient is that I don’t have to support him.
This thread started with Gary Johnson saying that Trump is an embarassment and that he wants nothing to do with him. But any freedom-loving person should support his right to be a bigoted lout, and then shun him as Gov. Johnson wisely suggests and Andy’s statement clearly envisions.
“The beauty of the first amendment, William, is that we all have the right to react as we wish”
Yes, but that doesn’t mean the reaction is beneficial or good for society. Especially when the reaction leads to the implementation of laws (hate speech legislation) that actually limit the First Amendment.
Maybe I am actually Andy Jacobs?
Andy Jacobs loves the Confederate battle flag just like I do.
Andy Jacobs believes it is important to remember the USS Liberty just like I do.
Andy Jacobs is against sodomite marriage just like I am.
And Jacobs wants to control immigration just like I do.
Andy Jacobs is for gun rights, and so am I. Personally I think we should use them to shoot all illegals on sight, and if it looks, sounds and smells like an illegal it should be considered reasonable to presume it is an illegal and shoot it dead.
Andy Jacobs wants to kick the zionists, globalists, UN new world order and Israeli lobby out of the USA. Me too!
Andy Jacobs hates taxes, and so do I.
Andy Jacobs wants to end the fed, and I do as well.
I bet Andy Jacobs doesn’t like the Rothschilds and the other hook nosed globalist bankers any more than I do.
Andy Jacobs agrees with me about opposing the neocon wars for Israel.
Andy Jacobs worked on the Ron Paul campaigns, just like me.
It’s almost like we are clones. Maybe we are?
Mexican is not a race. It is a nationality. Therefore, how can Trump’s comments be racist? The words the media says Trump said were not racist; possibly xenophobic, but not racist at all.
The beauty of the first amendment, William, is that we all have the right to react as we wish. For me, I wouldn’t care if I was doing business with someone from a different religion or political leaning. If something offends a core value, which for me tends to mean any kind of violence, I cannot overlook that, and I would stop my association with that person or persons as quickly as possible. The fact that Trump chose to assign criminal behavior to an entire class of people offends my core value against hate. YMMV.
Very well said, Andy Craig! Your articulateness and wisdom continue to amaze me, for you being such a young man.
The extremely hateful/destructive attitude of some in American society against opinions that disagree with their delicate sensitivities, is certainly a recent development in this country.
In the past, if a man disagreed with his butcher politically, he wouldn’t throw a fit, boycott the butcher, and then try to destroy the butcher’s livelihood. Instead, if the man liked the work the butcher did, he would remain a loyal customer and not switch to a competitor who agreed with him politically but performed not as well. The man would see the butcher’s business and opinion as two different things and continue to do business with the butcher despite the difference.
The tendency to do otherwise is not economically sound. It rewards political homogeneity rather than economic efficiency.
“Clearly, those companies were merely trying to make a temporary political statement, to suck up to their usual constituencies, when they announced their disassociation with Trump.”
Otherwise known as “pleasing their customers and keeping their viewers happy.”
And I still take anything Trump claims about the contract (including through his lawyer), with a very large grain of salt. There is precisely zero reason to believe anything he says about it, just like there’s no reason to believe any he says about anything else. The man is, by all evidence, a compulsive liar.
But even if it was true, that NBC and Univision breached their contract and will have to pay determined arbitration damages- so what? You think that’s going to make any difference? Whatever pittance they have to toss at Trump, was obviously worth less to them than the damage to their reputation and image by being associated with him.
I also find it damn-near impossible to believe, that they signed a contract that put them in a position where they literally couldn’t cancel the relationship and stop paying Trump for his productions. That just isn’t how the TV business works. If so it was extremely stupid on the part of NBC and Univision, and they have nobody to blame for themselves for having to pay to terminate the relationship even though Trump has given them ample just cause.
“They knew they’d eventually be required to cooperate, but they also knew that eventually they wouldn’t be forced to do so for many months.”
They aren’t going to be forced to do anything. Even if they lose the arbitration- which I’m dubious will happen, because it’s not like these companies don’t have lawyers considering the possibility both when they made the decision and when they drafted the contracts- it’s still not like they’ll be ordered to put Miss America or The Apprentice back on the air. Is that what you expect to happen?
Say I was a concert venue owner who had signed a contract with Jim’s Totally Not Racist Heavy Metal Symphony. Then Jim goes on CNN and says, to pick a random example, that gays should be banned from Boy Scouts because they’re child molesters and Mexicans are drug-dealing rapists. Or take it to the next level, and say he comes out as neo-Nazi who wants to kill and the Jews and blacks and that he’s converted to Westboro Baptist Church. What exactly it was really doesn’t matter, the point is I cancel the concert because I don’t want to be associated with that and I have every right not to be.
Even if I owe Jim termination damages as specified in the contract (and without such a specification I wouldn’t), all that’s proved is Jim has manged to make himself so unpopular and disliked that paying those damages makes more economic sense than damaging my reputation by being known as a venue for bigots who insult my customers. Which is exactly what Trump has done vis-a-vis NBC and Univision.
I mean, seriously, what do you expect god-damned *Univision* to do when one of their paid entertainment celebrities starts publicly insulting Mexicans? Freedom of speech and freedom of association goes both ways. Trump spoke, and now people don’t want to be associated with him. That hardly makes him some kind of victim. You’ve made clear your objection is because you agree with Trump’s statements. Fine, that’s your prerogative. Doesn’t mean anybody else has to find them acceptable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbHI9hu3INs
“Wake Up
July 16, 2015 at 3:37 pm
Viva Trump. Stop justifying genocide!”
I’ve got to wonder if this is Eric Dondero.
Well! I found out something about your fictitious ‘morals clause’ that you claimed would allow those political opportunists to get out of the deal with Trump.
“I addressed the morals/reputation clause in detail at @1:35am, including an example of one. If he really wanted an explanation of how those work, it’s right there.
Yes, clearly we are dealing with some real determination to see things one way here. I’m either forgetting that such cases end up in court, or if I am not forgetting it then I am giving up. Huh?”
From: http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/05/media/donald-trump-nbc/
“Donald Trump “will be taking action against NBC” in an arbitration that both sides have agreed to, his top attorney says.
“The attorney, Alan Garten, accused NBC of violating the terms of a contract with the Miss Universe Organization, which Trump and NBCUniversal jointly own.
“NBC announced on June 29 that it would be ending its business relationships with Trump — which meant canceling the upcoming telecast of the Miss USA pageant and next year’s telecast of Miss Universe. The decision came amid an outcry over Trump’s offensive descriptions of Mexican immigrants in his presidential campaign launch speech.
Univision, the Spanish language broadcaster, also canceled the pageants. Trump filed suit against Univision on June 30, but has not filed against NBC.
The difference has to do with contractual language.
Related: Miss USA back on TV on Reelz channel
Garten said in an interview on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” that he believed NBC’s backing away from the pageants is “a clear breach of the provisions of the agreement.” But he also said the agreement to televise the pageants has “an arbitration clause.”
These kinds of clauses are increasingly common in business contracts. The clauses call for disputes between two sides to be settled privately by an arbitrator, rather than in a public hearing.
“We will obviously be following the contract” by seeking arbitration, Garten said. “I think that sort of represents the difference between how we, as an organization, act and how NBC has acted. We follow the contract; they have not.”
Donald Trump flap explained in 2 minutes
Donald Trump flap explained in 2 minutes
Garten also said, contrary to some speculation, “there is no morals clause” in the contract with either network. Such a clause can let a company get out of a contractual obligation if an individual brings embarrassment upon the company.
Garten asserted that companies get into business with Trump knowing that he “draws a lot of media attention and talks straight.”
As for another company that dropped its ties with Trump recently, Macy’s (M), Garten said “we’re looking at all possible avenues,” including a lawsuit, but declined to comment further.
Garten also suggested that Comcast (CCV)-owned NBCUniversal may have spoken too soon when it said it was ending its relationship with Trump.
The 50/50 ownership of Miss Universe is still in place, and there’s no plan yet in place to change that.
“We don’t know if it will be broken up,” Garten said. He added, “Certainly, if it requires litigation, then there will be litigation.”
Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s senior legal analyst, said on “Reliable Sources” that “the only thing that matters in this dispute is what the contract says between NBC and Donald Trump.” And that’s unknowable for the time being.
He called Trump’s demand for $500 million in damages in the Univision lawsuit “silly” but said the apparent lack of a morality clause “does help their case.”
He cautioned that “these sorts of lawsuits almost never go to trial” and predicted some sort of out-of-court resolution between Trump and Univision.
[end of quote]
Clearly, those companies were merely trying to make a temporary political statement, to suck up to their usual constituencies, when they announced their disassociation with Trump. They knew they’d eventually be required to cooperate, but they also knew that eventually they wouldn’t be forced to do so for many months.
“The Confederate Constitution also BANNED the importation of slaves from outside the Confederacy. ”
It was protectionism for slave-owners, and an obligation of international law (that was actively enforced by the UK and others) for several decades by the 1860s. Paulie and I both explained that in the last thread we were having that discussion. Going back into the transatlantic slaving business would have made the Confederacy an international pariah, a rouge state, literally on par with pirates, in a way that merely having domestic slavery did not. Though that also greatly harmed, and ultimately prevented, the CSA’s efforts at international recognition and assistance.
The transatlantic slave trade had been made illegal in the US in 1808, the date set by the original constitution for doing so. The slave-owners went along with it (aside from not having a real choice) just because they wanted to keep the price of slaves high. For some states (including VA) slaves themselves were a larger and more profitable export than cotton.
I don’t know why you keep raising this as a point in the Confederacy’s favor. It’s like saying “at least they didn’t engage in cannibalism and human sacrifice!”
“Other countries ended chattel slavery without a war. There is no reason the same thing could not have happened here.”
Maybe… but it didn’t. And that certainly wasn’t the goal of the Confederacy. And not all other countries did so. It wasn’t exactly peaceful in Haiti, for example.
“A more important point here is that the Confederacy only lasted for a few years, it was not given the time to develop. It is quite possible that if given the time to develop, they would have eventually ended chattel slavery, particularly after inventions like the cotton gin came along.”
The cotton gin was over 60 years old by then. It’s usually credited with entrenching slavery by making cotton plantations more profitable antebellum, and reversing what had been a gradual decline. It’s actually a common mainstream interpretation that the cotton gin was a big factor for Southern opinions shifting from the necessary-evil and eventual-abolition views about slavery, that were typical around the Revolutionary era, to the slavery-forever “positive good” defenses of it that became popular in the South by the 1840s, 50s, and 60s.
It’s great alternate history speculation, and good fun, to debate what would have happened if the South had won. And who knows, maybe the South would have abolished slavery relatively quickly. Or maybe freed from the Union blockade, they would have re-opened the transatlantic slave trade and started conquering parts of the Caribbean and Latin America to expand slavery and white supremacy. There were advocates of that, too among the Confederate ranks and leadership (Knights of the Golden Circle, and others), and I think they probably outnumbered the half-hearted quasi-eventual-abolitionists. But none of that changes what they were actually fighting for and why the founded the Confederacy, or what the CSA actually did 1861-65.
“Wake Up
July 16, 2015 at 3:48 pm”
I bet “Wake Up” is the same person, or with the same group of people, who have been trolling here for years. They are probably posting as a part of some government troll program somewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZPYOhrmFR4
Jim said at 2:56:
“I say:
You are obviously applying your own conclusions to what Trump said. NOT exactly what Trump said, but what you WISH he had said. You repeatedly have to re-interpret his statements.”
The quote of what Trump said is everywhere. Why are you continuing to say Trump didn’t say what he said?
This extremely annoying habit of yours of sticking to your guns even though we’ve disproven you several times is getting old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bsPAAy80U
This is what he *actually* said:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” Then he added sarcastically, as if he didn’t believe it, that “Some of them, I assume, are good people.”
Then he *actually* said:
“#JebBush has to like the Mexican Illegals because of his wife.” [who is Mexican]
When a Mexican libertarian economist present at FreedomFest challenged him on these statements, he *actually* said:
“Did the government of Mexico ask you to come up and make this?”
No misrepresentation. No twisting his words. Those are the verbatim quotes. If that’s not bigotry against Mexicans (and/or Mexican immigrants), then like paulie says you’ve defined the concept out of existence.
More broadly, if you’re a libertarian, you’ve almost certainly at some point defended the relatively unpopular libertarian argument against anti-discrimination laws for private businesses, by making the case that voluntary exchange and a free market and public reputation and boycotts, etc., will do better to punish invidious, obnoxious, hateful, or just plain unpopular behavior on the part of businesses, than coercive laws that make martyrs out of bigots. It’s a hard argument to make to non-libertarians, and it has some limitations historically when you’re talking about the era of state-mandated segregation, but as to today I think it’s a valid and important point to make.
However, you can’t make that case, and then cry fowl when businesses change their practices in response to exactly those sorts of voluntary market pressures and changing public opinion. You can’t have it both ways. You wanted free markets, this is a free market in action.
“It is not an outrageous thing to say that government officials lie and engage in conspiracies on a regular basis, because they do.”
We’ve gone round and round on this before, and I don’t really want to go through it all again. I wasn’t trying to marginalize you (people screaming about false-flags in all-caps don’t need any help there), it was just a tongue-in-cheek response to you raising the argument. But you know my view: just because government actors do bad things and break the law and even, yes, conspire to do so, doesn’t mean the automatic kneejerk reaction to declare every tragedy and every political debate a secret false-flag plot is therefore correct.
Sometimes bad things happen, and and just because somebody disagrees with you about how we should react to it doesn’t mean their a dupe of The Conspiracy. I think it’s insulting and arrogant to say that only the enlightened Conspiracy Theorist who sees beyond the Official Story (or whatever term you prefer) is sincere and informed, and everybody else is either a dupe or a shill. It’s pure epistemic closure.
Government isn’t that omnipotent, certainly isn’t that competent, and half the time doesn’t even have the motive being ascribed to it. Do you really think the CIA or Illuminati or whoever else gave a damn about the neoconfederate flag flying at state capitols? Or is the idea is that it was done just to give a fleeting distraction from “real” issues? In which case you might as well say the same about the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, American Idol, the NFL, or anything else that gets news coverage that might otherwise hypothetically go to what we consider more important topics.
”
Gene Berkman
July 16, 2015 at 3:29 pm
Yes, slavery existed under the American flag, but it also ended under the American flag. Slavery existed for the entire duration of the Confederate States of America, and the CSA constitution specifically prohibited any state from ending it.”
The Confederate Constitution also BANNED the importation of slaves from outside the Confederacy. So they actually did not want more slaves. Also, there were actually free blacks who lived in the Confederacy.
A more important point here is that the Confederacy only lasted for a few years, it was not given the time to develop. It is quite possible that if given the time to develop, they would have eventually ended chattel slavery, particularly after inventions like the cotton gin came along.
Other countries ended chattel slavery without a war. There is no reason the same thing could not have happened here.
You neglected to address all of the other atrocities that I mentioned that have happened under the American flag, and you also neglected to address the fact that racist groups like the KKK have used the American flag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBhfHhFekHc
Viva Trump. Stop justifying genocide!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLoLufziqSo
Are your CSA comments on the right thread, Gene?
Yes, slavery existed under the American flag, but it also ended under the American flag. Slavery existed for the entire duration of the Confederate States of America, and the CSA constitution specifically prohibited any state from ending it.
Regardless of whether President Lincoln or others intended to end slavery, the fact is that the 13th Amendment was passed to end slavery after the defeat of the slaveholder’s rebellion.
The continual attempt to claim the slaveholder’s rebellion was some kind of fight for freedom, against centralized power, reflects badly on those who make this argument. It makes such people appear to be dishonest, with an axe to grind, or just uneducated.
I do.
I really have to laugh at you! You said:
“Jim, you keep insisting that Trump didn’t mean “all or most” immigrants are rapists”, and so on. Where did he say that’s not what he meant? You’re pretending that he didn’t say what he said.”
I say:
I think I said that Trump didn’t SAY “all or most immigrants are rapists”. You have so distorted things, above, that I think we all need to stop and have a good laugh.
As for your nonsense, “Where did he say that’s not what he meant?” It sounds like you’re suggesting that every time some biased journalist (or citizen) makes a false representation of something Trump said, well then Trump had better deny it or somehow it becomes true!
Also for your (even worse) statement, you said:
“You’re pretending that he didn’t say what he said.”
I have no problem at all with what Trump ACTUALLY said on the illegal alien subject. I am objecting to the repeated misrepresentations of what he said. How many more times must I say that?
Elvis stole the confederate flag for a gay marriage honeymoon on board the Titanic. Or was it the USS Liberty?
“Andy Craig Post author
July 16, 2015 at 2:11 pm
They false flag’d the false flag?
Also, Elvis didn’t do no drugs and the Titanic was an insurance scam. Unless you believe the Official Story (*dun dun dunnnn*)”
Typical Andy Craig reaction. Marginalize anyone who questions an official government story and then erect a straw man argument, and he sticks his fingers in his ears and runs away while shouting, “Conspiracy theorist! Conspiracy theorist! Conspiracy theorist!”
What do you know about Operation Northwoods?
What do you know about Operation Mockingbird?
What do you know about the sinking of the USS Liberty?
What do you know about Operation Fast and Furious (which just happened recently)?
It is not an outrageous thing to say that government officials lie and engage in conspiracies on a regular basis, because they do.
I’m not the one who has to reinterpret his statements. Pretty much everyone understands what he meant, except that you are trying to find some escape hatch which does not exist.
You said:
“When Mexico sends its people,” Trump said during his presidential announcement, “they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, …””
“How is it not obvious that he is referring to a large percentage with that statement? The only other reasonable interpretation is that he means 100%. After all, he’s not even sure whether any of them are good people.”
I say:
You are obviously applying your own conclusions to what Trump said. NOT exactly what Trump said, but what you WISH he had said. You repeatedly have to re-interpret his statements.
Why continue to make statements that I already addressed? The totality of his first statement was more than sufficient, and he made many others within a very short time frame after that,
I said:
“It is as if you are saying, ‘A racist person might decide to be against illegal immigration, so therefore I will conclude that anybody who is against illegal immigration must be a racist’.”
You said:
“Nope. Trump’s statements are being judged in their totality, not just simply because he is “against illegal immigration” (which all the other clown car full of Republican presidential contenders are as well).”
Yet another “Nonsense!” And I can prove it. Check out Google Trends, specifically for ‘Trump racist’:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=trump%20racist&date=today%203-m&cmpt=date&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B7
Notice that the results are flat (at zero, for at least 60 days, and probably months longer) up until and including June 15, 2015. The next day the results went to “24”, and the day after that, they went to “57”. (Eventually, they peaked at “100”, on July 1.)
So NO! Trump was clearly NOT being labelled ‘racist based on the ‘totality’ of his statements during the days or weeks after that. He was being labelled a racist on the very first day of his speech. This means that those persons doing that labelling were ready, willing, and able to apply that label without regard to the actual display of any genuine ‘racism’.
So, paulie, stop the ‘totality’ nonsense. Thanks to Google Trends, your allies have uncovered themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4HeY1Krw-Y
Damn dastardly flaggots!
No flag has killed anyone. The nazi flag didn’t kill anyone either. It was just a rallying banner for people who did, just as the neoconfederate flag has been. And yes, attitudes are shifting, sometimes faster than at other times.
Of course it should be, and I never said or implied otherwise. I also don’t want to ban anyone from buying a neoconfederate or nazi flag either. Now with that stipulation, once again: Should we be sad that blackface minstrel shows and sambo dolls are not as popular as they once were, too?
Some people do.
You keep saying that, but who are you arguing against? No one here has said otherwise. Some of us are saying that it shouldn’t be flown at state capitols or as part of state flags or in any way that identifies it as a symbol of the state government. Some of us aren’t sad that some businesses choose to no longer be associated with it. That is all.
Yet you are the one who keeps saying them even though no one has been saying otherwise.
More red herrings. That argument was more than adequately addressed in the Baldwin flag thread.
Don’t be dense.
“When Mexico sends its people,” Trump said during his presidential announcement, “they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, …”
How is it not obvious that he is referring to a large percentage with that statement? The only other reasonable interpretation is that he means 100%. After all, he’s not even sure whether any of them are good people.
I still don’t know what “system” you are talking about.
You can use the blockquote tag: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_blockquote.asp
Nested blockquote: http://dev.fyicenter.com/faq/xhtml/Nested-blockquote-Elements.html
Or for example
P: “….”
JB: “…….”
P2: “………”
JB2: “…………”
It doesn’t matter what you use as long as it’s consistent and makes it easy to identify who said what.
Of course other comments can be posted while you are replying. You can refer to a comment by timestamp, for exampe “Jim July 16, 2015 at 12:06 pm”
They false flag’d the false flag?
Also, Elvis didn’t do no drugs and the Titanic was an insurance scam. Unless you believe the Official Story (*dun dun dunnnn*)
“robert capozzi
July 16, 2015 at 1:43 pm
A, this is new for me. Do you believe that 2A applies to minors?”
What is new to you? The story I told about my father buying a rifle and ammunition on his own and riding home with it on his bicycle happened back in like 1959. That is not new. That was a long time ago. This did not happen in rural area either, it was in the suburbs of a major city.
Jim, you keep insisting that Trump didn’t mean “all or most” immigrants are rapists”, and so on. Where did he say that’s not what he meant? You’re pretending that he didn’t say what he said.
Paul said: “So maybe the real complaint here is not what networks and retailers are doing but the change in public attitudes?”
I don’t think that there really is a change in public attitudes. There was no problem with the Confederate flag. This is a case of a vocal minority throwing a tantrum over a STAGED FALSE FLAG SHOOTING INCIDENT. Yeah, that’s right, the Charleston shooting was another false flag, and I would not be a bit surprised if this entire controversy about the Confederate flag was a part of the operation.
Even if you believe the official story about the Charleston church shooting story, this is still no reason for the jihad against the Confederate flag. Going after the Confederate flag accomplishes nothing. The flag did not kill anyone. Millions of people have seen Confederate flags and it did not cause them to kill anyone. If people want to go after something, how about going after the psychiatric drugs? Notice a pattern that all of these people who do crazy shit all are on psychiatric drugs? Why don’t they go after the psychiatric industry?
“Should we be sad that blackface minstrel shows and sambo dolls are not as popular as they once were, too?”
If people wanted to purchase those things, that is their right.
It sure seems like it has been made OK to make fun of “rednecks” and “hillbillies” and “trailer park trash” and nobody complains about that.
The Confederate flag should most definitely be flown and/or displayed at historic sites, markers, and memorials. If I go to Fort Sumter, Antietam, the birth place of Robert E. Lee, Gettysburg, or some other place that has something to do with the Civil War, than dammit, I expect to see Confederate flags there. The Confederate flag should also be displayed at Civil War graveyards. Also, if a private individual wants to own and fly, or display in some other way, a Confederate flag, be it on a flag pole or a beach towel or a bikini or a hat or a t-shirt or a bumper sticker or a coffee mug, or whatever, they should be free to do so.
These things should not even be a controversy, and it is sad that I should even have to make these points, as they should all go without saying.
One could just as easily say that the American flag is racist since slavery existed under the American flag. Slave ships flew the American flag. Only white men could vote for the first several decades of American history. American Indians were run off of their land and murdered under the American flag. Japanese-Americans were put in detention centers under the American flag (while German and Italian Americans did not get this treatment). Racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan have used the American flag.
So if some people want to force the Confederate flag to be taken down from historic sites, markers, and memorials, and pressure retailers from selling the Confederate flag and individuals from displaying it because it is “racist,” then the exact same things can be said about the American flag.
Now I personally do not care that much about any flags, but I am a history buff, and I also believe in free speech and freedom of expression.
“Sorry, but you’ll have to find a more consistent way of quoting if I am to continue discussing anything with you. The way you are doing it makes it too confusing to follow who said what. I think Trump’s words quoted above speak clearly for themselves and it’s a mystery to me how anyone is having a hard time seeing what he plainly meant. The many things he has said since then only reinforce my interpretation. And no, I will not spend time trying to track down a bunch of them for you; you know how to do that yourself.”
Sorry, but I’m new and this system is confusing and opaque, compared with anything else I’ve ever used. I click on a message, trying to construct a reply, and I am presented not merely with the message I wanted to reply to, but also to dozens of messages, and it isn’t clear how to separate the message I THOUGHT I was replying to from the others I am seeing. I do what I can: I ‘copy’ a segment of text, and ‘paste’ it into the reply.
However, I just tried doing a Google search on ‘trump percentage’ and so far all the results are merely poll results. I do not recall Trump ever using any form of ‘percent’ in regards to the number of illegals. I think what’s really going on is that you WANT Trump to have said something like, ‘a large percentage of illegals are criminals’, but I simply don’t recall any such specific claim.
In what year did they stop changing or have they always been the same?
Sure, we were better off when women could be ordered by judges to return to abusive husbands, when “sodomy” was outlawed, when non-smokers had to breathe second hand smoke virtually anywhere in public, when segregation was legal and widely prevalent, when government schools routinely taught (supposedly) Christian religion and prayers…oh, if only we could go back to those good old days.
A, this is new for me. Do you believe that 2A applies to minors?
“Andy Craig Post author
July 16, 2015 at 12:57 pm
Wal-Mart won’t sell DVDs of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! with the uncensored title on the cover. Doesn’t seem to be a problem.
That tastes and opinions and social mores change over time isn’t oppression, it’s inevitable.”
I don’t think that the tastes or opinions have changed, I just think that the level of being a crybaby, and the amount of giving into crybabies, is what has changed.
Heck, I remember the good old days when kids regularly went out unattended by adults, and when kids could run around with BB guns and sling shots and bow & arrows, and back when kids could shoot off fireworks (firecrackers, M-80’s, bottle rockets, etc…).
Now, if a kid goes outside with a toy gun, the police get called on them. There have been cases when people have called the police on kids for playing in their own backyards when their parents are not out there monitoring them every second.
My father said that when he was 12, he rode his bicycle to a pawn shop, and bought a rifle (a real rifle, not a toy or a BB gun), and he also bought some ammunition, and he put the ammunition in a basket on the front of his bicycle, and he put the rifle across the handle bars of his bicycle, and he rode home with it. He lived in the metropolitan are of a major city which is now a mecca for gun control, but at the time that he was kid that area had more freedom than it does now.
Now can you imagine what would happen if a 12 year old bought a gun at a pawn shop today, and rode home with it on their bicycle. A SWAT Team would get called in, the kid would get arrested and placed in a juvenile detention center, or the kid might even get shot. The kid’s parents would likely get arrested, or their house would get raided. The police would also raid the pawn shop, and the owner of the pawn shop would likely go to jail, and the pawn shop would be put out of business.
Yeah, America has had some changes, and most of those changes are not for the better.
Oh what horrors! You mean they wanted to make more money, and felt pressure to not offend customers who shop at the same retailers that market their music or buy other music from the same record companies, etc?
Yeah, I think they would do just fine. And yes, people can listen to music online. Bands still make money from merchandise and concert tickets etc. For that matter there are bands marketing their own music online. They can be as controversial and outrageous as they want to be if there is no middleman, plus keep 100% of everything they make.
Times change. Not necessarily a bad thing.
Luckily, nowdays it could be put on youtube and if the audience demand is large enough – and for some youtube shows it is – they could have just as many viewers as anything on network TV. Plus total content control. And if youtube starts policing content too heavily, there are any number of alternative tube sites.
So maybe the real complaint here is not what networks and retailers are doing but the change in public attitudes?
Should we be sad that blackface minstrel shows and sambo dolls are not as popular as they once were, too?
Jim,
Sorry, but you’ll have to find a more consistent way of quoting if I am to continue discussing anything with you. The way you are doing it makes it too confusing to follow who said what. I think Trump’s words quoted above speak clearly for themselves and it’s a mystery to me how anyone is having a hard time seeing what he plainly meant. The many things he has said since then only reinforce my interpretation. And no, I will not spend time trying to track down a bunch of them for you; you know how to do that yourself.
As for who will win in court – that’s up to the court. We shall see. I’m not an attorney and I don’t play one on the internet. Even if I was an attorney or felt like playing one, again, as far as I know, the contracts in question are not publicly available.
“Don’t just say “a lot more than that”. Be specific, if you can be.”
“I already have been. He’s clearly said, over and over again, that a large percentage of immigrants are rapists and murderers, and that they are being intentionally sent here by foreign governments. These are lies, and I have linked the refutations of these lies. Not my fault if you haven’t followed the links.”
I think you have simply INVENTED the portion about the “large percentage”. Support that, if you can.
You forget that such clauses eventually will end up in court.
I didn’t forget it. I said it explicitly and more than once.
“No such egregious event has occurred,”
“Disagreed, but again, whether it has or not will be decided in the courts, which are the appropriate venue to decide whether a contract has been violated if the parties involved can’t come to an agreement.”
I find it absolutely impossible to believe that any ‘morals-clause’ type challenge (by those who contracted with Trump’s organizations) can be sustained by the claim that Trump criticized illegal aliens.
AHA! I see you’re giving up! You know there’s a contract, and you’ve claimed that it probably contains a clause that would allow the non-Trump parties to run away for virtually any reason they like. But you won’t identify what it is, or give examples of such clauses that would do such a thing.
Giving what up? If you feel that strongly about it, you dig up the contract and prove they violated it.
No, it’s YOU who are claiming that the clause exists, and it defends your position. I say, to the contrary, that no such clause would justify any organization from violating a contract based on the allegation that Trump’s speech had violated it. The burden of proof is on you to support your side.
“‘paulie
July 16, 2015 at 12:47 pm
I just went on YouTube and found that Alabama album cover I referred to in the post above. It is a good thing that Alabama did not come out with this album today, because in this age of “Political Correctness” there’d probably be a big controversy about the album and there’d be pressure put on retailers like Walmart, K-Mart, Amazon, etc…, to not sell it unless they change the cover art.’
Nonsense. They would sell it online, at their concerts, through smaller retailers, etc. There are way more ways to sell nowadays than there were then. And even back then there were many places to sell a product beyond just the few biggest retailers. If there’s a demand it will be met. New technology has made it even easier to do that.”
I have heard of cases where bands had to change album cover art due to pressure.
Having said this, yeah, if that Alabama album came out today, they could probably still find ways to sell it, and who knows, maybe the controversy might even help boost album sales (although music album sales are down in general, due to people being able to listen to music online).
Album sales was not really so much the point of my comment, but rather to show that putting a Confederate flag on an album cover did not really create a controversy back then, but doing it now would create a big shit fit.
There was even a popular TV show back then about a couple of guys were cousins who drove a fast car in rural Georgia (although the show was actually filmed in southern California), and they would regularly get in high speed chases with the police, and the car had a big Confederate flag on it and was nicknamed The General Lee, and they had a hot female cousin who worked as a waitress at a bar and wore these really short cut off jeans. All three of them lived with their uncle who was an ex-moonshiner.
Just imagine if somebody came out with a TV show like that today. There’d be protests against it and it would be taken off the air.
Wal-Mart won’t sell DVDs of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! with the uncensored title on the cover. Doesn’t seem to be a problem.
That tastes and opinions and social mores change over time isn’t oppression, it’s inevitable. Of course present and future generations won’t see all art and symbols and historical events in the same light that we do, or as past generations did. Some things we find offensive they won’t, and vice versa. I’ll leave it to the reactionary conservatives to “stand athwart history yelling stop!” I much prefer “… and we welcome the diversity that freedom brings.”
Yes, clearly we are dealing with some real determination to see things one way here. I’m either forgetting that such cases end up in court, or if I am not forgetting it then I am giving up. Huh?
Nonsense. They would sell it online, at their concerts, through smaller retailers, etc. There are way more ways to sell nowadays than there were then. And even back then there were many places to sell a product beyond just the few biggest retailers. If there’s a demand it will be met. New technology has made it even easier to do that.
There’s a pretty easy counter-point to the “he’s just being blacklisted for criticizing illegal immigration!” – and that would be the hundreds if not thousands of other prominent GOP politicians who are also against immigration and manage to campaign against illegal immigration, without saying such blatantly racist things and getting in trouble for it. Whether they should get such a pass for better tuning their dog whistles is debatable, but none of them get the persona non grata treatment that Trump has brought upon himself. Somehow all of the umpteen other candidates except Trump manage, more or less, to stay on the right side of that line.
But then they don’t do things like attack another candidate for having a Mexican wife.
I addressed the morals/reputation clause in detail at @1:35am, including an example of one. If he really wanted an explanation of how those work, it’s right there.
The only reason anybody has to believe there was a contractual violation, is because Donald Trump says so. Which is meaningful only to those somehow still inclined to believe Donald Trump.
Because what he initially said, which has been reproduced above, was already such outrageous racist trash, which he has only added to since then.
Jill knows me too well 🙂
I already have been. He’s clearly said, over and over again, that a large percentage of immigrants are rapists and murderers, and that they are being intentionally sent here by foreign governments. These are lies, and I have linked the refutations of these lies. Not my fault if you haven’t followed the links.
I didn’t forget it. I said it explicitly and more than once.
Disagreed, but again, whether it has or not will be decided in the courts, which are the appropriate venue to decide whether a contract has been violated if the parties involved can’t come to an agreement.
Giving what up? If you feel that strongly about it, you dig up the contract and prove they violated it. I am OK with letting the people who are trained and paid to handle the issue do so. Maybe if someone pays me to, and presents me with the contract (as far as I know it is not public) I could ignore my lack of legal training and try to analyze it. As it is I have better things to do.
No idea what you are talking about. Gay =/= child molester.
So you want an organization where everyone, including the adults involved, never mentions any sexual orientation, gay or straight, and is never outed as having one? Good luck.
I just went on YouTube and found that Alabama album cover I referred to in the post above. It is a good thing that Alabama did not come out with this album today, because in this age of “Political Correctness” there’d probably be a big controversy about the album and there’d be pressure put on retailers like Walmart, K-Mart, Amazon, etc…, to not sell it unless they change the cover art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quAFMC53lSo
“It is as if you are saying, ‘A racist person might decide to be against illegal immigration, so therefore I will conclude that anybody who is against illegal immigration must be a racist’.
”
“Nope. Trump’s statements are being judged in their totality, not just simply because he is “against illegal immigration” (which all the other clown car full of Republican presidential contenders are as well).”
Nonsense. I think the record will show that Trump was being called a ‘racist’ from virtually the moment (recently) he came publicly down on the side against illegal aliens. Nobody waited for ‘a totality’ of what he eventually said to appear. They decided to apply PC instantly, and at that point to declare one’s opposition to illegal aliens automatically merited the ‘racist’ label.
Note: That was probably dependent, however, on the stature of the particular candidate. Some relatively unknown candidate, at least a Republican, could probably have said the same thing and few people would have bothered with that.
Paul said: “Boo hoo. There are still plenty of places to buy confederate flags (which BTW are making a ton of money right now).”
I worked on a petition drive in Washington back in 2003 where they had a different concert at the fair every night (they had several different genres of music). One night the country band Alabama played (Alabama had a big hit album back around 1982 that featured a big Confederate flag on the cover). The fair had several gates where I gathered petition signatures, but one of them was on this street that was closed off, and on this closed off street was a husband and wife duo that would travel around for several months out of the year working the fair circuit. They would sell various items from t-shirts to buttons to stuffed animals to bottled water to etc…. The day that Alabama played they showed up with a bunch of Confederate flags, and they sold every one of them (these people must have been making a killing). I thought it was kind of funny seeing a bunch of people in Washington, which is far away from the former Confederate States of America, waving around Confederate flags. This was especially so because years before this, I lived in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and I remember hearing about Alabama because they used to regularly perform at this bar in Myrtle Beach called The Bowery.
Paulie’s giving up? Guess again.
My reply inline:
“Like I said, I see no reason for Scouts to declare their sexuality. If they do, kick’em out.”
“So if someone finds out they are straight they should be kicked out? Seems a bit difficult, especially for adult leaders, and even kids.”
Not all all. Not ‘more difficult’ than allowing out gays to join the Scouts.
“It’s a private organization; they can make their own rules.”
“Which they can also change. What’s the problem again?”
They’ve been displaying their irrationality. I want nothing to do with them. Consider insurance: Groups such as this must obtain liability insurance, to pay off the legal judgments that will follow. How much do you think that will increase now? If YOU were an insurance company, and assuming you weren’t inclined to engage in charity, what amount of insurance premium would now be appropriate? Worse, when a civil case previously came, they were able to say, “we didn’t know he [fill in the blank]. Now, however, they KNOW. No excuse is possible.
“If you’re suggesting that it could violate any conceivable “reputation and good conduct clause” to criticize illegal aliens for violating the laws,
“Once again, Trump did and is continuing to do a lot more than that.”
Don’t just say “a lot more than that”. Be specific, if you can be. I’ve heard him criticize illegal aliens, in part because some of them commit crimes. (other than the crime of illegally entering America.) Explain exactly what is wrong with this position. Then explain why a person taking that position is automatically to be labelled a ‘racist’.
“But such a clause cannot be turned into…”
“It can be turned into whatever they want, as in “we don’t want to associate with you and your fucked up views, so goodbye.””
You forget that such clauses eventually will end up in court. Sure, hypothetically a contract could be written that allows either side to withdraw at any time, for any reason. (you imply that this is the case). But that would be quite rare in the business world, and it certainly wouldn’t apply to a heavily-produced, once a year show. Nobody is going to proceed without some reassurance that the other party (parties) are generally obliged to fulfill their part of the deal, absent some egregious event. No such egregious event has occurred, except in the fevered imagination of some PC shill.
Show me one and let’s see what it says.
Leave that to the judges and lawyers. They get paid to handle that shit for a reason.
AHA! I see you’re giving up! You know there’s a contract, and you’ve claimed that it probably contains a clause that would allow the non-Trump parties to run away for virtually any reason they like. But you won’t identify what it is, or give examples of such clauses that would do such a thing.
Yes, and the point of bringing this up is? Murray Rothbard voted for Strom Thurmond, but even he acknowledge that very few Jews in NYC did… in fact, he even said that as far as he knew he was the only one.
“paulie
July 16, 2015 at 10:36 am
‘I know a Mexican-American guy in California who likes Donald Trump’s rhetoric.’
Of course you do. That’s why I said many, not any.
It’s called pull up the ladder mentality and is not unknown among immigrant groups.”
The Mexican-American guy I am referring to is also a fan of Pat Buchanan.
You said, “Posting here as the thread has already been hijacked: Are there any plans for a video feed from the next LNC meeting? We have a group whose finances are crumbling, whose response was to hire more staff members, and whose agenda when last I saw it (may have changed) seems to take no notice of this issue. You might think that some member or alternate will say something about this.”
Please explain.
Very well put!
Bingo!
The bevy of offensive things said to LGBT people on a regular basis drive up their suicide rate.
Boo hoo. There are still plenty of places to buy confederate flags (which BTW are making a ton of money right now). There are even places you can buy nazi flags. If certain retailers stop selling them, that is their right, and coincidentally an increased business opportunity for others.
So if someone finds out they are straight they should be kicked out? Seems a bit difficult, especially for adult leaders, and even kids.
Which they can also change. What’s the problem again?
Once again, Trump did and is continuing to do a lot more than that.
It can be turned into whatever they want, as in “we don’t want to associate with you and your fucked up views, so goodbye.”
Leave that to the judges and lawyers. They get paid to handle that shit for a reason.
Depends on what you mean by political.
Posting here as the thread has already been hijacked: Are there any plans for a video feed from the next LNC meeting? We have a group whose finances are crumbling, whose response was to hire more staff members, and whose agenda when last I saw it (may have changed) seems to take no notice of this issue. You might think that some member or alternate will say something about this.
Some people just have a natural victim mentality, like all the people who are worried that they will lose their religious freedom because gay marriage is legal now, or that their straight marriages will somehow suffer as a result.
Nope. Trump’s statements are being judged in their totality, not just simply because he is “against illegal immigration” (which all the other clown car full of Republican presidential contenders are as well).
Of course you do. That’s why I said many, not any.
It’s called pull up the ladder mentality and is not unknown among immigrant groups.
However, a lot more of them realize that they themselves will be subject to the prejudice that he is helping flame (for that matter I have been too, because some people incorrectly assume I am Latino). Or because they have family that have yet to immigrate. So no, his rhetoric will not appeal to a lot of them, only to a few.
Of course it is. And when they fan the flames of hatred to make themselves more popular no one should pretend that is not what they are doing.
I don’t edit wikipedia articles, but if I did, I could spend many days on that one alone.
Then they’ll pay damages, but I don’t know if they violated it or not. In any case they have a right not to associate with him. Or with the duck dynasty people (who are back and made a lot of money as a result) or anyone else that spouts bigoted garbage.
I don’t see any reason for them to hide and pretend.
Bullshit.
Just because wikipedia only cites two examples does not mean there aren’t plenty of others; there are.
Trying to define racism out of existence, for example. Or saying that Trump is “only trying to eforce the laws” when he claims millions of people are rapists and murderers and being sent here deliberately by a foreign government, with no evidence. Or how about the “war on Christmas”? If individuals, government agencies or companies finally notice that not everyone is a Christian and start wishing people a more generic happy holidays, how is that a war on Christianity? Or take those yellow ribbon and armbands (please)….most of these people are doing nothing whatsoever to support the troops, especially the ones who come home physically and/or psychologically damaged; what they really mean is that they support the war. Examples of right wing PC are everywhere, and you’d have to be pretty unobserant to think they are rare.
@Jill Pyeatt
Well put.
I don’t even follow how me referencing LGBT teen suicides is offensive to William, but saying teens who “declare their sexuality” (whatever that means) should be “kicked out” of the Scouts is apparently not only not a problem, but shouldn’t even be criticized. With one of the most prominent actual reasons that policy was changed. Unlibertarian and anti-freedom of me to say such a thing, even!
“Mexican are rapists and gays should be ostracized and Jefferson Davis was awesome!”
“Wow, that’s really stupid and bigoted.”
“Oh my god! Stop being so PC! Freedom of speech, man!”
Wrapping a demand to silence criticism, in a plea of freedom of speech. “I can say whatever I want, how dare you respond with words and thoughts of your own!” Sounds…. kind of like political correctness. But since we’ve been assured by Jim that right-wing PC is such a rare to non-existent thing, surely that couldn’t be the case.
William, you’re trying to deny that human beings have reactions to things. If not through words, than how can people communicate? Since people don’t think alike, sometimes another person or a group of persons is hurt or upset by those words. That is a valid human reaction. You seem to be denying the ability of people to react to words. That’s absurd.
Also, I’m glad you have no gay children or siblings. If you did, you would know that many gay children are so harmed by another’s words that they commit suicide. Of course that other person has a right to say what he or she wants to, and of course they can pretend there are no consequences. But, do you really want to live in a world where no one has feelings? Well, if you do, that doesn’t matter, because that’s not reality. The people around you do have feelings.
Is it not compassionate for someone else to avoid saying something he or she knows will hurt someone else?
This is how civilized people act. This is how considerate people act.
It’s sad that mere words can have such a consequence. There is a problem when society treats the expression of opinions with such disdain. All it takes is for someone to take offense to what someone else says and suddenly the pitchforks go up and the mob mentality takes hold. Someone says something offensive to gays and suddenly they are causing gay suicides. This is ridiculous. This mindset is dangerous to the marketplace of ideas. Yes, good ideas live and bad ideas die, but there is a major difference between convincing and silencing:
Convincing: “your opinion is logically defective because it makes generalizations about a certain group of people.”
Silencing: “Stop saying that! You are causing gay suicides!”
This is a major problem and it won’t stop until everyone has the same thoughts and opinions on everything. It’s conform or die. This restricts freedom and is unlibertarian.
For example:
The mob (which may include the federal government http://www.infowars.com/amazon-staff-government-ordered-us-not-to-sell-confederate-flag/) says: “The Confederate battle flag is bad. Therefore, we will boycott all places that sell it until the flag is no longer sold or manufactured.”
The shopper says: “I want to buy a Confederate battle flag to show my Southern pride. Why must those offended by it make it more difficult for me to do so?”
There’s probably a better example, but that’s what’s on my mind at the moment.
“Like I said, I see no reason for Scouts to declare their sexuality. If they do, kick’em out. It’s a private organization; they can make their own rules.”
So you think Boy Scouts who have a girlfriend or ever reference their heterosexuality should be kicked out? Or is it only “declaring your sexuality” if they’re not straight?
And yes, they are a private organization that can make their own rules. Which is what they have done- deciding that your desired rule is idiotic, cruel, unpopular, unworkable, and in conflict with the values the organization claims to represent and support.
“So let’s boycott the Scouts.”
You can if you want, if not driving LGBT teenagers to suicide through public humiliation really offends you that much.
“If you’re suggesting that it could violate any conceivable “reputation and good conduct clause” to criticize illegal aliens for violating the laws, you’re nuttier than a fruitcake.
But such a clause cannot be turned into (after the fact) some general “PC-enforcement” requirement, which you are trying to do.”
It covers any views the network doesn’t want to be associated with, and publicly saying bigoted and racist things is in fact the archetypal example of what is covered by such contracts.
As someone might say, they’re a private organization, they can make their own rules.
We don’t have the exact contract, since that hasn’t been published so far as I could find. That’s pretty typical, so we all we really have are dueling claims by NBC and Trump, and I know which I find less credible.
But here’s the classic example of such a clause: “The actor (actress) agrees to conduct himself (herself) with due regard to public conventions and morals and agrees that he (she) will not do or commit anything tending to degrade him (her) in society or bring him (her) into public hatred, contempt, scorn or ridicule, or tending to shock, insult or offend the community or outrage public morals or decency, or tending to the prejudice of the Universal Film Manufacturing Company or the motion picture industry. In the event that the actor (actress) violates any term or provision of this paragraph, then the Universal Film Manufacturing Company has the right to cancel and annul this contract by giving five (5) days’ notice to the actor (actress) of its intention to do so.”
Trump is claiming “They have no termination rights whatsoever” – which is absolutely absurd. If such a contract even existed, it wouldn’t be valid. No exit clause specifying termination damages, then there’s no valid contract and either party can walk away without damages. The amount he’s suing Univision for ($500 million) is ridiculously implausible.
“Show me one and let’s see what it says. And are you assuming such a clause is the basis those companies are ACTUALLY using to disassociate themselves from Trump? I think you’re merely assuming that.”
See above for an example. As for NBC’s reasons, the exact justification they gave was: “Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBCUniversal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump.”
They wouldn’t have specified a cause in their official statement, unless that was the cause they were comfortable defending in court. If they had in fact fired him for other reasons, saying that would open them up to a defamation complaint.
Here’s an interesting take:
https://tucker.liberty.me/trumpism-the-ideology/?utm_source=Liberty.me&utm_campaign=3d425e9cb8-2015_07_15_Article_Feature_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ecad00b597-3d425e9cb8-139753281
I think you’re misrepresenting what I think, and what I said. Try again.
Jim, you’re acting like Trump said something like: “I know many undocumented human beings are good people,including, the fine folks from Mexico, but of course there are a few who manage to sneak in who have criminal backgrounds, and might also commit crimes here. We need to screen somehow so that only the good ones can get in, and only after they’ve achieved legal status.”
That’s not what he said.
My reply inline:
“That is not what the policy was about. I don’t know where you got that idea, but the Scouts aren’t requiring anybody to “declare” anything. It’s about not kicking people out for being out (or outed).
Like I said, I see no reason for Scouts to declare their sexuality. If they do, kick’em out. It’s a private organization; they can make their own rules.
“They changed the policy for Scouts a while back, now they expanded it to include not having a ban on gay adult leaders.:”:
So let’s boycott the Scouts.
“Yes, it WAS! Those companies actually violated their contracts with Trump. They do not have any of my sympathy.”
“Just like with A&E and the Duck Dynasty guy, all such entertainment personality contracts with TV networks come with an open-ended reputation and good conduct clause.”
If you’re suggesting that it could violate any conceivable “reputation and good conduct clause” to criticize illegal aliens for violating the laws, you’re nuttier than a fruitcake.
” They aren’t obligated to maintain their relationship with somebody who jumps the shark and says things they don’t want to be associated with.”
But such a clause cannot be turned into (after the fact) some general “PC-enforcement” requirement, which you are trying to do.
” That’s standard for such contracts- same with endorsement deals. You won’t find a show-biz contract that doesn’t have such a clause.”
Show me one and let’s see what it says. And are you assuming such a clause is the basis those companies are ACTUALLY using to disassociate themselves from Trump? I think you’re merely assuming that.
“Yikes! Trump is a CANDIDATE! And you mind that he ‘make[s] himself an object of political debate’. That’s what candidates do!”
“So then why complain that criticisms of him and reactions to him are “political”?”
I’m saying they are ONLY political.
“Myself, I don’t see any basis for a Scout to declare his sexualilty, and certainly not at the point he begins Scouting.”
That is not what the policy was about. I don’t know where you got that idea, but the Scouts aren’t requiring anybody to “declare” anything. It’s about not kicking people out for being out (or outed). They changed the policy for Scouts a while back, now they expanded it to include not having a ban on gay adult leaders.
“Yes, it WAS! Those companies actually violated their contracts with Trump. They do not have any of my sympathy.”
Just like with A&E and the Duck Dynasty guy, all such entertainment personality contracts with TV networks come with an open-ended reputation and good conduct clause. They aren’t obligated to maintain their relationship with somebody who jumps the shark and says things they don’t want to be associated with. That’s standard for such contracts- same with endorsement deals. You won’t find a show-biz contract that doesn’t have such a clause.
“Yikes! Trump is a CANDIDATE! And you mind that he ‘make[s] himself an object of political debate’. That’s what candidates do!”
So then why complain that criticisms of him and reactions to him are “political”?
“Well, tell you what: You can edit the Wikipedia article, if you know of media references to ‘right wing politically-correct’ events.”
I’ll leave that to people who edit Wikipedia articles to score political points. If you really want more examples, go pick a random date in the past 15 years and start watching the archives of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, et al.
A major error in the position you have taken is this: It is as if you are saying, ‘A racist person might decide to be against illegal immigration, so therefore I will conclude that anybody who is against illegal immigration must be a racist’. Trump has been the victim of this kind of wacky thinking.
If you can’t see that, ask somebody to explain it to you. You probably never took classes in logic and debate in school.
“paulie
July 15, 2015 at 6:18 pm
Yes, because Trump’s current rhetoric will really appeal to a lot of Mexican-American and Asian-American voters. ”
I know a Mexican-American guy in California who likes Donald Trump’s rhetoric.
My response inline:
“I’m fully aware of the history of the phrase. I was talking about the present context, where it is mostly being invoked by conservatives as a catch-all rebuttal to any accusations of bigotry, or just plain rudeness and unprofessionalism.”
Except that if you look at the Wikipedia article ‘Political correctness’, you see a reference to a two examples of what could be called ‘right-wing political correctness’: The Dixie Chicks episode of 2003, and the “freedom fries” thing. I happen to agree that both these examples are quite valid as examples of ‘right wing political correctness’ (I opposed both of them), but I note that there are only two of them. In other words, the right-wing doesn’t turn situations into ‘political correctness’ nearly as often as the left.
“And paulie is right, it’s entirely hypocritical, a one-way charge against anything perceived as being to the left of far-right.
Like I said, it’s only ‘one way’ because the right very rarely engages in ‘right-wing political correctness.’
“Boy Scouts lifting the ban on gays? “Political correctness!” As if the original policy wasn’t in force as an abdication to a noisy minority of right-wing political activists. ”
Myself, I don’t see any basis for a Scout to declare his sexualilty, and certainly not at the point he begins Scouting.
“Donald Trump gets fired by NBC and Univision? “Political correctness!”
Yes, it WAS! Those companies actually violated their contracts with Trump. They do not have any of my sympathy.
“As if Trump’s campaign and his statements had been innocently apolitical, instead of deliberately making himself an object of political debate.”
Yikes! Trump is a CANDIDATE! And you mind that he ‘make[s] himself an object of political debate’. That’s what candidates do!
“That’s why it’s such an incoherent complaint. There are definitely real bits of nonsense and overreach (campus speech codes, trigger warnings, etc.) that get swept in under the label, but as a whole the categorization doesn’t have any real objective meaning, and is pretty far removed from the original context of Marxist student groups and the amusing hair-splitting sectarianism.”
I was disgusted by what later became called ‘political correctness’ in the mid 1970’s.
“And of course, these are the same folks who will happily engage in whatever the latest conservative culture war controversy is, and won’t hesitate to apply political pressure to celebrities or companies that say things that offend *their* politics. Some left-wing professor being “anti-American”? Some pop singer dissing American nationalism or a GOP President? A senior citizen actor criticizing a Supreme Court justice? Somehow none of that counts as “political correctness.” Why not? Because that only applies when lib’ruls do it.”
Well, tell you what: You can edit the Wikipedia article, if you know of media references to ‘right wing politically-correct’ events.
@Jim
I’m fully aware of the history of the phrase. I was talking about the present context, where it is mostly being invoked by conservatives as a catch-all rebuttal to any accusations of bigotry, or just plain rudeness and unprofessionalism.
And paulie is right, it’s entirely hypocritical, a one-way charge against anything perceived as being to the left of far-right. Boy Scouts lifting the ban on gays? “Political correctness!” As if the original policy wasn’t in force as an abdication to a noisy minority of right-wing political activists. Donald Trump gets fired by NBC and Univision? “Political correctness!” As if Trump’s campaign and his statements had been innocently apolitical, instead of deliberately making himself an object of political debate. That’s why it’s such an incoherent complaint. There are definitely real bits of nonsense and overreach (campus speech codes, trigger warnings, etc.) that get swept in under the label, but as a whole the categorization doesn’t have any real objective meaning, and is pretty far removed from the original context of Marxist student groups and the amusing hair-splitting sectarianism.
And of course, these are the same folks who will happily engage in whatever the latest conservative culture war controversy is, and won’t hesitate to apply political pressure to celebrities or companies that say things that offend *their* politics. Some left-wing professor being “anti-American”? Some pop singer dissing American nationalism or a GOP President? A senior citizen actor criticizing a Supreme Court justice? Somehow none of that counts as “political correctness.” Why not? Because that only applies when lib’ruls do it.
What’s nonsense is trying to brush the ugly reality of racism and other forms of bigotry under the rug with hypocritical hand-waving about “political correctness.”
You said:
“Politically correct” is a nonsense phrase selectively invoked by conservatives to shield themselves against criticism. It’s a reflexive trigger to excuse and justify when Republicans say something bigoted and patently offensive, as Trump has. “That’s not racist, it’s just un-PC!”
Actually, if you look at the Wikipedia article for “Political Correctness” you see that it was originally a left-wing ‘in-joke’. See the section “1970’s”:
“Stuart Hall suggests one way in which the original use of the term may have developed into the modern one: “According to one version, political correctness actually began as an in-joke on the left: radical students on American campuses acting out an ironic replay of the Bad Old Days BS (Before the Sixties) when every revolutionary groupuscule had a party line about everything. They would address some glaring examples of sexist or racist behaviour by their fellow students in imitation of the tone of voice of the Red Guards or Cultural Revolution Commissar: ‘Not very “politically correct”, Comrade!'[1″”
[end of quote]
So, you have just alleged that the left produced a “nonsense phrase”.
Well, we must agree: “Politically correct” is nonsense.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/04/29/176584/ron-paul-immigration/
Not exactly. As far as I know, Ron Paul hasn’t made statements about most Mexican immigrants being rapists and murderers, unlike Trump. He hasn’t called for rounding up and deporting millions of people either. I’m not aware of Trump currently backing a “generous visitor work program” either.
As pointed out earlier in the thread, he seems to have changed his positions quite a bit.
Or that it’s true, and Johnson recognizes that.
These days “PC” = not a bigot. And it’s beyond disgusting.
Hear hear! These days, “racist” = “not PC”. And it’s disgusting.
The fact that Johnson would say what he did about Trump’s supporters leads me to believe that he’s at least thinking about having to compete against Trump for votes.
The only big difference between Trump’s and Paul’s positions on immigration is the border wall. Otherwise they are very similar, particularly the focus on enforcing the current laws and the opposition to birthright citizenship.
These are Ron Paul’s positions from http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/:
Some of Trump’s positions can be viewed at http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Immigration.htm, but it hasn’t been updated since 2013.
Trump is a warmonger who appeals to people who are economically illiterate on issues of trade and (im)migration, wants to “preserve” SS and medicaid, and practices eminent domain abuse and crony corporatism. Where’s the overlap with libertarianism there?
No, it’s Gary expressing a real and accurate, honestly held assessment of Trump. The longer version to be released tomorrow will feature his comments on many of the other candidates.
I doubt Trump will run independent but then I didn’t think he would run at all, so who knows. If he doesn’t drop his Republican candidacy before primary ballots are printed at least some states will keep him off the ballot in the general election, as Michigan proved in 2012.
Good riddance to bad rubbish if they think Trump is better.
No, he’s just answering the interviewer’s question. You are way overthinking this one.
There’s a huge difference between Ron Paul’s nuanced border positions and Trump’s, and the only way you can accurately say that Ron Paul holds views anything like Trump’s on border issues is if you think he actually wrote the infamous newsletters.
“Politically correct” is a nonsense phrase selectively invoked by conservatives to shield themselves against criticism. It’s a reflexive trigger to excuse and justify when Republicans say something bigoted and patently offensive, as Trump has. “That’s not racist, it’s just un-PC!”
The fact that liberals and the left agree it’s racist doesn’t magically make it not so.
And to say that Ron Paul’s views on the border are “basically the same” as Trump’s is nonsense. I don’t agree with Ron’s selective pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment either, but he repeatedly rejected mass deportations and a border wall, the two main planks of Trump’s immigration policy (such as actual policy proposal can be identified in Trump’s delusional ravings.)
“This just is desperation by Johnson in preparation for the very real possibility that Donald Trump will mount an Independent candidacy.”
You’re grasping at straws. It was one of several questions he was asked in what was probably a rather long interview covering a wide range of topics. It was reason who thought the segment interesting enough to be its own teaser clip.
Since they were at FF, it would have been more conspicuous if they didn’t discuss Trump’s carnival barker sideshow. Nor is being pro-open-borders some new position for Gary, he’s taken that position and defended immigration and immigrants, back to long before he was in the LP or considering running for President.
It’s politically correct with a certain set of people, some but not necessarily all of whom are racists, to advance this specious claim. Call David Duke a racist and they’ll argue with you.
Nonsense. There’s still plenty of racism, ranging from the open and ugly to the subtle and covert. And it’s not empty rhetoric to call it what it is.
William, I know you’re concerned about “hatespeech”, and I have come to recognize some of your concerns, but the fact is that words have meaning. Trump’s words attributed criminal behavior to a huge group of people. Certainly Trump had the right to say what he did. I, along with millions of others, have the right to react to what he said. My reaction was disgust. Others found it to be hilarious. Others found that Trump’s words echoed their own feelings. You, of course, have your right to react as you wish.
I also disagree that Johnson was reacting as a potential candidate rather than simply as a human being. Neither you nor I can say for sure, without asking Gary.
And lastly, I disagree that Trump has more charisma than Johnson. I don’t think that Trump has no charisma at all.
Being called a racist these days is often empty rhetoric. The term has been devalued to the point that it has become meaningless. Usually (including in this context), the term really means “not politically correct.” It’s off-putting to see Gary Johnson play the PC game here, especially since he is attacking the disaffected working class types that Trump appeals to, i.e. those who may (or did in 2012) consider voting Libertarian because of the party’s foreign policy and economic positions. I doubt Gary Johnson would call Ron Paul a racist when he has basically the same views on the border as Trump. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/.
This just is desperation by Johnson in preparation for the very real possibility that Donald Trump will mount an Independent candidacy. Trump will likely receive more than ten times as many votes as Johnson because he has both money and charisma, which Johnson lacks. Some of these voters may have voted for Johnson but see Trump as a better candidate. Johnson probably understand this and so is basically saying to those voters preemptively that “if you don’t vote for me, you are a racist.” I don’t think this strategy is very effective.
Yes, because Trump’s current rhetoric will really appeal to a lot of Mexican-American and Asian-American voters. It’s so much more appealing than what he was criticizing Republicans for four years ago.
>Dave
>July 15, 2015 at 5:14 pm
>The ironic thing about all this is just three years ago, Trump was chiding the GOP for being >unwelcoming towards Hispanics.
>http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Donald-Trump-Ronald-Kessler/2012/11/26/id/465363/
>“The Republican Party will continue to lose presidential elections if it comes across as
> mean-spirited and unwelcoming toward people of color, Donald Trump tells Newsmax.
Well, I happen to believe that “welcoming towards people of color” and “welcoming towards illegal aliens” are not necessarily the same thing. Unless your position is that Hispanics are inherently racist, and to refuse to give them everything they wants, they will call “racist”.
(Also, I find the use of the PC term, “people of color”, to be a disgusting attempt to suck up to people.) Remember “colored people”?
Exactly!
Jim said: “Sorry, but I see that as a rhetorical fluorish. It’s hard to see how picky it is possible to be in this way. A long-term policy of allowing, even encouraging (by failing to do anything to stop) can be rhetorically described as “sending you…” It doesn’t really change what the reality is. It is picky.”
Picky? How am I being picky? Donald Trump speaks English, and I understand English. He didn’t even use any words that could have been misconstrued.
Trump’s supporters can pretend Trump was right and non-racist. They are wrong on both counts.
He probably won’t be the nominee – like most observers, I think that will be Jeb Bush – but he’ll probably influence the Republican ticket in his direction on issues he is ephasizing the most, especially immigration, and that’s not a good thing.
The ironic thing about all this is just three years ago, Trump was chiding the GOP for being unwelcoming towards Hispanics.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Donald-Trump-Ronald-Kessler/2012/11/26/id/465363/
“The Republican Party will continue to lose presidential elections if it comes across as mean-spirited and unwelcoming toward people of color, Donald Trump tells Newsmax.
Whether intended or not, comments and policies of Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates during this election were seen by Hispanics and Asians as hostile to them, Trump says.
“Republicans didn’t have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians,” the billionaire developer says.
Romney’s solution of “self deportation” for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says.
“He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”
The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump says.”
Now of course, Trump has changed his tune. He realizes the Republican base eats this stuff up. I doubt he’ll be the nominee but it’s a hell of a lot of fun watching him try.
Trump has been asked in quite a few followup interviews to clarify his position and has repeatedly stated that he meant exactly that the Mexican government is intentionally sending violent criminals to the US.
Jim, I’m not sure what you mean by system getting replies out of order, or why it would seem that your reply to Jill was a reply to me. I don’t know what system you mean?
Jill Pyeatt: (yes, I realize that this seems to be a reply for paulie. My system is getting replies out of order. Don’t blame me for that!)
Jim, I’m really surprised you didn’t hear Trump say the words that have caused such a brouhaha (and rightfully so).
Here’s an initial statement, and there are others:
“When Mexico sends its people,” Trump said during his presidential announcement, “they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.”
Sorry, but I see that as a rhetorical fluorish. It’s hard to see how picky it is possible to be in this way. A long-term policy of allowing, even encouraging (by failing to do anything to stop) can be rhetorically described as “sending you…” It doesn’t really change what the reality is. It is picky.
Thanks, Paulie. It’s a little busy at work, and I wouldn’t have had time to look up those links.
I particularly like the “Idiocracy” article.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/13/the-idiocracy-candidate
https://reason.com/blog/2015/07/13/hey-donald-trump-sanctuary-cities-are-sa
http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/06/trump-and-the-myth-of-immigrant-crime
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/30/donald-trump-is-a-blowhard-idiot-especia
Jim, I’m really surprised you didn’t hear Trump say the words that have caused such a brouhaha (and rightfully so).
Here’s an initial statement, and there are others:
“When Mexico sends its people,” Trump said during his presidential announcement, “they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.”
A google search has several other priceless gems regarding Mexico.
I see no reason to make that assumption either. They know they are breaking some regime’s edicts, which doesn’t mean they are doing anything wrong. You of all people should know the difference.
Says who? I am not making any such assumption.
If I migrate illegally to some other country it doesn’t mean I endorse US regime immigration edicts.
As well they should. No victim, no crime. Regime edicts are not necessarily laws in a higher sense.
So what? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
No human being is illegal.
That’s a matter of perception, not reality – they are actually of the human race just like those here already – but that so happens to be why the Trump dog whistle effectively appeals to racists.
He’s not just politically incorrect, he is also factually incorrect.
He said in no uncertain terms that many of them are rapists and murderers and some of them may be good people. See http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/iumigd/slandero-gigante for example.
I am apparently getting replies out of order. Here, I respond inline to something:
paulie
July 15, 2015 at 3:40 pm
>I suppose you realize that’s a fairly rare to take, at least it’s rare that somebody actually comes out and claims it.
“Millions, allegedly tens of millions, of people are doing it, and others like me believe they are not doing anything wrong, so it’s really not all that rare.”
That depends a great deal on the meaning of “believe they are not doing anything wrong”. The fact that people break the law does not automatically mean they “believe they are not doing anything wrong”. They know there’s a law against what they are doing, but they also believe that they can get away with it anyway. The key word is ‘wrong’. Mexico has its own immigration laws, and they are even stricter than America’s. Does Mexico, as a nation (government) take the position that people who enter Mexico without authorization aren’t doing anything ‘wrong’?
I think the illegal Mexicans (and others) know that what they are doing is indeed illegal, and thus considered ‘wrong’ by the American government. They have nothing against Mexico’s own immigration laws, so I think you can’t consistently argue that they don’t realize that what they are doing is ‘wrong’. They think it’s not serious, perhaps.
Neither am I.
Ordinary employment doesn’t say that you’ll be deported (quite possibly to a place where you will be tortured and/or killed) if you quit your job or get fired.
Only if by leftism you mean libertarianism.
No idea what you mean here, but what Trump has repeatedly alleged, without evidence, is that the Mexican government is purposely pushing violent criminals and other similar “undesirables” into the US, similar to what the Cuban government did with the Marielitos. He has been very specific and made this claim repeatedly and has produced no evidence that it is true.
He does a lot more than that.
So what you mean is that I had not prior to that point talked about my prior ideological history in this thread? I hadn’t been asked to, but now that you brought it up, I have. I still don’t see the relevance of me holding other viewpoints in my misguided youth to this discussion.
Millions, allegedly tens of millions, of people are doing it, and others like me believe they are not doing anything wrong, so it’s really not all that rare.
This is to Jill Pyeatt, to your 3:22PM message above. (For some reason, I didn’t get it directly; just saw it in the list due to reading the wedding-ring message above.)
I notice you said, “He said it as if all of them are rapists and murderers.”
I realize that is the way many biased news media people ‘spun’ it, but I never heard such a thing from Trump himself, and I feel certain he is articulate enough and careful enough to not make any such mistake. Even you admit, “”He said it _as_if_ …” In other words, he DIDN’T say it the way the biased people WANT him to have said it. So, they spin it the way they want to spin it, and then they criticize him as if he had said what they wanted him to say.
Trump is simply non-PC, and he is being flailed for that, and that alone.
Also, the only reason anybody can cry ‘racism’ is that a large fraction of the illegals happen to be of a race different from most of those in America already. Trump is not to blame for that demographic. I am quite confident that any person who calls for the strict enforcement of the immigration laws will be automatically labelled as ‘racist’ by the biased media.
Trespass can only occur against a legitimate property owner. By stating that the US regime has a right to enforce “laws” claiming trespass against the US, you are thereby implying that the US regime is the legitimate owner or co-owner of all property within the borders it claims.
Also, Trump doesn’t have a conservative history at all. Why are Republicans embracing him, when his business practices don’t paint a picture of a good Republican? In my view, those supporting him are supporting him because of what he said about Mexicans. That makes them racists in my book.
Jim, we’ve heard what Trump said over and over again. He didn’t qualify his words as meaning “some” illegal immigrants or “a few”. He said it as if all of them are rapists and murderers. If this wasn’t flat-out racism, then I can’t imagine what is.
If the words were changed to “Jews” instead of illegal immigrants or “African Americans”, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. There’s no way to explain away what Trump said as being anything but racist.
Gary’s wearing a wedding ring. I assume, then, he is married now? I didn’t hear about it.
My comments inline:
If so, advocate a change to the law, or somehow argue it is okay to ignore the law. The latter is okay:
“I advocate both changing and breaking unjust laws, such as regime attempts to claim co-ownership of all property within its claimed borders which are implicit in migration restrictions.”
I have no idea what you meant by saying “such as regime attempts to claim co-ownership of all property within its claimed borders which are implicit in migration restrictions.”
“As a lifetime libertarian (are you? You haven’t said…)
I’ve discussed my past history in many other threads here. ”
I have been receiving IPR for a few months, but I do not frequently read comments, and only on a couple of occasions have I responded to them.
“>I would advocate ignoring all anti-drug laws, on the grounds that I don’t think the US >Constitution gives the authority to the government to do that.
” agree, and I feel the same about migration restrictions.”
I suppose you realize that’s a fairly rare to take, at least it’s rare that somebody actually comes out and claims it.
“The term ‘racist’ has been wildly overused in the last 50 years,
It’s been both overused and underused. Trump’s current rhetoric is clearly geared to appeal to racists.”
I think Trump is entitled to advocate for the enforcement of current immigration laws. I think most other candidates (both Republican and Democrat) agree, even if they take the inconsistent position that those currently illegally here can stay. (They never explain why they tolerate this inconsistency, however.)
>How, exactly, is he “factually wrong”? You didn’t say.
“We can start with the ridiculous contentions that the Mexican government is intentionally pushing criminals and other unwanted people into the US, that most “illegal” immigrants are criminals, and go on from there.”
I see a distinction without a difference. If a government seems to tolerate a practice for a long time, when it could do something about it, that amounts to intentionally ALLOWING Mexicans to illegally cross the border. At that point, it’s merely a rhetorical difference. Picky picky picky.
There’s no doubt that a guest-worker program can and should be implemented, and would work well. It has in the past. Why not now?
It creates a second-class of de facto corporate slaves. There’s no reason they can’t simply legally immigrate, other than ridiculous laws imposing immigration quotas.
Does ordinary employment ‘create a class of de facto corporate slaves’? Your leftism is showing.
Again, you’ve made your position in regards to immigration laws clear.
>List a few of them. Explain why they are incorrect.
>Luckily that work has already been done, so I have no need to replicate it.
“See Reason magazine online. Do a search for recent articles on Trump and follow the links fully debunking his nonsense in great detail.”
BTW, I’m not saying I will vote for Trump. I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, as I have always done in 1980 and afterwards.
>Trump is arguing that we should enforce the immigration laws.
“That’s a massive understatement.”
Note: I am not commenting on Trump’s position(s) on issues other than immigration.
They were wrong then, they are wrong now, and they shouldn’t have taken it off.
Yes. Every bit as much as every Californian has the right to immigrate to Arizona immediately.
Correct.
I advocate both changing and breaking unjust laws, such as regime attempts to claim co-ownership of all property within its claimed borders which are implicit in migration restrictions.
I’ve discussed my past history in many other threads here. I think I always had libertarian instincts, but I went through various self-contradicting stages of mental allegiance to democratic socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, nihilism and progressivism, that were at war both with each other and with my natural pro-freedom instincts, before about age 20. By then I was voting Libertarian and engaging in some campus LP activity, and became a party member a couple of years later. I’ve been an LP member for over 20 years now. Not sure what that has to do with anything though.
I agree, and I feel the same about migration restrictions.
It’s been both overused and underused. Trump’s current rhetoric is clearly geared to appeal to racists.
We can start with the ridiculous contentions that the Mexican government is intentionally pushing criminals and other unwanted people into the US, that most “illegal” immigrants are criminals, and go on from there.
It creates a second-class of de facto corporate slaves. There’s no reason they can’t simply legally immigrate, other than ridiculous laws imposing immigration quotas.
Luckily that work has already been done, so I have no need to replicate it.
See Reason magazine online. Do a search for recent articles on Trump and follow the links fully debunking his nonsense in great detail.
Try reading it again. It’s not a thought I have expressed on my own; others have written about it quite extensively.
For example: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2011/08/calculation-problem.html (and see links therein).
Some economists contend that, while others have proven them wrong. See http://openborders.info/ for lots of details.
I don’t, and it’s extremely unlikely that it would be the only distortion. A virtual bevy of distortions would flow from the pandora’s box.
That’s a massive understatement.
Make international borders about as policed as borders between states, counties, cities, wards, precincts, etc.
Two trucks should be able to pass each other in both directions along the US-Mexican border, each doing 100 MPH, perfectly legally.
My reply inline:
“It’s virtually impossible for a manual laborer from Mexico or Central America to immigrate legally under the regime’s edicts the average wait time is 130 years.”
So you’re saying the law is wrong, correct? If so, advocate a change to the law, or somehow argue it is okay to ignore the law. The latter is okay: As a lifetime libertarian (are you? You haven’t said…) I would advocate ignoring all anti-drug laws, on the grounds that I don’t think the US Constitution gives the authority to the government to do that.
” Trump’s bloviating is still racist,”
The term ‘racist’ has been wildly overused in the last 50 years, especially by the PC (politically correct) crowd.
” and factually wrong,”
How, exactly, is he “factually wrong”? You didn’t say.
“even if we exclude the few lucky lottery winners who managed to immigrate legally.”
Are you saying that EVERY foreigner has the RIGHT to immigrate to the US, immediately? If you don’t say that, where are you drawing the line?
” The WSPQ question on immigration was the correct position and never should have been taken off the quiz.”
Except that even then, people realized that we can’t afford BOTH open borders AND a welfare state. Rather than confuse people, they took the question off the quiz.
“There’s no “severe problem” and even despite the welfare state the immigrants are still a net benefit to the economy, commit fewer crimes than those born here, etc, etc. ”
There’s no doubt that a guest-worker program can and should be implemented, and would work well. It has in the past. Why not now?
“None of Trump’s allegations are correct. ”
List a few of them. Explain why they are incorrect.
“Saying that “until this nation stops being a welfare-state, which of course contradicts libertarianism, regrettably we are going to have to continue to enforce immigration laws in some form” is kind of like saying that we can’t legalize drugs while we still have welfare, or we can’t end gun restrictions until we end the war on drugs, etc, etc;”
I’m not following your ‘logic’. I said, we can’t afford BOTH open borders AND a welfare state. Economists know this to be true.
” in short order you will tie yourself in knots and ay movement toward freedom will be impossible. We should advocate for all our freedoms, all the time, not A as a condition of B which is a condition of C which is a condition of A.”
In most cases that is correct. But a libertarian-ordered society (which America is not yet) is going to be surrounded by a non-libertarian world. This will introduce certain distortions into the reality of that time. If the only distortion is that we can’t open the borders until we no longer have a welfare state, I consider that unavoidable.
“The media may indeed be biaed, but it seems to me to be largely in favor of treating Trump’s position as serious political discourse rather than as the ravings of a demagogue with virtually no connection to reality.
Trump is arguing that we should enforce the immigration laws.” I have already explained that if you don’t like those laws (which were passed over the last 50 years with Republican and Democrat input) you may advocate changes to them. What changes would you make?
“Gary Johnson is 100% right here, and Trump is 100% wrong.”
It’s virtually impossible for a manual laborer from Mexico or Central America to immigrate legally under the regime’s edicts the average wait time is 130 years. Trump’s bloviating is still racist, and factually wrong, even if we exclude the few lucky lottery winners who managed to immigrate legally. The WSPQ question on immigration was the correct position and never should have been taken off the quiz.
There’s no “severe problem” and even despite the welfare state the immigrants are still a net benefit to the economy, commit fewer crimes than those born here, etc, etc. None of Trump’s allegations are correct. Saying that “until this nation stops being a welfare-state, which of course contradicts libertarianism, regrettably we are going to have to continue to enforce immigration laws in some form” is kind of like saying that we can’t legalize drugs while we still have welfare, or we can’t end gun restrictions until we end the war on drugs, etc, etc; in short order you will tie yourself in knots and ay movement toward freedom will be impossible. We should advocate for all our freedoms, all the time, not A as a condition of B which is a condition of C which is a condition of A.
The media may indeed be biased, but it seems to me to be largely in favor of treating Trump’s position as serious political discourse rather than as the ravings of a demagogue with virtually no connection to reality.
Gary Johnson is 100% right here, and Trump is 100% wrong.
As a lifetime libertarian, I’m sorry that I have to rain on your collective parade, here. My take is that from the beginning, Trump was talking about ‘illegal aliens’, not simply ‘Mexicans’. What happened was that the (biased) news media pushed the discussion in the direction of ‘Mexicans’ for the purposes of making Trump’s position look ‘racist’. There are certainly questions, from a libertarian point of view, about whether we should even have borders and immigration laws. For instance, 25 years ago, the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz had a question on whether immigration laws should exist; the libertarian-leaning answer was that they shouldn’t. But at that time, the problem didn’t seem to be as severe as it is today. My own position was, and remains, that until this nation stops being a welfare-state, which of course contradicts libertarianism, regrettably we are going to have to continue to enforce immigration laws in some form. It’s unfortunate that Gary Johnson seems to be merely jumping on the bandwagon: Instead, he should be taking the opportunity to craft a more libertarian-relevant position, in order to educate the public.
Amen!
I’m left wondering if Trump is actually trying to do a solid for the Clinton’s. The media loves talking about the Trump circus because they can now avoid giving time to Sanders and the foibles of Hilary.
You go, Gary!
Trump was on Morning Joe this morning. He claims he’d win the Hispanic vote because he’d be so tough on China, since he’s the master negotiator.
Gary used the right word: Trump is embarrassing. It’s saddening that this guy is being taken seriously.
I’m glad he spoke out!