• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

Sarpedon said:
I've been to plenty of those. I haven't met many nazi sympathizers. I assume that you are saying "since I don't know what either of those are I'll just say they're the same thing."
Click to expand...

No. I am merely alluding to the well known and documented presence of racists within the Libertarian party. Case in point, when the current nominee said he's support the Civil Right Act, he was roundly booed. To their credit, the majority of Libertarians went on to nominate him, but you can't pretend the racist minority doesn't exist, and there is a long history of libertarians defending the liberty to discriminate.

I also shouldn't have to point out the relationship between white supremecists and anti government groups. I myself have detailed the philosophical relationship between modern libertarians and the slaveowning class of the South prior to this. I shouldn't have to point out that Nazism was influenced by slavery advocates in the USA (as well as colonialists in Europe) and how during the thirties and again during the civil rights movement, the ideas of nazism returned to influence white-supremecist thought.

Of course, you always act shocked when these things are pointed out.
Click to expand...

I see the problem here. Several problems actually.

First, you are conflating "racist" and "Nazi". Although the Nazis were famously racist, there is more to Nazism than racism. There exists aspects to Nazism other than racism. The other aspects, taken without the racism, are considered Fascism (such as advocated by Franco and Mussolini) and the domestic and economic policies of Fasicsts (and therefore also Nazis) are rather diametrically opposed to libertarianism. When I expressed surprise at you calling repoman a "nazi sympathizer" you implied that I could find them at Libertarian conventions. That is very unlikely given the domestic and economic policies of Fascists.

Second, we are at a dispute over what is meant by the word "racist". Once you leave out your conflation with Nazis (remember, not all racists are Nazis) we appear to be defining the term differently. I define it as judging people by their supposed secondary racial characteristics. You define it by having problems with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I had to include the year, that's an important point. There were people who supported the earlier Civil Rights Acts who opposed that one, and there were people who opposed the earlier Civil Rights Acts but supported that one.

I will grant good intentions on the part of some who supported the 1964 act, but good intentions and good implementation aren't the same thing. The fact that I said that good intentions and good implementation aren't the same is a criticism of the 1964 act, and that means that by your definition (but not mine) I am therefore somehow racist.

Third, yes, libertarians do defend the right to discriminate, in the private but not the public sphere. Any government employee who discriminates during the course of his or her duties is in the wrong. That's because if you want to defend liberty at all, you have to defend the rights of scoundrels, because it is against scoundrels that generally oppressive laws are passed in the first place. You are making the assumption that defending a scoundrel is approval of a scoundrel, an unfounded assumption.

But none of this matters, because you are already writing me off as a racist on the grounds that I find parts of the 1964 act problematic. It doesn't have anything to do with my attitudes towards race, only with my opinion of one piece of legislation.
 
So, Trump has Foreign Policy now...

Trump is just another republican who will use US forces to blow up sand people for Israel's benefit.
The only way to change shit is to have second amendment people take care of Israeli lobbyists and their Shabbos goy enablers. Voting doesn't work.
 
You are quite correct, Jason. Nazis are racists and not all racists are nazis. You will notice I specifically mentioned the influence that Neo-Nazi thought has had amongst american white supremecist groups, and the cross pollination between the groups. To say that white supremecists in the United States have been influenced by nazi thought is not some wild slander: it is a fact. I've never said that all libertarians are nazis. However, I also specifically alluded to the relationship between some (not all) anti government groups with white supremecist groups. I also pointed out the obvious racism of some (but not all) libertarians to show that these groups are present within the movement. Thus, I find the suggestion that you've never encountered them among libertarians ludicrous. The relationship is: 19th century slave ideology influenced nazis and american white supremecists. Nazis influenced American white supremecists. White Supremecists influence some anti-government extremists, who use opposition to the government as a mask for their racism, just as the 19th Century slave owners used 'States Rights' as a mask for their pro slavery positions. And finally, these anti government groups are included among the groups that make up the Libertarian party. Is that clear enough?

Your hair splitting about the Civil Rights act of 1964 is silly and irrelevant. I feel perfectly justified in using support for the act as a litmus test for racism. Even today we still have a terribly biased system. The Act of 1964 was just one of many attempts to remove that bias. The fact that it hasn't succeeded shows that it didn't go 'too far.' Until real equality is achieved, I will not listen to protests of an act going 'too far.'

I have not dismissed you as racist. If I thought you were a racist, I'd have put you on ignore, like I have most of the racists on this board. You'll notice I am addressing your posts, while I am not addressing the posts of certain others who are posting on this thread. I regard you as a political extremist, who dislikes reasonable moderates and political compromise more than you dislike associating with racists and plutocrats.
 
A slight detour in the thread...

Sarpedon said:
You are quite correct, Jason. Nazis are racists and not all racists are nazis. You will notice I specifically mentioned the influence that Neo-Nazi thought has had amongst american white supremecist groups, and the cross pollination between the groups. To say that white supremecists in the United States have been influenced by nazi thought is not some wild slander: it is a fact. I've never said that all libertarians are nazis. However, I also specifically alluded to the relationship between some (not all) anti government groups with white supremecist groups. I also pointed out the obvious racism of some (but not all) libertarians to show that these groups are present within the movement. Thus, I find the suggestion that you've never encountered them among libertarians ludicrous. The relationship is: 19th century slave ideology influenced nazis and american white supremecists. Nazis influenced American white supremecists. White Supremecists influence some anti-government extremists, who use opposition to the government as a mask for their racism, just as the 19th Century slave owners used 'States Rights' as a mask for their pro slavery positions. And finally, these anti government groups are included among the groups that make up the Libertarian party. Is that clear enough?

Your hair splitting about the Civil Rights act of 1964 is silly and irrelevant. I feel perfectly justified in using support for the act as a litmus test for racism. Even today we still have a terribly biased system. The Act of 1964 was just one of many attempts to remove that bias. The fact that it hasn't succeeded shows that it didn't go 'too far.' Until real equality is achieved, I will not listen to protests of an act going 'too far.'

I have not dismissed you as racist. If I thought you were a racist, I'd have put you on ignore, like I have most of the racists on this board. You'll notice I am addressing your posts, while I am not addressing the posts of certain others who are posting on this thread. I regard you as a political extremist, who dislikes reasonable moderates and political compromise more than you dislike associating with racists and plutocrats.
Click to expand...

A CATO libertarian touching on your points regarding the 1964 civil rights act, among others related to racism.
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-are-there-so-few-black-libertarians
Federalism and freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment compelled Goldwater to vote his conscience. On paper, it is a defensible—perhaps even laudable—act of principle, absent of context.

But those principles had been used as weapons against black Americans, and esoteric concerns seem less important than being unable to eat or get a hotel you’re willing and able to pay for as you drive across your own country. This sort of adherence to principle at the expense of the tangible freedom of millions of African Americans sent a clear message of whose liberty received priority. Fairly or unfairly, holding such a man up as a hero of liberty sends a mixed message, at best.
Click to expand...

As a fiscally conservative and socially liberal person (maybe I'm even a moderate libertarian...but it is just a label), I am quite comfortable with laws forbidding private businesses from discriminating as I find that this supports the greater freedom and future of our society. I find the cutoff for tolerating organizational discrimination, to be at the line of private clubs and churches.
 
ZiprHead said:
Donald Trump is now accusing President Obama of masterminding a plan with the New York Attorney General to bring a lawsuit against him in his Trump University fraud case.
Click to expand...


A rare misstep from the Trump campaign. Nothing in this story offends women, ethnic groups, religious minorities, the disabled, or veterans. And while it is conspiracy theory crap it doesn't quite rise to the level of "Obama went back in time to start ISIS" or "Obama started the Afghan war" or "Obama was born in Kenya."

If he's gonna push his numbers consistently down into the mid 30s he's gonna have to try harder than this. Sad.
 
ZiprHead said:
Donald Trump is now accusing President Obama of masterminding a plan with the New York Attorney General to bring a lawsuit against him in his Trump University fraud case.

http://news.groopspeak.com/breaking-trump-claims-president-obama-committed-serious-felony-against-him-behind-closed-doors/
Click to expand...

I think this presidential run is going to turn out to be the worst decision he ever made in his life. Prior to this election cycle, I though Trump was a loud-mouth bore, but basically rational and a decent businessman. Now that details of his life-long business dealings and behavior have become national news, and I am forced to listen to his bloviating every day, I've realized that Trump is a certifiable wackadoodle :rolleyes: I can't be the only one who continues to revise my opinion of him ever downward
 
repoman said:
So, Trump has Foreign Policy now...

Trump is just another republican who will use US forces to blow up sand people for Israel's benefit.
The only way to change shit is to have second amendment people take care of Israeli lobbyists and their Shabbos goy enablers. Voting doesn't work.
Click to expand...

So the old bogey Jews/Israel are to blame for all the world's troubles, and of course by implication, America for standing by somewhat, to those horrible Jews.
 
RavenSky said:
Prior to this election cycle, I though Trump was a loud-mouth bore, but basically rational and a decent businessman. Now that details of his life-long business dealings and behavior have become national news, and I am forced to listen to his bloviating every day, I've realized that Trump is a certifiable wackadoodle :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think this will be eventually most damaging to him. He ruined his own 'brand' of being yuuge and genius. It turned out he sucks at business dealings too now that all those details come out. And that was something most people didn't know. They really thought him to be the savvy business man instead of the daddy's spoiled con man with a yuuge narcicistic disorder illness he seems to actually be.
 
It looks like Trump has decided not to pivot, but to go on being Trump. He has a new team and his new campaign CEO clown is from Brietbart. He's going to double down on his Trump act with his new yes man urging him on. Meanwhile a new Monmouth poll shows Clinton forging ahead in Florida by 9% points. Wheeeeee!
 
RavenSky said:
ZiprHead said:
Donald Trump is now accusing President Obama of masterminding a plan with the New York Attorney General to bring a lawsuit against him in his Trump University fraud case.

http://news.groopspeak.com/breaking...rious-felony-against-him-behind-closed-doors/
Click to expand...

I think this presidential run is going to turn out to be the worst decision he ever made in his life. Prior to this election cycle, I though Trump was a loud-mouth bore, but basically rational and a decent businessman. Now that details of his life-long business dealings and behavior have become national news, and I am forced to listen to his bloviating every day, I've realized that Trump is a certifiable wackadoodle :rolleyes: I can't be the only one who continues to revise my opinion of him ever downward
Click to expand...
Trump's best ability was selling his image. He did that very well.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
It looks like Trump has decided not to pivot, but to go on being Trump. He has a new team and his new campaign CEO clown is from Brietbart. He's going to double down on his Trump act with his new yes man urging him on. Meanwhile a new Monmouth poll shows Clinton forging ahead in Florida by 9% points. Wheeeeee!
Click to expand...

Ya, I don't see much point behind a campaign shakeup. Trump ignoring Person B instead of ignoring Person A doesn't deal with the heart of his issues which revolve around him being Donald Trump. It may be along the lines of the old George Burns quote about how doctors were telling him to quit drinking and smoking, so he just kept finding new doctors until he found one who didn't tell him that. The Briebart guy may be telling Trump that his style is awesome and he needs to keep doing it more.

The next few months will be even more entertaining than the campaign has been so far and it looks like Clinton isn't going to need to interrupt her beach vacation until November 9th when she'll be nice and rested to start her transition.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
It looks like Trump has decided not to pivot, but to go on being Trump. He has a new team and his new campaign CEO clown is from Brietbart. He's going to double down on his Trump act with his new yes man urging him on. Meanwhile a new Monmouth poll shows Clinton forging ahead in Florida by 9% points. Wheeeeee!
Click to expand...
Wow...just read about that. Bannon-Brietbart WTF? So Trump is going to win, by making sure he corners 99.98% of the right wing National Enquirer crowd...while ignoring the middle? Yeah, go for it... Maybe Alex Jones can be named head of his transition team.
 
I'm looking forward to the day when Republicans criticize President Clinton because she beat Trump by "only <whatever> points."

I know it will happen because I saw it happen after the previous two elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom