The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

[Estro Felino]

Racists have a reason to not see their racism. Thanks for clarifying that it’s republicans and not democrats. You have to wonder why so many conservatives oppose diversity and equality.

That's not true. Go to the Roman suburbs, the most multicultural spots in Rome and ask Roman locals whether they are racists.
The answer will be : yes I am. Very.

 

[Stevicus]

That's not true. Go to the Roman suburbs, the most multicultural spots in Rome and ask Roman locals whether they are racists.
The answer will be : yes I am. Very.

How are they defining the word "racist" in this context? In America, no one really seems to identify as racist openly. Even the MAGAs will say "We're not racists, it's the Democrats who are the real racists." Some might bring up terms like "white liberal savior," which implies a hypocritical position and can even generate resentment among people of color.

Others might speak of liberal welfare and social programs which (they imply) are designed to "keep them on the plantation" by making them dependent on government handouts. This, in the eyes of some, makes Democrats the "real racists." I would say that they're using a weak argument here (and I don't even think the MAGAs really believe that), but it has the effect of weakening the strength and political effect of calling someone a racist.

 

[Estro Felino]

How are they defining the word "racist" in this context?

By racist they mean "being Italian means to be assimilated". But that doesn't mean that they mean to discriminate against them or to be unkind. Quite the opposite. Italians love to be kind to foreigners.
Italians welcome so many refugees from Africa... but in the suburbs so many foreigners don't assimilate, so they are not considered Italians.
The French and the Germans think these things, but won't tell them openly.
Italians think these things and say them out loud.

Others might speak of liberal welfare and social programs which (they imply) are designed to "keep them on the plantation" by making them dependent on government handouts. This, in the eyes of some, makes Democrats the "real racists." I would say that they're using a weak argument here (and I don't even think the MAGAs really believe that), but it has the effect of weakening the strength and political effect of calling someone a racist.

Europe and America had different histories.
Italy implemented racial laws just for five years, and to satisfy the Nazis' requests.
There has never been the segregationist mind...which is what Italians consider bad racism.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, if someone expresses racism they are racist. Calling migrants "illegals" is one such expression that is racist. Like I said, racists have a reason to ignore their racism.

You just disregarded my comments and went back to racism. Wanna address any of my comments on this issue?

A claim without evidence. So, we throw it out.

I find your claims hard to believe. And if they are I am suspicious you have not included the whole story. Businesses and organizations have their own policies for various reasons. Some are good, some aren't. But diversity and equality has been a huge problem in the USA given it's history of slavery and racism, and we have not cured those ills yet. Stats indicate that racism is getting worse, and it correlates to the rise of Trump. The need for diversity and equality is surely in proportion to the increasing racism.

Infographic: U.S. Hate Crimes At New Decade High

This chart shows the total number of hate crime incidents recorded by the FBI.

www.statista.com

I would want good evidence as well. My point was to show that there are reasons to disagree with DEI initiatives that are not racist.

No one is saying there is not discrimination happening, but how we address it must be fair and just. My point to my post was that the left decries racism without good evidence all the time for political gain.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, they are facts. You could have challenged the facts but you know that they are correct. And to challenge the conclusion from the facts would be far fetched.

You provided no facts just claims. What are your facts and how do you support them?

That may be. But the refugees are not illegal. There is both US and international law that says once they cross over into a country and turn themselves over to the authorities they are no longer illegal. And that is what these refugees have been doing. They turn themselves in, a hearing is scheduled and then, if the ruling is against them and if they do not leave they are illegal. And 83% of them turn up for all of their hearings. If the ruling is for them they then granted official refugee status and they still are not illega:

11 Years of Government Data Reveal That Immigrants Do Show Up for Court

A new report released today by the American Immigration Council examines 11 years of government data on the rate at which immigrants appear for hearings in U.S. immigration court. The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

You can call the ones that do not show up for hearings "illegal" if it makes you feel better.

Calling someone illegal if they are here illegally is truthful. If they don't show up for their hearing they are illegal. If 83% show up for hearings that is great, bit that is 83% of people that apply not that come across the border. How many come across the border and never apply? The fact is there are illegal immigrants in this country and that is what the right wants to stop, the left does not care.

I would say that the posts of many Trump supporters is excellent evidence.

Then provide them.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm not talking about Trump for what it's worth. I thought it was a joke when he began running for President and I am appalled by him, to be honest.

Neither am I.

I'm talking about these people and those who gave them aid and comfort:

Pence was 40ft from mob on January 6: ‘Vice-president’s life was in danger’

Committee hearing details how Trump whipped up hostility towards Pence for refusing to overturn election

www.theguardian.com

Oh, it wasn't me!

 

[Wandering Monk]

So SCOTUS has ruled that Congress has the responsibility to create legislation to prevent insurrectionist from being on the ballot. This means that all politicians and officers of the Confederacy were illegally prevented from running for office after the Civil War.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your bias is showing

Yes, I have a bias against people who attempt to overthrow the government and then run for President again as though it didn't happen.
You got me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And all the hassle and expense of them.

Well, that's how it goes when crimes are committed.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, that's how it goes when crimes are committed.

And when they're not committed too apparently.

 

[Stevicus]

By racist they mean "being Italian means to be assimilated". But that doesn't mean that they mean to discriminate against them or to be unkind. Quite the opposite. Italians love to be kind to foreigners.
Italians welcome so many refugees from Africa... but in the suburbs so many foreigners don't assimilate, so they are not considered Italians.
The French and the Germans think these things, but won't tell them openly.
Italians think these things and say them out loud.

In the past, assimilation was a major component in U.S. politics regarding immigration. I think I've posted previously about how Henry Ford set up a school for immigrants which apparently taught them how to be "good Americans." Similar trends could be seen in the establishment of "Indian Schools," where Native Americans were educated in the "ways of the white man." Even freed black slaves gave up their slave names and chose names which they considered very American, which is why so many African-Americans have names like "Washington," "Jefferson," "Lincoln," "Jackson," picking the names of Presidents as a way of assimilating. It also affected Spanish-speaking communities, whose children were given corporal punishment in schools if they spoke any language other than English (it even happened to people I've personally known here in Tucson).

Over time, the idea of "assimilation" seemed odious and disdainful to people, as people tend to resist being told to give up their native language and culture. Also, people were still discriminated against due to skin color, regardless of how much they tried to "assimilate." (They had to pass what they called the "paper bag test.") As a consequence, open and firm resistance to assimilation also became a cornerstone of the Civil Rights Movement, which is why the very idea of "assimilation" is considered racist, even if it may (technically) not be.

This, in and of itself, has become a bit of a bugaboo in politics. I recall a few decades back, there were a number of states (including mine) proposing and passing "English-only" amendments, which were decried as racist. Advocates would argue back, "No, it's not racist; it's about language." Sometimes, statements like that are seen as creating a thinly-veiled "plausible deniability," where they can say that, technically, they're not racists, because their rhetoric does not directly refer to skin color.
They might use code words, or what some people have called "dog whistles," to indicate an agenda which I've heard called "stealth racism." At that point, the discussion kind of degenerates into a rhetorical "game" of sorts where the expected goal is "Ha! I caught you saying something racist!" I think that tactic has had the long-term effect of cheapening the discussion to the point where it's not viewed as seriously as it once was.

Europe and America had different histories.
Italy implemented racial laws just for five years, and to satisfy the Nazis' requests.
There has never been the segregationist mind...which is what Italians consider bad racism.

My impression of Italy is that there appears to be some elements of racism, as I've heard about rivalries between northern, lighter-skinned Italians versus southern, darker-skinned Italians. I once had a conversation with an Italian guy I knew from work, and I was telling him about a young Italian woman I had met in college. The Italian guy had darker skin and black hair, and when I described the Italian woman I met as having reddish hair and very white skin, his response was "She's not Italian," just like that. (Her surname sounded like it had German origins, so maybe that's what he meant.)

I've also heard some perceptions in Italy where they view everything south of Naples as "Africa." Of course, these are just things I've heard and can't verify personally, but it does seem to come up on occasion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He does not need the legislation. Why won;the act without it, he can. It's just a political attempt to blame the republicans. I guarantee if republicans were in charge the border would be more secure, it was under Trump.

That's what Congress is supposed to do, write and vote on legislation. When a Republican (Lankford) creates a bill, puts most everything the Republicans want in said bill, then spends a few months negotiating and garnering bipartisan support for said bill and eventually putting said bill up for vote - that's what is supposed to happen. It's like Republicans have no idea what Congress is supposed to do anymore. Then they're gonna blame the Democrats when they themselves rejected a bill that contains most everything they want, on a subject they've been claiming such great urgency about in the last few weeks. Turns out, they really don't care all that much about the "border crisis." Trump tells them not to vote on the bill because they need that issue to continuing running on, and voting to do anything at all about the border might look Biden look good and we can't have that! Nah, the Republicans are responsible for this and they don't get to blame everyone else for their massive failings.

You want Biden to be a dictator instead? That's interesting.

What is in the bill?

What part of "Biden does not need the bill to make the border more secure" do you not understand? Do you have a response to my link that shows all the ways Biden made the border less secure and cna reverse those items? have you researched why some republicans don't want it or just parroting what the dems say?

What part of Congress is supposed to write and pass legislation do you not understand?? The bill is there. It's ready. What's the problem?

Republicans have been running around in circles screaming for the last few weeks about how the country is going to implode because there's this insane border invasion going on, and when they get a chance to ACTUALLY do something about it, what do they do? NOTHING. Reject a bill that contains pretty much everything they think will help deal with this alleged "border crisis." But nope. No vote. No nothing. Just do what Dear Leader says and wait until the election. They don't really care about the border. They're just using it to shore up their base.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And when they're not committed too apparently.

Yep, sometimes there is a not guilty verdict at the end of a trial.

 

[metis]

This just in -- SCOTUS has allowed Trump onto the Colorado ballot. The decision was unanimous and applies (I think) to all states.

Yes, and I think this was a necessary ruling for the president/vice president. No surprise to me it was unanimous.

Of course, Trump ain't out of the woods just yet because of other court cases against him, but will they all be tried before the election? The way that the conservative-majority SCOTUS is delaying things, quite possibly not.

 

[Kathryn]

Yep, sometimes there is a not guilty verdict at the end of a trial.

Here's the thing that irritates me, as someone who was served at one time and had to be deposed or whatever, give my testimony. I still had to hire an attorney. I still had to recreate the scenario from many years back. I wasn't even on trial! But it was a big, ugly hassle to me and it was actually a low key sort of event.

 

[metis]

For those who deny Trump's racism, here: Opinion | Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List, Updated (Published 2018)

... and here: Racial views of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

 

[Estro Felino]

My impression of Italy is that there appears to be some elements of racism, as I've heard about rivalries between northern, lighter-skinned Italians versus southern, darker-skinned Italians. I once had a conversation with an Italian guy I knew from work, and I was telling him about a young Italian woman I had met in college. The Italian guy had darker skin and black hair, and when I described the Italian woman I met as having reddish hair and very white skin, his response was "She's not Italian," just like that. (Her surname sounded like it had German origins, so maybe that's what he meant.)

Yes, there is this racism towards Southerners but it's not because of the skin complexion.
Also because in Naples there are more blue-eyed people than in Milan, I can promise you that.
Because in Naples they had the Angevin domination...and Angevins were all blonde and blue-eyed.
Also in Palermo there are many more blue-eyed people than in Milan, which has now become a multicultural pot.
For example, Eva Riccobono is from Palermo. Berlusconi was from Milan...and had quite Mediterranean features.

It's not about the skin tone. It's a natural antipathy because the North is more productive, more industrialized.
But it's not a big deal.
They are just diffident towards Southerners.

The racial slur they use towards Southerners is "peasants" to underline the South is all about agriculture, food, turism, whereas they have all the industries.
Which is not entirely true, because one of the greatest petrochemical complexes in Europe is in the South. The largest steel works in Italy is in the South.

 

[F1fan]

You just disregarded my comments and went back to racism. Wanna address any of my comments on this issue?

What you said

"So if someone refutes being called a racist then that is evidence they are a racist. Wonderful, dems win no matter what."

This was itself avoiding the racist words used by conservatives in their rhetoric. No one refuted the racism that is obvious and inherent in demeaning migrants. Calling all migrants "illegals" is racist and inaccurate. There are alternative words to use in regards to migrants that don't smuggle in prejudice.

One observation about how concervatives have evolved over the last decade, I see fewer moderates, which suggests to me they have either decided (consciously or subconsciously) to either reject MAGA (like we see with Bill Crystol, Chris Christie, Charlie Sykes, Liz Cheney, etc.) or jump feet first into the MAGAverse and adopt all the negative rhetoric, the political sabotage as we see with the sabotaged Border Bill, and all the lies and disinformation that Trump and MADAmedia spews. I'm seeing once more moderate conservatives inching closer to MAGA as we get deeper into the election season. To my mind these folks are trying to test and built their case for voting for Trump. I suspect it is more an effort to convince themselves that others. Like we see with Trump., the best way to sound confident in a lie is to convince the self it is true.

I would want good evidence as well. My point was to show that there are reasons to disagree with DEI initiatives that are not racist.

They might be superficial and show problems when used in policies that are implemented to offset broad inequality and racism. We all know that business and government policies are never precision, and there will always be outliers and harm when applied to the whole of a compant or society. The question is: is it better to harm a few white folks for the sake of broadening opportunies for minorities, or should society just let nature run its course, which tends to harm the disadvantaged?

Notice in your example you show concern for one person becasue there is a broad policy that aims to help all minorities. I see conservatives often say that if minorities are disadvantaged due to historic prejudice and societal hardship that they should pull up their bootstraps and work harder. But when a rich person complains that a tax hike will cost them more money no says they should work harder.

One aim of a government in a liberal society is to help balance the advantaged to the disadvantaged. Letting nature run its course only maintains suffering, hardship, and strife. Given the rhetoric by republicans who tend to run political campaigns on complaining, not progress, we can see why they want to maintain the status quo of minorities struggling to compete.

No one is saying there is not discrimination happening, but how we address it must be fair and just. My point to my post was that the left decries racism without good evidence all the time for political gain.

Here's your chance to share what you think should be done. How do you help offset the disadvantages of the poor? What do you want to see happen with the border? Do you support the bill that Biden agreed to sign? If not, whay not?

 

[F1fan]

That's what Congress is supposed to do, write and vote on legislation. When a Republican (Lankford) creates a bill, puts most everything the Republicans want in said bill, then spends a few months negotiating and garnering bipartisan support for said bill and eventually putting said bill up for vote - that's what is supposed to happen. It's like Republicans have no idea what Congress is supposed to do anymore. Then they're gonna blame the Democrats when they themselves rejected a bill that contains most everything they want, on a subject they've been claiming such great urgency about in the last few weeks. Turns out, they really don't care all that much about the "border crisis." Trump tells them not to vote on the bill because they need that issue to continuing running on, and voting to do anything at all about the border might look Biden look good and we can't have that! Nah, the Republicans are responsible for this and they don't get to blame everyone else for their massive failings.

You want Biden to be a dictator instead? That's interesting.

What part of Congress is supposed to write and pass legislation do you not understand?? The bill is there. It's ready. What's the problem?

Republicans have been running around in circles screaming for the last few weeks about how the country is going to implode because there's this insane border invasion going on, and when they get a chance to ACTUALLY do something about it, what do they do? NOTHING. Reject a bill that contains pretty much everything they think will help deal with this alleged "border crisis." But nope. No vote. No nothing. Just do what Dear Leader says and wait until the election. They don't really care about the border. They're just using it to shore up their base.

One thing conservatives don't seem to understand is that the president can't spend money inless congress says so. Much of the bill increatses funding for more agents (Biden can't order that) and more judges and courts to process migrant cases (Biden can't order that), and other policy changes that require spending. So Biden could order changes that don't involve adding costs, but it wouldn't include building more wall that isn't already voted on by congress.

So Biden is put in a situation where he is supposed to solve a problem without the money to do it, so he is a "failure". The fact is republicans followed Trump by sabotaging the bill, so the failure falls on MAGA republicans, and no one else.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That's what Congress is supposed to do, write and vote on legislation. When a Republican (Lankford) creates a bill, puts most everything the Republicans want in said bill, then spends a few months negotiating and garnering bipartisan support for said bill and eventually putting said bill up for vote - that's what is supposed to happen. It's like Republicans have no idea what Congress is supposed to do anymore. Then they're gonna blame the Democrats when they themselves rejected a bill that contains most everything they want, on a subject they've been claiming such great urgency about in the last few weeks. Turns out, they really don't care all that much about the "border crisis." Trump tells them not to vote on the bill because they need that issue to continuing running on, and voting to do anything at all about the border might look Biden look good and we can't have that! Nah, the Republicans are responsible for this and they don't get to blame everyone else for their massive failings.

The border deal has issues:

1. It would allow up to 1.8M border crossings before any restrictions are implemented. It says that we would need 5000 crossings daily for a week or 8500 in one day to implement restrictions. So by my math 4999*7*52 = 1.8M crossings before anything would be done. This is codifying illegal immigration at historic levels. That is not border security.

2. It would increase the alternatives to detention something in opposition to more security.

3. Why is there $60.5B to Ukraine, $10B to Gaza and $14.1B to Israel in a border deal? So if you agree with the border provisions you are forced to agree with the aid packages so when you vote no because of that you are called out as not serious on the border. That is untrue.

So there are reasons why some republicans reject it. It is because it doesn't secure the border and gives aid to other nations that should be in another bill.

Are these justifiable reasons or are we just don't really care about the border? Republicans have been trying to get the border secured since Biden came to office and removed Trump's protections. Remember Biden said for 3 years the border was secure when it was not then he said we all know the border has been an issue for years, now he blames the republicans. He is a liar.

You want Biden to be a dictator instead? That's interesting.

Never said that.

What part of Congress is supposed to write and pass legislation do you not understand?? The bill is there. It's ready. What's the problem?

See above.

Republicans have been running around in circles screaming for the last few weeks about how the country is going to implode because there's this insane border invasion going on, and when they get a chance to ACTUALLY do something about it, what do they do? NOTHING. Reject a bill that contains pretty much everything they think will help deal with this alleged "border crisis." But nope. No vote. No nothing. Just do what Dear Leader says and wait until the election. They don't really care about the border. They're just using it to shore up their base.

See above.