Master Trump Thread

[Guest]

16 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Xenophobic?  The purpose of the word is to define foreign strangers.  You're assigning malice where there is none.

I find the concepts of needing to define who is foreign stranger and the very idea that someone can be an "illegal immigrant" unjustifiable.

[daveb]

5 hours ago, Mystic Maya said:

I find the concepts of needing to define who is foreign stranger and the very idea that someone can be an "illegal immigrant" unjustifiable.

I won't argue against your position (which I guess would imply that everyone is a citizen of everywhere (which I am not going to make a judgement on here)), but someone who disagrees with it or uses the term "alien" (or even "illegal alien") isn't necessarily xenophobic. I don't agree with some (most? all?) of the policies and rhetoric about immigration coming from the current US administration (getting back to the gist of this thread). And there may very well be some xenophobia driving it from some quarters (I think it would strain credulity to believe there isn't any), and I think it's counter-productive and unjust to single out specific groups (Muslims, Mexicans, whatever), and worse, when the adming or other groups advocating certain restrictions stir up hatred, fear, distrust, etc. My limited understanding is the term "alien" has a legal definition and is used in laws and other legal documents (which doesn't guarantee it isn't used in with xenophobic intent in those cases - there have certainly been cases of xenophobia driving laws and government actions; the actions of the US in regards to American citizens of Japanese descent or origin being a classic example. And we shouldn't certainly not allow those sorts of things to happen ever again.). I just disagree that the word is inherently xenophobic.

[The Terrible Travis]

On 5/5/2017 at 4:11 PM, CaptainYesterday said:

Xenophobic?  The purpose of the word is to define foreign strangers.  You're assigning malice where there is none.

"Illegal alien" is a legal term, but let's not pretend that we don't know the primary reason conservatives use it is to dehumanize undocumented immigrants.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Sally]

[Guest]

3 hours ago, daveb said:

I won't argue against your position (which I guess would imply that everyone is a citizen of everywhere (which I am not going to make a judgement on here)), but someone who disagrees with it or uses the term "alien" (or even "illegal alien") isn't necessarily xenophobic. I don't agree with some (most? all?) of the policies and rhetoric about immigration coming from the current US administration (getting back to the gist of this thread). And there may very well be some xenophobia driving it from some quarters (I think it would strain credulity to believe there isn't any), and I think it's counter-productive and unjust to single out specific groups (Muslims, Mexicans, whatever), and worse, when the adming or other groups advocating certain restrictions stir up hatred, fear, distrust, etc. My limited understanding is the term "alien" has a legal definition and is used in laws and other legal documents (which doesn't guarantee it isn't used in with xenophobic intent in those cases - there have certainly been cases of xenophobia driving laws and government actions; the actions of the US in regards to American citizens of Japanese descent or origin being a classic example. And we shouldn't certainly not allow those sorts of things to happen ever again.). I just disagree that the word is inherently xenophobic.

I haven't seen any use of the word in this context where it hasn't felt fueled by xenophobia, I've never seen it used where the speaker didn't seem to be talking about the immigrants with hate or disgust and seeing them as if they are lesser humans

 

11 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

But that's been the term used to describe the thing that it still describes for two centuries.

A word can't be problematic  because it's been used historically? 

Surely nothing explicitly racist will come up...

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Skipper Valvoline]

On 5/5/2017 at 9:42 AM, ChillaKilla said:

Like? The unconstitutional immigration ban? The "wall that Mexico is gonna pay for"? The healthcare bill that would classify rape as a "preexistsing condition" and disqualify people from seeking medical care as a result of it?

Okay, the 'rape as a preexisting condition= no medical treatment' healthcare bill hysteria really grinds my gears. Know why? Because it's not true!

 

First of all, the MacArthur Amendment proposed to add to the GOP health bill DOES NOT state that if you have a pre-existing condition, you will not get covered. In fact, it says the exact opposite:

 

Section 137 Part B: (b) NO LIMITING ACCESS TO COVERAGE FOR INDI-
18 VIDUALS WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.—Nothing in
19 this Act shall be construed as permitting health insurance
20 issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals
21 with preexisting conditions. 

 

Here's the basic scoop: This amendment says that if you are on an individual heath care plan (not an employer's or something like Medicaid/Medicare) and you do not have continuous coverage (you let your insurance lap for 63 days or more in 12 months) AND you have a pre-existing condition, then that insurance company may raise your premium by 30% for ONE year- PROVIDED that the state you're in has applied for this waiver that would allow them to do any of this, and if they do apply for the waiver they have to prove that they have a "risk mitigation program" or participate in the Federal Invisible Risk Sharing Program. (More info here: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/05/preexisting-conditions-debate/ )

 

How did sexual assault get considered as a pre-existing condition? That wasn't a Trump thing. In fact, even the AHCA, which the bill examines, doesn't define rape/sexual assault as a pre-existing condition. It appears that some insurance companies before Obamacare seem to have wormed their way out of paying the bill for care of sexual assault survivors, but it's amazing how many sources go back to one story that started it all: that of Christina Turner who was denied insurance because she was prescribed HIV preventative medication after her attack, which the insurance thought was "too risky" to cover. Now, she's not the ONLY story, but this trouble did happen circa 2009; not April 2017. The abhorrent distribution of medical help (rather, lack of it) essentially amounted to rape becoming akin to a pre-existing condition. http://www.alternet.org/story/143426/rape_is_a_pre-existing_condition_the_heartlessness_of_the_health_insurance_industry_exposed 

 

BUT it would still be hard for insurance companies to discriminate in this way. 45-48 states have laws declaring that insurance companies cannot deny medical coverage to victims of domestic violence or sexual assault. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/06/no-the-gop-health-bill-doesnt-classify-rape-or-sexual-assault-as-a-preexisting-condition/?utm_term=.a9fcc63a1882

 

SO. If you...

-have an individual or market insurance

-let it lapse for 63 days in the prior 12 months

-have a pre-existing condition (of which AHCA definitions do not include rape/sexual assault)

-live in a state seeking the waiver for insurance companies

-and that state has approved risk mitigation programs to help it actually /get/ the waiver

Then your premium might be raised 30% for one year.

 

Yeah. The bill totally denies health coverage if you've been raped. /s

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/the-facts-on-the-gop-health-care-bill/

https://housegop.leadpages.co/healthcare/#macarthur-amendment

-This second link will allow you to download the actual MacArthur Amendment PDF.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

That's not what I said.  I said that a historically harmless word like "alien" doesn't suddenly become hate speech because you say it is.

I didn't even use the word "hate speech, I said that it FEELS xenophobic and insulting, which it does.

I've never seen the word used neutrally or positively.

 

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CaptainYesterday said:

You have seen the word used neutrally, you've just unnecessarily assigned it negativity.

...

[Sally]

Alien is a word with a specific meaning in law.  However, in colloquial, every-day discussions, conversation, and non-legal writings, it does have a adversarial meaning.  

[Yatogami]

Maintaining boarders, and stability in the economy isn't Xenophobic. It is the only way to maintain order. It is a necessary evil. Why can't anyone understand that. Sure its wrong to tell people they can't come it. But it winds up being an us or them thing that results in everyone being unhappy. 

 

Let us say you own a house, and you have enough food to feed 3 people everyday. That house owner can let two people come in, and still maintain order. But let us say 10 people want in, but you still only have enough food to feed 3 people. The house owner knows none of these people have jobs, so the odds of receiving more food to feed them is slim. He can take the gamble, and hope for the best. Or it can result in starvation for everyone, and needless suffering. An intelligent person, would never take on more than they could handle. They might risk taking a few extra people, the most qualified people, and let them in. Logically, one cannot take everyone without some loss of food for every individual. The house owner is not obligated in any way to even provide for these people, and they are already there because of his good side. So you cannot accuse them of being bad people.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Sally]

5 minutes ago, スバル said:

 So you cannot accuse them of being bad people.

I can certainly say that they are not helping people in need.  That goes for individuals and countries.  

[Yatogami]

1 minute ago, Sally said:

I can certainly say that they are not helping people in need.  That goes for individuals and countries.  

But they have, because they accepted the people they can provide for. One cannot help everyone. If you truly believe that, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? It is so easy to tell everyone to care about everyone, when it is not your money that you are spending.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Scathing rebuttal.

What else can I do when your post is nothing but denying what I've witnessed with that word, which you've never even seen so it makes no sense for you to say it was something else.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

I know for a fact that you have seen the word used neutrally because it's being used neutrally in this thread.

Doesn't really count since it's only being used to discuss the use of the word here

[LuckofTheChuck]

On 5/5/2017 at 6:53 PM, AcePsycho86 said:

Like what?

The policy with Israel, Healthcare reform, opposition to climate change, recreation of NASA, policy against Marijuana. 

[LuckofTheChuck]

On 5/6/2017 at 8:37 PM, Sally said:

You just need to take a class on citizenship, is it so hard for immigrants to do?

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, LuckofTheChuck said:

The policy with Israel, Healthcare reform, opposition to climate change, recreation of NASA, policy against Marijuana. 

you know that Trump is a climate change denier right?

 

You know that his healthcare stance is causing many to lose health care?

 

(I can't comment on the other three things right now because I don't know enough)

 

[LuckofTheChuck]

3 minutes ago, Mystic Maya said:

you know that Trump is a climate change denier right?

I know.

You know that his healthcare stance is causing many to lose health care?

It isn't. 

 

[Guest]

If you think climate change denial is a good thing... just... lol

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Yatogami]

I think climate change is real, but also inevitable. Why waste money on something you can't stop? So I don't see Trump as a threat about it.

 

If you really wanted to stop CO2, youd have to stop China and planes and boats etc. Which we can't really do. 

[The Terrible Travis]

2 hours ago, LuckofTheChuck said:

The policy with Israel, Healthcare reform, opposition to climate change, recreation of NASA, policy against Marijuana. 

1. Trump's Israel policy is basically to just suck up to Netanyahu. Obama was already way too weak on the guy, now we have someone who wants to do nothing but kiss his ass all day long. It's pathetic.
2. Ah, yes, Trump's wonderful healthcare "reform" that throws 24 million people off of insurance in order to give a giant tax break to the rich. How nice.
3. Trump's opposition to taking action against climate change is a threat to the planet and thousands of people's lives.
4. Eh.
5. The War on Drugs is gigantic failure. It hasn't lowered drug use, all it's led to is mass incarceration. It's time the country legalizes marijuana and decriminalizes all other drugs as well.

[LuckofTheChuck]

15 minutes ago, AcePsycho86 said:

Trump's Israel policy is basically to just suck up to Netanyahu. Obama was already way too weak on the guy, now we have someone who wants to do nothing but kiss his ass all day long. It's pathetic.

At least we're not doing that to a bunch of terrorists.

Ah, yes, Trump's wonderful healthcare "reform" that throws 24 million people off of insurance in order to give a giant tax break to the rich. How nice.

Show me proof on that.

Trump's opposition to taking action against climate change is a threat to the planet and thousands of people's lives.

No it isn't, it's using money wisely. 

Eh. 

NASA is so important for finding new planets that we can inhabit and for making new discoveries.

 

[Kelpie]

39 minutes ago, スバル said:

I think climate change is real, but also inevitable. Why waste money on something you can't stop? So I don't see Trump as a threat about it.

 

If you really wanted to stop CO2, youd have to stop China and planes and boats etc. Which we can't really do. 

China does want to stop CO2, but anyway, saying "well THEY are not doing anything so I'm not doing anything either" is first grade behaviour. 

[Yatogami]

2 minutes ago, Kelpie said:

China does want to stop CO2, but anyway, saying "well THEY are not doing anything so I'm not doing anything either" is first grade behaviour. 

Thats not what I said at all. China can "want" all it wants. Doesn't mean they will do it. They are still one of the top contributors to pollution. 

 

My point was, even if the west cracked down on all CO2. It still won't stop or even slow down climate change till the whole world and especially china becomes green. 

 

Then, green alternatives are not available everywhere. Not every place has access to water, wind, and solar energy. Some do need nuclear or coal etc. So cutting off options strangles growth in certain areas. It also is a detriment to the economy. 

 

Which is why I support Trump's plan of opening up all channels vof energy.