Here is an example of this thinking:
Right after the attacks in Brussels on Tuesday, Donald Trump did something bizarre. He spoke the truth. Appearing on Fox and Friends, the GOP presidential frontrunner declared that, “This all happened because frankly there is no assimilation.” ...Following this logic, instead of fighting World War II, we should have invited a lot of Nazis and Japs to live in the USA. Or during the Cold War, we should have invited a lot of commies in.
Today, American Muslims are far more integrated than Muslims in Europe. According to a 2011 Pew Research poll, only 20 percent of American Muslims surveyed would prefer to “be distinct” than to “adopt American customs.” …
Banning Muslim immigration would almost certainly undermine this.
Actually, we did take a lot of people from communist countries during the Cold War, but they all hated communism, so it did nothing to make the true commies like us.
Of the Moslems who immigrate to the USA, probably only 20% believe in violent jihadism against infidels.
Importing Moslem jihadists in the hopes that they will like us more is just crazy. There are over a billion Moslems in the world, and no matter how many we take, there will be a billion more who will be annoyed that we did not take them also. And no matter how well we screen them, we will be bringing in thousands of terrorists. There is no good payoff from such a strategy.
Today's top NY Times headline is: In Donald Trump’s Worldview, America Comes First.
The shocking part of this is that it is big news that an American presidential candidate wants to put America first. Isn't that an essential requirement for the job? Why would anyone vote for a presidential candidate who did not put America first?
That is the essence of why I support Trump, and why I am not fazed by all the attacks on him. Any presidential consideration of American policy should be based on how it helps Americans. Not on whether it causes people on the other side of the world to like us more. Those people will hate us anyway.
Trump is the only one who stands for America first. The mainstream media and the Democrat Party are dominated by traitors who seek to undermine America. The more that they say it is wrong to put America first, the more they identify themselves as traitors.
I don't know how to answer that. Carrying out that experiment would probably require a civil war that would destroy the USA. If it could be done, we would probably have a lower GDP because of the lower population. But would it be a nicer place to live? Hard to say.
ALright, what would America be without European Americans? Contrast with what America would be without all the non-European Americans. Roger, you will get the picture. Sometimes thought experiments, though unrealistic, can focus the mind on the essentials, and clarify what is important from what is a sideshow.
What would America be without these people ? The first and possibly 3rd commenter have some great sense of entitlement for European Americans after they've committed so many atrocities in America.
Let's begin with the first group of Americans who he conveniently, leaves out of the equation, the Native Americans who were killed off for their own land. What do they now deserve in the home of the brave and the land of the free ? Anything ?
Next the Jews, Who are accused of controlling the banks, Hollywood and the media thanks to White European Christian men. Old Christian laws made loaning money for interest a sin and wouldn't participate in it. It's not against Jewish laws, so Jews ended up over the years, controlling banks, thanks to the european White Christian men. It's what they wanted. They now have what they asked for. As for controlling Hollywood, that's again because of the White Christian European men who discriminated against Jews in employment, driving many Jews into the field of performing arts, including vaudville which evolved into Hollywood. The White European, Christian, men again, got what they bargained for. As for controlling the media, it's overstated and to the lesser extent is derived from the media having been and still part of the entertainment industry. left in the hands of the White Chrtistian European males, as it had been before with people like, Pulitzer and Hearst, we'd likely return to the days when the greedy White media controllers would start wars like the Spanish- American War, just to make money on wars that never would have been started except for the White, European, Christain, greedy men.
The blacks were captured and enslaved in America, then added a great many contributions including fighting for the U.S. in wars. Now you want to get rid of them, too ?
The Hispanics, like the Native Americans had their land stolen from them in a "false flag" type of Mexican - American War which added California, Texas, and Arizona to the U.S., where the bulk of them now live and work hard at jobs that almost all White Americans on welfare wouldn't do for substandard wages and working conditions. It's been predict that if you removed this group, prices for goods and services in Calif. would rise 25-30%. Statistically, they are responsible for LESS crime per capita than White Americans.
Nice of you to leave the Asians alone. They just built our railroads and performed dangerous mining and other terrible work like the Hispanics had.
So what would America be like without the White, European Christians in the U.S ? It would resmble a very expensive place, inhabitated by a bunch of descendants of thieves and murderers who in the end, elminated those who they'd either killed, or exploited or both.
If any group deserves to be kicked out of America, it's these Europeans that you dream of allowing to stay. What would be their motto, " kill 'em, steal from 'em, enslave 'em, exploit 'em, then get rid of them " ?
I don't hold any anti-white racial prejudices. You say that they deserve their share of the blame, right ? What share do they deserve ? half, twenty five percent ? 100% ? Do you think that someone else is to blame for the stealing other than them ? Who did the stealing ?
When you say that the current situation can largely be attributed to White Europeans men, are you saying that it can also be attributed to other people or other factors ? If so, who and or what ?
Just because a person blames a group that deserves to be blamed for something that they did doesn't mean that they are expressing any racial prejudices. Can't they just be placing blame with whi it belongs to be placed with ? Everytime you blame a group of people for something in your posts are you expressing a racial prejudice towards those people ?
When you refer to white people as thieves and murderers, you are expressing an anti-white racial prejudice. The non-whites commit crimes at higher rates than whites.
So when Trump describes Mexicans as rapists and murderers, is he expressing racial prejudice ?
I compared the crime rates of Hispanics to Whites.
Are you saying that I wasn't just describing the fact about what the White Europeans stole ? When I just describe the facts, which you conceeded to, I'm expressing racial prejudice. When Trump misstates the facts about hispanics and crime, he's not expressing a racial prejudice ? What's he doing ? Simply lying because of the "emotional appeal" and "little evidence" ? Maybe Trump is just a liar, expressing racial prejudice ?
http://www.unz.com/article/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/ Unz, a conservative seems to agree with me.
"some have also accepted the myth that Hispanic immigrants and their children have high crime rates. Such an argument may have considerable emotional appeal, but there is very little hard evidence behind it."
No, that article says that Hispanics commit crimes at a higher rate than whites.
And I do say that you were lying about what White Europeans stole. You are just an anti-white racist.
Did you read the article by Unz ? Did you notice that it's titled the MYTH of Hispanic crime ?
Are you actually denying that White Europeans stole land from Native Americans ?
Is that the best point you can make against make arguments; name calling ? "You are just an anti -white racist" ? When you lack the facts do you just resort to name calling ?
I guess you just read Unz's title. He argues that Hispanic crime is not as bad as some people think. Maybe so, but they still commit more crimes than whites.
Your anti-white comments are off-topic and inaccurate.
I read Unz's entire article. (Unz who you cited today) If you read the entire article you'd understand why he terms it a "myth" in the title. The article says that they don't commit more crime than whites.
As far as my comments being off-topic, you earlier wrote "You are right that the current situation can be largely attributed to White European Christian men, so they deserve their share of the blame." Apparently, when you lack an argument to make, you claim the other person's comments are off-topic after they were on-topic before.
My comments aren't anti-white. They are facts about what whites have done, like you claim Trump's comments are just facts without expressing racial prejudice. You wrote, " No, Trump was describing the facts. Some of them are rapists and murderers, just as he said." Some whites are thieves and stole land from the Native Americans. Do you deny that some White Europeans stole land from the Native Americans ? Do you deny that some white Europeans killed thousands of Native Americans ? If Trump is just stating what he tries to pawn off as facts, then I'm just stating real facts. If he can lie and not be expressing racial prejudice, then I should be able to offer truthful facts without being accused of expressing racial prejudice.
Sure, you are just like Trump. After you make a billion dollars, you can run for President yourself. Maybe you will get the votes of the white-haters.
I'm not just like Trump. and what do you mean, Trump never MADE billions of dollars ? He has billions of dollars because of what he inherited, and he'd have even more had he just put it on the s & p index and not gone to all of the scams and bankruptcies that stiffed his creditors.
Dodging the questions, saying I'm off topic, innuendo, passive aggression, name calling. You DON'T have an argument.
Trump wants the new Supreme Court Justice to investigate Hillary Clinton's emails. He really said that. Trump doesn't even understand how the U.S. government works. Maybe he should have taken a civics class before running for president. The funny thing is that I doubt his supporters even care how little he understands about civics or the constitution, as long as he promises to build a wall that he'll never build even if he were to get elected. First his wall was 4 billion, then 6 billion, then 8 billion, then 12 billion. First it was going to be 2000 miles, then 1000 miles, and the height increased when a former Mexican president said something that he didn't like. Forget about knowledgeable, does the guy even seem rational ?
Trump has named who he might appoint to the Supreme Court. They are better than what Obama has appointed, and better than who Hillary Clinton might appoint. Trump would respect the Constitution a lot more than Obama.
Does Trump understand what a Supreme Court Justice does ? Is he going to have his newly appointed Justice investigate Clinton ? Is he going to "make them" investigate Clinton like he said he'd make the armed service members go after terrorist's family member's ? Maybe he thinks that he can make the Mexicans pay for and do the investigating of Clinton ? I'm no Obama fan but, Obama taught and understands constututional law, Trump doesn't even understandthe basics of it. If Trump were to nominate or pledge a nominee, who knows what he'd later do ? Maybe he'd change his mind about them because of what a former Mexican president might say, or back out of it like his pledge to support whoever the Republican presidential nominee was ? We're dealing with someone who's unknowledgeable and erratic. Do you really want to roll the dice on someone like that ? Don't you think that someone who was aware of what the Supreme Court and armed forces can and can't do might be better for the job ? As comical as it is, in the case of the Presidency, his ignorance won't lead to our bliss.
I concede that Ted Cruz knows the law better than Trump. If I were hiring a lawyer, I would rather hire Ted Cruz. If I were appointing a judge, and I would rather appoint Cruz. But Trump is running for President, not a lawyer job. The President has lawyers to advise on legal matters.
How about someone who just has a basic understanding of how the U.S. government and armed forces works ? That would be helpful. Trump has proven he doesn't even have that.
Watch Trump's W.H. run cost the Republicans the W.H., Senate and House, whether he wins the Repub. nomination or not. If he wins it, a lot of Repub. voters won't go to the polls. If it's Cruz or someone else, the party will be divided and the Repub. voters won't show up to the polls also.
We shall see. It is also possible that Clinton and Sanders will similarly divide the Democrat party.
Post a Comment