I don’t answer backhanded questions. I have never said anything remotely suggesting I believed in the inferiority of certain races. In fact I have often challenged many posters who deny the agency of minority races.
So you don’t believe black people are
inferior? If you say you don’t, explicitly, I promise to defend your and cite this post any time I see someone accuse you of being a white supremacist. 
Will, are you defending white nationalist propagandists because you’re sympathetic to their views, or because you enjoy being a contrarian? Let’s assume for a moment it’s the latter. Contrarianism really stops being cute past a certain point. Armond White’s schtick is funny, but were he to start giving 5-star reviews to Triumph of the Will the joke would wear real thin real fast. It’s just not a good look, mate.
(If it is the former, do feel free to let us know.)
…would they? Are you sure? 20 years ago a random white person in Great Britian or Denmark had to worry about presenting their papers on no other pretext except the colour of their skin? Cite?
You’ve got Canada. You’ve got thousands of white people who over-stay their visa. There are hordes of white people who want to stay in America. Why aren’t the very same methods and tactics used against white people as they are used against brown people? Are white overstayers objectively different to brown overstayers?
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Do you agree with that sentiment? Or, like USCIS director Ken Cuccinelli, do you think it should be changed to:
“give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet, and who will not become a public charge.”
What if they are if you are obviously hispanic or haitian or African, but they speak perfectly fluent english in a broad and distinct American accent?
…trust me: you don’t have to live in America to understand how absurdly fanatically nationalistic Americans can be. From having children pledge allegiance to the flag to the reverence given to those long-dead-white-men called “The Founding Fathers”, to the worship of the United States Constitution, we can probably see it even better than you can even though you are in the middle of it all.
As I said before nationalism is a threat. White nationalism (AKA white supremacy) is a clear and present danger. Because here’s the difference. Power. White nationalism has a grip on the executive branch. Stephen Miller, an unelected white supremacist, has effectively hijacked the immigration portfolio, is setting policy and fundumentally changing who will and won’t be allowed to come into America, and he has done that with no oversight and to the delight of the President. I quoted some statistics earlier in the thread. 15,000 Syrian refugees in 2016. 3000 Syrian refugees in 2017. 11 Syrian refugees in 2018. The refugee acceptance level went from a forecast (set by the Obama Administration) of 110,000 for 2017 to only 15,000 for 2019. Yet they are building more camps, funnelling people into those camps, and those people have next-to-know chance of getting asylum. They are closing the borders.
And today they’ve bought in the new Green Card rules. Rules that apparently Miller has been salivating over, that favour rich white people over poor non-white people. They are kicking people out.
The thing is this won’t be the end of it. Miller & Co are working quietly in the background. Little by little they are fundumentally changing what America is, what it aspires too. The thought of what will be coming next should be terrifying you. If the worst that we get is Americans being over-the-top-jingoistic during the national anthem I’ll take that over what is happening right now in a heartbeat.
The reality is that US nationalism has never “been in hand” though. It has always, IMHO, been freaky as shit.
None of these things though could realistically be classified as the “biggest ideological threat to American lives, by far”, which is what this thread is all about.
I think history tells a different story. Its a story of America that killed and pushed the indigenous peoples off their lands, that bought black people to America in chains and used them as slaves. America is a country that was founded in white supremacy. The constitution was written by white men. There are black people alive today who early in their lives weren’t allowed to vote. This is America. Their ideas not only have “traction”, for a good part of your history their ideas were enshrined in law. They are not hiding in slimy caves and under dank rocks: they control the executive branch of government in the United States of America.
I’m sure they can be fervent nationalists. But white nationalism is a much bigger problem in America because white nationalist have all of the power right now.
This was about the mildest rant I’ve ever seen in Great Debates 
I very much doubt the first 2 attempts were that bad
…more from acting USCIS director Ken Cuccinelli:
https://twitter.com/nick_ramsey/status/1161436631469105152
They aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.
“Dissemble” was a really bad choice of verbs for that statement. Do not accuse other posters of lying in GD or Elections.
[ /Moderating ]
It’s definitely a compassionate and noble sentiment. However, it’s not always practical to treat poetry as policy.
I think a better testament would be staying in the troubled country and fixing it rather than breaking other people’s laws just because it’s easier.
…I didn’t suggest you treat poetry as policy. I asked if Urbanredneck agreed with the sentiment. Do you agree with the sentiment? Do you believe in compassion and nobility? Do you think that “Mexico and Central America with millions of people there desperate for a better life” should not have the opportunity to seek a better life in America?
I don’t mind migration if there are limits and controls that are actually enforced. I am not for open borders. If those countries are that bad that tens of millions need to flee I am not opposed to a fundamental restructure of those countries.
…seeking asylum doesn’t (necessarily) involve breaking any laws.
That’s good, but what would you say to Mexican farmers who got crushed out of business by American ag subsidies? What would you say to Central American migrants who’ve lived under American-backed right wing regimes that later devolved into failed states? Obviously, not everything that happens south of the border is big, bad America’s fault, but there are probably literally millions of people who have been economically and literally screwed by the United States, and many of these people just want to live where it’s safe and where they can save some cash. That doesn’t entitle them to break our immigration laws, but I think they are entitled to some sort of political solution beyond “restructuring their country.” It’s worth pointing out that until some Republicans ran on racism starting around 2006, the GOP actually had some not-so-bad ideas and GWB clearly tried to be part of the solution on immigration reform. Alas, the GOP became the party of Tom Tancredo and Steve King.
The problem, octopus, is that they really are better off without American involvement in any kind of restructuring; the other problem is, if they restructure in ways that are deemed “communist” or detrimental to American economic and political interests, we have a tendency to undermine their stability. So the solution’s a wee bit more complex than what you’ve flippantly tossed out.
…the current administration has cut aide to the countries that need help with a “fundumental restructure.” Do you consider that a prudent move or a problematic one?
The current administration has dropped the number of refugees it will accept from 100,000 to 15,000. There are over 25.9 million refugees in the world, 3.5 million people are seeking asylum. Do you consider only accepting 15,000 people to be a noble and considerate ideal? Do you think you could do better, or is that a number you feel comfortable with?
It’s not flippant if you look at the numbers. 8 billion is a lot of people. 10-12 billion on a planet with rising sea levels? Tell me, aside from restructuring the globe or conceding our rule to a magical and benevolent A.I., how you fix what’s bound to happen in 40-60 years:
I think we can take in and assimilate more than 15,000. The US alone probably could, if fear mongering subsided, take in that 3.5 million.
…awesome I agree. My country (New Zealand) also doesn’t take in as many refugees as it could, we could could do much better here and my government really needs to do better as well.
…here was the live-tweets of someone who was in the audience as these two spoke:
They came to New Zealand just after that disgraceful performance and they arrived to protests, having their venue canceled, and the only thing they left behind were memorable moments like this ( they didn’t know what a Māori person looks like) and this (demanding to know why a former Māori politician was in the lobby to a media outlet. The moment he took his glasses off were gold)
In the end it didn’t work out well for these grifters.
Didn’t that already happen with GWB? :rolleyes:
People, in this very message board, were absolutely, positively certain that was the case then, and now, it’s just people tilting at windmills.
As for the OP, and connected to my previous post, the biggest threat you face is the descent into LARPing politics.