Obama and the deportation issue

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, do you find it offensive to say "white" instead of "caucasian"?

Different words have different cultural meanings at different points in time.  "White" and "black" are culturally acceptable.  Some words that were culturally acceptable at one time, such as "Negro", have become culturally unacceptable.  You cannot equate "white" with "yellow" in terms of its acceptability to society.

You also cannot insinuate that "yellow" is used commonly enough to go off about it. DFB was obviously using it sarcastically to mock the GOP.

Yet at this point, even he has said he doesn't feel comfortable using that term.  You're now defending a position that even the OP isn't defending.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Here's a hypothetical for you: I consider myself of German descent on my father's side but not of immigrant descent because this immigration occurred in the 1860s. It's a distant memory and remnants of that cultural heritage are fragmented; removed from Germany and linked to Iowa.

That's pretty arbitrary but I'm sick of participating in this strange juridical form of debate. You're avoiding having a discussion to make petty points as if this was a trial. If everyone considers yourself white at first glance, you have a "white" last name and you're very removed from your immigrant ancestry, laying claim to title "Mexican-America" would be wrong imo. In fact, I felt offended at the idea you could speak for me, my friends and family as a fellow Mexican because you're only 1/8th Mexican.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Inks, do you find it offensive to say "white" instead of "caucasian"?

Different words have different cultural meanings at different points in time.  "White" and "black" are culturally acceptable.  Some words that were culturally acceptable at one time, such as "Negro", have become culturally unacceptable.  You cannot equate "white" with "yellow" in terms of its acceptability to society.

You also cannot insinuate that "yellow" is used commonly enough to go off about it. DFB was obviously using it sarcastically to mock the GOP.

Yet at this point, even he has said he doesn't feel comfortable using that term.  You're now defending a position that even the OP isn't defending.

I'm not defending the usage of the word in general, I'm defending using it in the way that DFB used it (whether or not he defends it, that's how he meant it)

Heaven forbid I defend a statement that was retracted (forcibly, at that) by the person who said it.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Republicans hate browns and yellows. This is really, really, really obvious to anyone with immigrant heritage. It comes out in ways that are subtle to most white Americans but are regular experiences shared by the vast majority of immigrants. In short: there's no real way for Republican candidates to play this to their advantage. They might not lose the "minority" vote in 2016 like they did in 2012 but they won't win Latinos over on the issue of immigration.

Besides the fact that your first sentenced negated anything else of value you might have posted afterwards due to its shear absurdity, the Latino votes power is vastly overstated, and I don’t quite understand why either party should bend over backwards for them in the same manner that they do for AIPAC. My party can be a bit more wise in it's outreach, but to try to win more than 40% of the Hispanic vote is a quixotic mission.

I say that from personal experience and from interactions I've had with other minorities. There's nearly a consensus viewpoint on this issue: Republicans mirror the racist behavior we've encountered amongst average joe white guy. Behavior from average joe white guy correlates directly with Republican voting patterns as well.

Care to address the fact that the Hispanic vote is not as important/powerful as you think it is? That’s a bit more important of an issue than your irrational perceptions of Republicans.

It isn't that powerful nor is it that important at the moment but if you allow this issue to fester and if your party continues to act as it has, it will bite you and hard. Recent Latino immigrants have a fundamentally different view of government due to their positive experiences with transformative socialist policy that defines the very essence of their nationality/caste. If you allow this to harden, you'll write off 80% of the Latino electorate by default and allow Democrats to be much more progressive.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Here's a hypothetical for you: I consider myself of German descent on my father's side but not of immigrant descent because this immigration occurred in the 1860s. It's a distant memory and remnants of that cultural heritage are fragmented; removed from Germany and linked to Iowa.

That's pretty arbitrary but I'm sick of participating in this strange juridical form of debate. You're avoiding having a discussion to make petty points as if this was a trial. If everyone considers yourself white at first glance, you have a "white" last name and you're very removed from your immigrant ancestry, laying claim to title "Mexican-America" would be wrong imo. In fact, I felt offended at the idea you could speak for me, my friends and family as a fellow Mexican because you're only 1/8th Mexican.

And I'm offended that you think you can label someone who is 1/8 or 1/4 Mexican as someone who hates other people simply because of his party affiliation.  You're making an unfair stereotype; it's more than just some juridical form of debate.  You made an obnoxiously unfair statement and deserved to be called out.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh, this ridiculous cabaret from Inks again.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Here's a hypothetical for you: I consider myself of German descent on my father's side but not of immigrant descent because this immigration occurred in the 1860s. It's a distant memory and remnants of that cultural heritage are fragmented; removed from Germany and linked to Iowa.

That's pretty arbitrary but I'm sick of participating in this strange juridical form of debate. You're avoiding having a discussion to make petty points as if this was a trial. If everyone considers yourself white at first glance, you have a "white" last name and you're very removed from your immigrant ancestry, laying claim to title "Mexican-America" would be wrong imo. In fact, I felt offended at the idea you could speak for me, my friends and family as a fellow Mexican because you're only 1/8th Mexican.

And I'm offended that you think you can label someone who is 1/8 or 1/4 Mexican as someone who hates other people simply because of his party affiliation.  You're making an unfair stereotype; it's more than just some juridical form of debate.  You made an obnoxiously unfair statement and deserved to be called out.

You're a member of the party of Steve King, Sharron Angle and Michele Bachmann. You're also white. I'm not very sympathetic, sorry.

Also, I don't think all Republicans are racist. That's the predominant view and assumption of Mexican-Americans for good reason. Until you stop airing ads like this, expect nothing but hatred from Latinos:

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Oh, this ridiculous cabaret from Inks again.

For once you could attempt to point out the ridiculousness of my arguments instead of simply labeling them ridiculous and then sneaking away in cowardice.  I suspect, however, that you will not.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Here's a hypothetical for you: I consider myself of German descent on my father's side but not of immigrant descent because this immigration occurred in the 1860s. It's a distant memory and remnants of that cultural heritage are fragmented; removed from Germany and linked to Iowa.

That's pretty arbitrary but I'm sick of participating in this strange juridical form of debate. You're avoiding having a discussion to make petty points as if this was a trial. If everyone considers yourself white at first glance, you have a "white" last name and you're very removed from your immigrant ancestry, laying claim to title "Mexican-America" would be wrong imo. In fact, I felt offended at the idea you could speak for me, my friends and family as a fellow Mexican because you're only 1/8th Mexican.

And I'm offended that you think you can label someone who is 1/8 or 1/4 Mexican as someone who hates other people simply because of his party affiliation.  You're making an unfair stereotype; it's more than just some juridical form of debate.  You made an obnoxiously unfair statement and deserved to be called out.

You're a member of the party of Steve King, Sharron Angle and Michele Bachmann. You're also white. I'm not very sympathetic, sorry.

Also, I don't think all Republicans are racist. That's the predominant view and assumption of Mexican-Americans for good reason. Until you stop airing ads like this, expect nothing but hatred from Latinos:

And I don't support people like Steve King, Sharron Angle, and Michele Bachmann.  I've also never aired an ad, so I can't stop doing so.  You never prefaced your statement by saying, "Some Republicans hate..."; you just said "Republicans hate...".  If you didn't mean "all", you should've made that clear.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

@NCYankee, my point was that Latinos will always identify more strongly with the Democratic Party on immigration. Republicans have thoroughly poisoned that well. They can win them over on other issues or at least, slice into the support of a few ethnic groups or win back the ones they lost (Cubans, Venezuelans, Colombians and the Vietnamese).

They would have to win them over on other issues anyway. The Democrats have always been the more pro-immigrant party and a large segment of the country is resistant to heavy influxes varying from extreme nativists to people who support immigration in general but don't like the illegal variety. They have almost invariably been favorable to or even members of the party.

And Republicans are not going to become an anti-business party any sooner then they will become more pro-immigrant then the Democrats. The Republicans have been defined by such traits since the 1850's. Back then they shut their mouths and ran as the party that would protect the steel mill they worked at with tariffs and keep their cost of living low with a gold standard. I imagine we will see a 2010's variety of the same thing. Maybe it is education or even healthcare in place of the tariffs and gold of the 1800's.

Eh, I'd disagree. Look at the voting patterns of the Scandinavians and Germans or other groups with significant amounts of Protestants. Republicans have always found redemption amongst one immigrant group or another until 2012. Now their tent has thoroughly excluded them. If you want to win over both hillbillies and CEOs, you need to exclude them. That's the nature of our two-party system.

I tend to agree with you by the way. I predicted the demise of CIR just as every establishment Republican decided to endorse it. The base doesn't want it and will never want it.

Maybe but it was the Irish and South Germans that determined Indiana and New York and they were mostly Catholic and they were the ones insulted with the remarks in 1884. Also it should be noted that in the 1880's the GOP was shut out of the South, and relying on a region being heavily remade with the growth in the largely Catholic immigration populations for its 49%, leaving many reasons to doubt its viability long term.

One can hope that is the case. Also not all establishment types supported it. Coats, Portman, Moran, Roberts, Johanns, the Idaho Senators, and Cornyn voted no. Those are some fairly establishment type Republicans there. I have noticed that the NumbersUSA scores for Pearce, Kline, Coffman, Fitzpatrick and Heck have actually gone up, not down. Heck, Amodei's is actually lower in Nevada. Gary Miller still has the highest from the California delegation and so on.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Nothing scares me more than being cognizant of the validity of Republican arguments that they can win "without minorities". It's all too true...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh, this ridiculous cabaret from Inks again.

For once you could attempt to point out the ridiculousness of my arguments instead of simply labeling them ridiculous and then sneaking away in cowardice.  I suspect, however, that you will not.

And there you go again. Do you know why people tire of arguing with you so very quickly? It isn't because they're so afraid of your brilliant forensic debating that they can't face up to the challenge and so sneak away (as you write 'in cowardice'). No. It is because arguing with you is like arguing with a block of wood. You are seemingly impervious to logic, reason or insight and find it impossible to believe that you could ever be wrong. And so, and very quickly, instead of having an honest argument about the issue at hand, you nitpick at a couple of details that you regard as evidence of the other poster's hypocrisy (or whatever). Thus, as your Internet Quack Doctor, I hereby diagnose you with an acute case of the J.J.'s.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I'm really enjoying this thread. Please, gentlemen, continue.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Oh, this ridiculous cabaret from Inks again.

For once you could attempt to point out the ridiculousness of my arguments instead of simply labeling them ridiculous and then sneaking away in cowardice.  I suspect, however, that you will not.

And there you go again. Do you know why people tire of arguing with you so very quickly? It isn't because they're so afraid of your brilliant forensic debating that they can't face up to the challenge and so sneak away (as you write 'in cowardice'). No. It is because arguing with you is like arguing with a block of wood. You are seemingly impervious to logic, reason or insight and find it impossible to believe that you could ever be wrong. And so, and very quickly, instead of having an honest argument about the issue at hand, you nitpick at a couple of details that you regard as evidence of the other poster's hypocrisy (or whatever). Thus, as your Internet Quack Doctor, I hereby diagnose you with an acute case of the J.J.'s.

In other words, no, you will not.

EDIT: I also have no problem admitting that I am wrong.  I have done so many times, and I am sure that I will in the future.  However, when someone hypocritically stereotypes a whole party as racist, how else would you like me to engage in an honest argument with that person?

[hopper]

Here's a hypothetical for you: I consider myself of German descent on my father's side but not of immigrant descent because this immigration occurred in the 1860s. It's a distant memory and remnants of that cultural heritage are fragmented; removed from Germany and linked to Iowa.

That's pretty arbitrary but I'm sick of participating in this strange juridical form of debate. You're avoiding having a discussion to make petty points as if this was a trial. If everyone considers yourself white at first glance, you have a "white" last name and you're very removed from your immigrant ancestry, laying claim to title "Mexican-America" would be wrong imo. In fact, I felt offended at the idea you could speak for me, my friends and family as a fellow Mexican because you're only 1/8th Mexican.

And I'm offended that you think you can label someone who is 1/8 or 1/4 Mexican as someone who hates other people simply because of his party affiliation.  You're making an unfair stereotype; it's more than just some juridical form of debate.  You made an obnoxiously unfair statement and deserved to be called out.

You're a member of the party of Steve King, Sharron Angle and Michele Bachmann. You're also white. I'm not very sympathetic, sorry.

Also, I don't think all Republicans are racist. That's the predominant view and assumption of Mexican-Americans for good reason. Until you stop airing ads like this, expect nothing but hatred from Latinos:

Its one ad its not like the RNC aired an ad that was anti-latino its just 1 candidate that aired an ad like that.

[Lief 🗽]

All of Inks' posts in this thread should be in the deluge.

[hopper]

Republicans hate browns and yellows. This is really, really, really obvious to anyone with immigrant heritage. It comes out in ways that are subtle to most white Americans but are regular experiences shared by the vast majority of immigrants. In short: there's no real way for Republican candidates to play this to their advantage. They might not lose the "minority" vote in 2016 like they did in 2012 but they won't win Latinos over on the issue of immigration.

I just can't believe you posted that what I have in bold.

Question: are you of Hispanic heritage? Preferably having a recent generation immigrate from their country?

No not Hispanic. No new immigrants of my family came here recently. I just don't look at it like you or other Hispanics look at the Republican Party. I just base my opinion on a politician by their  their actions and not as a political party as a whole. I didn't like Steve King's recent opinion about Hispanics about the drugs on the border and I thought he was out of line. I would not vote for him if I lived in Iowa because of his comments.  I probably would for other Republicans but him if I lived there.

[hopper]

Nothing scares me more than being cognizant of the validity of Republican arguments that they can win "without minorities". It's all too true...

Well they can't so we agree there.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

No not Hispanic. No new immigrants of my family came here recently. I just don't look at it like you or other Hispanics look at the Republican Party. I just base my opinion on a politician by their  their actions and not as a political party as a whole. I didn't like Steve King's recent opinion about Hispanics about the drugs on the border and I thought he was out of line. I would not vote for him if I lived in Iowa because of his comments.  I probably would for other Republicans but him if I lived there.

That's fair enough. Btw, I am not Hispanic haha

[hopper]

Republicans hate browns and yellows. This is really, really, really obvious to anyone with immigrant heritage. It comes out in ways that are subtle to most white Americans but are regular experiences shared by the vast majority of immigrants. In short: there's no real way for Republican candidates to play this to their advantage. They might not lose the "minority" vote in 2016 like they did in 2012 but they won't win Latinos over on the issue of immigration.

Besides the fact that your first sentenced negated anything else of value you might have posted afterwards due to its shear absurdity, the Latino votes power is vastly overstated, and I don’t quite understand why either party should bend over backwards for them in the same manner that they do for AIPAC. My party can be a bit more wise in it's outreach, but to try to win more than 40% of the Hispanic vote is a quixotic mission.

I say that from personal experience and from interactions I've had with other minorities. There's nearly a consensus viewpoint on this issue: Republicans mirror the racist behavior we've encountered amongst average joe white guy. Behavior from average joe white guy correlates directly with Republican voting patterns as well.

Care to address the fact that the Hispanic vote is not as important/powerful as you think it is? That’s a bit more important of an issue than your irrational perceptions of Republicans.

It isn't that powerful nor is it that important at the moment but if you allow this issue to fester and if your party continues to act as it has, it will bite you and hard. Recent Latino immigrants have a fundamentally different view of government due to their positive experiences with transformative socialist policy that defines the very essence of their nationality/caste. If you allow this to harden, you'll write off 80% of the Latino electorate by default and allow Democrats to be much more progressive.

I just don't get how a socialist government is positive. Look at Great Britain it works horribly.

Besides the Latino population is growing mostly because of birth's that take place in the US not because of immigration from Mexico nowadays. Maybe the latino population mostly grew because of immigration from Mexico in the 1980's but not anymore.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Inks, calling yourself a Mexican-American would be only slightly less absurd than Mitt Romney calling himself one, and might even be as absurd depending upon the ethnicity of your Mexican great-grandparent.

Now could the Republicans someday attract significant numbers of those who identify strongly with a non-white racial background?  Perhaps, but only if they stop ignoring the racists among them, and the GOP simply is unwilling to do so at present.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, calling yourself a Mexican-American would be only slightly less absurd than Mitt Romney calling himself one, and might even be as absurd depending upon the ethnicity of your Mexican great-grandparent.

Now could the Republicans someday attract significant numbers of those who identify strongly with a non-white racial background?  Perhaps, but only if they stop ignoring the racists among them, and the GOP simply is unwilling to do so at present.

I don't call myself "Mexican-American", but that is certainly not the same thing as "anyone with immigrant heritage".  My father, who is 25% Mexican certainly doesn't believe that Republicans hate Mexicans; he is a Republican.  My grandmother, who is 50% Mexican doesn't believe that Republicans hate Mexicans; her affiliation with the Democratic party is due to welfare and union issues, not racism by some Republicans.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now could the Republicans someday attract significant numbers of those who identify strongly with a non-white racial background?  Perhaps, but only if they stop ignoring the racists among them, and the GOP simply is unwilling to do so at present.

My father, who is 25% Mexican certainly doesn't believe that Republicans hate Mexicans; he is a Republican.  My grandmother, who is 50% Mexican doesn't believe that Republicans hate Mexicans; her affiliation with the Democratic party is due to welfare and union issues, not racism by some Republicans.

Given your own politics I would have been surprised that racial or ethnic issues were a significant political factor for anyone in your immediate family.

Still, such factors clearly are at play in the GOP.  The only reason for the whole birther fracas was racism, and since not a single GOP officeholder who advocated that racist theory has been kicked out of a GOP caucus or even censured by the party with loss of campaign support or the like, it is quite safe to say that while the GOP as a party does not advocate racism, it certainly tolerates and takes no meaningful steps today to eliminate it from its midst.

[hopper]

Now could the Republicans someday attract significant numbers of those who identify strongly with a non-white racial background?  Perhaps, but only if they stop ignoring the racists among them, and the GOP simply is unwilling to do so at present.

My father, who is 25% Mexican certainly doesn't believe that Republicans hate Mexicans; he is a Republican.  My grandmother, who is 50% Mexican doesn't believe that Republicans hate Mexicans; her affiliation with the Democratic party is due to welfare and union issues, not racism by some Republicans.

Given your own politics I would have been surprised that racial or ethnic issues were a significant political factor for anyone in your immediate family.

Still, such factors clearly are at play in the GOP.  The only reason for the whole birther fracas was racism, and since not a single GOP officeholder who advocated that racist theory has been kicked out of a GOP caucus or even censured by the party with loss of campaign support or the like, it is quite safe to say that while the GOP as a party does not advocate racism, it certainly tolerates and takes no meaningful steps today to eliminate it from its midst.

The whole birther thing was not racist its just racial although I think the whole birther thing is a crazy issue. I never heard of a GOP Politician say Obama is from another country that's a first hearing of that for me. 

[Mechaman]

Now could the Republicans someday attract significant numbers of those who identify strongly with a non-white racial background?  Perhaps, but only if they stop ignoring the racists among them, and the GOP simply is unwilling to do so at present.

My father, who is 25% Mexican certainly doesn't believe that Republicans hate Mexicans; he is a Republican.  My grandmother, who is 50% Mexican doesn't believe that Republicans hate Mexicans; her affiliation with the Democratic party is due to welfare and union issues, not racism by some Republicans.

Given your own politics I would have been surprised that racial or ethnic issues were a significant political factor for anyone in your immediate family.

Still, such factors clearly are at play in the GOP.  The only reason for the whole birther fracas was racism, and since not a single GOP officeholder who advocated that racist theory has been kicked out of a GOP caucus or even censured by the party with loss of campaign support or the like, it is quite safe to say that while the GOP as a party does not advocate racism, it certainly tolerates and takes no meaningful steps today to eliminate it from its midst.

The whole birther thing was not racist its just racial although I think the whole birther thing is a crazy issue. I never heard of a GOP Politician say Obama is from another country that's a first hearing of that for me. 

Okay that settles it guys.  The birther thing was not at all racist and was just some racial matter.   No big deal, we can all go home now.