I notice that zica never mentioned Trump at all, nor Steve Bannon, nor Stephen Miller. You're making a lot of assumptions here which are not necessarily warranted. Many Americans have supported restrictions on immigration for much longer than Trump has been in politics (and of course also issues of xenophobia and racism in American immigration policy are much older too).

Part of what I mean when I talk about extending a presumption of good faith is not jumping to conclusions too quickly. Maybe it's just because there are relatively few conservative posters around here, but it seems like the tendency is to treat all of them as the avatars of the idealized #TrumpFan. Or maybe it's just the nature of partisanship, since the conservatives tend to assume all the radical SJW democrats are the same, too :P Either way though, I think that usually creates more heat than light.

It seems to me that what a lot of posters want is to force the debate to look at each micro-topic in a complete vacuum, ignoring social context or the source. Also to set rules that require doing backflips to give likely racists the benefit of the doubt. IE - "fine people" who just showed up and still marched at Charlottesville.

It seems that people still don't understand my point. I am not saying that some of the protesters were not neo nazis. I am saying that Trump thought that some weren't. It is ridiculous to think he is a nazi sympathizer. Does he even know who Richard Spencer is?

What is ridiculous about it? Stephen Miller is a top advisor to him. Steve Bannon ran his campaign.

Suzzer: I'm not very sympathetic to the argument that maybe Charlottesville marchers didn't know what they signed up for. I mean, sure, but I kinda doubt it. In any case, it's meaningful that the best defense anyone can come up with for Trump's comment is that he was just egregiously ignorant (and I understand that this was DS' argument).

Also, I think it's fine to try to point out social context to people in a political argument, as you are doing. I do it all the time. Extending people the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean agreeing with their point of view or accepting their premises without question. The purpose of the principle of charity is to improve dialog, not to prejudice conversation by dictating who is right to begin with. And clearly some people are just not capable of having a good faith conversation, including some who have been exiled or banned from this forum. And probably including some on the other side who haven't been :P

We wouldn't be discussing asylum laws if Trump wasn't turning it into a national emergency and stoking the issue. That context matters imo.

My contention is that there are no real statistics to back up the idea that these asylum seekers are causing any harm to our country. So before we talk about limiting them - I want to see proof they are even a problem. The vast majority of them just want to work. They use less social safety than Americans by far. Other than made-up fears about MS-13 or sensationalizing it any time an illegal immigrant commits a one-off crime (like Chiefsplanet and I assume Breitbart and worse does) - where is the proof they're hurting this country?

By admitting there's a problem we're letting Trump frame the debate before we even start.

There is no way this is true, though, unless you consider "the US" to be something divorced from the sum of its people, in which case it is more nonsense than falsehood. The Republican party has no interest in helping lower class people ascend, and they are quite happy inflicting cruelty upon Americans they don't like. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't think we are all part of the same team.

All of this is fine by me, and I agree with you. I'm not sure it's really related to what I was saying, though. I think you should be perfectly welcome to argue all of this and make these points to zica or anyone else.

Of course we understand your point. I'm pointing out how blatantly obvious it is that no "fine people" were left to illustrate that there is no conceivable way Trump was confused about the rally.

Yes, it's ridiculous to think the president would have an opinion w/o knowing who organized the rally or seeing clips of nazi flags. Did Trump miss the "Jews will not replace us" tiki torch march the night before?

He said there are "very fine people on both sides", because he knows the racist far-right lunatic fringe absolutely loves him. And that's all that matters to him. He couldn't bring himself to denounce his devout followers. He tried with the first press conference reading a bland lawyer-crafted statement denouncing the violence. Then he couldn't stand it anymore and went off script and said his true feelings. He wanted the fine people to know he loved them. I beleive he literally said that.

Should Trump be killed given his penchant for calling women offensive names? Why or why not?

No. You are still asserting that he meant "some neo nazis are very fine people" rather than "some of the protesters are not neo nazis".

~30% of people do not agree with that premise at all.

I hope this forum doesn't get killed.

I guess I have to concede that both Adolf Hitler and Angela Merkel want(ed) a Germany that "thrives," but I do reject the notion that their goals are the same and that they only disagreed about how to get there.

You are posting in a corpse.

The forum does not want to go on the cart.

But I'm sure you'll concede that there are Republicans who both want the lower class to ascend (who wouldn't? I'm assuming you mean they won't proactively legislate in an attempt to achieve that) and who don't want to inflict cruelty on anyone. If you don't believe that, then it's obvious debate would be impossible.

I dislike Trump immensely. I think he's a national embarrassment. But most politicians (and especially the media) are guilty of the radical polarization we see today. That's not exclsuively a Trump issue.

At any rate, I hope the new forum is a success even if the odds are against it. I don't think this forum should've been closed even though I agree that many of the criticisms against it were legitimate. The posters seemed to enjoy it.

I think you really should read this article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-point/572104/

Who is that Republican? One currently in office? If so, name names so that I can show you some cruel votes. Or are you referring to a Republican Joe shmo who says he disagrees with the party but hasn't left it and still votes for it? Why should I take him seriously?

I'm asserting that no one who marches with neo-nazis is a "very fine person", and for Trump to suggest otherwise is racist.

I've made this exact point 3 times in a row and you keep misconstruing it.

what good faith have conservatives earned? when in US history have they been on the right side to earn this mysterious good faith? its been selfishness from the beginning that manifested in racism, bigotry, and corruption of morals they pretend to have.

with regards to the zica thing, remember i asked him to pick the topic, that was his cherry picked topic that he could bring that he believe wasn't based in racism- picking and choosing immigrants based on their value to his economic beliefs..

The idea that “good people” would support neo-nazis makes your point moot. It brings us back to some good people accidentally went to a neo-nazi rally but don’t support the new-nazis. How does that work?

It won’t. The non-drunk powers know that this forum is required for the rest of the site to survive. Otherwise annoying politics topics creep their way into non-related discussions and turn the given thread into a flaming pile of garbage. It’s all been a show.

Shocked that David doesn’t want to talk about killing misogynists when the target turns to Trump though. Really didn’t see that coming at all

Cognitive dissonance is such a buzz kill.