Live data from Hacker News

The smug style in American liberalism

vox.com

431–435 of 435 posts

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#431
post #430
post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 300k net migration figure is bogus, as I already explained. The effect of natural population growth and immigration on the size of the population is roughly equal ( http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings... ), and natural population growth could be cut much more than immigration. You're illustrating perfectly that people don't really care about "overcrowding" at all. If they did, they wouldn…

Family planning, to allow people to choose, is a far, far different proposition from the one you put forward. In order to limit population growth you think people should stop having kids in order to be better able to play host to newcomers. It's a position almost beyond parody and so far out of touch with human wants and needs. I repeat - are you human? Your figures are interesting but not conclusive, over half of po…

>In order to limit population growth you think people should stop having kids in order to be better able to play host to newcomers.

I don't want to limit population growth in the first place. You're the one who was suggesting that it's a problem.

But someone who really did want to limit population growth would obviously be interested in policies that would reduce the number of births. So, at minimum, they'd support lots of extra funding for teen sex education and family planning, since a significant number of births are unplanned. But of course we don't hear a peep about that -- only about immigration.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#432
post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is not xenophobia to want to keep terrorists out by temporary stopping immigration from countries with ties to terrorism. And that has nothing to do with their religion. It has to do with the fact that terrorists want to blow people up. Calling that xenophobia and religious bigotry is just a straight out lie.

He called for a ban on all Muslims. Try explaining how that has "nothing to do with religion".

>...all Muslims...

Not ALL Muslims.

ONLY the Muslims IMMIGRANTS from countries with direct ties to terrorist groups.

So how can he be racist if he's only banning the Muslims from countries with direct ties to terrorism, and not ALL Muslims? He's not banning ALL Muslims immigrants like you claim.

And this has nothing to do with religion. An immigrant don't even have to be Muslim. ANY immigrants (ANY, not just Muslims) that are attempting to enter the United States from a country with direct ties to terrorism will not be allowed into the United States until vetting can be done.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#433
post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do know of Hillary's mentor, he claimed to have left the KKK. We know of other KKK Grand Master who have claimed to have donated to Hillary. It's all just claims and accusations to smear the opposite opponents in the election cycle. These are not important issues. Voters knows these are just election smears.

Nope, we know for sure that David Duke endorsed trump. Everything else you're referencing is baseless speculation.

But we also know that the KKK donated $20,000 to Hillary.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#434
post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He called for a ban on all Muslims. Try explaining how that has "nothing to do with religion".

>...all Muslims... Not ALL Muslims. ONLY the Muslims IMMIGRANTS from countries with direct ties to terrorist groups. So how can he be racist if he's only banning the Muslims from countries with direct ties to terrorism, and not ALL Muslims? He's not banning ALL Muslims immigrants like you claim. And this has nothing to do with religion. An immigrant don't even have to be Muslim. ANY immigrants (ANY, not just Muslims)…

He is on video calling for a ban on all Muslims.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#435
post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...all Muslims... Not ALL Muslims. ONLY the Muslims IMMIGRANTS from countries with direct ties to terrorist groups. So how can he be racist if he's only banning the Muslims from countries with direct ties to terrorism, and not ALL Muslims? He's not banning ALL Muslims immigrants like you claim. And this has nothing to do with religion. An immigrant don't even have to be Muslim. ANY immigrants (ANY, not just Muslims)…

He is on video calling for a ban on all Muslims.

He was also on video calling for ban for only immigrants from nations with direct ties to terrorism.
Post reply on HN