ADVERTISEMENT

Wayne Allyn Root

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 4, 2001
37,268
23,799
113
Root was the warm-up speaker for the Trump rally in Nevada. Root believes that Seth Rich was murdered by the Democrats. Root believes the Vegas shooting was carried out by ISIS. Root believes the driver of the car in Charlottesville was a George Soro plant. Root says he is not a birther, but believes Obama came to Columbia as a foreign exchange student (and of course is Muslim).

And here he is given the prime spot, addressing a crowd directly before the president. Now some reading this are full-fledged members of the tinfoil hat brigade. But most are not and I'd think would be embarrassed about that.
 
Root was the warm-up speaker for the Trump rally in Nevada. Root believes that Seth Rich was murdered by the Democrats. Root believes the Vegas shooting was carried out by ISIS. Root believes the driver of the car in Charlottesville was a George Soro plant. Root says he is not a birther, but believes Obama came to Columbia as a foreign exchange student (and of course is Muslim).

And here he is given the prime spot, addressing a crowd directly before the president. Now some reading this are full-fledged members of the tinfoil hat brigade. But most are not and I'd think would be embarrassed about that.

Bump
 
What seems obvious is that the current GOP (not Aloha :) ) is mainstreaming tin foil hat beliefs. We have crazies on the left, we just don't invite truthers to the reindeer games. I certainly never remember Obama, or Clinton, giving a truther the elevation to mainstream thought that is happening now.

Some Republican posters, this time like Aloha, are upset about it. Some are great with mainstreaming idiots if they get a tax cut, and frankly, I suspect too many of our posters buy into all this.

Further, I think kowtowing to these conspiracy theorists is that oft spoken about dog whistle. That subset of racist Americans seem overrepresented in the conspiracy world.
 
What seems obvious is that the current GOP (not Aloha :) ) is mainstreaming tin foil hat beliefs. We have crazies on the left, we just don't invite truthers to the reindeer games. I certainly never remember Obama, or Clinton, giving a truther the elevation to mainstream thought that is happening now.

Some Republican posters, this time like Aloha, are upset about it. Some are great with mainstreaming idiots if they get a tax cut, and frankly, I suspect too many of our posters buy into all this.

Further, I think kowtowing to these conspiracy theorists is that oft spoken about dog whistle. That subset of racist Americans seem overrepresented in the conspiracy world.
I still take issue with the "current" and "is" part of your post. Some of the tin foil stuff may now be new or enhanced, but the bad faith and corrosive hate speech the Republicans (standard disclaimer to distinguish from conservatives) have adopted over a generation has inflamed the base to the point where there are no bounds and a pathway back to reason is all but lost.
 
And here he is given the prime spot, addressing a crowd directly before the president. Now some reading this are full-fledged members of the tinfoil hat brigade. But most are not and I'd think would be embarrassed about that.
Marvin, Root is obviously a wacko but my response is, so what? What harm do his goofy beliefs do to our nation? Yes, I'd prefer the GOP had spokesman more stable than Root and I'd prefer a more stable president too. But weigh the status quo against the horrors of the alternative.

Hillary was planning to bring in 65,000 immigrants from the Islamic Caliphate (link). Never mind that Germany reports that many of their Syrian migrants have counterfeit passports purchased in Turkey or real blank passports that were stolen and filled out by ISIS. The sobering truth is that Syrians with real, bona fide passports received them from the Assad government. There is no possible way to vet any of these people.

So Root is a full-fledged but harmless lunatic. Hillary is a far more dangerous threat to our nation. She was almost elected President, hell-bent on repeating the immigration blunders of the EU which now threaten its very existence . Politics is about the lesser of evils.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-u-s-should-take-65000-syrian-refugees/

Europe's migration crisis: Could it finish the EU?
katyaadler.png

Katya AdlerEurope editor@BBCkatyaadleron Twitter
_102234545_047648481-1.jpg
Image copyrightAFP
Image captionThe splits within the EU have been highlighted by Italy's refusal to accept migrants carried by NGO rescue boats in the Mediterranean
Hardened Eurosceptics might love to think the EU's in trouble, but as leaders gather in Brussels for their summer summit on Thursday, dedicated Europhiles are also sounding the alarm.

"The fragility of the EU is increasing," warns EU Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker. "The cracks are growing in size."

It's been easy to get distracted this last couple of weeks by the new Italian government and its headline-grabbing rejection of NGO migrant rescue boats.

But Mr Juncker is right: EU fissures go deeper and are more widespread.

Migration pits southern Europe against the north.

Italy and Greece smoulder with resentment at having been left alone to deal with migrant arrivals. Meanwhile, northern countries blame the south for not patrolling their Mediterranean borders better and for having, at least in the past, enabled migrants to "slip away" northwards towards richer Germany, Austria and Sweden.

Read more from Katya: EU's Med migrant crisis: Just a mess or cynical politics?

Migration slashes the EU from east to west too.

Newer member states from Central and Eastern Europe never signed up to the post World War Two "all for one and one for all" vision.

When it comes to EU solidarity and burden-sharing, they are fervent non-believers. They determinedly turn their backs when Italy and Germany plead for migrant quotas.

High-stakes summer for Merkel
The number of migrants arriving illegally in Europe may be down, but so is voter tolerance of the problem.

The rise and rise across the EU of tough-on-migration politicians has emboldened hardliners such as Hungary's Victor Orban and Austria's Sebastian Kurz, who takes over the six-month rotating presidency of the EU this Sunday and will push migration as a top priority.

"Keep Them Out" is Austria's main aim and while Europe's (still) most influential leader, Angela Merkel, arrives in Brussels on Thursday pushing - and praying - for compromise on burden-sharing and prevention, the number of EU leaders pushing single-mindedly on the migrant deterrence button is growing.

_102227141_migrant_arrivals_europe_v3_640-nc.png

Which brings me to the next layer of European splits provoked by migration: within national governments as well as between countries.

Germany is the most dramatic example.

Mrs Merkel has clearly been weakened at home by her previous open-door migrant policy.

Formerly viewed as politically untouchable, the German chancellor has now been given an ultimatum by her own interior minister.

"By the end of this Brussels summit, you need to come home with a workable pan-European solution to stop irregular migrants bleeding into Germany," Horst Seehofer has threatened her. "Or I will unilaterally slam Germany's borders shut."

The Austrian government told me this week it would then immediately follow suit, causing a border-closing domino effect across Europe - with a seismic impact on the EU's prize political and economic project: the open-border Schengen agreement.

What a blow for Brussels and nightmare for Europe's export-king Germany that would be.

Of course we're not there yet.

Push for migrant centres outside EU
In true European Union style, once gathered round a table here in Brussels, there will undoubtedly be emphasis on what unites rather than divides member countries.

On migration, EU leaders will easily agree to beef up their Frontex border guard.

p06c8mzf.jpg


Media captionWhy is the Aquarius migrant rescue ship empty?
There's also growing convergence around the idea of setting up so-called disembarkation centres outside the EU to identify economic migrants, who in theory could be sent home. Those with a right to asylum or refugee status could then be given safe and legal passage to Europe.

And there's much talk of closer co-operation (read: money) with migrant countries of origin and the transit countries (read: Libya and its coastguard) that migrants cross to make their way to people smuggler boats.

But these ideas are easier to formulate than to carry out.

You would need a lot of EU border guards to truly patrol southern Europe's thousands of miles of open coastline. You would need permission from African countries such as Niger and Chad to set up processing centres, for example. So far that's a distant goal.

'Time is short'
In the meantime, there is no whiff of EU agreement over what to do with migrants who do reach Europe.

Which brings us back to the threat to Schengen.

_102234548_047726806-1.jpg
Image copyrightAFP
Image captionItaly's populist Interior Minister Matteo Salvini believes migrant reception centres should be set up in Niger, Mali, Chad and Sudan
Gloomy German government sources told me they gave the project a three out of 10 chance of survival thanks to the increasingly nationalistic nature of many European governments.

"And if Schengen does fail," they predict, "that would be the beginning of the end of the European Union."

It's too early really to herald the demise of the EU or even the end of Mrs Merkel's career in government as a result of this very political migrant crisis in Europe.

But, as EU summit host Donald Tusk said to EU leaders on the eve of their arrival: "The stakes are very high. And time is short."
 
Marvin, Root is obviously a wacko but my response is, so what? What harm do his goofy beliefs do to our nation? Yes, I'd prefer the GOP had spokesman more stable than Root and I'd prefer a more stable president too. But weigh the status quo against the horrors of the alternative.

Hillary was planning to bring in 65,000 immigrants from the Islamic Caliphate (link). Never mind that Germany reports that many of their Syrian migrants have counterfeit passports purchased in Turkey or real blank passports that were stolen and filled out by ISIS. The sobering truth is that Syrians with real, bona fide passports received them from the Assad government. There is no possible way to vet any of these people.

So Root is a full-fledged but harmless lunatic. Hillary is a far more dangerous threat to our nation. She was almost elected President, hell-bent on repeating the immigration blunders of the EU which now threaten its very existence . Politics is about the lesser of evils.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-u-s-should-take-65000-syrian-refugees/

Europe's migration crisis: Could it finish the EU?
katyaadler.png

Katya AdlerEurope editor@BBCkatyaadleron Twitter
_102234545_047648481-1.jpg
Image copyrightAFP
Image captionThe splits within the EU have been highlighted by Italy's refusal to accept migrants carried by NGO rescue boats in the Mediterranean
Hardened Eurosceptics might love to think the EU's in trouble, but as leaders gather in Brussels for their summer summit on Thursday, dedicated Europhiles are also sounding the alarm.

"The fragility of the EU is increasing," warns EU Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker. "The cracks are growing in size."

It's been easy to get distracted this last couple of weeks by the new Italian government and its headline-grabbing rejection of NGO migrant rescue boats.

But Mr Juncker is right: EU fissures go deeper and are more widespread.

Migration pits southern Europe against the north.

Italy and Greece smoulder with resentment at having been left alone to deal with migrant arrivals. Meanwhile, northern countries blame the south for not patrolling their Mediterranean borders better and for having, at least in the past, enabled migrants to "slip away" northwards towards richer Germany, Austria and Sweden.

Read more from Katya: EU's Med migrant crisis: Just a mess or cynical politics?

Migration slashes the EU from east to west too.

Newer member states from Central and Eastern Europe never signed up to the post World War Two "all for one and one for all" vision.

When it comes to EU solidarity and burden-sharing, they are fervent non-believers. They determinedly turn their backs when Italy and Germany plead for migrant quotas.

High-stakes summer for Merkel
The number of migrants arriving illegally in Europe may be down, but so is voter tolerance of the problem.

The rise and rise across the EU of tough-on-migration politicians has emboldened hardliners such as Hungary's Victor Orban and Austria's Sebastian Kurz, who takes over the six-month rotating presidency of the EU this Sunday and will push migration as a top priority.

"Keep Them Out" is Austria's main aim and while Europe's (still) most influential leader, Angela Merkel, arrives in Brussels on Thursday pushing - and praying - for compromise on burden-sharing and prevention, the number of EU leaders pushing single-mindedly on the migrant deterrence button is growing.

_102227141_migrant_arrivals_europe_v3_640-nc.png

Which brings me to the next layer of European splits provoked by migration: within national governments as well as between countries.

Germany is the most dramatic example.

Mrs Merkel has clearly been weakened at home by her previous open-door migrant policy.

Formerly viewed as politically untouchable, the German chancellor has now been given an ultimatum by her own interior minister.

"By the end of this Brussels summit, you need to come home with a workable pan-European solution to stop irregular migrants bleeding into Germany," Horst Seehofer has threatened her. "Or I will unilaterally slam Germany's borders shut."

The Austrian government told me this week it would then immediately follow suit, causing a border-closing domino effect across Europe - with a seismic impact on the EU's prize political and economic project: the open-border Schengen agreement.

What a blow for Brussels and nightmare for Europe's export-king Germany that would be.

Of course we're not there yet.

Push for migrant centres outside EU
In true European Union style, once gathered round a table here in Brussels, there will undoubtedly be emphasis on what unites rather than divides member countries.

On migration, EU leaders will easily agree to beef up their Frontex border guard.

p06c8mzf.jpg


Media captionWhy is the Aquarius migrant rescue ship empty?
There's also growing convergence around the idea of setting up so-called disembarkation centres outside the EU to identify economic migrants, who in theory could be sent home. Those with a right to asylum or refugee status could then be given safe and legal passage to Europe.

And there's much talk of closer co-operation (read: money) with migrant countries of origin and the transit countries (read: Libya and its coastguard) that migrants cross to make their way to people smuggler boats.

But these ideas are easier to formulate than to carry out.

You would need a lot of EU border guards to truly patrol southern Europe's thousands of miles of open coastline. You would need permission from African countries such as Niger and Chad to set up processing centres, for example. So far that's a distant goal.

'Time is short'
In the meantime, there is no whiff of EU agreement over what to do with migrants who do reach Europe.

Which brings us back to the threat to Schengen.

_102234548_047726806-1.jpg
Image copyrightAFP
Image captionItaly's populist Interior Minister Matteo Salvini believes migrant reception centres should be set up in Niger, Mali, Chad and Sudan
Gloomy German government sources told me they gave the project a three out of 10 chance of survival thanks to the increasingly nationalistic nature of many European governments.

"And if Schengen does fail," they predict, "that would be the beginning of the end of the European Union."

It's too early really to herald the demise of the EU or even the end of Mrs Merkel's career in government as a result of this very political migrant crisis in Europe.

But, as EU summit host Donald Tusk said to EU leaders on the eve of their arrival: "The stakes are very high. And time is short."

Let me ask this as a comparison, was the west correct in refusing German Jews? 65,000 immigrants in a country our size isn't even close to destabilizing. Germany, in size is roughly equal to Ohio, Indiana. And half of Kentucky. The numbers are not even close to an accurate comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
What seems obvious is that the current GOP (not Aloha :) ) is mainstreaming tin foil hat beliefs. We have crazies on the left, we just don't invite truthers to the reindeer games. I certainly never remember Obama, or Clinton, giving a truther the elevation to mainstream thought that is happening now.

Some Republican posters, this time like Aloha, are upset about it. Some are great with mainstreaming idiots if they get a tax cut, and frankly, I suspect too many of our posters buy into all this.

Further, I think kowtowing to these conspiracy theorists is that oft spoken about dog whistle. That subset of racist Americans seem overrepresented in the conspiracy world.
Another factor is the reality that bigotry and not bigoted, racist and not racist are not binary characteristics but rather are the endpoints of a continuum. Each of us is somewhere on the continuum of no bigoted to bigoted, not racist to racist.
 
I still take issue with the "current" and "is" part of your post. Some of the tin foil stuff may now be new or enhanced, but the bad faith and corrosive hate speech the Republicans (standard disclaimer to distinguish from conservatives) have adopted over a generation has inflamed the base to the point where there are no bounds and a pathway back to reason is all but lost.

Undoubtedly elements in the GOP have pushed some of this. But the mainstream had nominated Bush, McCain, and Romney. They are all within mainstream thought. Aloha, Ranger, Twenty, and others, were represented by that.

The GOP, at least parts of it, wanted the tinfoil votes. They clearly did not realize the danger of riding a tiger
 
Undoubtedly elements in the GOP have pushed some of this. But the mainstream had nominated Bush, McCain, and Romney. They are all within mainstream thought. Aloha, Ranger, Twenty, and others, were represented by that.

The GOP, at least parts of it, wanted the tinfoil votes. They clearly did not realize the danger of riding a tiger
That's fair.

I think Aloha, Ranger, and twenty are all bright, thoughtful, accomplished, and personable, but the "maintstream" guys they supported actively turned a blind eye to, acquiesced to, adopted to some degree, and refused to effectively speak against the bad faith stuff I'm talking about and thus allowed it to grow and fester. All that was no mystery at the time.

Disclaimer: not really shooting at those guys or suggesting I know more than they do or that Democrats are pure and perfect. But the GOP has indeed been a particular problem for some time ... even if they produced judges that make the Federalist Society crew happy and even if they got poorly conceived tax cuts as demanded by special interests.
 
So Root is a full-fledged but harmless lunatic. Hillary is a far more dangerous threat to our nation. She was almost elected President, hell-bent on repeating the immigration blunders of the EU which now threaten its very existence . Politics is about the lesser of evils.
Yeah, there was an armada of inflatable rafts full of Syrians just waiting to set off across the Atlantic once Hillary was elected. Dodged a bullet on that one.
 
That's fair.

I think Aloha, Ranger, and twenty are all bright, thoughtful, accomplished, and personable, but the "maintstream" guys they supported actively turned a blind eye to, acquiesced to, adopted to some degree, and refused to effectively speak against the bad faith stuff I'm talking about
That’s all fair but it’s the two party system that is really the culprit. The GOP changed once Palin became McCain’s running mate. There was nothing any of us could have done at that point. Then once the Tea Party came into power it was all over. I didn’t vote for one TPer and I just don’t know what the incumbents could do to ward it off.

The classic GOP leaders tried to ward off the Trump nomination but the populism borne of Palin the TP has become an avalanche that couldn’t be stopped.

We desperately need a moderate party. The Dems have their own populism issues and they’re heading in the complete wrong direction if they want to attract moderates.
 
That’s all fair but it’s the two party system that is really the culprit. The GOP changed once Palin became McCain’s running mate. There was nothing any of us could have done at that point. Then once the Tea Party came into power it was all over. I didn’t vote for one TPer and I just don’t know what the incumbents could do to ward it off.

The classic GOP leaders tried to ward off the Trump nomination but the populism borne of Palin the TP has become an avalanche that couldn’t be stopped.

We desperately need a moderate party. The Dems have their own populism issues and they’re heading in the complete wrong direction if they want to attract moderates.
To be clear, in my sub-thread starter, I was talking about more than just the formal party leaders.

Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Levin, Loesch, Ingraham, Coulter, and even Savage for folks whose taste varied determined the course of the GOP to large degree. Especially in places like Indiana. Turn on the radio and that's all you hear. The targets of all that typically denied they listened or passed it off as mere entertainment, but that mindless bad faith hackery has taken firm hold. Heck, Mike Pence came out of that tradition. And it's not just the uneducated who fell prey to it (and I think that's terribly embarrassing for them).

Beyond the obvious, there's something perverse about having 6-8 hours EVERY DAY screaming about Democrats. There's simply not that much going on. It's manufactured. It created a deeper mindset that it was a team construct. (You could certainly say the same about cable news). It's become a sports entertainment industry segment.

Governance is vital, but it should be dull and sober by and large.
 
That’s all fair but it’s the two party system that is really the culprit. The GOP changed once Palin became McCain’s running mate. There was nothing any of us could have done at that point. Then once the Tea Party came into power it was all over. I didn’t vote for one TPer and I just don’t know what the incumbents could do to ward it off.

The classic GOP leaders tried to ward off the Trump nomination but the populism borne of Palin the TP has become an avalanche that couldn’t be stopped.

We desperately need a moderate party. The Dems have their own populism issues and they’re heading in the complete wrong direction if they want to attract moderates.
Republican politicians did with the Tea Partiers exactly what the Democrats did with the Occupy Wall Street people (OWS-ers) - try to turn them into votes.
 
The GOP changed once Palin became McCain’s running mate. There was nothing any of us could have done at that point. Then once the Tea Party came into power it was all over. I didn’t vote for one TPer and I just don’t know what the incumbents could do to ward it off.
I would posit that what we've seen is the rise of the political performer. Starting with Clinton, we've had a series of people rise to prominence more for their on-camera personas than their policy positions. GWB might seem an outlier at first glance, but compared to Gore and Kerry... So we have Clinton, Obama, Palin, and now Trump. All have one thing in common -- they were all able to connect with the populous through television.
 
Republican politicians did with the Tea Partiers exactly what the Democrats did with the Occupy Wall Street people (OWS-ers) - try to turn them into votes.
So you say, but it's the Republicans' path that's led to a cartoon character like Trump having a lunatic headlining for him, so the both-siderism is gonna be a little tough here.
 
I would posit that what we've seen is the rise of the political performer. Starting with Clinton, we've had a series of people rise to prominence more for their on-camera personas than their policy positions. GWB might seem an outlier at first glance, but compared to Gore and Kerry... So we have Clinton, Obama, Palin, and now Trump. All have one thing in common -- they were all able to connect with the populous through television.

Could a Lincoln win today? His face was not made for TV, his voice was considered high pitched.
 
Could a Lincoln win today? His face was not made for TV, his voice was considered high pitched.
The consensus is he "lost" the debates with Douglas. But his speech at Cooper Union was what brought him to national prominence. Of course, that wasn't broadcast on TV -- but it was widely distributed in print.

Lincoln and me have a lot in common. We're both better looking in print.
 
So you say, but it's the Republicans' path that's led to a cartoon character like Trump having a lunatic headlining for him, so the both-siderism is gonna be a little tough here.
You guys got Bernie and others that want to be like him. I want little to do with either populist movement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
You guys got Bernie and others that want to be like him. I want little to do with either populist movement.
Bernie isn't remotely the Democratic equivalent of Trump, because if nothing else, there is no Democratic equivalent of Trump -- who is a corrupt unfit imbecile. A cartoon character. A punchline. The most obviously unfit person any major political party has ever put forward for President in the entire history of the United States. A deranged moral degenerate and a threat to the republic. But you know this.

dwayne-elizondo-mountain-dew-herbert-camacho-6678931.png
 
Bernie isn't remotely the Democratic equivalent of Trump, because if nothing else, there is no Democratic equivalent of Trump -- who is a corrupt unfit imbecile. A cartoon character. A punchline. The most obviously unfit person any major political party has ever put forward for President in the entire history of the United States. A deranged moral degenerate and a threat to the republic. But you know this.

dwayne-elizondo-mountain-dew-herbert-camacho-6678931.png
Some have developed the curious ability to know and refuse to know at the same time.
 
Let me ask this as a comparison, was the west correct in refusing German Jews? 65,000 immigrants in a country our size isn't even close to destabilizing. Germany, in size is roughly equal to Ohio, Indiana. And half of Kentucky. The numbers are not even close to an accurate comparison.
Absurdly bogus analogy. We're talking about the entire EU, not just Germany, and did anyone ever say that the Jews did not assimilate?

Europe is facing a crisis due to unchecked immigration. Your head is buried in the sand if you do not acknowledge it. In the near future, the EU will break apart and cease to exist in its present state. Looney liberal immigration policies - kissy huggy whoever shows up at the border and wants in - will destroy the EU and their fate is well underway right now.
 
Last edited:
Bernie isn't remotely the Democratic equivalent of Trump, because if nothing else, there is no Democratic equivalent of Trump -- who is a corrupt unfit imbecile. A cartoon character. A punchline. The most obviously unfit person any major political party has ever put forward for President in the entire history of the United States. A deranged moral degenerate and a threat to the republic. But you know this.

dwayne-elizondo-mountain-dew-herbert-camacho-6678931.png
I'm not going to argue about Trump as a person. We pretty much agree.
 
Some have developed the curious ability to know and refuse to know at the same time.
When George Orwell wrote Notes on Nationalism he obviously wasn't talking about Trump. But the essay nicely captures the disconnect from reality that Trumpism requires:

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. It is the same with historical events. History is thought of largely in nationalist terms, and such things as the Inquisition, the tortures of the Star Chamber, the exploits of the English buccaneers (Sir Francis Drake, for instance, who was given to sinking Spanish prisoners alive), the Reign of Terror, the heroes of the Mutiny blowing hundreds of Indians from the guns, or Cromwell's soldiers slashing Irishwomen's faces with razors, become morally neutral or even meritorious when it is felt that they were done in the ‘right’ cause. If one looks back over the past quarter of a century, one finds that there was hardly a single year when atrocity stories were not being reported from some part of the world; and yet in not one single case were these atrocities — in Spain, Russia, China, Hungary, Mexico, Amritsar, Smyrna — believed in and disapproved of by the English intelligentsia as a whole. Whether such deeds were reprehensible, or even whether they happened, was always decided according to political predilection.

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. Huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English russophiles. Many English people have heard almost nothing about the extermination of German and Polish Jews during the present war. Their own antisemitism has caused this vast crime to bounce off their consciousness. In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one's own mind.
As Orwell says, it can be vitally important to simultaneously know and not know. One must never acknowledge the unknowable facts, but it's still necessary to maintain sufficient awareness of the unknowable facts to step around them.

This brings me unexpectedly to a book recommendation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Absurdly bogus analogy. We're talking about the entire EU, not just Germany, and did anyone ever say that the Jews did not assimilate?

Europe is facing a crisis due to unchecked immigration. Your head is buried in the sand if you do not acknowledge it. In the near future, the EU will break apart and cease to exist in its present state. Looney liberal immigration policies - kissy huggy whoever shows up at the border and wants in - will destroy the EU and their fate is well underway right now.

What does Clinton wanting to bring 65,000 have to do with Germany, or Europe? To be close to comparable, just a guess, Germany would have had to bring in 20,000. America can easily handle 65,000 without being destabilizing.
 
A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes,
This is the crucial element to understand how a "reasonable" person here can otherwise inexplicably persist with a factually untenable argument. (Understandably) their logic doesn't operate on "invisible" facts.
 
What does Clinton wanting to bring 65,000 have to do with Germany, or Europe? To be close to comparable, just a guess, Germany would have had to bring in 20,000. America can easily handle 65,000 without being destabilizing.
Upon what do you base your opinion about America, which you don't define in terms of countries, and the number you came up with? You mentioned that it would be just a guess, but as I have read your past posts on a wide range of subjects I am confident that you had something in mind.
 
Upon what do you base your opinion about America, which you don't define in terms of countries, and the number you came up with? You mentioned that it would be just a guess, but as I have read your past posts on a wide range of subjects I am confident that you had something in mind.
Just guessing, the US population is 320 million and Germany's is 80. That is 1/4 the US population, and they are less than 1/4 the area.

Between 1980 and 2000, we brought in over 500,000 Vietnamese. To the best of my knowledge we have not seen societal collapse from that. In face, I have not seen people here who oppose immigration point to it as a problem.
 
Just guessing, the US population is 320 million and Germany's is 80. That is 1/4 the US population, and they are less than 1/4 the area.

Between 1980 and 2000, we brought in over 500,000 Vietnamese. To the best of my knowledge we have not seen societal collapse from that. In face, I have not seen people here who oppose immigration point to it as a problem.
Marvin, my post above is entitled Europe's migration crisis: Could it finish the EU? It concerns the social destruction that a lunatic liberal immigration policy has caused in EUROPE, not just Germany.
 
Just guessing, the US population is 320 million and Germany's is 80. That is 1/4 the US population, and they are less than 1/4 the area.

Between 1980 and 2000, we brought in over 500,000 Vietnamese. To the best of my knowledge we have not seen societal collapse from that. In face, I have not seen people here who oppose immigration point to it as a problem.
Thank you.
 
Marvin, my post above is entitled Europe's migration crisis: Could it finish the EU? It concerns the social destruction that a lunatic liberal immigration policy has caused in EUROPE, not just Germany.

And your text said Germany was the most extreme example.

According to the wiki re number of Syrian refugees.

Hungary 72,000
Austria 45,000
Netherlands 31,000
Denmark 19,000

Combined those countries have 40 million or so residents. The number Clinton wanted to bring in is a drop in the bucket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Just guessing, the US population is 320 million and Germany's is 80. That is 1/4 the US population, and they are less than 1/4 the area.

Between 1980 and 2000, we brought in over 500,000 Vietnamese. To the best of my knowledge we have not seen societal collapse from that. In face, I have not seen people here who oppose immigration point to it as a problem.
I assume it depends on how you define "societal collapse." If "too many brown people who talk funny running around" counts as societal collapse, then Europe probably has to be worried.
 
Just guessing, the US population is 320 million and Germany's is 80. That is 1/4 the US population, and they are less than 1/4 the area.

Between 1980 and 2000, we brought in over 500,000 Vietnamese. To the best of my knowledge we have not seen societal collapse from that. In face, I have not seen people here who oppose immigration point to it as a problem.
Marvin, societal collapse is indeed underway within the EU and the reason is immigration. Google it for yourself "migrant crisis Europe". You'll find plenty of articles like this one.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-migration-crisis-will-shatter-europe/
 
Marvin, societal collapse is indeed underway within the EU and the reason is immigration. Google it for yourself "migrant crisis Europe". You'll find plenty of articles like this one.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-migration-crisis-will-shatter-europe/

Again, what does that have to do with your statement on Clinton wanting to bring in 60,000 Syrians? I see no connection as I think your argument fails in simple math for the US. I think I have shown 60,000 to America in no way compared to what other nations did.
 
Again, what does that have to do with your statement on Clinton wanting to bring in 60,000 Syrians? I see no connection as I think your argument fails in simple math for the US. I think I have shown 60,000 to America in no way compared to what other nations did.
Your rationale seems to be "We're not having the same problems with Middle East immigrants that the EU is, so let's bring in more of them until we do."
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT