DACA, Davos, and Dems

[Tom]

It is natural.
Flies and a turd.

My apologies to turd everywhere for the analogy.
And flies.

[FantasticDan]

Twitter

[FantasticDan]

Twitter

[tucker6]

If Graham supports it, that makes me suspicious.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/955171919313231872

Why would more non-white people or less white people be viewed as a positive or a negative, as stated in your article?

Why is it inherently positive that the USA become more non-white? And why is it inherently negative that the USA become more white? Again, I am basing these questions on the VOX article you posted.

I don't quite understand why a shift in racial demographics is seen as a positive or negative either way you mix it up.

Maybe you can answer this question for me.

Bottom line, it is a negative when ANY race is intentionally promoted or intentionally suppressed. So why does that VOX article read like a less white America is positive while a more white America is negative?

[davew]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Why would more non-white people or less white people be viewed as a positive or a negative, as stated in your article?

Why is it inherently positive that the USA become more non-white? And why is it inherently negative that the USA become more white? Again, I am basing these questions on the VOX article you posted.

I don't quite understand why a shift in racial demographics is seen as a positive or negative either way you mix it up.

Maybe you can answer this question for me.

Bottom line, it is a negative when ANY race is intentionally promoted or intentionally suppressed. So why does that VOX article read like a less white America is positive while a more white America is negative?

you know the answer to that, the author is racist.

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Why would more non-white people or less white people be viewed as a positive or a negative, as stated in your article?

Why is it inherently positive that the USA become more non-white? And why is it inherently negative that the USA become more white? Again, I am basing these questions on the VOX article you posted.

Please refer me to what specific parts of the article led you to this conclusion..

[PaceAdvantage]

White Americans are declining as a percentage of the population of the United States, from roughly 69 percent of the population in 2000 to 64 percent in 2010. As of July 1, 2015, just over half of all babies under the age of 1 born in the United States were racial and ethnic minorities. Mixed-race Americans are the second-fastest-growing ethnic group in America.

For many Americans, this is a positive development. But for “racial realists,” this is an emergency.

The article does not go on to state why whites declining as a percentage of the population is seen as positive by "many Americans," although it does try and explain (actually devotes quite a bit of time explaining), the ideas held by SOME who see a white decline as negative.

Why exactly would one racial segment of the US population declining or increasing be inherently positive or negative?

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Why exactly would one racial segment of the US population declining or increasing be inherently positive or negative?

Liberal scumbags such as myself tend to believe that an increase in racial diversity isn't a terrible thing to be afraid of. Isn't that what it boils down to?

[Tom]

Then why don't you sneak over the border and diversify Mexico?
What specific benefits does diversity give us?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Liberal scumbags such as myself tend to believe that an increase in racial diversity isn't a terrible thing to be afraid of. Isn't that what it boils down to?

That's good. One shouldn't be afraid.

But you haven't answered my question.

I asked why the increase of one race or the decrease of one race should be viewed as a positive or a negative. Who determines exactly which race is inherently good or bad, and do we lump all people of said race into the good or bad category when it comes to the culling of the "bad" race?

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I asked why the increase of one race or the decrease of one race should be viewed as a positive or a negative. Who determines exactly which race is inherently good or bad, and do we lump all people of said race into the good or bad category when it comes to the culling of the "bad" race?

Nobody is saying more or less of one race or another is either a good or bad thing.

Some people find value in diversity. Others feel threatened by it. The article was about how the latter has shaped Trump’s immigration policy.

[letswastemoney]

Look at how Japan is. It's not diverse at all, and Islam is almost non-existent. And there's almost no crime in that country.

I'm brown, but I think the United States is diverse enough.

[jocko699]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

I'm brown, but I think the United States is diverse enough.

I am Scottish and agree with you

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Nobody is saying more or less of one race or another is either a good or bad thing.

Of course they are. I quoted directly from the VOX article you linked to on here.

They said that exactly. They said that the decline in the white population of the USA is viewed by "many Americans" as a positive.

They didn't go on to criticize the "many Americans" that view this as positive, but they did go on to criticize another group who holds opposite views. So I must conclude that the writer/publisher of the article agrees that it is a positive that the population of whiteys is declining in the USA...or in your words, a GOOD THING.

So your first statement in your reply above is completely incorrect. They are saying less whiteys is a good thing.