DA.

The only way to know if it's "just a phase" is to wait. It's not something you can know ahead of time.

When you put all of that together in the context of Trump, it becomes a very different contet

As for your comment on compensation and the like, no arguments there. No one is saying it's 'right'. Whether it's right or wrong isn't really the issue at the moment. The issue is a) who is actually saying they are concerned b) are they sincerely concerned and representing the fact correctly and c) why are they concerned about this particular issue?

Now, once a law is passed, perhaps another can be proposed, and we'd then look at that issue, but there is no slippery slope. There are very clear lines drawn between each issue.

@Edward "We have to state why the same reasoning would not apply" ah! But, we don't! Not on the context of politics and the law. Laws don't automatically cascade to apply to anything and everything. Laws are written in very specific contexts.

But, like you say, yes, it's a distraction and that was kind of the point of my answer. It's not a real issue that the US is concerned about. It may turn into one...who knows? But what Trump is talking about is a) falsely stated and b) clearly aimed at riling up a particular demographic.

And if their government and citizens ultimately decide it's a good thing, it may very well be.

As for the actual issue at hand, my main argument is that the actions Tucker Carlson and Trump are claiming aren't true. There isn't a "white genocide" going on in South Africa. The government may take over property, yes. But that's a right a lot of governments have.

That'd be an entirely separate debate and legislation. Even if the argued reasons ultimately are the same.

@Edward no, that is the slippery slope argument. The reasons we could have used to legalize Marijuana could be the exact same reasons we could use to try and legalize heroin. But the fallacy is that legalizing one will cause the other to become legalized. Which simply isn't the case.

whether we want it or not wasn't really the point. Just using it as an example of the slippery slope fallacy so commonly used when debating politics.

Same goes here.

We of course, didn't. We focused on the issue at hand and that was that.

"If we legalize marijuana, then what next? We legalize heroin!?" was a common argument during the debates of legalizing pot.

It's an argumentative fallacy that because we do it for X, we will do it for Y and Z, when that isn't the case. And rarely ever is.

What you are describing is, indeed, the fallacy.

@Edward I know we're veering off topic here, but it's an interesting topic.

But, again, this is just Trump. He's standing pretty much alone on this issue.

So to suddenly be upset that South Africa, themselves, have decided the same thing we did (that maybe mistakes were made in history) and to attempt a remedy for it, makes us look like gigantic racist hipocrites.

Yet, we supported the white europeans taking land during apartheid.

@Edward you're missing a gigantic difference between the two scenarios. Yes, the US (or parts of it) today realize that white europeans stealing the native lands was not the ideal thing to do.

@Edward I don't know. That's not for us to decide. Hell, the US was built upon forced seizure so it's a little ridiculous for us to be chastising anyone else. Regardless, this is just Trump being Trump and isn't really a concern of US policy in general.

@Edward if that's the analogy you want to use, there's plenty of examples of reclamation of stolen property from past generations. Also note that apartheid isn't ancient history.

@Edward that's a rather silly argument. If someone stole your bike, and you took it back, are you a thief? I guess someone could argue that, but most would likely think you were justified in taking it back. Also, the whole distilling of complex issues into "only look at this issue with blinders on and ignore history and context" is not a sincere way to debate a issue.

@jamesqf you linked to an article about the drought as an example of what happens with land seizures. Hence the confusion. As for how far back you want to go? Well, that's not up to me to decide. Looks like South Africa has that decision under control, though.

Seizing property isn't necessarily a human rights issue--especially when said seizures are to reverse past seizures. Regardless, I don't understand what Zimbabwe land reform has to do with a drought and what any of that has to do with the current events in South Africa.

We can know what is actually happening by paying to attention to the actual reporting from South Africa rather than relying on the spin of a Fox News pundit. And I'd trust nearly any source over Trump. His inability to care about the truth is rather well documented.

This completely misstates what is actually happening in South Africa (as did Tucker Carlson, and then Trump himself).

Regardless, good conversation. It's an interesting topic.

But the general policy is that questions need to be answerable. For a political question to be answerable, it often need to have very clearly defined terms and parameters. Else it's open to interpretation (not unlike politics in general).

I don't know what you mean by flags.

To be fair, politics as a subject isn't a great fit for StackExchange in the first place.

"Am not seeking any particular answer." = well, there you go. StackExchange is for asking question with explicit answers.

But does not make for an answerable question on StackExchange.

That's OK

Right. We disagree. As expected, since we're working with arbitrary terms and definitions.

Unless everyone agrees on the definition of "US Policy" then we're not working with facts.

No, we are not discussing facts. YOu are using an arbitrary definition of "US Policy"

Maybe a simpler example: Trump's policy was to abology obamacare. The US did not abolish obamacare.

You are taking a particular POV that is not shared universally.

Well, this gets back to my comment that you appear to be wanting to word this in a way to push buttons. WHich I'm all for. But that's not what this site is about.

People in any organization do all sorts of things that are in no way a reflection of the organizations policy.

No, not at all. In fact, they explicitly violated existing policy.

@guest271314 note that selling arms to Iran and trafficking cocaine were never US Policy.

One example: The US military does not see Trump's statements as actual policy: twitter.com/jamiejmcintyre/status/890619488793640961

"President of the United States' statements are official U.S. policy" = I guess I'm going to need a citation for that as I can't find anything anywhere that states that. I may very well be wrong, of course. I just haven't seen that argued anywhere. As for having an immediate political effect...no argument there.

Or maybe you are confusing Official Statements of the Office of the President with Executive Orders? Executive Orders are a different thing altogether. They can be considered 'official policy' and are definitely official policy of the executive branch (unless contested).

@guest271314 no, they are not. More info: washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/14/… Trump's statements are only that...official statements of the office of the president. That does not equate to 'official US policy'. A presidential statement is not legally binding. A president can attempt to influence official US policy, but in and of itself, is not the definer of official US Policy, which is a much broader concept including other branches of government.

@guest271314 I believe you are confusing "official statement" with "official policy". They aren't the same thing. Trump's Tweets are "official statements" but in no way reflect "official policy". In fact, due to Trump's lack of knowledge, he often contradicts official US policy with is official statements.

This completely misstates what is actually happening in South Africa (as did Tucker Carlson, and then Trump himself).