UK condemns Trump’s racist tweets in unprecedented attack against US congresswomen - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15019080
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:That's not entirely true. Modernists and marxists (materialists) accept that truth exists. However, they are more prone to relativistic attacks, because they have to justify this philosophically rather than axiomatically by referring to a higher being.


They don't justify anything philosophically, they just assert that everything is socially constructed and most of them don't even know what social construction is.
#15019084
Hindsite wrote:I am certain that blackjack21 was referring to absolute truth, instead of agreed upon truth to obtain solidarity.

They do accept the existence of objective truth and reality.

Sivad wrote:They don't justify anything philosophically, they just assert that everything is socially constructed and most of them don't even know what social construction is.

That would be the post-modernists.
#15019086
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:That would be the post-modernists.


Kissing cousins to the Marxists.

Here's what Marx has to say about truth:

"The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises."

The Marxist theory of ideology holds that all beliefs are materially conditioned and hence socially constructed(except for Marxism of course, Marx inexplicably exempts science and since Marxism is "scientific" it's independent of social conditions).
#15019091
@Hindsite

Why is it anti-semitic to criticise the state of Israel?

Also,

Why is it anti-semitic to say it's Israeli state policy to recruit foreign law makers? We know for certain this has happened in the UK - It's on tape. Not so long ago, when the Soviet Union did it, those agents were condemned as traitors.


:?:
Last edited by ingliz on 18 Jul 2019 07:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15019095
BigSteve wrote: For the same reason it's racist to criticize a black guy...
Criticizing a STATE is not the same as criticizing a race or ethnicity. This is the tired old lame-duck argument that criticizing Israel is criticizing all Jewish people. It's made by people who don't HAVE an actual argument. There are actually Muslims living in Israel as well.

They are not one and the same, anymore than criticizing America means being against Christians.
#15019101
blackjack21 wrote:I don't have to repeat it even once. I posted Trump's actual words for you and everyone else to see. He did not mention anyone by name, by race, or by ethnicity. He did mention four progressive women. So you could have charged him with sexism or disdain for progressivism, which could have stuck. Trump baited you into making the leaps in logic you made. Your conclusions came from your mind, not from Trump's words. Trump is raising support among modernists while thrashing post-modernists. His poll numbers went up among his supporters.
Once again, you are taking someone else's words and making them mean something other than what they said. I posted Trump's words so that people can review what he actually said, not what the media deliberately and mendaciously mis-reported. It's this practice why the mainstream media has lost its legitimacy. The days of Walter Cronkite are long gone. Today, people look at a news anchor and assume s/he is lying about something.


As I already said and you ignored:

noemon wrote:"Where you came from" refers to the ethno/racial composition of the particular congresswomen. And your "political opinion is no longer valid unless you go back where you came from" is effectively telling them to shut up. It is cute that you are denying what words actually mean to sustain your ridiculous apologetics.



Again, it's already well known. If the media in Europe doesn't cover it, take it up with the media in Europe.


Again you are refusing to offer the evidence that people request from you and explain your reasoning.

I don't see why someone's background would make any difference in a text-based forum, but that's because I am not a relativist. .... don't think making racist statements makes a person racist. I think racist acts do.


You made the argument that Trump cannot be racist because he has Black friends. Now justify your outrage and whining for the alleged "anti-white racism" of a white person. Racist statements especially from the White House President are even more so racist acts as they carry state authority behind them.

That's a post-modern view. The modern view is that the law applies equally to all people, so act and intent are what matters. Someone's background or identity does not.


Act and intent is what matters indeed. Satirising white supremacist logic by turning it on its head or a Black person satirising Black culture is not racist at all because there is no racist intent.

The thread is about Teresa May popping off at Trump again. We'll see what BoJo says when the UK wants a trade deal with the US while Trump is president.


The fact that even BoJo condemned Trump's tweets, means that it's not just Theresa May as you claimed.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:No. I think he probably wants to get an over the top response and he knows that many Americans agree that the US is great and are a bit miffed by people who have chosen the country as their new home but hardly have anything positive to say about it. I believe that this sentiment is extremely common across the world and it should not become taboo to express it in the west.


For someone who is accusing others about not caring about "the truth" but merely about "agreement" you sure are confusing political disagreement with "not having anything good to say about 'Murica". Are you seriously adopting this rather ridiculous form of excuse? 'Our political opponents have nothing good to say about our policies, so let's tell them to go back where they came from? clearly because we no longer have the intellectual capacity to address their political arguments and we need to attack their ethnic-origins instead'. And that somehow is not racism? While you guys pretend to care about the "truth" and not about your circle-jerk? :knife: It seems that you care about your circle-jerk a lot more than the truth. Such a statement coming from the White House President carries state institutional authority and is not just a statement by a private individual.

Sivad wrote:What in the hell does that even mean? Of course racism can be discounted, it can be discounted whenever there is a more plausible interpretation of what's being expressed than racism.


What is the more plausible explanation? Why is Trump using the ethnic origins of these women as a means to justify his attacks on them instead of their actual arguments?

Why are you and Kaiser attempting to justify this:

Independent wrote:Donald Trump again used racist tropes in a renewed attack on four Democratic congresswomen at a campaign rally on Wednesday night, leading his supporters to chant “Send her back! Send her back!” in reference to the US citizen Ilhan Omar.

The president used the North Carolina rally to resume his row with the self-styled “squad” of congresswomen that also includes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and which began when he tweeted that the four should “go back” to their home countries.

All four are people of colour and US citizens. Three were born in the US, while Ms Omar came to the country as a refugee from Somalia when she was 12.

Referring to the women, Mr Trump said: ”Tonight I have a suggestion for the hate-filled extremists who are constantly trying to tear our country down.

“They never have anything good to say. That’s why I say, ‘Hey if you don’t like it, let ‘em leave, let ‘em leave’.”

Taking the politicians on one at a time, Mr Trump ticked through a list of what he deemed offensive comments by each woman, misconstruing many facts along the way. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan complete the four.

Ms Omar came under the harshest criticism as Mr Trump played to voters’ grievances, drawing the sustained “send her back” chant.

Before he left Washington, Mr Trump said he has no regrets about his ongoing row with the four. The president told reporters he’s “winning the political argument” and “winning it by a lot”.

“If people want to leave our country, they can. If they don’t want to love our country, if they don’t want to fight for our country, they can (leave),” Mr Trump said. “I’ll never change on that.”

His speech was filled with criticisms of the news media, which he says sides with liberals, and of special prosecutor Robert Mueller‘s Russia probe. Mr Mueller had been scheduled to testify to Congress on Wednesday, but it was postponed.


He also talked about illegal immigration, a main theme of his first presidential bid that is taking centre stage in his re-election campaign.

The president brushed off the criticism he has got for saying that the congresswomen should go back home. “So controversial,” he said sarcastically.

The four politicians say they are fighting for their priorities to lower health care costs and pass a Bill addressing climate change, while his attacks are a distraction and tear at the core of American values.

The Democratic-led House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to condemn Mr Trump for what it labelled “racist comments”, despite opposition from all bar four Republicans and the president’s insistence that he does not have a “racist bone” in his body.

The condemnation carries no legal repercussions and Mr Trump’s latest harangues struck a chord with supporters in Greenville, who chanted “Four more years!” and “Build that wall!”

It was Mr Trump’s sixth visit to the state as president and his first 2020 campaign event in North Carolina, where he defeated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016.
#15019103
noemon wrote:What is the more plausible explanation? Why is Trump using the ethnic origins of these women as a means to justify his attacks on them?


He's not using ethnic origins. He's expressing ahistorical nationalist chauvinism, which is a type of bigotry and arguably more dangerous and destructive than racism but it's different from racism.

He's also engaging in massive fraud and hypocrisy by referencing Omar's comments regarding 9/11 given that he does business with the Saudi state oligarchs who orchestrated and quarterbacked those attacks.
#15019106
Pants-of-dog wrote:So Trump had no merits in what he said?

You said he did and now you are refusing to explain what Trump’s merits were.

I will assume that there was no actual merit in anything Trump said.

It was simply racism to garner support.



it feels like you are trying to be - as if you are forcing it - obtuse.

It's like i'm telling you, as if to a 5 year old: "Reminding people they are free to leave the USA and return to the country of their origin is no more racist than telling people they are free to move out of their neighborhood to another neighborhood"

But you refuse to read and you gleefully throw logic and reason out the window. You clearly love lies. You love being 'different' by rejecting common sense, context, and reality. Good luck.
#15019107
Sivad wrote:He's not using ethnic origins. He's expressing ahistorical nationalist chauvinism, which is a type of bigotry and arguably more dangerous and destructive than racism but it's different from racism.

He's also engaging in massive fraud and hypocrisy by referencing Omar's comments regarding 9/11 given that he does business with the Saudi state oligarchs who orchestrated and quarterbacked those attacks.


He is using their ethnic-origins by referring to their countries of origin as a means to shut their political opinions off. How is this not racial discrimination according to the the UNHR definition that the US is party to?

UNHR 1969 wrote wrote:PART I

Article 1

1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.


Traveller wrote:"Reminding people they are free to leave the USA and return to the country of their origin is no more racist than telling people they are free to move out of their neighborhood to another neighborhood"
But you refuse to read and you gleefully throw logic and reason out the window. You clearly love lies. You love being 'different' by rejecting common sense, context, and reality. Good luck.


Sounds like you are projecting. Trump is rallying crowds chanting "Send her back". Perhaps in your mind this is merely a kind suggestion like telling your friend that Paris is good for fencing athletes. :knife: But I'm not sure how far you can actually take such obtuse nonsense and attempt to justify this kind of blatant terrorism against American citizens just because they come from a different ethnic-background and happen to disagree with you politically. Instead of addressing the political arguments of his opponents he is rallying hate against them by targeting their ethnic-origins.
#15019108
noemon wrote:He is using their ethnic-origins by referring to their countries of origin as a means to shut their political opinions off. How is this not racial discrimination according to the the UNHR definition that the US is party to?


The UN just tacked on national origin to expand the definition and inflate everything into racism. The UN isn't the supreme arbiter of what constitutes racism so you're gonna have to do better than a lame appeal to UN definitions.

Perhaps in your mind


I explained exactly what's in my mind, you just wanna cry racism so carry on and see how that works out for you.
#15019113
Sivad wrote:The UN just tacked on national origin to expand the definition and inflate everything into racism. The UN isn't the supreme arbiter of what constitutes racism so you're gonna have to do better than a lame appeal to UN definitions.


The UN definition is in legal effect since 1969 and the US is a signatory to it. Second, discrimination based on ethno-national origins has always been racism. Denying the definition of racism is the worst kind of argument but sure be my guest and see how that works out for you.

I explained exactly what's in my mind,


I was not referring to you but to Traveller who made that argument.

you just wanna cry racism so carry on and see how that works out for you.


You are the one crying foul against those simply abiding by the globally accepted definition, as if your cries of foul serve any purpose other than to legitimise the harassment people of different ethnic origins have to endure merely for doing their jobs in Congress. Babbits get carried on by popular “anti-lib” bandwagons it seems. It’s nothing more than trashy and trendy group psychology.

Lastly you have ignored Trump’s latest double down leading a crowd cheering: “send her back”.

Is that racism or not in the modern babbitt’s dictionary?
#15019119
Race is used indeed as the same as ethnicity. Racial discrimination officially refers to any prejudice based on race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin. Not that it matters but Ilhan Omar is a different race as well. She is a Black woman as are others that he attacked. Trump is leading a crowd against her chanting “send her back”. Please enlighten us as to why this is not racist or why it should not be called racist on top of whatever else it might be.

Your ridiculous semantic argument is the same as the one antisemites use to claim that since Arabs are the Semites and Jews are largely white, anti-Jewish prejudice cannot be called “antisemitic”, which is of course just racist apologetics that do not fly in the face of reason.
#15019122
noemon wrote:Race is used indeed as the same as ethnicity.


By some people, but it's obvious the 2 words have different meanings.

noemon wrote:Racial discrimination officially refers to any prejudice based on race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin.


I didn't know there's an "official" interpretation of the English language. I can consult the Oxford dictionary though:

Race: "Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics."
Ethnicity: "The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition."
Racism: "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Link:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/racism

noemon wrote:Not that it matters but Ilhan Omar is a different race as well. She is a Black woman as are others that he attacked.
Trump is leading a crowd against her chanting “send her back”. Please enlighten us as to why this is not racist or why it should not be called racist on top of whatever else it might be.


I don't think the skin color is in relevant in all this, it's her cultural background.

The thing is, if they would call Trump a cultural chauvinist, what he obviously is, most Americans would just shrugg because that's what they all are. Hence the left uses the term racism, because the vast majority of Americans cannot identify with being racist.

noemon wrote:Your ridiculous semantic argument is the same as the one antisemites use to claim that since Arabs are the Semites and Jews are largely white, anti-Jewish prejudice cannot be called “antisemitic”, which is of course just racist apologetics that do not fly in the face of reason.


I don't know the argument, might be legitimate or not.
#15019123
There is indeed an official definition that all signatory countries adhere to and its quite clear:

UNHR 1969 wrote wrote:PART I

Article 1

1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.


Bigotry against any defined outgroup is exactly the same regardless if the outgroup is defined in terms of race, colour, ethnic or national descent.
#15019124
noemon wrote:There is indeed an official definition that all signatory countries adhere to and its quite clear:


It says "In this convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean..".

Plain obviously, that interpretation of the word refers to the text of the convention, in no way or form does it mean signatory countries have subscribed to a definiton of the word.

Jeez! :lol:
#15019130
@Rugoz
"Here you have the POTUS calling for something obviously unconstitutional and all the left can do is scream racism like a broken record."


You and neoman are illustrating why there is real danger for the democrats in the upcoming election. You are correct that they "scream racism" and argue a subtle distinction between racism and perhaps xenophobia. Neoman is correct that they are pretty much the same thing in this regard. In other words, y'all are arguing a distinction without much of a difference.

BUT:

Trump has a strategy. Here is what the democrats should do:

What they (the Democrats) should be hammering on is that he has taken on women in government. WOMEN, WOMEN, WOMEN. If they can peel off some of the white women who voted for him the last time he will lose and loose badly. He may even take the Senate with him. Mitch McConnell is in trouble in his own state because a woman is opposing him.

Secondly. Trump has no intention of running against the democrat's nominee. It is doubtful he could beat any one of them in the next election. Even the gay guy would give old him a run for the money. Trump's plan, out there for all to see, is to run against AOC and the far(ish) left of the democratic party. He will not talk about Warren (for example) except to childishly make fun of her. He will always and at every opportunity turn the conversation to AOC, the other three women, (the immigrant especially) and Pelosi. And unless the democrats make this about WOMEN, WOMEN, WOMEN they will lose and maybe lose badly.

Where is Trump vulnerable? He sucks with WOMEN. He has a past and now he has a current vulnerability. Every time he hammers on a woman legislator the democrats ought to scream "misogyny". They should shout, "He HATES strong women". "He can't stand WOMEN in power." They do not need to scream racism because they already have the votes of the people who much care about this.

Because of the democratic party response to this current kerfuffle I predict that Trump will win the 2020 election. The democrats are at each other's throat rather than presenting a united front in DEFENSE OF WOMEN. This is pathetic. Pelosi ought to know better. She is arguably the most experienced politician in government about now.

This discussion should have nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It ought to be framed as an issue about how Trump dislikes women in power. The power of this argument is not only that it hits Trump where he is vulnerable, but also carries to all of the down ticket elections too. The thing that Trump ought to fear like the plague is not loosing the popular vote. He lost that badly last time. He ought to fear losing the woman vote. Without them he will look like Goldwater in 1964.
#15019132
Rugoz wrote:It says "In this convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean..".

Plain obviously, that interpretation of the word refers to the text of the convention, in no way or form does it mean signatory countries have subscribed to a definiton of the word.

Jeez! :lol:


Arguing semantics is the lowest form of argument. The convention is binding to all signatory parties:

Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965
entry into force 4 January 1969, in accordance with Article 19
The States Parties to this Convention,


Whether you like it or not, this is the globally agreed definition of racism since 1965.
#15019137
noemon wrote:Race is used indeed as the same as ethnicity. Racial discrimination officially refers to any prejudice based on race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin. Not that it matters but Ilhan Omar is a different race as well. She is a Black woman as are others that he attacked. Trump is leading a crowd against her chanting “send her back”. Please enlighten us as to why this is not racist or why it should not be called racist on top of whatever else it might be.


I seem to recall you arguing that Trump telling them to "shut up" was racist, yet Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation at showing us where he actually told them to shut up.

Or is that just what you wish he'd said?
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 25

Humans exist in a natural hierarchy. The elim[…]

People want to move to European ethnicity countri[…]

Pastors like rabbis,sheikhs and most religious fig[…]

It's not even pro-Arab it's pro-Palestinian. I[…]