UK condemns Trump’s racist tweets in unprecedented attack against US congresswomen - Page 9 - 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

#15019417
Pants-of-dog wrote:@BigSteve

Did you not see the evidence I already provided, that explains how it is racist?

Also, many of us have had to deal with racism, and this was one of the racist things that was said to me by an openly racist person.

If you wish to say it is not racist, feel free. But it just makes you look like someone who cannot see racism, either because of lack of knowledge, or deliberately.


None of that demonstrates how the tweets were racist.

How's that fail taste?
#15019423
Pants-of-dog wrote:How it does not show that the comments were racist?


Again, it doesn't have to.

Here, let me boil this down for you: If the absence of proof that they are racist, they are not racist.

Period.

Regardless the mental calisthenics you go through, you will not alter that fact an iota...
#15019431
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, you cannot explain how the evidence fails to show how Trump’s comments were racist.


Jesus Fucking Christ.

Why should I be bothered with that when the people making the accusation have been complete failures at showing how they are racist?

You have not, and cannot, demonstrate how they're racist. Relying on me to not prove they're not racist as proof that they are is the height of ignorance, yet that seems to be exactly the approach you wish to take...
#15019434
I have demonstrated how the comments are racist by providing a source that shows how that phrase has been used throughout US history as a racist attack against immigrants.

I then asked you to show how the article was incorrect. You ignored it, or were unable to refute the evidence from the article.

So, if an argument fails because it has not been supported, then your argument fails and mine does not.

Here is another piece of evidence:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eeoc-go-ba ... mp-tweets/

    U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission specifically lists "go back to where you came from" as example of discrimination

    The House on Tuesday voted to formally condemn President Trump's racist tweets telling Democratic congresswoman of color to "go back" to where they came from. But long before that, the federal agency charged with enforcing anti-discrimination laws offered up that phrase as an example of potentially illegal harassment.

    The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) specifically cites the phrase "Go back to where you came from" as the type of language that could violate anti-discrimination employment laws in certain circumstances. The phrase is nearly identical to what Mr. Trump wrote in his tweets about the congresswomen: "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

    "Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct because of nationality are illegal if they are severe or pervasive and create an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, interfere with work performance, or negatively affect job opportunities," the EEOC's website says. "Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like, 'Go back to where you came from,' whether made by supervisors or by co-workers."
#15019439
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have demonstrated how the comments are racist by providing a source that shows how that phrase has been used throughout US history as a racist attack against immigrants.

I then asked you to show how the article was incorrect. You ignored it, or were unable to refute the evidence from the article.

So, if an argument fails because it has not been supported, then your argument fails and mine does not.

Here is another piece of evidence:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eeoc-go-ba ... mp-tweets/

    U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission specifically lists "go back to where you came from" as example of discrimination

    The House on Tuesday voted to formally condemn President Trump's racist tweets telling Democratic congresswoman of color to "go back" to where they came from. But long before that, the federal agency charged with enforcing anti-discrimination laws offered up that phrase as an example of potentially illegal harassment.

    The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) specifically cites the phrase "Go back to where you came from" as the type of language that could violate anti-discrimination employment laws in certain circumstances. The phrase is nearly identical to what Mr. Trump wrote in his tweets about the congresswomen: "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

    "Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct because of nationality are illegal if they are severe or pervasive and create an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, interfere with work performance, or negatively affect job opportunities," the EEOC's website says. "Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like, 'Go back to where you came from,' whether made by supervisors or by co-workers."


Your argument fails because you, and other Trump haters, fail to put his comments into the proper context. If you fail to do that, there's no reason in the world to approach any conversation with you in a serious manner...
#15019507
Pants-of-dog wrote:I just provided two separate articles that explain how the comments are racist.

You ignored them.

That is because they do not prove the comment was racist. If it was meant to be racist, Trump would not have added at the end, "come back and show us how it is done." A racist would not say, "come back? A racist would say, "don't come back" or "stay away."
#15019516
Trump said: "So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments/quote]......"

Here is a test for my fellow conservatives......How many of the congresswomen he is referring to (there were four in the group) were born in the US?
#15019532
@Drlee

I'm not a conservative but all four I think.


Why do you think that? Tell me. He told them to go home. You think he meant the USA? :roll: I will give you the answer.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Born Bronx. New York City. (You know. Where Trump lives.) She graduated cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics.

Ayanna Pressley Born Cincinnati Ohio, She attended Boston University but left because she had to support her mother who had lost her job.

Rashida Tlaib Born Detroit Michigan. She completed a Bachelor of Arts in political science in 1998 from Wayne State University. She earned a Juris Doctor from Western Michigan University Cooley Law School. Ironically making her better educated than......well...you know who.

Ilhan Omar, Born in Somalia but moved to the US at the age of 10. 10. 10. She graduated from North Dakota State University with bachelor's degrees in political science and international studies in 2011. Omar was a Policy Fellow at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs.

So three citizens and one woman who has been in the US virtually all of her sentient life.

What do they all have in common? All four are women and all four are minorities.

So what to Trump supporters say? They say that the fact that all four are women and minorities is just a coincidence. They also want the rest of us to believe that when he said "go home" that he was referring to New York City, Detroit and Cincinnati.

I know Palmyrene that you are not that stupid. You did not attend school in the US so you have a leg up on the competition it would appear. But watch. Big Steve and Hindsite will come along now with their insults and try to get us to believe that Trump was not engaging in his usual ...well you tell me what he was doing. Give us the overseas perception. I would really like to know how you read it now that you know the truth.
#15019539
noemon wrote: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.

What I'm saying is that Trump is exploiting a common sentiment. Another motive I have come across is this:

Keeping the people who are more controversial (especially with swing voters) in the public eye is probably helpful.

And no, I don't consider the sentiment I have described racist.

Sivad wrote:Kissing cousins to the Marxists.

Mostly former marxists who have gone off the deep end.

Sivad wrote: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).

There's no denial that objective truth exists. A marxist won't give you the "my truth, your truth" gobbledygook.
#15019551
alongside other posters already proven. But for those interested here's some relevant material. My emphasis in bold. Australian example;

Personally, I’d choose Hanson’s suggestion that if you don’t respect the Australian way of life, “you can go back to where you come from” complete with an (thoughtful!) offer of a lift to the airport and not because catching a ride with someone who considers me a blight on society while overlooking my winning sense of humour is my personal Nightmare on Elm Street.

This seven-word phrase doesn’t offend as much it simply states the obvious. If you’re an immigrant, you could subsist on a diet of meat pies or sing Waltzing Matilda backwards or embrace whatever passes for Australian these days and still be exiled to your imaginary homeland. That this homeland often exists less as fact and more as a daydream, manufactured by racists as proof that you can never truly belong here, is entirely beside the point.

Of course, Hanson didn’t invent “go back to where you came from” as much as she invoked the phrase’s ugly past.
As Amal Awad points out in an October 2015 Junkee article, when Olympic swimming legend Dawn Fraser told the Today Show that Canberra-born Nick Kyrgios, a Wimbledon tennis player with a Greek and Malaysian background should “go back to where [his] parents came from”, it was simply a symptom of an Australia that sees white people as gatekeepers and people of colour as double agents, whose loyalties are always suspect.

There’s a reason that you’ll hear “go back to where you came from” hurled at targets like Lindsay Li, a Chinese-Australian woman who was verbally assaulted while catching a bus home in Sydney’s Willoughby and not at a British backpacker who might have overstayed his welcome.

In July 2016, Jerome Forbes, a 19-year-old with Māori ancestry, was the victim of a racist tirade at a Brisbane bus stop, courtesy of a woman who recommended that his father “pack up his bags and go back to New Zealand” and that although she “has nothing against foreigners personally, it’s just that they don’t fit into the Australian way of life.” She doesn’t mention that fitting into the Australian way of life is like climbing Escher’s impossible staircase or passing a dictation test in a language you’ve never heard of. It isn’t a matter of allegiance or a willingness to dispense with your traditions. Whiteness is the secret quotient, unless our perception of what’s Australian changes.

It’s easy to imagine “go back to where you came from” as the catchcry of far-right senators and pensioners with retrograde politics. What’s painful to admit is how much the phrase is etched into a national rhetoric that erases Australia’s bloody colonial history and treats people of colour, who built their lives here, as if their presence is provisional, guests who are subject to a litany of rules.


New Zealand example:

When I was 9 years old, I went to a friend’s house to play Age of Empires. Some of his extended family happened to be there at the time, and his step-father asked me “where are you from?” Truthfully, I answered “Birkenhead”, the suburb where I lived. His response was “Don’t you be cheeky, where are you actually from?” Confused, I answered “Here?” Suddenly, he held me in a headlock and shouted “you bloody well know what I mean, where are you from?” The sounds of laughter from the rest of the room rang in my ears. I managed to mumble something like “my parents are from Taiwan.” He let go and said “that wasn’t that hard, was it?”

When I was 13 years old, I was a patrol leader at my local scout troop. One of the other scouts was sitting on an empty wooden box and swinging his legs against the sides, creating a lot of noise. I asked him to stop because the constant banging was making me uncomfortable and a little bit anxious. He said “you can’t tell me what to do, this is my country.” I had to go sit somewhere else.
When I was 15 years old, I was sitting in math class at the desk closest to the door. It was open, and a breeze was blowing in. While the class was working on some exercises, I asked the teacher if I could close the door because I was getting a bit cold. He said “If you think it’s too cold maybe you should go back to Asia.” I replied with “I was born here” and shut the door. When I later told a friend that racism was well and alive within our school she told me to “stop being ridiculous”.

I am relatively lucky because I live in comparatively multicultural Auckland, study and work in an environment where immigrants outnumber non-immigrants, and nowadays am largely safe and isolated from these sorts of interactions. Ron Mark’s comments during the first reading of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill brought all the memories rushing back. He told Melissa Lee “if you do not like New Zealand, go back to Korea.” I sat in a laboratory quietly seething, unable to do any work. I don’t like these memories. I don’t like sharing these memories either, but maybe this can demonstrate to some people why the statement to go back to where you came from is offensive. I cannot bear to imagine what life must be like for migrants living in less ethnically tolerant areas of the country.

We cannot simply write this off as more of the same from New Zealand First. This is a party that has been polling between 5 and 9 percent. That’s a sizeable chunk of the electorate that believes in this party. 67% of respondents on a RadioLIVE poll said that Ron Mark’s comments were not racist. Every time any of our elected representatives engage in this kind of rhetoric, it signals to the population that this behaviour is okay. To be clear, that time Maggie Barry told Russel Norman to go back to Australia was just as wrong. But let me also say that just because one side was racist, that doesn’t give the other side free license to say whatever they want. An eye for an eye only makes the world go blind.

For Ron Mark’s NZ First colleagues to back him up only further reiterates that this behaviour is apparently okay. Winston Peters said that any claims of racism were “poppycock”. Barbara Stewart said that the comment was not racist and was “taken out of context” (when his comments were very much in the context of a racist speech targeting public holidays in Korea and India and implying that these other countries have too many public holidays; in fact his entire speech was laced with derision and offence). Pita Paraone said “it was said in the heat of the moment as part of the theatre of Parliament.” None of these statements are anywhere near satisfactory for a parliament that seeks to represent an increasingly multicultural nation. The closest we got was Tracey Martin saying “it’s not a statement I would have made.”

I can appreciate that Ron Mark didn’t like being told that New Zealand should “grow up”. That’s possibly a fair point to make (just because other people do it overseas doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it here), but the way he addressed that point was completely wrong. Never mind that the claims made by Ron Mark about public holidays in Korea and India and shops being closed were factually wrong anyway. As Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi said, “Your knowledge is totally zero … on any religious day in India, on a holiday, shops open.” It’s the fact that his approach makes migrants feel unwelcome, that their opinions are not valid, that they should just “shut up and conform” that is deeply problematic.

Ron Mark makes it clear that Lee and Bakshi are not real New Zealanders when he says in his speech “while we know certain people are toeing the National Party line like a little bunch of whipped puppies, back in their world they would never, ever dare stand up and say this.” His use of “back in their world” effectively says that the fact that Lee and Bakshi have been in New Zealand for 27 and 14 years respectively is worth nothing. “Go back to where you came from” is a phrase that has always been loaded with xenophobia, and I really don’t see a context where it could be used to mean anything other than “you’re not welcome because you’re not from here.”

It doesn’t matter to me that Ron Mark was directing his statement at migrants and I was born here. The common racist usually doesn’t take the time to establish my place of birth. His comments to “go back where you came from” were of the same vein as statements directed at me throughout my childhood that made me feel as if I did not belong. The intolerance and xenophobia is an ugly side of New Zealand that degrades the experience of living in this country for many. I’m sick and tired of hearing it from our MPs. They should simply be better.
#15019560
Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib said she “loves the fact” that her “Palestinian ancestors” were part of an attempt “to create a safe haven for Jews” after the Holocaust, although the role “was forced on them” and took place “in a way that took their human dignity away.”

“There’s always kind of a calming feeling when I think of the tragedy of the Holocaust, that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence, in many ways, has been wiped out … in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-Holocaust, post-tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, and it was forced on them," Tlaib said.

Tlaib also harshly condemned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “coming from a place of division and inequality” and refusing to acknowledge her grandmother, who lives in the West Bank, as his equal. The Michigan Democrat is the first Palestinian-American Muslim woman to serve in Congress.

Palestinians denounce Trump tweets against hometown hero Tlaib

Although Tlaib has never lived in the West Bank, she has relatives in the area and is widely seen as a local hero for making her way to the highest levels of American government.

Bassam Tlaib, an uncle of the congresswoman who lives in the West Bank, called the president’s comments “a racist statement meant to target Rashida because she has Palestinian roots.”

Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota ignited a bipartisan uproar in Washington early this year when she suggested that members of Congress support Israel for money. Both Omar and Tlaib have endorsed the Palestinian-led boycott movement against Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestini ... ero-tlaib/

It is clear to me that Omar and Tlaib are racist members of Congress and need to be defeated. Ben Carson, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, made it clear that President Trump was not racist.

Praise the Lord.
#15019562
Magnificent!

Hindsite did not understand a word of the quotes he posted. I need not comment except for this:

Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota ignited a bipartisan uproar in Washington early this year when she suggested that members of Congress support Israel for money.


They do. This is not even a matter under debate. You seem to hate her because she stated the unvarnished truth.
#15019563
Seems to me that the only proper safeguard against ''racism'' and even class inequality to start with in a discussion is beginning with the common sense truth throughout time of our monogenetic rather than polygenetic origins as human beings, that we human beings today came from one set of original ancestral human parents. Anything else is racist or lends cover for belief in racism and class inequality.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 25
Election 2020

The main stream press have been discredited by th[…]

Uh-huh... :excited: All the Israeli dual citiz[…]

Someone should tell our large president that. htt[…]

I thought the Dutch were the same as Jews.