UK condemns Trump’s racist tweets in unprecedented attack against US congresswomen - Page 12 - 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

#15019701
annatar1914 wrote:That's what Trump's main voting bloc is, the working people of the United States, not the Bourgeoisie nor the Lumpenproletariat.


I understand that. But no one is saying that working class people are racist.

Instead, we are saying that when people looked at what motivated white men with no college education to vote for Trump, racism was a significant factor.

That does not mean that all working class people are racist, not does it mean that all working class people who voted for Trump are racist.

It just means that enough of them were racist that it made a difference.

I agree enough with Karl Marx to say that this is exactly why most people are voting for Trump, and it is quite rational, as the other side most certainly doesn't represent them and even actively hates them.


I understand the hypothesis and why it makes sense.

But they tested it and found that economic anxiety was not as significant as racism and sexism.

https://mirror.explodie.org/schaffner_et_al_trump.pdf

Not irrelevant at all, POD. These congresspeople represent those of the immigration wave that we've been discussing, and these congresspeople certainly don't truly represent the native population.


Actually, representing the citizens is exactly what they do.

And these congresspeople represent the fears that drive some to vote for Trump: fear of ethnic diversity. Trump is hoping that these voters (and hopefully some swing voters) will see these darker skinned faces and think they represent the Democrats and will then vote Republican.

Well, what he plans and thinks is very important, since the ''Left'' has destroyed itself with identity politics.


I doubt that he plans.

I think he just posts whatever he thinks, and then watches to see what happens to make the most of it.
#15019705
blackjack21 wrote:This may be an ESL issue for you. Trump did not say he considered anybody separate from the "United Stated nation", whatever that means anyway.
He didn't say that either. His implication is that they are inexperienced.


Your assertions are empty and boring. Trump juxtaposes these women with the people of the United States and the nation as if they are separate alien entities.

Trump wrote:So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly ...and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how ....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!


Aside from the fact that Trump considers these women as separate from the United Stated "nation", he is explicitly saying that these women cannot be telling the US how it is to be run due to their origins. Their jobs as Congresswomen however is to do exactly that.

blackjack21 wrote:No. We don't agree. I've already stated that Trump's statement could be construed as "nativist", however that was not his intent.


It's ok you 're not expected to stand by your words so that's fine. That however does not change the fact that you have already called Trump's statements as ethnic bigotry:

blackjack21 wrote:Ethnic bigotry is a separate question from racial bigotry.


blackjack21 wrote:We understand it perfectly. He was trolling you, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.


I don't mind your creative interpretations at all. Does not change the fact that Trump's comments are racial discrimination aka racist and that you along with Hindsite like usual in this forum are defending this kind of racism. It's old news. I do not think anyone cares to convince you anyway, but showing how ridiculous and hypocritical your arguments actually are is an exercise for the rest.

Rugoz wrote:Unconstitutional? What's unconstitutional about free speech?


You should ask @Rugoz.
#15019706
@noemon

I appreciate the fact that our allies are coming to the defense of these Congresswomen. It really is appreciated. I know our allies don't want to get involved in our domestic politics, but this was actually the right move by our allies in this case. It is very much appreciated. It means a lot.
#15019707
annatar1914 wrote:They knew themselves and they knew Logic. That as Aristotle says;

''Out of nothing, nothing comes.''


God hasn't been removed from the picture entirely, just been assigned a different role. At least for believers who do not ignore science.

annatar1914 wrote:Sure we do :lol: :roll:


Yeah well, my biology lessons were a lot more enlightening than whatever a priest ever told me.

annatar1914 wrote:I'll wear that slander as a badge of honor. If you want to be an de facto apologist for racism by supporting evolution, knock yourself out. I don't mind being proven right on this matter in the end.


People didn't need evolution to assign certain characteristics to other peoples. I can quote Aristotle too (from Politics):

Aristotle wrote:But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for
whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all
slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both
of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled
is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their
birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

...

Again, the male is by nature superior, and
the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this
principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

...

But among barbarians no distinction
is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler
among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore
the poets say,

"It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians; "

as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature
one.


In fact I could easily argue genetics has shown how similar we are.
#15019711
Pants-of-dog wrote:Instead, we are saying that when people looked at what motivated white men with no college education to vote for Trump, racism was a significant factor.


What about women? What about blacks and Latinos? What motivated them to vote for Trump?

That does not mean that all working class people are racist, not does it mean that all working class people who voted for Trump are racist.

It just means that enough of them were racist that it made a difference.


I've lost count of the number of times Trump voters have been called racists simply because they voted for Trump...

And these congresspeople represent the fears that drive some to vote for Trump: fear of ethnic diversity. Trump is hoping that these voters (and hopefully some swing voters) will see these darker skinned faces and think they represent the Democrats and will then vote Republican.


Trump voters don't fear diversity. Trump voters fear the real possibility that idiot libs like Omar and AOC might one day seize power in this country. We don't care what they look like. We care about what they're trying to do...
#15019712
BigSteve wrote:What about women? What about blacks and Latinos? What motivated them to vote for Trump?


I do not know.

I've lost count of the number of times Trump voters have been called racists simply because they voted for Trump...


Sure, whatever.

Trump voters don't fear diversity. Trump voters fear the real possibility that idiot libs like Omar and AOC might one day seize power in this country. We don't care what they look like. We care about what they're trying to do...


You do not speak for all Trump voters, so your personal beliefs are not relevant.

This post is entirely devoid of argument.
#15019716
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not know.


Well, you sure seem sure about why white men voted for him. I just think it's odd that blacks and Latinos would vote for someone who was so obviously racist. The fact that he did is a strong argument that he's not...

Sure, whatever.


Well, that was just fucking brilliant.

But, I guess it's understandable since you're unable to refute what I said, because you know it's true. Hell, you've probably used that blanket characterization yourself...

You do not speak for all Trump voters, so your personal beliefs are not relevant.


What a stupid argument...
#15019722
BigSteve wrote:Well, you sure seem sure about why white men voted for him. I just think it's odd that blacks and Latinos would vote for someone who was so obviously racist. The fact that he did is a strong argument that he's not...

Well, that was just fucking brilliant.

But, I guess it's understandable since you're unable to refute what I said, because you know it's true. Hell, you've probably used that blanket characterization yourself...

What a stupid argument...


This is another post devoid of argument or criticism.

See you.
#15019759
Rugoz wrote:How are "cultural marxists" postmodernists, and what is a "cultural marxist" to begin with?

"Cultural marxists" have abandoned advocating for the working class as their central objective and gone over to the dark side of identity politics. That's how most people use the term in my experience.
#15019776
I've lost count of the number of times Trump voters have been called racists simply because they voted for Trump...


Then maybe you ought to at least consider that a great many people, including some in his own party, believe he is racist.


Trump voters fear the real possibility that idiot libs like Omar and AOC might one day seize power in this country.


:lol:

You mean by being elected like they have been? :roll:

You seriously need to seek help with your unfounded fears. Really. Seize power. ROFLOL. :lol: :moron:




We don't care what they look like. We care about what they're trying to do...


Garbage. I was born at night but it was not last night. :roll:
#15019785
Garbage. That reminds me. Garbage is what AOC calls our increasing economy. I wonder what crazy economic professor passed her.

Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: Omar, Tlaib 'Closed-Minded Bigots'

While distancing himself from President Donald Trump's "go back" comments against the progressive "squad," legal expert Alan Dershowitz added his own salvo on Newsmax TV, calling Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., "closed-minded bigots."

"What I care about is the bigoted views [Rep. Omar] expresses against America, against liberal values, against Israel, against Jews," Dershowitz told "Newsmax Now." "I think we have to look at her and her views. I don't want to get involved in any of the name calling or cultural attacks.

"I want to focus, take her seriously as an adult member of Congress, and look at her views. And her views are appalling, appalling, un-American, anti-Semitic, basically anti-liberal – just terrible."

"These are close-minded bigots, but Israel should not play that same game," Dershowitz continued. "Israel should allow them to go. Allow them to go wherever they want to go. Allow them to express all their bigoted views.

". . . I think it would be a mistake for Israel to try to ban them."

By the way Israel did not ban them. An Israeli spokesman said, as members of the U.S. Congress, they are welcome to come and visit Israel. However, I doubt that they would allow them to stay and become citizens. :lol:
#15019786
Rugoz wrote:What has identity politics to do with postmodernism?

See this article:
Social Justice is postmodern. It explicitly rejects the fruits of modernity, considering them at best naive and simplistic and at worst, patriarchal, white supremacist and imperialist. It seeks to put the epistemology — how we know what is true — and ethics — how we determine what is right — of modernity behind us and move into a new era where science is just one way of knowing the world and it is corrupted by power. It asserts a conception of society as entirely constructed of systems of power and privilege which are upheld by discourses — ways of talking about things. It insists that multiple knowledges exist and are related to identity; that white, male, western knowledge has unfairly dominated and now it is time for it to step back and let other knowledges have priority.

Very many people see the symptoms of the problem whether they call it “identity politics” or “political correctness” but they may not understand where these ideas are coming from and how they work. The ideas that are troubling us now have their origins in an intellectual shift that took place in the late 1960s known as “postmodernism.” Postmodernism is best understood as a reaction against modernity.
#15019821
Rugoz wrote:Hmm...this sounds a lot more convincing to me:

Yes, the original postmodernists ran out of steam sometime in the 80s when the new crop took up the mantle and ran with it. This is also explained in the article I linked earlier.
By the mid 1980s, the immensely prolific stream of postmodern writing began to dry up. But postmodernism did not die. Some academics would like to tell you that it did, but it was the contention of my group of scholars that these core ideas had, in fact, simply evolved and become more user-friendly. We called the next phase “Applied Postmodernism” because of this. In the same way that the original postmodernism had sprung up from various disciplines all at once at the end of the 1960s, so the next wave did so at the end of the 1980s. They came from postcolonial theory, critical race theory, intersectional feminism and queer theory.

By this time — on a societal level — the rapid stream of progress that had been coming from the Civil Rights Movement, liberal feminism and Gay Pride was starting to show diminishing returns. With racial and gendered discrimination criminalised in employment, with homosexuality decriminalised, legal equality was largely won. But prejudice doesn’t simply go away. What remained was to tackle attitudes and expectations and what people believed about the world. It was time to tackle discourses. Of course, postmodernism was perfect for this. From various parts of the humanities which looked at social justice issues, scholars began to write about the need to adapt postmodernism. It was useful, they felt, in that it regarded knowledge as a social construct, but no progress could be made unless some things were objectively true. They couldn’t address, say, racism unless it is true that the perception of races exist and some of them commonly experience prejudice on the grounds of it. Therefore, what became objectively true was the conception of systems of power and privilege that oppressed women, people of colour and the LGBT. We can know they are there even when we can’t see them so now we need to analyse discourses so we can see them.
#15019822
God hasn't been removed from the picture entirely, just been assigned a different role.


I'm pretty sure that God cannot be ''removed'' from the picture at all, being God, and that He's the One Who does the ''assigning'' of roles. This is nothing more than man trying to be God, in man's hubris and will to power, a hallmark of Western civilization but in sin common to all humanity.


At least for believers who do not ignore science.


What kind of ''believers'' would they be, constantly giving way in their ''beliefs'' and bowing down to the new priesthood of the so-called scientists in all things...? This ''evolution'' of yours is a fairy tale built on wishful thinking for atheists.


Yeah well, my biology lessons were a lot more enlightening than whatever a priest ever told me.


I imagine so, unfortunately, given the cowardice and wrong-thinking of most so-called ''Priests''. But ''biology lessons'' never did make a useful guide between right or wrong or heal the brokenness of a human heart, make anyone a better person, did they?


People didn't need evolution to assign certain characteristics to other peoples. I can quote Aristotle too


Evolution made it look rational as opposed to mere prejudice, still does.



In fact I could easily argue genetics has shown how similar we are.


So similar indeed, a single family coming from two male and female parents in fact. Any other belief on our origins is literally dehumanizing and evil.
#15019893
BigSteve wrote:Trump voters don't fear diversity.


Yes they do, as they repeatedly said in polls and surveys. Combined with all the other views and you have classic redneck right-wing Protestant Christian fundamentalist racists & homophobes. The results are always the same majority outcomes. https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=175788&p=14972117&hilit=redcarpet+racism#p14972111

Surveys of their views provide a consistent result. The questions either produce a large minority result like 45%, or large majority result per question, like 80%, They are the questions you ask a white racist all questions except "Are you a racist?" and they answer them with predictable results.


The conclusion is very clear:

Contrary to what some have suggested, white millennial Trump voters were not in more economically precarious situations than non-Trump voters. Fully 86 percent of them reported being employed, a rate similar to non-Trump voters; and they were 14 percent less likely to be low income than white voters who did not support Trump. Employment and income were not significantly related to that sense of white vulnerability.

So what was? Racial resentment.

Even when controlling for partisanship, ideology, region and a host of other factors, white millennials fit Michael Tesler’s analysis, explored here. As he put it, economic anxiety isn’t driving racial resentment; rather, racial resentment is driving economic anxiety. We found, as he has in a larger population, that racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials. Economic variables like education, income and employment made a negligible difference.

The survey looked at millennials because they will be the largest share of the voting-eligible population in 2018, so they’re an important bellwether for future trends. (At the same time, most millennials backed Hillary Clinton in 2016, not Trump.)
To anyone who’s been following the research on this, the findings should come as little surprise. There have now been numerous studies that found support for Trump is closely linked to racial resentment, defined by Fowler, Medenica, and Cohen as “a moral feeling that blacks violate such traditional American values as individualism and self-reliance.”

This is crucial to understanding both Trump’s rise and how to overcome Trump. As a presidential candidate, Trump made all sorts of racist comments — suggesting that Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists, proposing a ban on all Muslims entering the US, saying a US judge should recuse himself from a case simply because of his Mexican heritage, and deploying dog whistles about “law and order.”
As president, Trump equated a group of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white nationalists who descended onto Charlottesville, Virginia, with the anti-racism protesters who stood against bigotry. His administration has also pursued policies that will disproportionately hurt minority groups, including his travel ban, immigration restrictions, “tough on crime” policies, and potential voting restrictions.

The studies suggest that these kinds of comments and actions are not just incidental to Trump; they are at the core of his political success.
If Democrats want to defeat him, they will need to overcome that racial resentment.
The latest findings are backed by many other studies

This is not a one-off finding. At this point, the evidence that Trump’s rise was driven by racism and racial resentment is fairly stacked.


Apart from instantly losing their temper and lashing out "You're a Hillary supporter!" (as if you can't support say Gary Johnson, or other candidates while aso opposing Trump in 2016), we all know what a conversation with a Trump supporter is usually like. The same with the average racist.

"I'm not racist BUT............I consider the defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War a tragedy, Segregation and slavery should not have been banned, the Voting Rights Act is wrong, non-whites should not hold public office, Obama was a closet Muslim born in Kenya, and I think racist discrimination in the workplace should be fully re-legalised and using the n-word is NOT racist."


Trump himself is racist, has been all his life and in politics constant implements policies and engages in rhetoric to incite prejudice based on ethnicity/origin/and gender sometimes too.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 25

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia could[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]