Finfinder wrote:It hasn't escaped me at all that your rigid reply is just a one dimensional trap that does nothing to intellectually further an open discussion. Unless I agree with every word, sentence , intention, register as a Democrat, denounce Trump and all Republicans, you reserve the right to blow your racist dog whistle at me and cast aspersion for any kind of support for conservatives and Trump, regardless if it has anything to do with race or not. The way all these issues and questions are framed from the leftist is a no win zero sum end game to even answer. There is no more honest debate from them, its gloves off defense of your personal reputation.
Noone is stopping you from intellectually furthering any discussion, however the only thing I am reading from you is whining and whining of what a victim you are. Nope, you do not need to do any of those off-topic nonsense you are bringing forward to further victimise yourself. I have criticised Hillary and Bill Clinton quite severely in this forum, I am not a Democrat but I will call racism for what it is and unless you bring forward an actual on-topic argument I do not see your victimisation as relevant. My reply is not rigid at all, it is exactly how I understand Trump's tweets and even how his supporters have understood them by then chanting "send her back". The real question is whether you support this kind of terrorisation against ethnic-minorities just because they are ethnic minorities?
noemon wrote:What seems to have escaped you is that the President enabling the act of terrorising congresswomen[people] based on their ethnic-origins is something that cannot be excused as not-racist. This is right at the core of racism, it cannot be explained as simply unfortunate, its intent to blatantly attack their ethnic-origins and undermine their loyalty to their country while casting them aside as alien entities is at the heart of racism..
SolarCross wrote:No one has sent them to the gulag for thought crimes, no one has set a bomb off in their faces. They were rude to him, he was somewhat less rude right back at them and a crowd made some noise. That's it. A storm in a teacup.
Corbyn isn't PM yet, probably will never be, and might not even be a marxist since he has never come out and admitted it (as far as I know). So no I would say I have not been terrorised by Corbyn. If I was registered to vote I wouldn't vote for him though.
Once again, you are the one who used the word terrorism to refer to Jeremy Corbyn and his ideology, yet here you are whining that people should not use this word to refer to the very explicit terrorisation these Congresswomen are facing as a result of Trump's racist tweets. Their lives have been threatened by police officers and mobs are chanting at them to be kicked out of their own country. The President of the US is telling them to go back where they came from
. If this was happening to you you would be crying of being terrorised, in fact you use the word for much less without anyone even affecting you.
BigSteve wrote:Now, I know you're probably going to miss the point, so I'll explain it. The point is that I did exactly the same thing you did with Trump's tweet to make it appear as though you said something you never did.
No dear, you along with blackjack21 have highlighted text to take it out of context. The bold text in Trump's tweet is not
out of context. That is what he actually said. Go back from where they came from
and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places
does not change or alter the meaning of the bold text. The italic text does not change the context of the bold text. Your argument copying blackjack's argument is false.
EN EL ED EM ON
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...