UK condemns Trump’s racist tweets in unprecedented attack against US congresswomen - Page 13 - 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

#15019901
redcarpet wrote: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.

Out of the four studies mentioned in the Vox article the second and fourth look terrible, the link to the first directs me to WaPo's paywall and I'm not sure why the third is relevant.

I also note that with these studies we never get to see minority attitudes measured in the same way, which in my view would actually increase our understanding instead of the usual let's show how terrible and hateful Trump voters are rote exercise.

I often wonder if any of the people who quote social science studies or articles which discuss them actually read or at least skim these studies and after that still believe that they are good quality.
#15019908
You haven't demonstrated bad methodology nor produced a survey with a different result. You are the weakest link! GOODBYE!
#15019909
redcarpet wrote:You haven't demonstrated bad methodology nor produced a survey with a different result. You are the weakest link! GOODBYE!

Before you run away, have you reviewed the methodology, found it be good and are you willing to defend it if I explain my misgivings?
#15019910
I'm not running away. I want to see a survey that shows the COMPLETE opposite results. Show us most Trump supporters are not Protestant Christians, racists, anti-Catholic, see the Confederacy defeat as a bad, or the banning of segregation as bad, or the Civil Rights Act as bad, etc. GO ON!
Last edited by redcarpet on 21 Jul 2019 10:11, edited 1 time in total.
#15019912
redcarpet wrote:I'm not running away. I want to see a survey that shows the CMPLETE opposite results. Show us most Trump supporters are not Protestant Christians, racists, anti-Catholic, see the Confederacy defeat as a bad, or the banning of segregation as bad, or he Civil Rights Act as bad, etc. GO ON!

Well, you said good bye in capitals, so I thought you might be off. :lol:

From your response I take it you are not prepared to defend the studies?
#15019915
ness31 wrote:Guys, I just popped the question ‘Is Trump A Racist?” into Google and the first 20 entries (the whole page) confirmed the statement that Trump is a racist.

It’s settled. We can all move on :)

Google have stated as their purpose building a super-AI that can answer any question. Looks like it has been a success.
#15019918
Just as relevant more than 50 years ago! This bigoted, loaded phrase is older than any of us and used for the same reasons today as back then!



columnist Sydney J. Harris wrote of “one of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make” — one that was echoed last week by President Donald Trump. Printed five decades ago but just as relevant in 2019, here is Harris’ full column published July 21, 1969, under the headline: “The ‘love it or leave it’ nonsense.”

One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
That attitude is the main reason America was founded, in all its hope and energy and goodness. The people who came here, to make a better land than had ever been seen before by the common people, had been rebuffed and rejected by their neighbors in the Old World.
They didn’t like conditions where they lived, and wanted to improve them. If they had been allowed and encouraged to, the Old World would have had a happier history, instead of the miserable tribulations that turned the eyes of the people to America as their last, best hope.

Now we find that many Americans — smug and fat and entrenched in their affluent inertia — are saying the same ugly thing to their neighbors: “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
But most people who want to change conditions do like it here: they love it here. They love it so much they cannot stand to see it suffer from its imperfections, and want it to live up to its ideals. It is the people who placidly accept the corruptions and perversions and inequities in our society who do not love America; they love their status, security and special privilege.

Nobody should be faced with the mean choice of accepting conditions as they are or abandoning the place he has grown up in. We not only have a right, we have a responsibility, to make our environment as just and as flourishing as our Founding Fathers declared it must be if it were to live up to its aspiration as “the standard of the world.”

Those who want to leave have a right to, but those who want to stay and work for what they consider a better society must be protected in that right — for without it, our nation would sink into stagnation, and the process of change would harden into repression by those who benefit by keeping things just as they are.

If all the settlers who came here, with high hopes for a new and finer social order, had been compelled to “go back where they came from,” we would have had no United States of America. This country was born out of dissatisfaction with the old scheme of things, and grew on the blood and dedication of men who were not afraid to speak and work for fundamental changes in the whole political and social structure.

Somebody who truly didn’t like what America stands for ought to be invited to leave; but there is a vast difference between such a person and those who dislike what we have allowed ourselves to become, through greed and prejudice and provincial indifference to the great problems we now face. No community can afford to lose these good “agitators.”


Sydney J. Harris was an author and longtime nationally syndicated columnist for the Chicago Daily News and later the Chicago Sun-Times. His column carried various subheads over the years, including “Strictly Personal,” “Thoughts at Large,” and “Things I Learned En Route to Looking Up Other Things.” He died in 1986.
#15019921
Why do you need to roll out a thesis on a phrase in order to prove *so forcefully* that the phrase is racist? :roll:

People can judge for themselves if they think a phrase in a certain context is racially motivated or not, Christ. And that paper clipping isn’t relevant. It’s not even describing people who use the phrase (or variation of) as racist; and towards the end goes on to qualify the argument.
#15019924
ness31 wrote:Why do you need to roll out a thesis on a phrase in order to prove *so forcefully* that the phrase is racist? :roll:

People can judge for themselves if they think a phrase in a certain context is racially motivated or not, Christ. And that paper clipping isn’t relevant. It’s not even describing people who use the phrase (or variation of) as racist; and towards the end goes on to qualify the argument.


It's not just used for racist purposes. At the time of writing, was used against anti-Vietnam war demonstrators, the Women's Rights movement, the Civil Rights movement earlier, & so on.

The description of Americans that use it is perfect; "smug and fat and entrenched in their affluent inertia".

Don't scan; READ!
#15019938
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Not a generalisation, or a stereotype, or prejudiced. :lol:


This is very twisted priorities. You are accusing an author from the 1960's for prejudice for calling those who make racist comments as "smug and fat and entrenched in their affluent inertia" but at the same time you are trying to excuse those who make the actual racist comments as not really prejudiced. :?: The excuse of "I'm just using your logic" does not really cut it because if you were using that logic you would have already unequivocally called Trump's comments what they are.

As long as someone is basing his remarks on demonstrated actions or beliefs, then it can hardly be called prejudice. From our very own Forum Rules.
#15019946
Kaiserschmarrn wrote: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.


I think the video makes it clear that essentialism flies in the face of postmodernism, hence calling identity politics "applied postmodernism" is wrong or misleading at best.
#15019996
So far we have had several pages of people explaining why the phrase is racist.

We have also had several articles cited and quoted that show how the phrase has been used throughout US history, and how it has almost always been used in a racist way.

We also have other previous examples of Trump being racist.

We have evidence that a significant number of Trump supporters are racist and that Trump uses racism to solidify their support.

Now, for those who are claiming it is not racist, do you have an argument?
#15020021
Pants-of-dog wrote:It just means that enough of them were racist that it made a difference.

How? Hillary Clinton is a racist. "Super predator" referring to black violent criminals was coined by Hillary Clinton, while her husband implemented the crime bill of 1994.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But they tested it and found that economic anxiety was not as significant as racism and sexism.

So you agree that Trump is going to win again?

noemon wrote:Trump juxtaposes these women with the people of the United States and the nation as if they are separate alien entities.

Think what you like. Trump's goal was to conflate them with the Democratic party as a whole. Even David Axelrod gets it.

Even David Axelrod gets it

noemon wrote:he is explicitly saying that these women cannot be telling the US how it is to be run due to their origins.

He expressly mentioned their "progressive" ideology, too.

noemon wrote:Their jobs as Congresswomen however is to do exactly that.

Their jobs as Congresswomen is to represent the interests of the people of their district. They are not national representatives, but rather local representatives.

noemon wrote:That however does not change the fact that you have already called Trump's statements as ethnic bigotry:

I just noted an additional distinction. I did not explicitly say that Trump's statements were ethnic bigotry. I have explicitly said they were designed to troll people like you in order to remind blue collar working class voters that the Democratic Party is no longer their friend. Trump was very successful at that.

Politics_Observer wrote:I appreciate the fact that our allies are coming to the defense of these Congresswomen. It really is appreciated.

Foreign countries meddling in US politics? Welcome? Fine if they're British, but not if they're Russian, right?

Politics_Observer wrote:I know our allies don't want to get involved in our domestic politics

Oh... I think Teresa May has done more than get involved. Christopher Steele anyone?

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

Georg Mendel was an Augustinian friar.

redcarpet wrote:Yes they do, as they repeatedly said in polls and surveys.

They should be concerned. Racially diverse areas are noted throughout history for constant strife. A lot of people prefer peace to permanent war.

ness31 wrote:Guys, I just popped the question ‘Is Trump A Racist?” into Google and the first 20 entries (the whole page) confirmed the statement that ‘Trump is a racist’.

It’s settled. We can all move on :)

Google is no longer an apolitical search engine, and hasn't been apolitical for a long time.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, for those who are claiming it is not racist, do you have an argument?

None of it matters. Trump is going to win in 2020.
#15020101
blackjack21 wrote:So you agree that Trump is going to win again?
Think what you like. Trump's goal was to conflate them with the Democratic party as a whole. Even David Axelrod gets it.
Even David Axelrod gets it
He expressly mentioned their "progressive" ideology, too.
Their jobs as Congresswomen is to represent the interests of the people of their district. They are not national representatives, but rather local representatives.
I just noted an additional distinction. I did not explicitly say that Trump's statements were ethnic bigotry. I have explicitly said they were designed to troll people like you in order to remind blue collar working class voters that the Democratic Party is no longer their friend. Trump was very successful at that.


a) I do not even know who Axelrod is and I do not care to know.
b) It is not about me thinking what I like, but simply reading the very obvious racism that is all over Trump's tweets.
c) I really do not care if Trump scored a 3-pointer or if he wins the next elections. You should know that already since 2015/2016. The only thing I care about is that my children and hopefully grandchildren and their grandchildren will be able to come here in 10/20/50/100 years later and witness my own character and positions. If people thought about more like what legacy they are leaving behind for posterity instead of fanboying some con-artist, not only the forum but the world in general would be a better place. One would think that people that have been here for so long would also play like that as well, but clearly not.

Here's to hoping. :cheers:
#15020199
Pants-of-dog wrote:So far we have had several pages of people explaining why the phrase is racist.

That is because they focus on the beginning phrase instead of the whole sentence. As I said before, a racist would not tell them to "come back" which is a later phrase in the sentence. The phrase "come back" has never been used in U.S. history to signify racism.

Today, the progressives use the term "racist" for a lot of things that conservatives don’t necessarily think are bad, which calls into question the social consensus that “racist” things are by definition bad things. Even the American national anthem and the flag have become symbols of racism to extreme progressives, so that Nike recalled a sneaker with the first American flag imprinted on the heel from sale due to the word of one extremist that said it was racist. Most conservatives still believe the display of the American flag and standing for our national anthem is being patriotic and not racist.

Let's not overlook that President Trump has a black man, Ben Carson who says Trump is not racist, serving in his Cabinet. President Trump happily played host to Kanye West and other people of color in the Oval Office and is not opposed to the idea of nonwhite people voting for him, which is a contrast to the racism of the past. Kanye West even hugged the President and said he loved him.

In my view, President Trump is actually hitting back at the anti-American, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-Trump, and anti-law and order views expressed by three of the women of the so-called "squad" with the other women caught up in it because of her strong support of the other three. Some also say the phrase "love it or leave it" is racist, but others believe it is patriotic. So when Trump says that they must love this country, he is calling for patriotism. it is really just a matter of perception and politics.

Praise the Lord.
#15020236
noemon wrote:a) I do not even know who Axelrod is and I do not care to know.

David Axelrod is a Clinton strategist. Ignorance is not going to make your position more tenable. Most of Trump's political opponents understand that acquiescence to the leftists is a losing position for anti-Trumpers.

noemon wrote:If people thought about more like what legacy they are leaving behind for posterity instead of fanboying some con-artist, not only the forum but the world in general would be a better place.

People in the US think a lot about what the left does at the Supreme Court--even what so-called conservatives like John Roberts do. So Trump's policy actions and appointments are relevant to the long term. His tweets are just political banter. You are simply deciding to think less of everyone who is not coming around to your opinion based on your tactics.

Why 2020 will be all about patriotism vs. racism
Part of this desperation is in the left’s inability to debate the facts and their hope that strong smears can shame their opponents out of broaching the argument.

Part of this desperation is in the left’s growing realization that President Trump and the Republicans are beginning to attract minority support in a serious way.
...
All around the country, President Trump is attracting Latinos to his rallies in record numbers. There is strong support in the Latino community for job creation, income growth, small business prosperity, and enforcing the law.

The left’s reaction to these threats has been hysteria.

Screaming “racist” – which the left-wing propaganda machine did relentlessly this week – is their most common effort to shut up conservatives in general and President Trump in particular. This week, between Sunday and Tuesday CNN and MSNBC used the word “racist” more than 1,100 times.

Trump is not committing gaffes at all. He's trolling Democrats to a debate they actually don't want to have.

noemon wrote:One would think that people that have been here for so long would also play like that as well, but clearly not.

If our legacy involves the destruction of political correctness and the restoration of free speech, we will be quite proud of our legacy.

Hindsite wrote:President Trump happily played host to Kanye West and other people of color in the Oval Office and is not opposed to the idea of nonwhite people voting for him, which is a contrast to the racism of the past. Kanye West even hugged the President and said he loved him.

It's much more than that. Kanye and Kim exercised considerable influence with Trump and got prison reform done--something Trump didn't run on, something Obama didn't bother to do while president even though he spent plenty of time harassing police officers, and something neither Congressional Democrats or Republicans had on their radar. Trump's relationships with people like Kanye West and Kim Kardashian are substantive, not merely symbolic tokens.

The progressives want to have fights with Trump that the moderate Democrats know they will lose. Trump is not Jeb Bush. He will counterpunch.

No One Really Wants to ‘Send Her Back’
Andrew McCarthy wrote:All good populist demagoguery needs a villain. President Trump hardly has the market cornered on this. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton studied Alinskyite community organizing. The organizer, a self-styled renegade against The Establishment, is instructed to avoid abstractions when picking an opposition target. You’ve got to make it personal, to polarize the adversary in stark terms. Trump’s persona is to hit back harder than he is hit. No surprise, then, that he is a practitioner of this demagogic art, since he is also the Left’s No. 1 target.

Most Republican villains the Left selects (the Bushes, Mitt Romney . . .) respond by trying to prove they’re not really villains. This is a futile strategy. The demagogues making the accusation already know it’s not true. They do it because it always works. Or at least it used to. It’s different with the president, who is from the Leo Durocher School: “I come to play. I come to beat you. I come to kill you!” Trump vexes the Left because he revels in the mud wrestle. Sure, he craves admiration, but he wants to win more, and he doesn’t in the slightest mind winning ugly.

That's a pretty cogent assessment of the situation. People like George F. Will hate winning ugly. Polity matters more to them than winning. As the old saying goes, "Show me a good loser and I will show you a loser."

Andrew McCarthy wrote:There is as much personal political advantage for the radical upstarts in being perceived as the president’s chief antagonists as for the president in branding them as such. The loser in the triangulized equation is the Democratic party of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

This is why the story is quickly dying now.

As for Islam, this issue is not that Omar is merely a Muslim. It is that she is an Islamist fellow traveler. Despite Washington’s best efforts, Americans grasp the difference between (a) Islam as a personal religious affiliation and (b) sharia supremacism as an anti-Western political ideology. They don’t see Omar as simply a Muslim. They see someone who is hard-wired to blame the United States for jihadist terrorism. They see someone who is steeped in anti-Semitism, and indistinguishable from her Muslim Brotherhood friends in hostility to Israel’s existence.

This is the stuff Trump is surfacing and why the media is starting to move away from the story.

Andrew McCarthy wrote:Now, however, the Squad is a national hit — so much so that Omar figures she’s ready to go toe-to-toe with Trump. The president, in his inimitable way, responded by going right for the jugular: Gee, there’s “a lot of talk about the fact that she was married to her brother. I know nothing about it. I hear she was married to her brother . . .”

Welcome to the show, Congresswoman.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 25

https://twitter.com/jncatron/status/11647918556926[…]

Hard to have PTSD when you're everyday living is w[…]

https://soundcloud.com/moderaterebels/hong-kong-pr[…]

The rise of Trump has empowered right-wing populi[…]