UK condemns Trump’s racist tweets in unprecedented attack against US congresswomen - Page 22 - 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

#15021097
blackjack21 wrote:I'm not sure what you are trying to say. This community is just a PHP bulletin board. It has no legal authority like the US Department of Justice. So if someone says they can blow a Congressman's head off from a mile away and the DoJ does nothing about it, I frankly don't know what it is that you think you can do about it.


Exactly what I said:

noemon wrote:Trump's buddy Acosta letting Epstein off for confirmed pedophilia does not mean that should be the new normal for us in here.


US prosecutors are not a standard that matters.

blackjack21 wrote:I don't consider Trump's tweet the slightest bit intimidating.


That is because they are not meant to intimidate you but others and you seem to be ok with that.

I don't understand the question. Islam is not a race.


Brown people are generally understood as of different race(s) just as well.

blackjack21 wrote:That is just an observation. I also find it interesting that you are digging up my posts from 4 years ago.


It was not hard at all searching for 2 keywords. I was certain that I would find something and I did. I do not think you can sustain that attack on the congresswomen with a straight face.

blackjack21 wrote:You do seem to cue in on the background of who is making a statement.


Not really but sure...where?

blackjack21 wrote:Perhaps. However, Trump was commenting on their critique of the United States, not on the color of their skin.


He was commenting on their descent.

blackjack21 wrote:Why is that? What does intelligence have to do with it? Intelligent people do outlandish things too.


For the same reason it's prudent to speak up at sjw outrage.

blackjack21 wrote:I don't think Trump's comment was racist. In view of what the "squad" has been saying about people, I think it was pretty tame. My interpretation of it was it was intended to trigger people like you, and Trump met his mark. I also think both the "squad" and Trump should be able to say what they want, and the rest of us should be able to offer our own critiques of what they said and why we think they said it. I don't think we all have to agree. That's the whole point of debate.


There is no trigger here, what he said is made on the basis of these ladies ethnic origins. That is the matter of fact that cannot be discounted.
#15021169
noemon wrote:US prosecutors are not a standard that matters.

Well, it's not likely that PoFo's rules are going to win over the world and establish a new standard.

noemon wrote:That is because they are not meant to intimidate you but others and you seem to be ok with that.

Ya. I'm okay with that. I'm not even afraid for any of them, because it is clear to me that Trump wasn't threatening anyone.

noemon wrote:Brown people are generally understood as of different race(s) just as well.

Yes, but there are plenty of white Muslims. So I don't follow the conflation of Islam and race.

noemon wrote:I do not think you can sustain that attack on the congresswomen with a straight face.

No. I'm pretty much laughing the entire time.

Anyway, even BoJo isn't a front-page story in the US after Mueller's meltdown today. This story is getting old.
#15021186
noemon wrote:There is no trigger here, what he said is made on the basis of these ladies ethnic origins. That is the matter of fact that cannot be discounted.

Not really true. There are many people in congress with different ethnic origins than Trump. What President Trump said about these women was based on the awful things they had been saying, not on the basis of their ethnic origins. However, in some cases, the ethnics origins may have given what he said about them more credibility.
HalleluYah
#15021195
Also, not only is the motive clear a crystal, they're not spontansous just by Trump whipping up the crowd.

They have 'section leaders' planted throughout the crowd to start chants! YEAH!

Omarosa just revealed how Trump team secretly organizes racist chants at his rallies

First, she went on to Saturday Night Politics and revealed that Trump’s rallies deploy “section leaders” from the campaign, whose jobs it is to start the chants.

Then, Omarosa stunningly revealed exactly who is coordinating the staging, choreography, and chants at Trump rallies, someone connected to the highest levels of the Trump Administration.

She says that Vice President Mike Pence’s nephew John Pence is a key cog in driving the “crowd narrative” inside a typical Trump hate rally.
#15021198
blackjack21 wrote:Well, it's not likely that PoFo's rules are going to win over the world and establish a new standard.


PoFo rules are the standard in here and we are in here as a matter of fact.

blackjack21 wrote:Ya. I'm okay with that. I'm not even afraid for any of them, because it is clear to me that Trump wasn't threatening anyone.


You 're okay with that because it is not intimidating you, if it was intimidating to you then you would not be ok with that as you have proven time and again.

Yes, but there are plenty of white Muslims. So I don't follow the conflation of Islam and race.


Racism is not just about race, but also about colour, descent, ethnic and national origins as we have seen several times. You are also still avoiding the question:

noemon wrote:if US politicians have placed Israeli interests above US interests then certainly American politicians should be able to say that without fear or prejudice. Are you arguing that if American politicians say that someone(in the US) is putting Islam(.ie Saudi) above the US, then that someone is being racist?


Israel is not a race either but you do not seem to mind. You 're the one who claims that criticising the US-Israeli relationship is being racist and are throwing that accusation to Omar. Are you arguing that criticising the US-Saudi foreign affairs relationship would be racist?

Hindsite wrote:There are many people in congress with different ethnic origins than Trump.


This is called false equivocation. One does not need to attack all ethnic-people to be a racist, attacking a few of them on the basis of race, descent, ethnic origin still makes that person racist. He attacked those that disagree with him and he did on the basis of their ethnic-origins, that makes his attack racist.
#15021210
noemon wrote:Racism is not just about race, but also about colour, descent, ethnic and national origins as we have seen several times. You are also still avoiding the question:

"colour, descent, ethnic and national origins" are all different words for genetic heritage. ie: race. Islam is a religion and therefore all memes not genes.

I really wonder if you know what you are doing by conflating being disparaging of someone's genetic heritage with criticising a religious belief system and books. It just looks to me like dishonesty or incompetence.

It is also suspicious that only Islam seems to get bundled into a race narrative by the racialists here. Why isn't criticising Christianity racism? There are probably more brown Christians than there are brown Muslims.

Why is it that racialist marxoids want to shield Islam, the religion of suicide bombing and terrorism, from scrutiny using the post-war race taboo? Perhaps the answer is that marxism is also a religion of terrorism. Maybe one day saying anything about marxism will also be "racism".
Last edited by SolarCross on 25 Jul 2019 14:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15021214
SolarCross wrote:"colour, descent, ethnic and national origins" are all different words for genetic heritage. ie: race. Islam is a religion and therefore all memes not genes.


A Muslim refugee from Syria has a different descent, colour, ethnic and national origin. Your faux argument is a meme.

SolarCross wrote:I really wonder if you know what you are doing by conflating being disparaging of someone's genetic heritage with criticising a religious belief system and books. It just looks to me like dishonesty or incompetence.
Why is it that racialist marxoids what to shield Islam, the religion of suicide bombing and terrorism, from scrutiny using the post-war race taboo? Perhaps the answer is that marxism is also a religion of terrorism. Maybe one day saying anything about marxism will also be "racism".


It is indeed extreme dishonesty on the part of the right-wingers here to be screaming racist at those who are criticising the US-Israeli relationship but throw a total fit when their hypocrisy is demonstrated with all the hate they want to throw at North-African and Asian Muslim migrants. The racist argument that "we only hate them cause of their religion and not because they are brown" does not actually fly, especially when the right-wingers are the ones throwing the racist accusation around. What are the right-wingers shielding by doing that SolarCross? You also seem to be extremely confused. I am saying that it is not racist to criticise the US-Saudi relationship just like it is not racist to criticise the US-Israeli relationship. You and blackjack21 are the ones who take an issue with that.

noemon wrote:if US politicians have placed Israeli interests above US interests then certainly American politicians should be able to say that without fear or prejudice. Are you arguing that if American politicians say that someone(in the US) is putting Islam(.ie Saudi) above the US, then that someone is being racist?


Blackjack21 is the one who claims that criticising the US-Israeli relationship is being racist and are throwing that accusation to Omar. Are you arguing that criticising the US-Saudi foreign affairs relationship would be racist?
#15021220
Hindsite wrote:Not really true. There are many people in congress with different ethnic origins than Trump. What President Trump said about these women was based on the awful things they had been saying, not on the basis of their ethnic origins. However, in some cases, the ethnics origins may have given what he said about them more credibility.
HalleluYah


I think anti-racism only holds as long as the race itself is generally free from brainwashing or any sinister agenda of their leaders. For example, too many Chinese are ultra-nationalistic that some racist thoughts against them (e.g. they tend to be power-hungry, intellectual-property-ignorant, arrogant, violent and corrupt compared with common Westerners) seem more justified than other reasonable opinions.

Still, there are two points of concern:

1. Any opinion against a race, or indeed any individual, is pretty dependent on statistical facts. However, human behaviour is technically a variable, so even exceptions should be taken seriously.

2. There are some statements that a leader has to refrain from saying, because they might induce undesirable inspirations even to the speaker himself / herself. For example, a vice-chairman of a newspaper in Hong Kong advocated "parental discipline" towards "excessive protesters". After the violent event last Sunday, his words were quickly seen as provocations and he was almost instantly disgraced, and had to resign his 0.5M USD / year Director job, which he had been in for at least two decades.

I think some people here rather judged Trump using standards regarding a common folk rather than one more suitable for a POTUS.
#15021227
noemon wrote:A Muslim refugee from Syria has a different descent, colour, ethnic and national origin. Your faux argument is a meme.

A Hindu from India has that too but they don't explode as much so nobody minds them. Their religious instruction book doesn't come with exhortations to kill the unbeliever.

You are conflating genes with memes. If someone says "I don't like brown people" or "white people" or whatever then that is racism because that is against a person's genetics.

But if someone says Islam is a bad religion then that is no more racist than saying communism is evil (it is btw), buddhism involves a lot of meditiation or Christianity has a slave morality (Nietzsche?) or whatever. Discussing ideology is not racism. And you are obviously up to no good saying it is.

noemon wrote:It is indeed extreme dishonesty on the part of the right-wingers here to be screaming racist at those who are criticising the US-Israeli relationship but throw a total fit when their hypocrisy is demonstrated with all the hate they want to throw at North-African and Asian Muslim migrants. The racist argument that "we only hate them cause of their religion and not because they are brown" does not actually fly, especially when the right-wingers are the ones throwing the racist accusation around. What are the right-wingers shielding by doing that SolarCross? You also seem to be extremely confused. I am saying that it is not racist to criticise the US-Saudi relationship just like it is not racist to criticise the US-Israeli relationship. You and blackjack21 are the ones who take an issue with that.

I wouldn't say the hatred and prejudice that Muslims have for Jews is racism because it is a religiously motivated hatred. There isn't a neat little word like "racism" to describe that religiously motivated hatred. There probably should be.

Leftists hate Americans because Americans are free. They just pretend they hate white Americans and love the black Americans because they want to exploit historical frictions to start another civil war. Leftists believe chaos is a ladder and that out of a civil war they will have the opportunity to impose totalitarianism.

They are just using blacks. It looks racist because of the racially charged language they use but the leftists really just hate American values and culture and are just using race as a weapon. So really that is an ideological hatred too.

This is where the Left-Islamist alliance makes sense because they have a common ideological enemy in Americans and Israelis.
#15021237
noemon wrote: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.


So, are you denying that you said the words I highlighted? You did say them, didn't you? They did pass from your mind, through your fingers and onto your keyboard, didn't they? I didn't make those words up. I didn't say them, you did.

You can complain about the resulting message being out of context, but that's exactly what happens when someone reads your cherry-picked version of Trump's tweet.

Look, you can tap dance around it anyway you want but it'll never make you right. I did exactly what you did and it pissed you off. The fact of the matter is that you did say those words, and you realize the folly of your similar efforts with regards to Trump's tweet, which wasn't racist until libs decided they wanted it to be racist and started cherry-picking the words they would reference from it...
#15021267
SolarCross wrote:A Hindu from India has that too but they don't explode as much so nobody minds them. Their religious instruction book doesn't come with exhortations to kill the unbeliever.


That is all absolutely false, off-topic and a straw.

SolarCross wrote:You are conflating genes with memes. If someone says "I don't like brown people" or "white people" or whatever then that is racism because that is against a person's genetics. But if someone says Islam is a bad religion then that is no more racist than saying communism is evil (it is btw), buddhism involves a lot of meditiation or Christianity has a slave morality (Nietzsche?) or whatever. Discussing ideology is not racism.


You 're projecting and making things up, I agree with this paragraph of yours and have not said otherwise anywhere. You are hallucinating.

SolarCross wrote:.....This is where the Left-Islamist alliance makes sense because they have a common ideological enemy in Americans and Israelis.


Your rambling does not address anything of what I said:

noemon wrote:It is indeed extreme dishonesty on the part of the right-wingers here to be screaming racist at those who are criticising the US-Israeli relationship but throw a total fit when their hypocrisy is demonstrated with all the hate they want to throw at North-African and Asian Muslim migrants. The racist argument that "we only hate them cause of their religion and not because they are brown" does not actually fly, especially when the right-wingers are the ones throwing the racist accusation around. What are the right-wingers shielding by doing that SolarCross? You also seem to be extremely confused. I am saying that it is not racist to criticise the US-Saudi relationship just like it is not racist to criticise the US-Israeli relationship. You and blackjack21 are the ones who take an issue with that.


BigSteve wrote:but that's exactly what happens when someone reads your cherry-picked version of Trump's tweet.


No it isn't and clearly you are in bot mode and as such you will never treat this matter rationally. The obvious reality is that Trump used their ethnic-origins as a basis to attack them and that is racist. You can tap dance around it all you like but even the Trump apologists have recognised this very obvious reality.
#15021271
noemon wrote:No it isn't and clearly you are in bot mode and as such you will never treat this matter rationally. The obvious reality is that Trump used their ethnic-origins as a basis to attack them and that is racist. You can tap dance around it all you like but even the Trump apologists have recognised this very obvious reality.


I think it's laughable that you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being in "bot mode", especially when you posted the "universally accepted definition of racism since 1965", or whatever the fuck it was, time and time again. It was dismissed the first time. No need for it to be dismissed repeatedly, unless you're just a glutton for punishment.

Again, an example:

No it isn't and clearly you are in bot mode and as such you will never treat this matter rationally.


Now, you cannot deny that you made that statement. You can't; it's there for all to see. You believe that I will treat this matter rationally. I appreciate you coming around and I thank you for your confidence.

See, when certain words are omitted it alters the entire vibe of the statement. Omitting words from Trump's tweet, as you seem intent on doing, alters the vibe of the statement and conveys something never intended.

I'm having fun, though, watching you mentally flail at justifying your doing it while decrying me doing the same. It's hypocrisy at its absolute finest...
#15021283
BigSteve wrote:I think it's laughable that you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being in "bot mode", especially when you posted the "universally accepted definition of racism since 1965", or whatever the fuck it was, time and time again. It was dismissed the first time. No need for it to be dismissed repeatedly, unless you're just a glutton for punishment.


Your dismissal of something means nothing at all.

BigSteve wrote:Now, you cannot deny that you made that statement. You can't; it's there for all to see. You believe that I will treat this matter rationally. I appreciate you coming around and I thank you for your confidence.


I do not deny it, you are talking to your own self.

BigSteve wrote:See, when certain words are omitted it alters the entire vibe of the statement. Omitting words from Trump's tweet, as you seem intent on doing, alters the vibe of the statement and conveys something never intended. I'm having fun, though, watching you mentally flail at justifying your doing it while decrying me doing the same. It's hypocrisy at its absolute finest...


Bot mode is embarrassing at this point. How is the meaning of Trump attacking these Congresswomens' ethnic-origins not intended in Trump's tweet?
#15021284
noemon wrote:Your dismissal of something means nothing at all.


Sure it does...

I do not deny it.


Good. Glad we're on the same page with that. Thank you for admitting that you believe I will treat this matter rationally. Your words mean a lot...

How is the meaning of Trump attacking these Congresswomens' ethnic-origins not intended in Trump's tweet?


Because he said nothing of anyone's race or ethnicity, that's how, and you will never be able to show where he did.

I am honestly shocked that you need to have this explained to you...
#15021285
BigSteve wrote:Sure it does...Because he said nothing of anyone's race or ethnicity, that's how, and you will never be able to show where he did.
I am honestly shocked that you need to have this explained to you...


We are way past shock mode with you. Ok sure whatever you say. Reality remains the same. Surprisingly perhaps for some.

Trump wrote:.....originally came from countries....


What you mean to say is that you will never be able to show how that is not referring to their ethnic-origins.
#15021292
noemon wrote:We are way past shock mode with you. Ok sure whatever you say. Reality remains the same. Surprisingly perhaps for some.


Dude, I'm all ears. Show me where Trump mentioned anything about race or ethnicity and you'll effectively end this. Honestly, that's all it would take on your part. Show me that, and my acknowledgement that you are right and I am wrong will be my last post in this thread...
#15021307
BigSteve wrote:Dude, I'm all ears. Show me where Trump mentioned anything about race or ethnicity and you'll effectively end this. Honestly, that's all it would take on your part. Show me that, and my acknowledgement that you are right and I am wrong will be my last post in this thread...

We know that noemon can't do that because Trump never mentioned race or ethnicity in his tweet. These left-wing loonies seem to imagine racism whenever it is convenient for them. However, that strategy of calling what was said as racist seems to have worked to some degree with Trump, because he disavowed the phrase "send her back" chanted by some of his supporters in North Carolina and says he will stop it if it occurs again. There are becoming too many words and phrases to remember that are considered racist, but only if spoken by a white person to or about a so-called person of color.
#15021462
noemon wrote:You 're okay with that because it is not intimidating you, if it was intimidating to you then you would not be ok with that as you have proven time and again.

I don't find debates or demands intimidating. Put a gun in my face, and then I will feel intimidated.

noemon wrote:Racism is not just about race, but also about colour, descent, ethnic and national origins as we have seen several times.

Racism is also about not agreeing with the Democratic party in the United States. It's not a meaningful term in the vernacular sense anymore.

noemon wrote:You are also still avoiding the question

I'm not avoiding the question. I was the first person on PoFo to champion AOC winning her primary. I knew what it would lead to. I'm not trying to shut these people up. Like Trump, I want them to be the face of the Democratic Party.

noemon wrote:Israel is not a race either but you do not seem to mind. You 're the one who claims that criticising the US-Israeli relationship is being racist and are throwing that accusation to Omar.

I'm repeating the fact that she's used what others call antisemitic tropes and they are calling her racist. I do not want her to stop doing that. I would like her to continue.

noemon wrote:Blackjack21 is the one who claims that criticising the US-Israeli relationship is being racist and are throwing that accusation to Omar.

I claimed it was racist? Omar was certainly accused by Jewish Democrats of using antisemitic tropes. I don't care if she does that, because it causes problems for the establishment.

noemon wrote:Are you arguing that criticising the US-Saudi foreign affairs relationship would be racist?

I don't think I've done that either. I view the US-Saudi relationship in strategic/pragmatic terms.

Patrickov wrote:For example, too many Chinese are ultra-nationalistic that some racist thoughts against them (e.g. they tend to be power-hungry, intellectual-property-ignorant, arrogant, violent and corrupt compared with common Westerners) seem more justified than other reasonable opinions.

Racism is sort of a nonchalant thing in China. They routinely call non-Chinese "foreigner" to their face. I imagine noemon would feel horribly threatened by being called gweilo, gwailou, or lao wai all the time.





  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25

US security experts, former diplomats and military[…]

Sounds about right

You just said Trump knows what he is doing. See […]

I don't know Tanny. It is what you make of it. […]

This is hilarious because they've probably neve[…]