9
   

Will anyone defend Trump on this one?

 
 
Reply Mon 15 Jul, 2019 10:20 am
Trump told American Congresswomen (all of them American citizens and all but one born in the US) that they should "go back to their countries". If this isn't racism, I don't know what is. Is there anyone who wants to defend Trump for this tweet? I think it is his most inexcusable yet.
 
HabibUrrehman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Jul, 2019 10:43 am
@maxdancona,
I am not surprised. This is how Trump won last election and now these tweets are setting ground for his next election campaign. He uses hate speech and racism to Divide the country. Once discrimination on this scale enters the political market, it debases the currency of a democracy and leaves everything weaker and everyone more divided. He rules on the principal of "divide and rule." Trump is not the first political figure to make the transition from ridiculous to dangerous and very soon his own voters will realize the joke is really on them.

Quote:
I think it is his most inexcusable yet.

There are many such tweets and this is perhaps the latest.
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jul, 2019 10:59 am
@HabibUrrehman,
Quote:
very soon his own voters will realize the joke is really on them.
that they cannot already see how they are being played proves without a shadow of a doubt just how ignorant they are...

https://i.imgur.com/l7xFGV7.jpg
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jul, 2019 05:10 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
I don't think Trump "won" the last election. I think Hillary Clinton lost. His hate speech fires up his base, but that is a minority of the voters.

All the Democrats have to do is find a nominee who can be less odious than Trump. That shouldn't be that difficult... let's hope they can do it this time.

I think it is a small minority of Americans who actually support this rhetoric.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Jul, 2019 08:54 pm
@maxdancona,
I believe Trump is actually tiring of playing president. hes got his street cred and can us his playground mind to do "upmanship" with billionaires many times his worth.
He'll say ,
"OH YEH? At LEAST I ONCE BIN DA THE PRES--What you done ??"

He is the embodiment of a Lincoln-ism
"you can fool somatha people.... Yadda Yadda"

0 Replies
 
knaivete
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jul, 2019 09:55 pm
"One can fool some men, or fool all men in some places and times, but one cannot fool all men in all places and ages. (... ont pû tromper quelques hommes, ou les tromper tous dans certains lieux & en certains tems, mais non pas tous les hommes, dans tous les lieux & dans tous les siécles.)"
Jacques Abbadie (1654-1727), Traité de la Vérité de la Religion Chrétienne, Page 11 (1684)
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Jul, 2019 05:03 am
@knaivete,
So Abe made it catchy.
"You can fool all the people somma the time and somma the people all of the time.
BUT YOU CANT
fool alla the people alla the time."

Abe was good at punch lines
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Jul, 2019 05:09 am
Quote:
Is there anyone who wants to defend Trump for this tweet?


He's voicing sentiments which are shared by many of his supporters?

He's cleverly diverted our attention from the destructive effects of his tax cuts?

The Clintons have left a trail of dead bodies and no one's criticizing them?

0 Replies
 
HabibUrrehman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Jul, 2019 07:54 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I don't think Trump "won" the last election. I think Hillary Clinton lost.


That's absolutely right. Hillary was the weakest candidate against any republican and the evidence was there for anyone willing to see it.  The only surprise was how hard many people worked not to see the obvious. Results would have been very different with Bernie Sanders as Democrat's presidential candidate.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jul, 2019 09:04 am
@maxdancona,
I think the number of Americans who are that blatantly racist is around 15%. There is another 20% who don't care... but who jump on because they like the "in your face, hyper-masculine attitude". And there is another 20% who don't like Trump, but think "liberals" are patronizing, self-righteous elites.

The 2020 election depends on the Democrats pealing away some of that last group.
0 Replies
 
HabibUrrehman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jul, 2019 10:54 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
go back to their countries


Trump probably did not mean to apply this on Melania Very Happy
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2019 10:59 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Trump told American Congresswomen (all of them American citizens and all but one born in the US) that they should "go back to their countries". If this isn't racism, I don't know what is. Is there anyone who wants to defend Trump for this tweet? I think it is his most inexcusable yet.

How else can this kind of anti-migrant language be fully brought into the critical spotlight globally, except by Trump saying it?

There are people throughout the world who dislike Trump and his politics, who will recognize themselves in him because they are people who also feel migrants should "go back to their country."

So the question is whether Trump saying it will cause some people throughout the world to think twice about their own anti-migrant attitudes, or whether they will just decide that Trump is OK in terms of his nationalism, but they just wish he would change the tariffs and other policies to promote more lucrative global trade so the nationalists of the world can exploit other people "in their own countries" without paying taxes/tariffs to the countries they are doing business with and within.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2019 08:32 pm
@maxdancona,
Well, it isn't racism. It may be xenophobic and nativist but it's not racist. I'm not going to defend his comments, but I would like us to use the English language in the same way
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2019 08:33 pm
@maxdancona,
Having said what I said...Why is it ok for the squad to denigrate him with the most deplorable of terms and not ok for him to counter?

Because they are right?
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2019 08:52 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Having said what I said...Why is it ok for the squad to denigrate him with the most deplorable of terms and not ok for him to counter?

Because they are right?


Because they're right that he's xenophobic, nativist, bigoted and racist.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2019 09:49 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Well, it isn't racism. It may be xenophobic and nativist but it's not racist. I'm not going to defend his comments, but I would like us to use the English language in the same way

Racism is understood too narrowly in present-day common usage. To truly understand the word, 'racism,' you have to understand what is meant by the word, 'race.' In present-day culture, race is commonly associated with skin color, but that is just one possible physical attribute that can be used to construe the idea that humans are, can, or should be subdivided in sub-species, i.e. 'races.'

Sometimes the term, 'human race' is used to convey the idea that all humans are part of the same 'race,' but that is technically wrong because humans are a species. Individuals within a species are capable of having babies, which is why it's possible to cross-breed dogs. Dog breeds are essentially, 'races,' i.e. sub-species that are bred as isolated gene groups to achieve certain gene expressions and avoid others. In a sense, you could call dog-breeding 'racist,' because it is in the most technical sense of the term, but it wouldn't make sense in common usage to say that, i.e. because people would think you mean that breeding dogs is a way of hating people of color and favoring white people.

If you really want to understand what racism is as a more general phenomenon, Ayn Rand's explanation of it as a specific form of collectivism is most useful:
Quote:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html

By understanding collectivism first, and the way individuals use collective identities to gain and exercise power in various ways, you can then get a better grasp on why/how the idea of a biological/genetic/birthright collective can be used for power.

Basically, the power of racism is to say, "it doesn't matter what you think or do as an individual, because you will always just be a member of your race and nothing more." This is the same with birthright nationalism because the assumption is that if you're not born a citizen of a given nation, then it doesn't matter what you do, you will never be a true citizen of that nation. The meaning of 'naturalization' is lost on birthright nationalists throughout the world because, in their common sense, an individual cannot ever be anything except an expression of the nation they were born to. In short, they view nations as transgenerational collectives, not communities that can be joined through a process of 'naturalization,' whatever is understood to be meant by that term.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2019 09:56 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Having said what I said...Why is it ok for the squad to denigrate him with the most deplorable of terms and not ok for him to counter?

Because they are right?

No, that's the problem with the left currently. They attack their enemies as aggressively as possible until they provoke a defensive response that they can attack as racist/sexist/xenophobic/classist/etc.

If you take two people who love each other dearly, e.g. are married, but they have different racial identities, class identities, gender identities, etc. and those two people are going through an ugly divorce; you will usually see that at some point they will hurl racist/classist/sexist insults against each other, even if they don't truly believe in what they're saying.

They are just using these insults as a weapon in a fight where their defensive reflexes have been triggered by desperation to protect themselves, their assets, children, etc.

This same phenomenon happens in politics, and it is sad and nasty when people tease it out in order to further vilify and attack their opponents.

Politics is supposed to be a good-faith discourse in which different POV's are represented/expressed so that common-ground can be reached instead of differences breaking down into conflict, hate, and war.

Why people aren't honoring the peace-orientation of democracy is unclear, except to the extent they are acting in the interest of achieving political/economic gains at some other level, which is exploitative by definition.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2019 10:03 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Because they're right that he's xenophobic, nativist, bigoted and racist.

Part of politicians' job is to represent the bad ideas of the public so that the public can see how those ideas play out in public discourse.

So you shouldn't seek to impeach people for these bad characteristics, but rather you should take the opportunity to engage in constructive discussion about the issues and appeal to their better nature.

Most people who are racist/sexist/xenophobic/bigoted/etc. on one level are loving family members, loyal colleagues, etc. on another level. The question is whether you can appeal to their sense that 'all men/people are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If they can acknowledge this basic equality and rights as fundamental to all humans, then the question becomes how to recognize and respect those rights in a world as complex and problematic as the multi-national one we live in.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2019 10:52 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Well, it isn't racism. It may be xenophobic and nativist but it's not racist. I'm not going to defend his comments, but I would like us to use the English language in the same way



I see what you are saying here. The problem is that three or the four people in the group he is attacking were born in the United States.

Donald Trump's father is the son of immigrants from Western Europe. His mother immigrated herself from Scotland. Donald Trump is no more American than AOC in that regard.

The difference is that Trump is White and Protestant with ancestors from Western Europe.

If you are making an argument about free speech, you know I agree with you. Trump is allowed to make and defend any asinine bigoted statement he wants. But there is no question that these statements that paint White Americans as belonging here and telling others to "go back to their countries" is deeply troubling.
HabibUrrehman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2019 10:42 pm
@maxdancona,
Lawsuit is coming soon against Trump and his administration....
 

Related Topics

2016 moving to #1 spot - Discussion by gungasnake
Black Lives Matter - Discussion by TheCobbler
Racism? - Question by The UPS Man
Is 'colored people' offensive? - Question by SMickey
Obama’s Black Skin Privilege - Discussion by coldjoint
Obama, a Joke - Discussion by coldjoint
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
The ECHR and muslims - Discussion by Arend
Atlanta Race Riot 1906 - Discussion by kobereal24
Quote of the Day - Discussion by Tabludama
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Will anyone defend Trump on this one?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2019 at 12:47:07