A Random Article From My Hometown

[RiverDog]

I know that you disagreed with me, but Trump has shown his racist tendencies for quite awhile. But he didn't leave much doubt this time, did he? There's no way that anyone can defend remarks like what he told those women.

And I see that the cat's got Idahawk's tongue. Must be waiting to see how Limbaugh, Colture, and Hannity say so he can use one of their lines.

What exactly did Trump say that is racist? And no cat has ever got my tongue. I may be out of town or a bit busy but to jump to some stupid conclusion like you did is beyond logic.

1. The quote is readily available and has been discussed thoroughly in this thread so I'm not going to repeat myself. Go back and read previous remarks about the subject and get yourself up to speed.

2. You made comments in this thread after posts were made by ASF, burrton, and myself regarding Trump's Sunday tweet and you never said a word about it or our remarks for the past 4 days. That's very unusual for you, leaving the reason for your oversight open for interpretation. However, I will accept your explanation.

[RiverDog]

It would appear that Trump's much discussed tweet is against federal law regarding workplace harassment as it specifically calls out almost verbatim the same wording Trump used:

“Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person’s foreign accent or comments like, ‘Go back to where you came from,’ whether made by supervisors or co-workers”

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/ ... -facts.cfm

And the EEOC's response:

On Monday, the EEOC posted its own tweet detailing how to file a charge of discrimination that asks the agency to take action. The tweet did not mention the incident between the Democrats and Trump, though it was posted one day after the president’s remarks.

I'd sure love to be a fly on the Oval Office wall if one or more of the 4 Congresswomen targeted in Trump's tweet filed a harassment charge with the EEOC.

[Aseahawkfan]

If I (or Idhawkman for that matter) said that trash to someone we work with, we'd be fired or sued. If IDhawkman can't see telling Americans of non-European ancestry to go back to their lousy run nations is racist, then he's probably racist himself. I doubt you can convince a racist that his comments and attitudes are wrong and cruel.

[Aseahawkfan]

All of that may be true, but it still does not excuse the individual from obligation to control their own destiny. We cannot as parents or as persons in positions of authority accept external or environmental conditions as a justification for an individual's failings.

I disagree with you. A person can only know what they know and if the previous generation does not ensure the values that made a nation a certain way continue, then they become responsible for its failure. The world is ongoing and the previous generation sets the foundation for the next one. If they set a bad foundation as Americans have done, it is their fault when the house starts to crumble.

For example, if a father chooses to run out on the mother, become a drug addict, and not spend any time or money properly raising his children, then you can expect a bad outcome and thus a bad brick in the house of society and blame has nothing to do with it. Just means you built a bad house and complaining about the bad bricks when you put them together poorly is BS. The builder is as responsible for the badly built house and how can he expect the brick to know how to build a better house if he wasn't taught in the first place?

That's where I see us now. A bunch of rotten parents put their kids out there with little help or guidance and now they wonder why they're lazy and society has drug problems and such? Talk about a generation unwilling to take responsibility for their poor parenting complaining about the kids they raised.

I'm not saying you in particular did a bad job. I know a lot of crappy parents that make these same complaints and I have to tell them how about your crappy parenting Mr. Neglectful Drunk Drug Addict who ran out on his wife. The previous generation was pretty damn rotten as parents whether it's spoiling the kids too much or engaging in rotten behaviors. The current society is the direct result of their behavior.

[RiverDog]

If I (or Idhawkman for that matter) said that trash to someone we work with, we'd be fired or sued.

If not fired, severely disciplined, depending on the offending person's position within the company. It's clearly against the regs.

[RiverDog]

I've read a number of analyses (of the labor participation rate)- it's (retirees)part of it, but it's not the main driver. It went up recently, even.

The decline in the participation rate has been attributed to structural changes and not the overall health of the economy. This structural change in the number of people actively seeking work has occurred due to retiring baby boomers, a decline in working women, and more people deciding to attend college.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pa ... onrate.asp

I think it's fair to assume that they are listing those 3 main drivers in the order of their impact on the labor participation rate. I'll also throw in the increase in life expectancy as another factor in the participation rate that has nothing to do with the health of the economy.

The labor participation rate is only relevant to the unemployment rate if they can factor out the "structural changes" referred to above.

[RiverDog]

I disagree with you. A person can only know what they know and if the previous generation does not ensure the values that made a nation a certain continue, then they become responsible for its failure. The world is ongoing and the previous generation sets the foundation for the next one. If they set a bad foundation as Americans have done, it is their fault when the house starts to crumble.

For example, if a father chooses to run out on the mother, become a drug addict, and not spend any time or money properly raising his children, then you can expect a bad outcome and thus a bad brick in the house of society and blame has nothing to do with it. Just means you built a bad house and complaining about the bad bricks is when you put them together poorly is BS. The builder is as responsible for the badly built house and how can he expect the brick to know how to build a better house if he wasn't taught in the first place?

That's where I see us now. A bunch of rotten parents put their kids out there with little held or guidance and now they wonder why they're lazy and society has drug problems and such? Talk about a generation unwilling to take responsibility for their poor parenting complaining about the kids they raised.

I'm not saying you in particular did a bad job. I know a lot of crappy parents that make these same complaints and I have to tell them how about your crappy parenting Mr. Neglectful Drunk Drug Addict who ran out on his wife. The previous generation was pretty damn rotten as parents whether it's spoiling the kids too much or engaging in rotten behaviors. The current society is the direct result of their behavior.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm big on self determination and small on accepting excuses. Not saying you or anyone else is or isn't.

I did not assume you were talking about me when you mentioned bad parenting, but I appreciate your making that distinction.

[Aseahawkfan]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm big on self determination and small on accepting excuses. Not saying you or anyone else is or isn't.

I did not assume you were talking about me when you mentioned bad parenting, but I appreciate your making that distinction.

No amount of disagreeing is going to change the fact that Americans no longer set a good example of a work ethic or male role models. If it continues, you can expect future generations to continue to be lazy. People become what society allows them to be, just as they rise to the occasion when times are hard as our ancestors did. No amount of preaching personal responsibility will change it if they don't know what they're responsible for.

I don't know about you, but it was made clear to me what my responsibility as a male was including my reputation as a worker. I do not see that ethic being passed down much at all. Just like you and burrton, I see it in immigrants still being taught what it means to be a man.

[Aseahawkfan]

The decline in the participation rate has been attributed to structural changes and not the overall health of the economy. This structural change in the number of people actively seeking work has occurred due to retiring baby boomers, a decline in working women, and more people deciding to attend college.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pa ... onrate.asp

I think it's fair to assume that they are listing those 3 main drivers in the order of their impact on the labor participation rate. I'll also throw in the increase in life expectancy as another factor in the participation rate that has nothing to do with the health of the economy.

The labor participation rate is only relevant to the unemployment rate if they can factor out the "structural changes" referred to above.

I've read other discussions concerning the labor participation rate not fully recovering after the 2008 crash. I think we'll see the labor participation rate increase if unemployment stays low. We've had a lot bumps since 2008 and only really got back on track over the last few years with increasing participation and continuing low unemployment. We'll see in the new few years where it all settles. The reasons given aren't unbelievable, but I don't necessarily think low female participation or going to college is a permanent structural change. Many folks returned to college because the government was offering benefits for doing so including extended unemployment benefits and free tuition for people learning new work skills.

[RiverDog]

I've read other discussions concerning the labor participation rate not fully recovering after the 2008 crash. I think we'll see the labor participation rate increase if unemployment stays low. We've had a lot bumps since 2008 and only really got back on track over the last few years with increasing participation and continuing low unemployment. We'll see in the new few years where it all settles. The reasons given aren't unbelievable, but I don't necessarily think low female participation or going to college is a permanent structural change. Many folks returned to college because the government was offering benefits for doing so including extended unemployment benefits and free tuition for people learning new work skills.

As I had said before, it's very difficult to derive any meaning from the labor participation rate when you have the baby boomer generation (which includes Yours Truly) retiring. It's the same reason why SS, Medicare, pensions, et al are having such financial difficulty. They need to factor that out before we can determine if it's recovered from the Great Recession.

Agreed about females not working as much as they had in the past. I don't think it's a permanent change. You could also interpret it as a good economic sign if families are now able to get by on one income.

If the Dems are ever successful in pushing through their free college for all proposal, just watch the labor participation rate decrease. You'll have kids that aren't serious about college going there just for the experience (women, football games).

[RiverDog]

I don't know about you, but it was made clear to me what my responsibility as a male was including my reputation as a worker. I do not see that ethic being passed down much at all. Just like you and burrton, I see it in immigrants still being taught what it means to be a man.

It was with me, too. I was lucky in that I had a great role model in my father. I was the type that craved acceptance from him.

But I don't necessarily agree that those values are being "taught" to immigrants. When the immigrants that I've encountered come to this country, they're scared shitless. Most very much want to assimilate into our society. During football season, they'll wear their Seahawks stuff to work on Seahawks Friday even though they don't know the first thing about football and don't watch the game on Sundays. I've taken several of my closer immigrant friends, 2 from Vietnam and one from Peru, to Seahawk games, one of which will be going to a game (vs. Ravens) with me again this fall.

The vast majority of immigrants I've experienced respond to offerings of friendship or encouragement like you wouldn't believe, crawl through the hubs of hell for you if that's what you asked them to do. Part of my personal success with immigrants was due to the fact that they, in particular Asians, have more respect for their elders than do their native born American counterparts. I think there's a fundamental difference between the values that immigrants posses and the values I was given during my upbringing as no way would I have been as dedicated to work like they have. That's the reason why I'm so passionate when it comes to immigration issues.

[Aseahawkfan]

It was with me, too. I was lucky in that I had a great role model in my father. I was the type that craved acceptance from him.

But I don't necessarily agree that those values are being "taught" to immigrants. When the immigrants that I've encountered come to this country, they're scared shitless. Most very much want to assimilate into our society. During football season, they'll wear their Seahawks stuff to work on Seahawks Friday even though they don't know the first thing about football and don't watch the game on Sundays. I've taken several of my closer immigrant friends, 2 from Vietnam and one from Peru, to Seahawk games, one of which will be going to a game (vs. Ravens) with me again this fall.

The vast majority of immigrants I've experienced respond to offerings of friendship or encouragement like you wouldn't believe, crawl through the hubs of hell for you if that's what you asked them to do. Part of my personal success with immigrants was due to the fact that they, in particular Asians, have more respect for their elders than do their native born American counterparts. I think there's a fundamental difference between the values that immigrants posses and the values I was given during my upbringing as no way would I have been as dedicated to work like they have. That's the reason why I'm so passionate when it comes to immigration issues.

What do you mean not taught to them? Every immigrant I've met has told me about their cultural ideals and the gender ideals of their society. I mean taught by their culture before they came here. America isn't teaching it's young clear cultural ideals or reinforcing gender roles. Americans are trying to rip apart their culture and utterly destroy any idea of gender

Immigrants know what it meant to be male. As in their gender identity was made clear as were there responsibilities as a father, provider, and worker among men. They want respect as a man that can take care of himself and carry his load with other workers. They want to be able to provide their family like a good father and husband. They learn to be there for their children and that being a part of their children's lives not as a friend, but as a parent is important. They don't let their wives run them because they don't know what they're doing like I see from so many American man babies.

I'm not sure how the rest of what you wrote applies. Immigrants usually have a strong sense of community and family. I wish America would get some of that back. The work ethic in this nation was reinforced by males from generation to generation until now.

[idhawkman]

1. The quote is readily available and has been discussed thoroughly in this thread so I'm not going to repeat myself. Go back and read previous remarks about the subject and get yourself up to speed.

I know what he said in the tweets. I'm asking you exactly what you think is racist about it?

2. You made comments in this thread after posts were made by ASF, burrton, and myself regarding Trump's Sunday tweet and you never said a word about it or our remarks for the past 4 days. That's very unusual for you, leaving the reason for your oversight open for interpretation. However, I will accept your explanation.

I didn't see anything worth commenting on since I didn't think it would go anywhere for one. For two, I think Trump forced the mainstream left to hitch their wagon to the radical left and it worked. Pelosi defended the radical left right after Trump stuck up for her when they were claiming she was racist. Pelosi got her butt handed to her this week not only by the squad but also by Trump and even her own main stream #2 guy, Hoyer.

What I did notice is that I haven't seen you comment anything about my earlier predictions about Cohen pleading to two non-crimes and that Trump would not be charged or at least not be found guilty of campaign finance violations. All I hear from you on this is crickets......

[idhawkman]

If I (or Idhawkman for that matter) said that trash to someone we work with, we'd be fired or sued. If IDhawkman can't see telling Americans of non-European ancestry to go back to their lousy run nations is racist, then he's probably racist himself. I doubt you can convince a racist that his comments and attitudes are wrong and cruel.

I don't believe in polls as I've posted on here but in today's polls, 51% of the population do not think his comments were racist. only 35% did find it racist. Saying "if you don't like it, leave it" is not racist in any way. You don't walk into a restaurant and eat terrible food and then get upset when the chef says, well if you don't like it go somewhere else.

[RiverDog]

If I (or Idhawkman for that matter) said that trash to someone we work with, we'd be fired or sued. If IDhawkman can't see telling Americans of non-European ancestry to go back to their lousy run nations is racist, then he's probably racist himself. I doubt you can convince a racist that his comments and attitudes are wrong and cruel.

I don't believe in polls as I've posted on here but in today's polls, 51% of the population do not think his comments were racist. only 35% did find it racist. Saying "if you don't like it, leave it" is not racist in any way. You don't walk into a restaurant and eat terrible food and then get upset when the chef says, well if you don't like it go somewhere else.

It doesn't matter what the polls say. I don't care if 90% of the people said that what Trump said wasn't racist. What matters is what the law says, and it states almost verbatim that what Trump said was discriminatory and likely illegal. ASF is exactly right. If anyone used the language Trump did in the manner in which he directed it at those people while in a workplace environment, we'd be subjecting ourselves to disciplinary action.

You can use Clintonian word twisting techniques to manipulate the term to argue what Trump said wasn't "racist". After all, it's a subjective term and what I think is racist may not fit your definition. But he most definitely did violate federal law by discriminating against them based on his assumption of their national origin (as he has been so many times, Trump was factually wrong in his tweet).

[RiverDog]

What do you mean not taught to them? Every immigrant I've met has told me about their cultural ideals and the gender ideals of their society. I mean taught by their culture before they came here. America isn't teaching it's young clear cultural ideals or reinforcing gender roles. Americans are trying to rip apart their culture and utterly destroy any idea of gender

Immigrants know what it meant to be male. As in their gender identity was made clear as were there responsibilities as a father, provider, and worker among men. They want respect as a man that can take care of himself and carry his load with other workers. They want to be able to provide their family like a good father and husband. They learn to be there for their children and that being a part of their children's lives not as a friend, but as a parent is important. They don't let their wives run them because they don't know what they're doing like I see from so many American man babies.

I'm not sure how the rest of what you wrote applies. Immigrants usually have a strong sense of community and family. I wish America would get some of that back. The work ethic in this nation was reinforced by males from generation to generation until now.

If you look at it from that POV, I can agree. But I do think there were differences as to how I acquired my sense of responsibility and how today's immigrants acquired theirs. For example, of those I've encountered, immigrants have a desire for personal acceptance which motivates them, something I never had to worry about.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't believe in polls as I've posted on here but in today's polls, 51% of the population do not think his comments were racist. only 35% did find it racist. Saying "if you don't like it, leave it" is not racist in any way. You don't walk into a restaurant and eat terrible food and then get upset when the chef says, well if you don't like it go somewhere else.

Why you using a poll when you don't believe in them?

I don't need a poll to know when something is racist. For a long time I argued against Trump as a racist, but that comment is racist. If someone said that trash to my American grandfather born and raised here but of visible Mexican-Native American ancestry, we'd be fighting. I'd be looking to trash that dude. Telling my grandfather to go back to his crappy country when he fought in World War 2, worked his ass off, was in the Civilian Conservation Corps building parks, worked for the city, and is as American as they come would piss me off. The only type of people that use that type of language when it comes out are people that think of Americans only as "white" people or those of European ancestry. When they see someone of visible different heritage, they think they aren't really American and say some trash like Trump said.

You don't see white people saying this crap to each other even when they disagree. Trump has never said that trash to Pelosi or Warren or Sanders when he's disagreed with them. He just said it to a bunch of women that look to him like immigrants: darker skinned with non-European names.

That crap was racist. His Trumpbots casting anonymous votes in some poll doesn't change it.

[RiverDog]

You don't see white people saying this crap to each other even when they disagree. Trump has never said that trash to Pelosi or Warren or Sanders when he's disagreed with them. He just said it to a bunch of women that look to him like immigrants: darker skinned with non-European names.

That crap was racist. His Trumpbots casting anonymous votes in some poll doesn't change it.

It's no different than Trump's blind accusations back in 2016 about a judge of Mexican decent not being capable of being fair and impartial solely because of his heritage:

Then Trump began calling Curiel a "hater" who was being unfair to him because the judge is "Hispanic," because he is "Mexican" and because Trump is building a wall.

First, Curiel is American. He was born in Indiana, went to law school at Indiana University and is of Mexican ancestry.

After 10 years in private practice in Indiana and California, Curiel spent 17 years as a federal prosecutor in Southern California, rising to chief of narcotics enforcement in San Diego.

In the late 1990s, when Curiel was leading a joint task force to take down a notorious Tijuana drug cartel, law enforcement authorities got credible information that the cartel was planning to assassinate him. Curiel's boss at the time was U.S. Attorney Gregory Vega.

"At that point," Vega recalled, "the United States Marshals Service removed Judge Curiel from his home and, for a year, had him live on a Navy base here in San Diego and then on separate occasions in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., outside of the danger area."

Vega, who had known Curiel for decades, told NPR he finds it ironic that a man who put his life at risk to fight the scourge of drugs from Mexico is being portrayed as incapable of being fair because of his Mexican background.

https://www.npr.org/2016/06/07/48114088 ... n-ancestry

Not saying you in particular, but I've been harpooned by several posters in this forum thought I was a lunatic when I accused Trump of being a racist. His tweets from last Sunday did not take me by surprise. To the contrary, they were par for the course.

[Aseahawkfan]

If you look at it from that POV, I can agree. But I do think there were differences as to how I acquired my sense of responsibility and how today's immigrants acquired theirs. For example, of those I've encountered, immigrants have a desire for personal acceptance which motivates them, something I never had to worry about.

People usually don't directly tell you your culture. It's something you feel and absorb. I'm not sure who you were around when young, but I could feel the way men felt about a lazy SoB being around them. You did not want to be "that" guy.

The example was all around you of the work expectation. When talking to immigrants, the example of how a man is supposed to act is all around them.

We've lost that here. Even TV dads are different now. I recall watching TV shows where the dad was a prominent part of life with a very specific identity in the family. What does the modern American male learn about American culture from osmosis? That's the gist of what I'm trying to address.

You, me, and most of the older guys on this forum had all these great examples of hard working, tough, family-oriented males around us growing up whether our fathers, grandparents, or even popular culture and public life examples. What do these kids have? Even Hollywood males are way different than they used to be. It's no wonder why they are lazier and generally viewed as weaker with dropping levels of testosterone when the message seems to being male, especially a white male, is some kind of crime.

Those strong male figures are still prominent in immigrant culture from most nations. I hear all kinds of stories about the role of the father in their families setting the example for them. Much of what I here in America is divorce, cheating, women running the house, and the like. Just a very different environment than what we had to grow up in. Thus I'm less inclined to hammer on a bunch of young people who had such poor examples to follow. You could even argue women have even worse examples of womanhood with women like the Kardashians, popstars, and the like as their examples.

Let's just say American culture has fallen a long way from it's peak and seems to be continuing it's leftist crap gone too far cultural destruction. I'm glad I won't live to see the final nail in that coffin.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's no different than Trump's blind accusations back in 2016 about a judge of Mexican decent not being capable of being fair and impartial solely because of his heritage:

Then Trump began calling Curiel a "hater" who was being unfair to him because the judge is "Hispanic," because he is "Mexican" and because Trump is building a wall.

First, Curiel is American. He was born in Indiana, went to law school at Indiana University and is of Mexican ancestry.

After 10 years in private practice in Indiana and California, Curiel spent 17 years as a federal prosecutor in Southern California, rising to chief of narcotics enforcement in San Diego.

In the late 1990s, when Curiel was leading a joint task force to take down a notorious Tijuana drug cartel, law enforcement authorities got credible information that the cartel was planning to assassinate him. Curiel's boss at the time was U.S. Attorney Gregory Vega.

"At that point," Vega recalled, "the United States Marshals Service removed Judge Curiel from his home and, for a year, had him live on a Navy base here in San Diego and then on separate occasions in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., outside of the danger area."

Vega, who had known Curiel for decades, told NPR he finds it ironic that a man who put his life at risk to fight the scourge of drugs from Mexico is being portrayed as incapable of being fair because of his Mexican background.

https://www.npr.org/2016/06/07/48114088 ... n-ancestry

Not saying you in particular, but I've been harpooned by several posters in this forum thought I was a lunatic when I accused Trump of being a racist. His tweets from last Sunday did not take me by surprise. To the contrary, they were par for the course.

The reason I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that one is because minority people often accuse white people of the same thing. I've heard many black, Latin, and other minorities accusing white folk of not understanding their lives and being against them solely based on race. So that seems more a common idea across the groups to feel like someone that isn't like you can't be fair.

[burrrton]

[Not saying you in particular, but I've been harpooned by several posters in this forum thought I was a lunatic when I accused Trump of being a racist.]

As I recall, you were accused of confirmation bias, and taking this as proof positive of your preconceived notion does more to confirm that than change it.

And I may have lost track of the convo on the phone here, but "white people" have been telling other "white people" to "love it or leave it" since time eternal. It's not something reserved for "others" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Aseahawkfan]

As I recall, you were accused of confirmation bias, and taking this as proof positive of your preconceived notion does more to confirm that than change it.

And I may have lost track of the convo on the phone here, but "white people" have been telling other "white people" to "love it or leave it" since time eternal. It's not something reserved for "others" by any stretch of the imagination.

Telling them to go back to specific countries assuming they are immigrants is nothing I've ever heard told by white people to white people. Trump didn't say love it or leave it. He made very specific statements that sounded like he assumed all the women were immigrants that needed to go back to their crappy countries. That is usually reserved for racists telling non-whites to head on back. Not sure why you're trying to defend this now. Given Trump's lack of fact checking over and over again, you can be pretty sure he assumed the women were immigrants. He made crazy uncle racist comments telling them to head back to where they came from. That's a very different sentiment that immigrant minority folk have had to deal with.

You're giving him way too much latitude this time around in my opinion. That was some straight racist trash. I can see how a white person would interpret it as not racist because they don't have to listen that trash very often, while minority immigrants have to listen to that kind of racist trash quite often.

As a small personal example of this type of behavior, my Mexican-Native American Grandfather was told to go back to The Rez by some racist white folk. He isn't from The Rez. That's exactly the kind of trash that came out of Trump's mouth.

[RiverDog]

And I may have lost track of the convo on the phone here, but "white people" have been telling other "white people" to "love it or leave it" since time eternal. It's not something reserved for "others" by any stretch of the imagination.

And if I recall, white people were being told to "love it or leave it" when some of them were rioting and burning the American flag. It's a bad analogy to compare responses given during mass riots and protests of the late 60's and an unprovoked message sent by the POTUS to 4 duly elected representatives that were doing no one any harm.

[RiverDog]

Telling them to go back to specific countries assuming they are immigrants is nothing I've ever heard told by white people to white people. Trump didn't say love it or leave it. He made very specific statements that sounded like he assumed all the women were immigrants that needed to go back to their crappy countries. That is usually reserved for racists telling non-whites to head on back. Not sure why you're trying to defend this now. Given Trump's lack of fact checking over and over again, you can be pretty sure he assumed the women were immigrants. He made crazy uncle racist comments telling them to head back to where they came from. That's a very different sentiment that immigrant minority folk have had to deal with.

I can remember perhaps 40 years ago on a talk show hosted by Phil Donahue (there's a blast from the past) when he was interviewing a representative of the KKK. The cone head was arguing that all blacks should be sent back to Africa. I'm not associating Trump with the KKK, but Trump's suggestion to the 4 minority women reminded me of that interview.

As a small personal example of this type of behavior, my Mexican-Native American Grandfather was told to go back to The Rez by some racist white folk. He isn't from The Rez. That's exactly the kind of trash that came out of Trump's mouth.

I've also heard a Hispanic being told to "go swim back across the river", a Japanese being told to "go land on the right aircraft carrier this time". It was said in jest, but nevertheless, it's extremely racist, even more so if the subject is native born as it indicates a preconceived notion based on a name, skin color, apparel, etc.

You're giving him way too much latitude this time around in my opinion. That was some straight racist trash. I can see how a white person would interpret it as not racist because they don't have to listen that trash very often, while minority immigrants have to listen to that kind of racist trash quite often.

I think so, too. IMO you're breaking down the statement in a literal sense and searching for analogies in an attempt to justify at least some of it and leaving out the emotional context it was given in. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

Trump was clearly agitated when he sent that text and was intentionally saying something he knew was caustic and inflammatory in an attempt to insult his opponent. It was a hateful text that given face-to-face between two men, likely would have led to a fight.

[idhawkman]

I don't believe in polls as I've posted on here but in today's polls, 51% of the population do not think his comments were racist. only 35% did find it racist. Saying "if you don't like it, leave it" is not racist in any way. You don't walk into a restaurant and eat terrible food and then get upset when the chef says, well if you don't like it go somewhere else.

Why you using a poll when you don't believe in them?

I don't need a poll to know when something is racist. For a long time I argued against Trump as a racist, but that comment is racist. If someone said that trash to my American grandfather born and raised here but of visible Mexican-Native American ancestry, we'd be fighting. I'd be looking to trash that dude. Telling my grandfather to go back to his crappy country when he fought in World War 2, worked his ass off, was in the Civilian Conservation Corps building parks, worked for the city, and is as American as they come would piss me off. The only type of people that use that type of language when it comes out are people that think of Americans only as "white" people or those of European ancestry. When they see someone of visible different heritage, they think they aren't really American and say some trash like Trump said.

What race was he targeting then? It can't possibly be the Somali's since he only told one of them that if they don't like it they can leave. There's over 85,000 Somali's living in the US and he told one they could leave if they didn't like it. That's 1/85000th. Pocahontas has 85 times more native American blood in her than that and she's not Native American. We could apply the same standards to the other ladies of the squad, too but it would just result in the same numbers. When you say something to one person of a race, it doesn't make you racist against the whole race, does it?

You don't see white people saying this crap to each other even when they disagree.

Actually I do, quite a bit especially when talking about the French. Pretty sure you are aware of this too.

Trump has never said that trash to Pelosi or Warren or Sanders when he's disagreed with them. He just said it to a bunch of women that look to him like immigrants: darker skinned with non-European names.

You have no idea what Trump has said to them unless you are them or him. I think what you mean is that he has never said it publicly but then too he wasn't questioned about them and they aren't claiming the crap that the squad is about concentration camps or Nazi ICE tactics, etc. [/quote]

That crap was racist. His Trumpbots casting anonymous votes in some poll doesn't change it.[/quote]
Again, it was not racists as it is not directed at a race, it is directed at an individual.

[idhawkman]

I can remember perhaps 40 years ago on a talk show hosted by Phil Donahue (there's a blast from the past) when he was interviewing a representative of the KKK. The cone head was arguing that all blacks should be sent back to Africa. I'm not associating Trump with the KKK, but Trump's suggestion to the 4 minority women reminded me of that interview.

And you don't see someone saying "ALL" blacks need to go back to Africa is much much different than telling one person they can leave if they think it is so bad here? When you say that crap to ALL people without knowing them or their values, thoughts, etc then it is racists - solely based on race. When you tell one person they can leave if all they do is complain about how inhumane it is here, that's not racist.

I've also heard a Hispanic being told to "go swim back across the river", a Japanese being told to "go land on the right aircraft carrier this time". It was said in jest, but nevertheless, it's extremely racist, even more so if the subject is native born as it indicates a preconceived notion based on a name, skin color, apparel, etc.

NO, it is a harrassment issue. In fact it is a hostile work environment harrassment issue unless they say all hispanics need to swim back across just because they are hispanic. Same for the Japanese "joke".

Trump was clearly agitated when he sent that text and was intentionally saying something he knew was caustic and inflammatory in an attempt to insult his opponent. It was a hateful text that given face-to-face between two men, likely would have led to a fight.

I disagree but what else is new. He did send it in frustration but mainly because all they want to do is complain and not fix the problem. Who is more racist? The person complaining and doing nothing (actually voting against relief multiple times) for the hundreds of thousands of people in those centers or the one person that has tried multiple ways and times to remedy the problem and get them out of those centers and finally lashing out at those who refuse to help them when it is totally in their power to remedy the whole situation? You choose.

[idhawkman]

So what is more racists, what the president said or what Congresswoman Pressley said regarding "we don't need any more black faces that don't speak with a black voice, or brown faces that don't speak with a brown voice... etc.)?

[Hawktawk]

So what is more racists, what the president said or what Congresswoman Pressley said regarding "we don't need any more black faces that don't speak with a black voice, or brown faces that don't speak with a brown voice... etc.)?

There is no equivalency between some congresswomen saying that blacks should support black priorities Etc. and the F#(king PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES making repeated racist statements, doubling tripling and quadrupling down on them then basking in the glow of thousands of his 99% white supporters chanting "send her back" in a state that's pretty much a third african american population. Good luck with that Trump as his backpedaling in the last 24 hours shows....

As RD pointed out quite a while back the man is a racist which I concurred with 1000%. I'm more proud all the time of my decision about 2 weeks into his candidacy to instinctively reject this disgusting pig as anyone I would ever support regardless of policy, economy, my back pocket etc. This is America, the shining city on the hill and when we've become so transactional that Trump can enjoy support in the mid 40% range America is being made ugly, not great.

[RiverDog]

So what is more racists, what the president said or what Congresswoman Pressley said regarding "we don't need any more black faces that don't speak with a black voice, or brown faces that don't speak with a brown voice... etc.)?

What the President said.

[burrrton]

It's a bad analogy to compare responses given during mass riots and protests of the late 60's and an unprovoked message sent by the POTUS to 4 duly elected representatives that were doing no one any harm.

It wasn't the riots that drew the recommendation- it was whining and b*tching about how bad/evil/racist/whatever the USA is, and that's been a staple of all 4 of those clowns' communication styles.

[burrrton]

What the President said.

[removed - didn't mean to be an @ss]

[c_hawkbob]

What the President said.

LOL. And yet you take exception to being told you've lost your marbles about Trump.

Holy sh*t.

And that's the biggest problem I've got with trying to have a discussion with you; you not only think you're right about everything but you think anyone with a differing point of view has to be batsh!t crazy not to agree with you. Your debate style is pure condescension.

[burrrton]

Rethinking my response:

I shouldn't have responded that way - you're right, Bob. It just strikes me as bizarre to think what Trump said is worse.

This isn't defending what Trump said (it's clearly bigoted and arguably racist, although as I said, I think it's sloppy to throw that term around when it might not be the best descriptor)- I'm just not going to twist myself into knots trying to downplay jarringly racist statements.

[RiverDog]

It's a bad analogy to compare responses given during mass riots and protests of the late 60's and an unprovoked message sent by the POTUS to 4 duly elected representatives that were doing no one any harm.

It wasn't the riots that drew the recommendation- it was whining and b*tching about how bad/evil/racist/whatever the USA is, and that's been a staple of all 4 of those clowns' communication styles.

I was junior high/high school age during those protest to which I referred and conscious of what was going on at the time. The "America: Love it or leave it!" motto was typically said by counter protesters during anti-war demonstrations and was very much a reaction to the tactics of disruptive behavior and inflammatory gestures (failing to disperse, blocking streets/public access to buildings, flag burning, etc) used by those seeking to change various policies within our government/society. It's not at all analogous to a situation where the POTUS, without provocation (not one of those women was in his face or at a rally waving picket signs at him when he sent out that tweet), directs a racist remark at 4 specific individuals.

Trump's telling "the squad" to leave the country reminds me of my old man ending arguments by telling me that as long as I lived under his roof, I'd do what he says. In other words, Trump's saying to them that it's his country and if they don't like how he does things, to get the hell out.

[burrrton]

In other words, Trump's saying to them that it's his country and if they don't like how he does things, to get the hell out.

On that we agree.

[I-5]

It's hard to believe that's supposed to be our leader talking that way - how did we fall so far? I saw a meme yesterday of a father telling his little boy, 'you're not allowed to talk presidential in the house'. It didn't make me laugh, but it made me sad.

[c_hawkbob]

Rethinking my response:

I shouldn't have responded that way - you're right, Bob. It just strikes me as bizarre to think what Trump said is worse.

This isn't defending what Trump said (it's clearly bigoted and arguably racist, although as I said, I think it's sloppy to throw that term around when it might not be the best descriptor)- I'm just not going to twist myself into knots trying to downplay jarringly racist statements.

First thanks for rephrasing you response.

Second, I'm sorry but it appears to me that you absolutely do "twist myself into knots trying to downplay jarringly racist statements" where Trump is concerned but swing to the opposite field when it's a Dem. To me, what Donald said was plainly at least as bad as what these congresswomen have said. I frankly cringe at either and both. I can't understand though how you see it as nothing out of the ordinary when it's the President speaking.

[burrrton]

I can't understand though how you see it as nothing out of the ordinary when it's the President speaking.

I didn't say I thought it was nothing out of the ordinary:

There is no defending them (please note that, ID). You could maybe take issue with the literal definition of "RACIST!", but there's no getting around that it was at the very least a clearly bigoted (xenophobic? ethnocentric?) thing to say.

Somebody needs to take his fcking phone away from him- the Dems were in full meltdown heading into 2020, and he couldn't resist dropping himself into it and helping them out.

Then RD and I got into a slap-fight over whether or not "racist" was the most accurate description, which is as far as my 'defense' of his idiotic comment went.

[RiverDog]

What the President said.

LOL. And yet you take exception to being told you've lost your marbles about Trump.

Holy sh*t.

I responded in as brief of manner as I could, but what I should have said is that it's not relevant to the discussion.

Idahawkman seems to be defending Trump by using a "two wrongs makes a right" approach by citing other examples of racist remarks, a position that you seemed to have embraced as well.

What Trump said was highly insensitive. wrong, and yes, racist. He couldn't even be factual as 3 of the 4 he was targeting are native born. If you want to duck behind definitions of terms the way a slick lawyer would or by suggesting that others have engaged in relatively similar language in order to justify or water down what he said, then go for it.

But you're sleeping with the dogs. You're confusing your position with the stance that Idahawkman and other Trump supporters have taken to the point where I really don't know whether or not you condemn them or are good with them.

[burrrton]

Idahawkman seems to be defending Trump by using a "two wrongs makes a right" approach by citing other examples of racist remarks, a position that you seemed to have embraced as well.

I said nothing about two wrongs making a right- I was merely floored that you think Trump's dopey tweet ranks as more racist than a statement that is as blatantly, textbook-definitionally racist as you hear these days.

I acknowledge, though, that you think "irrelevant" might have been a better response (and agree).

You're confusing your position with the stance that Idahawkman and other Trump supporters have taken to the point where I really don't know whether or not you condemn them or are good with them.

Yeah, my quote a couple posts up really leaves that up in the air.