Have you not seen the tweets about how certain (non-white, female, Democratic) Representatives should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came"?If you have, how can you possibly justify that as not racist?
I have, and I don't think referring to country of origin is explicitly racist. If you came to the US, and I told you to go back to Europe, would that be racist? I don't even know your race. I just think "go back to where you came" is usually something said by actual racists and therefore it carries a sort of racist connotation. The tweet would make more sense if he was only talking about Ilhan Omar, but it really makes him seem stupid when he can't take the 5 seconds to google where these congresswomen were born. And look, I don't like trump, but when the opposition is the party of socialism, unlimited abortion, unregulated immigration, and intersectional politics, I've got no choice. I'd support a tree stump with the letter R on it if it meant keeping democrats out of some power.
There's none so blind as those who will not see.No, it wouldn't be racist if you told me to go back to Europe, but that's because I'm actually from there and I'm not an American citizen. It *is* racist if you tell dark-skinned obviously American citizens to go back to countries they may not even have visited.You must know that the Democrats under all recent presidents have put huge amounts of money into border security; the opposite of concentration camps is not open borders. "Unlimited abortion" is a misrepresentation; nobody carries a fetus for six months and then decides on a whim not to have it (and no doctor would perform such an abortion without a damned good reason). I had to look up "intersectional politics", but it seems to just mean actively trying to include everybody affected by a policy, and not just a subgroup; one possibility would be that Democrats and Republicans come together to get money out of politics.
That's a good point, he's making a judgement solely based on skin color. I just don't think he actually hates minorities, you know? And part of me wouldn't care if he did. Leftists say everything is rrrracist, so that blade has kind of lost it's edge. They're going to call me and everyone on the right a racist regardless. I certainly would denounce any racist policy... although today the left is the one promoting such policies with diversity quotas and affirmative action. And intersectionality is the idea that certain demographics have been disadvantaged in society, such as homosexuals, minorities, women, everybody except for white men, even if that white man grew up in an abusive, impoverished family. These disadvantages need to be kept in mind when creating policies such as the aforementioned affirmative action and quotas.This new wave of democrats are far more radical than any previous ones. In the recent debates every single one of them raised their hand when asked "would you provide healthcare for illegals."Hillary herself said abortion would be "safe, legal, and rare." Now nearly 1 in 4 women have had one by the time they turn 45, and some states are making it legal to put down unwanted babies after they're born. And like I said, it would be nice to have a proper, dignified republican president with enough integrity to truly represent and uphold values championed by the right. But unfortunately we don't get that, and we don't get a Left that has some reasonable propositions either.
"Leftists say everything is rrrracist"No, they don't. On the other hand, you almost seem to think that nothing short of lynching is.The part about intersectionality is interesting. White men as a group have historically always come first, you must admit; the right to vote, access to education, to have control over your wife (well into the 1970s, by the way.), etc.. Black men were probably better off than white women in some respects, at times, and individuals sometimes do better, sometimes worse than the group as a whole, but neither case invalidates the basic point.Affirmative action aside, programs that would help poor people seem to be resisted because they would help poor black or hispanic people as well as poor white ones. Universal healthcare, for example."I certainly would denounce any racist policy..."OK, how about Crosscheck?en.wikipedia.org/.../Interstate_Voter_Registration_Crosscheck_ProgramIt's a mechanism to flag people from voter rolls, in case they're registered to vote in more than one state.There are two things to note about this:1. It is legal to be registered to vote in more than one state, it's only illegal to vote in more than one state in a single election.2. Its matching algorithm gives false positives at 75%, so four people are flagged for every one who is (probably legally) registered in two states.Here's the "clever"/racist bit, though. Matching by surname flags non-whites at much higher rates.Note that they only use first name, last name, and date of birth, and ignore middle initials and even the last four digits of the SSN.
Eh, I just think there's a soft definition of racism and a hard one, the hard one being the one that's a threat. Soft being stuff like stereotyping.I don't think we should use 'racism' lighty, lest we forget that there's people out there that actually believe some races shouldn't be on Earth to the benefit of other ones. You'd have to know what the motives of those who created crosscheck were to tell if it was racist. If the goal was to prevent minorities from voting, then it's racist. Either way, it seems like it was a complete failure, regardless of how it affected minorities. Preventing legitimate votes is just as bad as voter fraud. I'd denounce it, but I don't think there's proof it's racist (unless there's evidence the creators were racially motivated.)
Got to go away for a while, but I think that when someone points out that the result of a policy is undeniably damaging to minorities and your response isn't to try to remedy it, then it's a pretty good indication that the action is racist. Even if the reason for the policy is "just" to ensure fewer votes for the other side, it's still a racist act. Recognising that "I can get a bigger share of the votes by being racist", and doing it, is racist.
I don't know what the people who created crosscheck's intentions were. Was it to prevent people voting twice, or was it to secure more votes for republicans? I still don't think it's racist without knowing the creator's intentions... because the structure of it doesn't actually function based on race. If the design was to target minorities then you could say it was racist, but not just if it affects minorities disproportionately. It's like saying the justice system is racist because blacks are in jail disproportionately to whites. Though, when you look at crime statistics, blacks are disproportionately committing crimes. Or like if a disease disproportionately affects certain minority groups. You can't call it racist, because there is no racist intention present. For a policy to be racist, race has to be the actual issue of the policy. I call affirmative action racist, because it affords a privilege to one group of people based on race or sex alone, and rejects other people if they don't fit racial or gender requirements. A white boy can have a terrible life and still be rejected by jobs or education, meanwhile, minorities or women without a care in the world will be accepted because they're the right skin color or possess the correct genitals. I knew a girl at my college, she was the child of illegal immigrants here by DACA, and yet she was still receiving scholarships. Were the scholarships because she was such an amazing student? Nope, she was failing most of her classes, she just happened to be brown and a woman.I think there's traditionally racist policies out there, they're just in not as big institutions.
"I don't know what the people who created crosscheck's intentions were."Nor do I. But, that they didn't react to evidence that minor changes to their algorithm (matching SSN's) would result in a huge reduction in false positives, leads me to believe that they saw a political advantage in being racist. Which at the very least infers they don't care about appearing to be racist.
The UK ambassador to the US thought breaking the deal with Iran was because it was something Obama had achieved. Obama, who Trump had claimed wasn't born in the US (he claimed to have evidence, but of course he didn't).I think your ex was half right; the other half was racism against Obama.The one hope for the future is that he's making the Republican party sufficiently toxic that they'll be voted out of power. (Although the establishment Dems are doing their best to avoid it.)
Yup, that was interesting indeed but partisan rivalry has always been a central part of politics and it scales up even to major geopolitical conflicts, I seriously doubt it has to do with racism.
Okay, my bad, I just realized that reply by you was merely comedic
I'm pretty sure I was being serious, but I have had a couple of drinks. 'Night!
I expect future responses will involve these:twitter.com/.../1150381394234941448
Where did he say a racial slur or anything like that? He bashed other countries so what. Trump has never said he hated any race or never said he was above any race.
@FroztyDaHoeMan He told four Americans (one naturalised at 17, after 7 years in the country) to go back to where they came from. Do you think that was based on anything but the colour of their skins? How many Irish Americans had the same treatment from him?
Well Irish Americans aren't spouting hate speech about Jews like Omar was. These people he was talking about are radical extremists. What he said does not make him racist. If someone is an asshole and you tell them go back where you came from I don't see the racism in that.
@FroztyDaHoeMan No Catholic Irish American has ever said anything anti-Semitic, I'm sure. Are you an American (private profile)? What would be wrong with another American telling you to go back where you came from? Where would that be?
Well anybody can tell anyone go back where you came from it doesn't mean they are racist maybe they just don't like you so they want you gone.
@FroztyDaHoeMan Denial is not a river in Africa. The tweet starts with saying they "... originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all),"With the exception of the one who wasn't born there and arrived aged 10, he must be talking about his own government. And they're working to fix it.
Yea and Omar also wrapped herself in the flag of Iraq when she won a seat in Congress so yea she should get the fuck out of here.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Trump is totally not racist towards Mexicans. He just wants them to come to our country the right way, not illegally.. and as an American I can honestly say that those who do want illegals in, your stupid... I mean why not just go get your dang green card and come in with welcome arms.. I stead they are a race that kill their own just to cross a fence.. its ridiculous
@momma_bear_95 but you're thinking instead of feeling. Liberals don't think. They're told how to feel about something, and that's as far as their intellect can get. No rational, reasonable argument can get to them. The notion that trump is racist can be easily proven wrong, but it requires thought, and that's why liberals can't get it. Trust me. I was one.
@momma_bear_95 More Mexicans are leaving than coming to America, these days, and Trump's organisation has been quite happy to employ undocumented immigrants.
@JayParris, what irrational, unreasonable argument made you change your mind? And who would you say Trump was referring to when he tweeted "So interesting to see 'progressive' Democrat congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how our government is to be run."Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done."These places need your help badly, you can't leave fast enough. I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!", and how was it not racist (especially as 3/4 were born in the US, and the other came as a 10 year old)?
@JayParris I'm far from a liberal. And as far as I can see , they just keep coming in. I'm not much on the arguing or anything and I wasn't trying to.. I'm Republican. In a house of liberals. I get both sides.. but I will side with and for trump any day. I'm sorry if you felt in anyway that I was being rude!
@momma_bear_95 He was insulting liberals, not you. Ironic.
@goaded I know... 😶 I was just saying...
@momma_bear_95 not at all. We agree, and probably have very similar experiences with it.
Believe it or not, it was their treatment of Trump that did it. I grew up watching him help people of all races and backgrounds, even getting awards from the NAACP for helping minorities. Then when he turned away from the D party, they accused him of every evil under the sun and called him every name in the book. So I started wondering: if this liberal Democrat hero is treated this way for changing the letter behind his name, then how would they treat me for standing with him? So I started a fake black Republican account on Facebook. That opened my eyes to everything. I don't really like Trump on a personal level, and I'm not a Republican, but I'll be damned if I ever associate with liberals or Democrats again.
He doesn't want to get rid of just illegal immigrants, he wants to stop it entirely. Also, people have the right to present themselves at ports of entry to ask for asylum. They should be processed and accepted or rejected, not have their families split apart and caged.It's not his fault the unemployment rate is low, it's been heading that way for a decade.
He doesn't want to red of everyone who immigrated. Only the ones who sneaked in illegally. I came to the USA legally with the rest of my family. We are legal citizens who immigrated from another country. The people Trump wants to get rid of are the ones that cross our border without approval and commit crime, sell drugs, steal jobs, etc. The trespassers are using kids to make us feel emotional and let them in illegally. But that is still breaking the law. There is video evidence and other statistics that this has been getting worse. Let's hop our deal with Mexico will help.
Birtherism, Central Park 5, Muslim ban, not renting to PoC, and now straight out racist tweets against Americans.
None of that is racism. The Muslim ban wasn't even a Muslim ban he didn't ban all Muslim countries. Obviously you have no idea what a racist tweet is. Roseanne Barr's tweet she got in that trouble over that is a racist tweet. And don't you not even live in the United States?
Birtherism wasn't racist? Trump's tweets weren't racist? - I'll deal with that one in the other opinion.
Obama grew up in Kenya pal. There are pics of his upbringing there I am not saying I know he was born there but he damn sure was there as a kid so how does asking that question make Trump a racist again?
Do you even understand what a racist is? Someone is not a racist because you make speculations why he did certain things. You want to label someone racist show actual proof.
The clue is in the word: BIRTHerism. Trump knew Obama was born in the USA (and McCain wasn't), the only difference had to do with the colour of their skins, and you know it. They were both suitable candidates.
Yea you already said that. Another example is my uncles and aunt kept quiet when Obama seperated children and deported more illegals than anyone in history but this past Thanksgiving they gave me a talk about how we should allow all illegals to stay. It was funny because all I could think was hypocrites.
They were silent because it hardly ever happened."The idea that this is simply a continuation of an Obama-era practice is "preposterous," said Denise Gilman, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas Law School. "There were occasionally instances where you would find a separated family — maybe like one every six months to a year — and that was usually because there had been some actual individualized concern that there was a trafficking situation or that the parent wasn’t actually the parent.""www.nbcnews.com/.../fact-check-did-obama-administration-separate-families-n884856
They do now. (They did, then, too, but there was implausible deniability.)
Not "they" as a whole. I only do it 'when' I know that 'they' (as in certain individuals) have got no idea...
Don't his recent tweets rather prove their feelings right?
Ah, you long for the days of the Bush/Cheney administration! :)
Ahh, the good ol' days when Bush was a Nazi...
Just a bit of torturing some folks.
That's so 1930's! No, now it's the Muslims causing all the ills of the world, didn't you know? (Although, the Jews, communists, and liberals are probably next.)
I had no idea. All my info comes from mainstream news outlets
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!