Our Racist President

[Fenring]

FWIW, having now read through the thread, I think a lot of hay is being made about Trump's statement resembling the prototypical "why don't you go back where you came from", and in its classic form I do agree with the liberal posters here that this is clearly a racist (or at best a something-ist) formulation. What Trump said shares some characteristics with this and on those ground borders on being an 'homage' to that racist formulation. The actual statement in context, however, seems to be saying that people who want to use distorted ideas of how to help a country should go try them elsewhere prior to ruining America with them. Of course that line could only work on someone whose ancestral nation is in bad shape, since for instance telling Bernie to go and fix Denmark prior to trying his 'socialist' ideas in America would be nonsensical. So while crude, Trump's basic message seems to be "your ideas are a joke, since other countries that use them have gone to hell." I mean, that's not a nice thing to say anyhow, and it does take on a very standard Republican trope, which is that socialism is evil because something something Russia and Venezuela. I think it's a silly argument, and my first take on Trump's comment here is that he's using a mindless soundbyte-type dismissal of people in a crude away - basically his entire rhetorical strategy going back to when he was essentially insulting Jeb Bush's face.

I am a little surprised that some people here are trying to defend the "go back to the country you came from" line as not being racist in regards to American citizens, notwithstanding that this isn't really what Trump said in this case. If he *had* said that it would look a lot worse to me and would be very hard to defend. As it stands it's only hard to defend.

[scifibum]

You know, there isn't always some sort of correctness in middle ground. Trump did say "go back where you came from", with the racist assumption that they came from somewhere else.

[Fenring]

You know, there isn't always some sort of correctness in middle ground. Trump did say "go back where you came from", with the racist assumption that they came from somewhere else.

You should read my post again, and scan for pro/anti content. You'll find that most of my comments are critical of the conservative side of this argument. You might consider the possibility that it's increasingly difficult for people to register a non-partisan argument as being anything other than some kind of position on a partisan tug of war. To my mind my last post wasn't a "middle ground" or any attempt at such, but was my assessment of the facts as they stand so far. I view it as fairly clear that Trump *did not* categorically tell them to "go back where you came from", which is the form of the argument that's being argued about. His tweets are actually surprisingly hard to parse in terms of what he's actually getting it. If you look at them carefully he basically seems to be saying "if you don't like it, then leave!" but actually even that's not quite accurate. Maybe there is no coherent idea in there at all. If I'm being charitable it looks like he's arguing that there is no magic button for national success and that grand plans to change things won't magically make everything better, because if that was possible then other nations would do it too, which they clearly don't. Plus, you know, GO AMERICA.

There's no point trying to assign a partisan score (left/right/middle) to a statement absent its factual content, unless you're commenting on the meta-content of it (e.g. "yes you said that but it really meant XYZ because you're partisan"). As you can see from the above one does not progress forward in a 'debate' where the content primarily consists of "of course I'm right, how can you not see that!!"

[rightleft22]

I view it as fairly clear that Trump *did not* categorically tell them to "go back where you came from", which is the form of the argument that's being argued about. His tweets are actually surprisingly hard to parse in terms of what he's actually getting it. If you look at them carefully he basically seems to be saying "if you don't like it, then leave!" but actually even that's not quite accurate. Maybe there is no coherent idea in there at all. If I'm being charitable it looks like he's arguing that there is no magic button for national success and that grand plans to change things won't magically make everything better, because if that was possible then other nations would do it too, which they clearly don't. Plus, you know, GO AMERICA

That's feels like a lot of mental gymnastics to go through to explain/excuse/be charitable about a tweet.
Trump has said that you just tells it like it is and yet we still can't figure out what hes saying.

My view is that Trump is a hypocrite when he went after Obama and expressed his unhappiness with the state of America was he being unpatriotic? Did he feel he should Leave because he didn't like it?  No.
Does Trump specifically call on others in congress by name that are also pushing for change and saying negative things about him to Leave. No.

When do we hold the man accountable for what he says as he says it? That's not partisan I wan't to know when can we ask for better?

[Fenring]

When do we hold the man accountable for what he says as he says it? That's not partisan I wan't to know when can we ask for better?

You can hold him as accountable as you like. I ended my initial post on this subject with saying his comments are "hard to defend". I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek but I did mean it. So he's being an a-hole, duh. I actually do think these tweets are hard to parse, most likely because their chief aim is to make his opponents look stupid rather than make a reasoned argument about their policies. I have to be honest, while Trump's personal style wasn't necessarily an inevitability in America something just as bad was, and the blame can be spread around. Part of it is the clickbait media system desperately trying to stay relevant. But also part of it is the electoral system in general, where (as Tocqueville said in 1830 or whatever) if you are electing people as often as every four years you're going to get a system where they are perpetually campaigning and where long-term goals cannot possibly be considered, at least not without connecting those goals with election hopes. It should come as no suprise that outright campaigning happens way before an election, and Trump slamming Dem candidates is just the beginning of the s***storm. Maybe this individual comment touched some buttons on the race-meter, but overall it was just a personal attack meant to belittle them. That itself is 'hard to defend'. But it's not a surprise, and if it works within the current system then the system is at fault, not the user.

Trump may have clumsily referenced a racist meme, but it looks like his main intent is to make fun of some opponents' political beliefs.

[rightleft22]

but it looks like his main intent is to make fun of some opponents' political beliefs.

I'd be ok with him making fun of a opponents political beliefs if he kept it focused on the beliefs and then clearly indicated his policy. But he doesn't, instead he goes personal.
The way he keeps 'punching' people and then when they push back he gets to say - see I told you they were horrible people and his followers node, yep the prez is right again...


Maybe your right and a leader such as this was inevitable... doesn't make me feel any better. I don't like how this bodes for the future
 

[D.W.]

Trump may have clumsily referenced a racist meme, but it looks like his main intent is to make fun of some opponents' political beliefs.

This is the biggest question mark when it comes to Trump and he's made it work for him in ways I never would have imagined possible. 

Is he a buffoon and so ridiculously inept a public speaker that he really can be that clumsy?  Or is he a skilled tactician employing methods we just aren't use to seeing at this tier of government?  I still to this day flip back and forth on my assessment. 

I'm confident either A: he IS racist and meant to do this, it was no accident.  or B:  he went up to where he believed the line was, knowing full well it would be perceived as racist, but he felt was still defensible language. 

That was AS important (for his base and to work up his opposition) as the actual intent of painting the Democratic party as being represented by this group.  To force the party to circle the wagons and thereby reinforce the idea that these 4 represent them all.  He saw a potential weakness and exploited it well.  That tactic required the hint of racism.  Shockingly he seems to have correctly determined where that line was drawn.  Myself and (apparently) most on the left are shocked the line is where it seems to be for much of the country, we (incorrectly) assumed he stepped decisively beyond it.  (I mean, he did for ME and many others, but the assumption that ALL would see it so, is apparently just not true.  Revolting as that reality may be to stomach.)

Trump isn't clumsy.  He's not some zany bull in the china shop.  He's the goon sent to deliver a message to the owner of the shop. 

[Fenring]

Trump isn't clumsy.  He's not some zany bull in the china shop.  He's the goon sent to deliver a message to the owner of the shop.

Or could it be that he's a bull in a china shop who knows he's a bull and also knows that many people think calling plates "china" is pretentious? I mean, it's almost a recipe for destroying your own brain to try to pick apart the strategic nuances to every single thing he says and wonder about whether they're accidents, or misstatements, or carefully calculated. My best guess is that he knows he can throw his weight around and that this will ruffle feathers but so long as he does it in an entertaining fashion (i.e. in 'his style') and with a sort of positive aplomb it will more or less always pass. He probably knows after so many years in entertainment that you can push the envelope quite hard and so long as your brand is consistent all that matters is that you have a fan base. He may well not be able to control the fine nuances of what he says, but so long as he's aware of that and knows that his niche is busting of china shops, also knowing that his base sort of resents the idea of china shops in the first place, his blundering achieves his goal. So the strategy is probably calculated, even though his tactics (i.e. individual tweets) probably consist of little more than throwing s*** against a wall knowing that what doesn't stick will soon be forgotten.

[cherrypoptart]

You know what would be interesting would be to look at what the squad wants to do with, or to, America and see if that might give us a better sense of where Trump is coming from. We already know that one of them is an out and out racist who has no use or respect for black people who don't vote the way she wants them to and we also know that AOC's New Green Deal would be a disaster that would make Venezuela look like an economic paradise in comparison. One of the others petitioned a judge to be lenient to a terrorist in sentencing. Another says nobody is illegal. I think it's a fair position for conservatives to say that none of that is what we want here in America. If you want to try it somewhere else first and show us that it works then have at thee.

In other words putting this in context doesn't just require parsing Trump's exact words. It also requires looking at the positions of the people he's talking about. It's like telling a communist from Russia, China, Cuba, or Vietnam that is peddling their failed ideology here to go back to their country and succeed with their big ideas first and then once you have a track record of success come back here, take us outside, and show us what it's like. That's not racist. It's just a coincidence that none of them happened to be white. If Pelosi was in there peddling communism, which she isn't and she doesn't, I have no doubt Trump would have been happy to include her too. It's not Trump's fault they just happened to not be white people. Changing what he would have said based on the fact that none of them is white when he would have said the same thing if one of them was would be racist.

[TheDrake]

Don't you mean a bull in a gyna shop?

[D.W.]

We already know that one of them is an out and out racist who has no use or respect for black people who don't vote the way she wants them to and we also know that AOC's New Green Deal would be a disaster that would make Venezuela look like an economic paradise in comparison.

Got to generalize a moment here cherry.  This quote is illustrative of a trend I've noticed.

Some people can insist in all honesty that we hear what we want (or hate) in everything Trump says and that we take things out of context or twist his words to arrive at our conclusions.  Those same people can look at what these women have said and conclude the worst possible interpretation (when not parroting actual disinformation) of what they've said. 

The admonishment of being unfair to Trump would carry a lot more weight (or at least a little) if there were any consistency what so ever. 

[Fenring]

Don't you mean a bull in a gyna shop?

The real question is whether you're pronouncing that guy-na or jai-na.

[Crunch]

but it looks like his main intent is to make fun of some opponents' political beliefs.

I'd be ok with him making fun of a opponents political beliefs if he kept it focused on the beliefs and then clearly indicated his policy. But he doesn't, instead he goes personal.
The way he keeps 'punching' people and then when they push back he gets to say - see I told you they were horrible people and his followers node, yep the prez is right again...


Maybe your right and a leader such as this was inevitable... doesn't make me feel any better. I don't like how this bodes for the future

I think you’ve missed a hell of a lot of the coverage that Trump gets or you have a very tightly focused selective amnesia.

[rightleft22]

I've given up trying to parse Trump

[Crunch]

I've given up trying to parse Trump

It’s not Trump you should be parsing