Author Topic: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe  (Read 38688 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #350 on: April 13, 2020, 01:07:33 PM »
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-i-will-terminate-birthright-citizenship-for-babies-of-non-citizens
"We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States... with all of those benefits... It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end"

So if I agree that it's ridiculous, that means I also hate the 'icky minorities'? Because you not liking his policy promises (which is fair enough) seems to be the only connective tissue linking him to racist demagoguery that I've heard you mention. And by the way, lest you think I'm picking on your particular comments, I've never seen *anyone* post a single thing about him that links him to being a racist other than his policies themselves, such as the "Muslim ban" and wanting a Mexican wall. Now, I wouldn't bet my life savings on him *not* being a racist, because I really don't know him. But purely based on his public record I don't see any compelling evidence that he is one. Being a New Yorker seems to me to make it more rather than less likely that he's fine with minorities. That city has a diversity-friendly mentality such as you practically won't see anywhere else.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #351 on: April 13, 2020, 01:34:20 PM »
So if I agree that it's ridiculous, that means I also hate the 'icky minorities'?

I've given already a half-dozen examples of his racial/nationalist/xenophobic rhetoric that all follow the same trend. Don't act as if I've only ever given one example or that I'm only judging from one example.

Quote
Because you not liking his policy promises (which is fair enough) seems to be the only connective tissue linking him to racist demagoguery that I've heard you mention. And by the way, lest you think I'm picking on your particular comments, I've never seen *anyone* post a single thing about him that links him to being a racist other than his policies themselves, such as the "Muslim ban" and wanting a Mexican wall.

"Not liking them"? There's lots of things I don't like, but I don't call them racist or nationalist, unless they are about exploiting racial and nationalist divisions.

And no, it's not just his policies, it's also his rhetoric. As I already mentioned: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381394234941448
Quote
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!

These were about 4 congresswomen, 3 of which were born in America (Ohio, NYC, and Detroit), and one of whom migrated to America from Somalia when she was 12 years old.

The thing the four women have in common, is that they're not white -- they're Hispanic or black or brown. So, tell me is that not racist rhetoric? What countries should they go back home to?

And besides policies and rhetoric (namely the two ways in which he interacts with the world), why should I care about anything else? Perhaps in his private life he's perfectly non-racist, perhaps he's perfectly non-racist in his innermost soul, but why should I care about that? I care about his impact on the rest of human society -- by the power of his position, and by the rhetoric he spews.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 01:36:56 PM by Aris Katsaris »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #352 on: April 13, 2020, 01:48:23 PM »
These were about 4 congresswomen, 3 of which were born in America (Ohio, NYC, and Detroit), and one of whom migrated to America from Somalia when she was 12 years old.

The thing the four women have in common, is that they're not white -- they're Hispanic or black or brown. So, tell me is that not racist rhetoric? What countries should they go back home to?

The thing they have in common is they hate America and all it stands for. You want it to be racist, whatever. That's just a made-up response to excuse their hatred and help them further their plans to do everything possible to weaken the country.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #353 on: April 13, 2020, 02:22:24 PM »
Quote
The thing they have in common is they hate America and all it stands for.
Yes... but that's true of every single Democrat.  Yet he hasn't suggested that Pelosi, Schumer, Romney, Fauci or Mueller be sent back to their home countries.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #354 on: April 13, 2020, 02:30:07 PM »
The thing they have in common is they hate America and all it stands for. You want it to be racist, whatever.

Strange coincidence that it's only non-whites that he asks to go home to "their countries", even though most of them were born in USA.

Also it's Trump that hates America and all it stands for. I know what America stands for, because it's in the poem inscribed in the Statue of Liberty
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America stands for accepting immigrants. That's what it was founded on. Trump hates this and wants to replace it with stopping immigrants, and even sending their descendants back to their home nations.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #355 on: April 13, 2020, 03:38:00 PM »
I wasn't aware that Emma Lazarus was a founding father of the country.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #356 on: April 13, 2020, 04:02:34 PM »
I wasn't aware that Emma Lazarus was a founding father of the country.

It is a symbolic representation of policy at the time, and I don't believe there were any objections to it by politicians of the time - although I don't know that and I'm not going to research it.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #357 on: April 13, 2020, 04:09:29 PM »
Trump hates this and wants to replace it with stopping immigrants, and even sending their descendants back to their home nations.

Nailed it. It's a proven fact that Trump and most conservatives against illegal immigration also hate all immigration and immigrants in general.

That said, if Trump wants to froth up his base he better start doing more than just making stupid remarks and start cranking up deportations to at least Obama levels, or his immigrant-hatred street cred will be in serious jeopardy.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #358 on: April 13, 2020, 04:28:12 PM »
Quote
Nailed it. It's a proven fact that Trump and most conservatives against illegal immigration also hate all immigration and immigrants in general.

So were the four congresswomen he told to go back to their countries all illegal immigrants?

Yes, or no? Were the four women he told to go back to their countries, ILLEGAL immigrants? Or did he try to shame them just because they (or their ancestors) were immigrants at all? And by golly, if you or your parents or your distant ancestors are immigrants, you should back to your country, rather than dare think you can have a say on how the nation is run.

Unless you're white. Then you can stay of course, and then you have an equal right to speak. /s

I wasn't aware that Emma Lazarus was a founding father of the country.

Americans had 150 years to change the inscription, if you thought it misrepresented what your country stood for.

Quote
That said, if Trump wants to froth up his base he better start doing more than just making stupid remarks and start cranking up deportations to at least Obama levels, or his immigrant-hatred street cred will be in serious jeopardy.

It's you who thinks that he (or his 'base') only hates illegal immigration, and that therefore deportations relate to this.

I am the one who think he's a racist who uses racist rhetoric to get the vote of racists. He doesn't need to actually deport people, as long as he has enough racist cred. He can get that from bashing on legal immigrants as he did, or people whose parents were legal immigrants, or anyone non-white, so forth.

Deportations are not enough, because if you run out of actually illegal immigrants to deport, who will you have to blame next?  https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51294/waiting-for-the-barbarians "Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians? Those people were a kind of solution."
 
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 04:32:33 PM by Aris Katsaris »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #359 on: April 13, 2020, 04:59:42 PM »
OMG, what a lie.

I linked to the collaborating evidence.  It isn't a lie.

No.  The problem is that you misunderstand what you link.  You linked to an opinion post that implies there are otherwise inadmissable hearsay statements that could be used to rebut an argument that Blasey-Ford made up her claim about Kavanaugh expressly to derail his SC confirmation.  I never made that charge, and I think most people that listened to her believed her that something had happened to her, they just didn't find it convincing that it was  Kavanaugh.

Her "corroboration" begins nearly 2 decades after the supposed event (to her husband), and doesn't mention Kavanaugh for 30 years after the event - and even then only her husband says he heard it - it's 35 years after the event before you get "corroboration" indirectly, that it was a Federal Judge.

Again, this pattern, of massive delay (and no real time corroboration) that becomes more specific is consistent with creating a memory.  And, you may want to consider if you told your husband in 2012 that you were assaulted by Kavanaugh, and he was pressuring you to come forward after the SC nomination, you'd not be able to backdown without marital consequences even if you were less than 100% sure (or for that matter had made it up - she may have written the letter to satisfy him and asked for anonymity to ensure she didn't have to testify, would certainly explain her "reluctant" position on flying).

As for actual corroboration, she claimed 5 people were at the party, the other four of which (including her friend) deny ever having been at such a party.  The number of people and the description of the party is inconsistent with the description of her earliest recounting of the events to her therapist.  That actually is a big undermining of it's credibility.

In effect, such corroboration would be admissible to prove she didn't recently make up the story, but does nothing to help prove she didn't start making it up in 2002, and didn't add Kavanaugh until, at the earliest, 2012 (which her husband claimed she said in therapy, but apparently is not corroborated by the therapists actual notes).   There's nothing there corroborating that the events occurred in the 80's or who they involved.

For the Biden situation there are accounts she told friends at the time that something had happened, and repeated the same over the course of years.  That's real time corroboration, as opposed to something from over 30 years later - those are the kind of hearsay statements that get admitted as evidence the events occurred (and not just as rebuttal evidence).  You also have a proven record of interaction - which didn't exist in the Blasey-Ford situation.  Now there is no question that Reade's public account has become more detailed and more graphic and it would be interesting to hear why, but your media is already on explain away and bury detail.

Quote
Quote
There is in fact contemporaneous evidence that Reade told people, and multiple people she's told it to sense.

Not that I'm aware of.  The only evidence we have of her telling people is during the campaign.  Prior to the campaign we don't have anyone willing to collaborate that she told anyone.

Heck, even the NY Times cited to the Reade's friend saying she was told at the time (i.e., 1993) and her brother has been told repeatedly over the years.  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html?searchResultPosition=1  This article, by the way, was made "famous" when it got caught with a post publication edit - it originally said they found no evidence of sexual misconduct by Biden, except for history of touching women inappropriately.  They edited it to remove the caveat. 

It's a political white wash intend to clear Biden without an investigation - it's amazing how many things Biden has been "cleared" of without looking into them.

In any event, Reade also says she filed - at the time - a complaint with the senate.  You remember those "ultra top secret" complaints that protect Congress members and pay off assault victims which are among the most iron clad of NDAs on earth.

Quote
She told people many many years before Kavanaugh becoming politically relevant, even if it was 'years after the event'.

Actually that's false.  In 2002 - when she first mentioned her assault, Kavanaugh was already politically active and very involved in the Bush administration, and he was nominated in 2003 to sit on the DC Circuit Court and had what - at the time - was a very partisan appointment battle.

He'd been on the bench almost a decade, on one of the most prominent circuit courts in the country, with a well publicized record as a leading thinker, when she apparently first added him to her story in 2012 where another person could hear it (if you accept her husband's account).   

Quote
The collaborating evidence is for her belief that the event occurred, not that she accurately remembers the event (Ie she could be mistaken that it was Kavanaugh, but there is strong evidence she believed that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her long before he was involved in politics).

Again, the corroboration related to these statements is solely for rebutting an accusation that she made up the event after the SC nomination.  That's not a claim that anyone seriously made.  It does nothing to help whether she became convinced of his involvement in 2012 rather than remembering it all along.  In 2012 he would have been one of the most prominent former members of that class from the school and it would have been easy to decide retroactively that he must fit into a vague or undefined memory.  One only has to look at Deborah Rameriez's claim to understand how that happens, where she needed hours of discussions with lawyers and former classmates to decide her story was about him.

Quote
Well you've completely misread what I wrote.  To date, there isn't as far as I'm aware, any collaborating evidence from individuals willing to go on record for Reade, and the claims of a personnel complaint and complaints to staff have been refuted rather than verified.  That was not the case with Blasey-Ford.

They have not been refuted, they have been denied by the head of Biden's summer program.  Not aware definitely why she would have known.  I'd like to know from the records of the Senate what complaints were recorded against Biden over that summer.

In any event, unlike Blasey-Ford who the State of Maryland informed they would be happy to investigate her claims if she were to file now, notwithstanding the statute of limitations problems, Reade has filed a police report.  The NY Times response?  Was to threaten that filing a false police report is punishable by jail.   Not to even remotely consider that she's willing to go on official record.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #360 on: April 13, 2020, 06:26:46 PM »
I wasn't aware that Emma Lazarus was a founding father of the country.

It is a symbolic representation of policy at the time, and I don't believe there were any objections to it by politicians of the time - although I don't know that and I'm not going to research it.

This has been discussed before. It described the situation as it stood at that time in the economy and national ethos. We had enormous tracks of untamed wilderness that needed able-bodied men and women to go forth and settle. Now we're actively trying to stop people from doing that.

We had a rapidly expanding industrial economy and and agricultural economy that were both extremely manpower intensive. We needed more people at a rate which reproduction alone simply could not keep up with.

Now we have a mechanized and increasingly automated agricultural sector that directly and indirectly employs a tiny fraction of what it once did.

We have a strongly regulated, mechanized, automated, and technical manufacturing sector that requires specialized skill sets to be viable in which also isn't anywhere nearly as manpower intensive as it once was.

We're dealing with an economy where automation is removing jobs from the workforce more quickly than innovation can find ("reasonably attainable") new work for them.

This is hardly the time of:

Quote
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

As we no longer have anywhere for them to go, we're having enough trouble figuring out what to do with our own "huddled masses" and have a very significant homeless problem of our own without adding to it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #361 on: April 13, 2020, 06:31:41 PM »
I am the one who think he's a racist who uses racist rhetoric to get the vote of racists. He doesn't need to actually deport people, as long as he has enough racist cred. He can get that from bashing on legal immigrants as he did, or people whose parents were legal immigrants, or anyone non-white, so forth.

The only "legal immigrants" Trump has targeted to my knowledge are the ones who seem to routinely have little to nothing positive to say about this country. Otherwise, it's the illegals that get his attention.

The legal immigrants who don't hate the US are smart enough to realize this difference and typically agree with him. Too bad you and many others can't seem to understand why.

Quote
Deportations are not enough, because if you run out of actually illegal immigrants to deport, who will you have to blame next?  https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51294/waiting-for-the-barbarians "Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians? Those people were a kind of solution."

Militant Radical Muslims, and the Chinese Communist Party seem to be rushing to fill that void, although the Hordes of Islamic Radicals seems to be getting held at bay for the time being.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #362 on: April 13, 2020, 07:03:28 PM »
The only "legal immigrants" Trump has targeted to my knowledge are the ones who seem to routinely have little to nothing positive to say about this country. Otherwise, it's the illegals that get his attention.

If he only opposes illegal immigrants, why is he cutting down on legal immigration too? (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1403/limit-legal-immigration/)

As for the rest, the mere fact he uses people's ancestry as a way to attack them is fundamentally racist. If he wants to attack them for supposedly not having anything positive to say about the country, then he can attack them the same way he would attack a white person for the same sin. Trump chose the racist attack instead, that focused on their ancestry.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #363 on: April 13, 2020, 07:03:59 PM »
We fought kind of a big war to be able to say negative things about our country and our leaders. To suggest that people critical of government exile themselves is a bit extreme.

H1B, TPS, family migration, and others have all been targeted for reduction or elimination. Legal immigrants.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #364 on: April 13, 2020, 07:47:57 PM »
And no, it's not just his policies, it's also his rhetoric. As I already mentioned: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381394234941448
Quote
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!

I'm not going to defend this quote as being nice or upright or anything like that. But the charge is specifically that he is dismissing them because of their race. Except that the actual content of his dismissal of them is that he's dismissing them because of the damage he perceives their ideas would do. What he's saying is that the countries "they come from" employed such ideas, and they are in bad shape because of it. Perhaps in the process he's implying that their taste for those kinds of policies stems from their cultural heritage. I don't really know. But the meat of this tweet is that people who employ ideas that have failed in other countries should just move there is they like them so much. That's only a slightly more extreme version than the version I hear quite often, which is the more general "communism! communism!" argument. I'm obviously not fond of it so interestingly you'll find me most likely on your side in terms of my aesthetic and policy tastes here. But where I'm not on your side is in trying to layer on a charge of racism to what seems more clearly a case of just being rude.

One thing that may be creating the outrage on this is his mistaken claim that they "are from" those countries when they're born and raised Americans. I can see how that would rankle. I reminds me of the microaggression (although this one isn't micro since it's on the national stage) where you ask someone "where are you from" meaning "what is your ethnicity" and they answer, curtly, with "America." The follow-up of "no, I mean where you're originally from" seems to be the clincher that typically places this scenario somewhere between racist and low-grade oppressor. Bottom line, the idea is we don't have a PC way anymore of referring to someone's cultural or family heritage without it being racist or X-ist, and regardless of whether there are good and bad sides to this, it creates a problem when in this case Trump was clearly not referring to their birthplace as being relevant, but rather to the fact that they may have ties to, cultural baggage from, or else at least an understanding of the countries their families came from. That even if their ideas aren't shaped directly by that heritage, that at least they will understand what it means. This *is not* an irrelevant fact when discussing the merits and background of someone's argument, even though in this case Trump of course did his usual bull in a china shop thing. When talking with Jewish person it's totally normal to include their family's background and habits when referring to various beliefs or habits; especially stuff that is 'totally Jewish!' When talking to a younger Asian person you'll frequently hear them refer to some issue with their family, due to the 'old customs' they have to content with and grew up surrounded by. I have a friend born in a former Eastern Bloc country, who says his preference is for strong, semi-authoritarian government, because it's what he grew up with. Is there any doubt that his views will affect those of his children in some way?

So yeah, it's boorish to speak to people that way, but when his point is that their families come from countries with failed economic ideas (in his opinion), they should know better than to try to introduce those ideas in America. I don't agree at all with his position, but let's not try to imply he meant something other than what he did. Sure, you can call it a dog whistle or whatnot, but his point was (IMO) very clear. The fact that it takes this long, or longer, to content one of these claims about his meaning, is why those long list of "Trump lies" that Seriati hates are difficult to even both dealing with. It takes a page of writing to even address some one-liner about which anyone can claim anything. It's just not worth it when the characterizations are so weak.

I will be happy to trash-talk Trump on things he deserves to be taken to task for; but I'll oppose outrageous claims that contribute to the breakdown of communication.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #365 on: April 14, 2020, 02:20:59 AM »
The only "legal immigrants" Trump has targeted to my knowledge are the ones who seem to routinely have little to nothing positive to say about this country. Otherwise, it's the illegals that get his attention.

If he only opposes illegal immigrants, why is he cutting down on legal immigration too? (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1403/limit-legal-immigration/)
We fought kind of a big war to be able to say negative things about our country and our leaders. To suggest that people critical of government exile themselves is a bit extreme.

H1B, TPS, family migration, and others have all been targeted for reduction or elimination. Legal immigrants.
The H1B System was being abused by many large employers in such a way as to deliberately suppress wages. I worked for 5 years in one of those industries, so I'm not going to shed many tears on hearing he's tightened the screws on that program.

"Family Migration" is a more complex issue, and goes back to his commentary about the "birthright citizenship" that is being granted to babies that arguably shouldn't be granted it. The system needs reform, and it's not going to be an easy, or comfortable, fix. Having people constantly screaming "racist" at the suggestion of anything they don't like certainly doesn't help.

I don't know enough about TPS offhand to bother to comment about it.


As for the rest, the mere fact he uses people's ancestry as a way to attack them is fundamentally racist. If he wants to attack them for supposedly not having anything positive to say about the country, then he can attack them the same way he would attack a white person for the same sin. Trump chose the racist attack instead, that focused on their ancestry.

I'm going to hold to what Fenring posted on this. While the 3 of the 4 congress critters involved were born in the USA, all of them having either having living close family members, or grew up with close family members who meet that criteria, who were hailing from "failed nation-states." And that was likely to be what Trump was pointing to far more than the color of their skin.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #366 on: April 14, 2020, 04:23:51 AM »
"Yesterday, (Jan.31.2020) Donald Trump further diminished the United States in the eyes of the world by expanding his travel ban not only on the Chinse people, now placing new restrictions on the residents of six more nations that limit who is allowed to come to the United States. And Trump’s adding more countries to his list of who’s not welcome in America. It’s not who we are — and we’ll prove that when we beat Trump this November and end the ban". ~ Joe Biden


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #367 on: April 14, 2020, 09:22:27 AM »
To suggest that people critical of government exile themselves is a bit extreme.

To suggest that the government cannot be critical of people who oppose the country is also a bit extreme.

H1B, TPS, family migration, and others have all been targeted for reduction or elimination. Legal immigrants.

So what? Many have been arguing for H1B reform for a couple of decades now. There have been conversations about managing illegal immigration for literally decades. Your point is utterly irrelevant and only a weak attempt to make a connection that confirms a bias.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #368 on: April 14, 2020, 10:43:33 AM »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #369 on: April 14, 2020, 10:57:38 AM »
And according to the NYTimes themselves (bolding mine):

"Last year Ms.Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr.Biden of kissing, hugging, or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable."

The NYTimes official response included this gem (bolding mine):

"No other allegations of sexual assault surfaced in our reporting...We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."

Whew. Good thing they found no pattern beyond some harmless unwanted kissing, hugging and touching. Definitely not something #metoo should be concerned about.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #370 on: April 14, 2020, 11:35:09 AM »
The difference between using a person's race to bash them for, and using the fact that their ancestry is from a Third World (or other failed) nation, is so miniscule that it makes no difference.

(also Pressley is African-American whose ancestors (unless I'm mistaken) have been in America since at least the early 1800s. Not that it makes the attack worse, it just illustrates that it's not just families of relatively recent (as in not just a few generations) immigrants who ought expect such attacks by Trump)

To argue "Oh, he wasn't using their **race** as a vector of his attack, he was just using the fact that they are of African, Puerto Rican, Somalian and Palestinian ancestry" is a distinction without a relevant difference. You people's argument is basically "Oh, well, perhaps an American citizen with a Greek ancestry, would also be attacked by Trump in this manner because of the failures of the current Greek state, even though they're white. Or perhaps a American citizen with a Russian ancestry, would be attacked by Trump for Russia's various failures, or perhaps an American citizen with Italian ancestry, would be attacked by Trump using Italy's failure in containing the coronavirus."

Geez, yeah, well that would be just as bad as racism too, even if you try to argue that it's not racism because Greeks or Russians or Italians aren't a race. How is it hard to understand that a person's ancestry or his family origin isn't a valid vector of attack?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #371 on: April 14, 2020, 11:50:33 AM »
You have to view this in a full context as well. Maybe one person could make the mistake of saying "go back  where you came from".

But when it comes from a guy who continually strikes this note, you have to assume the worst. I'd list dozens of incidents, but it would tire me to watch as each one of them is explained away as a joke, a mistake, not racially motivated, or a valid but racially neutral observation.

I believe Trump is a bigot, but I don't believe he is deliberately discriminatory.

One example though:

Quote
“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

That was a twofer.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #372 on: April 14, 2020, 12:11:49 PM »
Jack was born in Springfield but his family is originally from Shelbyville. Jack talks loudly and often about how Springfield sucks. Homer tells Jack "why don't you move back to Shelbyville, JERK."

Homer is racist.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #373 on: April 14, 2020, 12:15:03 PM »
TheDrake, that is a bad one indeed. Do you have full context for it?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #374 on: April 14, 2020, 12:16:57 PM »
Agreed. If that's a verifiable quote, it's despicable and racist.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #375 on: April 14, 2020, 12:29:09 PM »
Quote
Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino President John R. O’Donnell, in the 1991 book “Trumped,” claimed that Trump once said that “laziness is a trait in blacks.” Here is the full context for the statement, as described in the book. O’Donnell relates a conversation with Trump about a finance employee, who happens to be black and who O’Donnell believes has shortcomings.
Quote
Instantly, Donald was enthused. “Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don’t think he knows what the f––– he’s doing. My accountants up in New York are always complaining about him. He’s not responsive. And isn’t it funny, I’ve got black accountants at the Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. No one else.”

I couldn’t believe I was hearing this. But Donald went on, “Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not something they can control. … Don’t you agree?”
So this is clearly a secondhand quote, made in a private conversation and written some years after the fact.

Trump has said O’Donnell’s account was fiction. “He made up this quote. I’ve heard the quote before, and it’s nonsense,” Trump said. “I’ve never said anything like it, ever.”

So there's the context - a secondhand quote from a 1991 book describing something that happened a few years before. Bias confirmation lovers will demand it's true.

Related, Trump was given an award about the time the quote is purported to have been made:
Quote
The Ellis Island Medals of Honor embody the spirit of America in their celebration of patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity. They recognize individuals who have made it their mission to share with those less fortunate their wealth of knowledge, indomitable courage, boundless compassion, unique talents and selfless generosity; all while maintaining the traditions of their ethnic heritage as they uphold the ideals and spirit of America. As always, NECO remains dedicated to the maintenance and restoration of America’s greatest symbol of its immigrant history, Ellis Island.

Trump was awarded the medal at the same time, and appeared with,  Muhammad Ali and Rosa Parks.

« Last Edit: April 14, 2020, 12:32:16 PM by Crunch »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #376 on: April 14, 2020, 12:32:43 PM »
Wish I could remember the authors name who was doing the interview about his book on racism. It was a really good discussion

He argued that most people will define racism and a racist as something and someone that is not them, while the reality is that we all have been racist and anti racist and that that does not define a person.
 
He argued that to determine if something is racist one must look at the power structure involved. does the event or statement perpetuate a power unbalance.

If a joke intention or affect (consciously or unconsciously) maintains a power imbalance then that joke may cross the line into racism.
I find it a good rule of thumb, for myself anyway.

- http://www.aclrc.com/racism-and-power

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #377 on: April 14, 2020, 12:40:30 PM »
Quote
Trump has said O’Donnell’s account was fiction. “He made up this quote. I’ve heard the quote before, and it’s nonsense,” Trump said. “I’ve never said anything like it, ever.”

The problem with Trumps communication style is that one, its not difficult to believe he would say such a thing or that his 'sense of humor' enjoys that type of jesting. And Two Trumps counter punch is always to deny, deny, deny. Just as a second hand account has less authority so does a Trump denial. Sadly its proving to be very effective. Trump never says what he say's unless he says it and even then maybe not. Depends on the day.   

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #378 on: April 14, 2020, 01:08:40 PM »
...The problem with Trumps communication style is that one, its not difficult to believe he would say such a thing or that his 'sense of humor' enjoys that type of jesting.

Sadly, that is a case of believing concocted lies and disinformation, then weighting everything one hears against that incorrectly preconceived notion. Why is it that everyone who knows Trump says he is the opposite of that depiction, but those that cherry-pick from pejorative news sites believe all calumny? The response is usually, "because I heard him say that, or saw him act that way!" - When in effect, the statement was not what actually was said or meant, and anyone with any ability to discern truth from attack should understand. Trump did not receive that Civil Rights Award alongside Rosa Parks because he was racist.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #379 on: April 14, 2020, 01:41:29 PM »
One example though:

Quote
“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

That was a twofer.

TheDrake, is that an example? I haven't researched but if crunch is correct and it's a second-hand account from a book 30 years ago it's pretty weak sauce.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #380 on: April 14, 2020, 01:43:43 PM »
One example though:

Quote
“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

That was a twofer.

TheDrake, is that an example? I haven't researched but if crunch is correct and it's a second-hand account from a book 30 years ago it's pretty weak sauce.

Narrator: "Crunch is correct."

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #381 on: April 14, 2020, 01:48:58 PM »
The NYTimes official response included this gem (bolding mine):

"No other allegations of sexual assault surfaced in our reporting...We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."

You do know ScottF that the times deleted the tweet and editted their article to remove the portion you bolded (without issuing any notes).

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #382 on: April 14, 2020, 01:56:53 PM »
Yeah I was aware they deleted that part, must have been a typo, lol.

That NYT comment aside, I'm much more inclined to agree with the approach the media is taking this time around than the one they took with Blasey-Ford. e.g. should we believe something that happened so long ago? what actual evidence is there? the timing seems suspect, etc.

I'd be a complete hypocrite if I didn't think those were completely valid questions to report on.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #383 on: April 14, 2020, 02:01:19 PM »
One example though:

Quote
“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

That was a twofer.



TheDrake, is that an example? I haven't researched but if crunch is correct and it's a second-hand account from a book 30 years ago it's pretty weak sauce.

If you don't believe me, believe Trump when he admitted it.

Quote
1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”

Like I predicted, any example I can come up with will be explained away somehow.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #384 on: April 14, 2020, 02:07:35 PM »
Come on dude, a comment from 30 years ago saying that "stuff" in a book is "probably true" is a weak place to hang your hat when making an extreme claim. I'd say the same thing if the quote from the book had Trump healing the blind. If that's me trying to explain away, ok I guess.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #385 on: April 14, 2020, 02:37:34 PM »
ScottF, your position is that the wording of the sentence doesn't directly state that the "stuff" quote from the Playboy interview was directly related to the original quote from the book?  Basically, your position was that the second quote was simply a non-sequitur?  I think it more likely that there was no such interview, rather than it was a non sequitur.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #386 on: April 14, 2020, 02:41:03 PM »
And according to the NYTimes themselves (bolding mine):

"Last year Ms.Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr.Biden of kissing, hugging, or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable."

The NYTimes official response included this gem (bolding mine):

"No other allegations of sexual assault surfaced in our reporting...We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."

Whew. Good thing they found no pattern beyond some harmless unwanted kissing, hugging and touching. Definitely not something #metoo should be concerned about.

I don't understand why the democratic voters in primaries keep nominating the only person Trump could defeat. Hillary was a uniquely weak opponent to Trump in 2016 and Biden is the same in 2020.


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #387 on: April 14, 2020, 02:45:27 PM »
Quote
1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”

Like I predicted, any example I can come up with will be explained away somehow.

Going to need context from the Playboy interview on what he was alluding to in that statement. Was he addressing that quote specifically, or the references to him in total across the span of the book? Going that the books title was "Trumped" I'm guessing O'Donnel wrote a LOT of things about Trump in that book. So if Trump is speaking to the book as a whole then "[A lot of] the stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true."

Which is hardly Trump saying that the racist statement itself is one of things which were true.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #388 on: April 14, 2020, 02:46:51 PM »
I'd like to have the actual question asked by the Playboy interviewer, but even if I bought a vintage copy and spelled it out verbatim - and they specifically mentioned the racial comment in the question, the denial would just shift to "still doesn't prove what stuff meant" or "he said probably, not definitely" or "it was a long time ago" or "he was joking" or "but he's hired black people".

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #389 on: April 14, 2020, 02:51:16 PM »
Trump has A, B, and C list celebrities among his associations, although many of the A-listers have since distanced themselves, or no longer are A list due to dropping out of that rat race. Many of those associates are minorities, including many blacks. They all uniformly deny allegations of Trump being racist.


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #390 on: April 14, 2020, 02:54:12 PM »
I'd like to have the actual question asked by the Playboy interviewer, but even if I bought a vintage copy and spelled it out verbatim - and they specifically mentioned the racial comment in the question, the denial would just shift to "still doesn't prove what stuff meant" or "he said probably, not definitely" or "it was a long time ago" or "he was joking" or "but he's hired black people".

In another respect, you're basically staking your case on a carefully excised quote from a Magazine interview that you haven't bothered to determine the proper context on?

Which then in turn relies upon a second hand quotation made years after the fact?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #391 on: April 14, 2020, 03:08:13 PM »
...The problem with Trumps communication style is that one, its not difficult to believe he would say such a thing or that his 'sense of humor' enjoys that type of jesting.

Sadly, that is a case of believing concocted lies and disinformation, then weighting everything one hears against that incorrectly preconceived notion. Why is it that everyone who knows Trump says he is the opposite of that depiction, but those that cherry-pick from pejorative news sites believe all calumny? The response is usually, "because I heard him say that, or saw him act that way!" - When in effect, the statement was not what actually was said or meant, and anyone with any ability to discern truth from attack should understand. Trump did not receive that Civil Rights Award alongside Rosa Parks because he was racist.

No it was because they thought he had money and would donate

Please no one elected the man because of his ethic, morals or character. Those attributes didn't matter then and they don't matter now to and of his apologists
Stop pretending that they matter to you

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #392 on: April 14, 2020, 05:06:54 PM »
...Please no one elected the man because of his ethic, morals or character. Those attributes didn't matter then and they don't matter now to and of his apologists
Stop pretending that they matter to you

No. The idea that he has bad moral character is the made-up attack. He has always been known as a "good man". It is only since Hillary was fairly beaten because of her own shortcomings, that her supporters needed to conjure up some reason why what happened to her was unfair, and then to heighten that outrage, pitch the idea that the man who beat her is unfit for the office. Four years of untrue disinformation, and targeted pejorative reporting, coupled with a gullible voter base leads us to this point.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #393 on: April 14, 2020, 05:46:54 PM »
I'd like to have the actual question asked by the Playboy interviewer, but even if I bought a vintage copy and spelled it out verbatim - and they specifically mentioned the racial comment in the question, the denial would just shift to "still doesn't prove what stuff meant" or "he said probably, not definitely" or "it was a long time ago" or "he was joking" or "but he's hired black people".

In another respect, you're basically staking your case on a carefully excised quote from a Magazine interview that you haven't bothered to determine the proper context on?

Which then in turn relies upon a second hand quotation made years after the fact?

I'm just pulling one example. As I stated before, I'm not interested in going case by case by case. It's exhausting and it never leads anywhere.

I also reject the "But look I have black friends!" defense. It probably means you're not a white supremacist, but it doesn't mean you aren't prejudiced. You could call one black individual a hard worker, while also believing that black people are on average lazier.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #394 on: April 14, 2020, 05:52:21 PM »
No. The idea that he has bad moral character is the made-up attack. He has always been known as a "good man". It is only since Hillary was fairly beaten because of her own shortcomings, that her supporters needed to conjure up some reason why what happened to her was unfair, and then to heighten that outrage, pitch the idea that the man who beat her is unfit for the office. Four years of untrue disinformation, and targeted pejorative reporting, coupled with a gullible voter base leads us to this point.

Dude, he cheated on his wives. How does that square with him being a "good man"? Any one with sense knew he was unfit for office during the primaries. That's why a bunch of people voted for him.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #395 on: April 14, 2020, 06:56:10 PM »
Dude, he cheated on his wives. How does that square with him being a "good man"?
Yes to this - it was morally bad and not what a good man does.

Quote
Any one with sense knew he was unfit for office during the primaries. That's why a bunch of people voted for him.
No to this. Unless the long list of past president adulterers also indicates they were unfit.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #396 on: April 14, 2020, 07:48:14 PM »
I think its more important that he cheated:

Customers
Business Partners
Golf Buddies
Charities

He also mocked:

People's personal appearance
Menstruation
Physical disabilities

This is what looks like a good person? The only people backing him as a good person are sycophants, people who owe him something, and people who want something from him. There are clearly plenty of those to go around.

I think the list continues, but you get the idea. Now a lot of people chose to overlook it, because they mostly cared about policies. That's their privilege to do so.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #397 on: April 14, 2020, 09:19:53 PM »
Any one with sense knew he was unfit for office during the primaries. That's why a bunch of people voted for him.

No to this. Unless the long list of past president adulterers also indicates they were unfit.

The adultery wasn't meant to be connected to his lack of fitness for the office.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #398 on: April 15, 2020, 12:49:00 AM »
I also reject the "But look I have black friends!" defense. It probably means you're not a white supremacist, but it doesn't mean you aren't prejudiced. You could call one black individual a hard worker, while also believing that black people are on average lazier.

But the discussion is in context not of whether he might have personal prejudices of some kind (especially since the current left-wing assumption is that we all do!) but rather that he is "a racist". But not just any kind of racist, but specifically one who is calling for his white majority base to hate or fear minorities. So the charge (at least the one I answered) was this:

Quote
I wonder how much you know about Milosevic's rise to power, and the tactics used, to become the popular charismatic face of the ethnic majority in a multiethnic country, and in telling his ethnic majority compatriots that they will never be ignored again, while bashing the media for their lies, and promising to return his country to greatness...

You're setting the bar too low in seeking a quote demonstrating that Trump may have had some personal prejudices about black people, if what one is aiming to demonstrate is this quote here. I understand you're not actually arguing this point, but just reminding the forum what point is actually up for debate.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #399 on: April 15, 2020, 02:48:35 AM »
Quote
You're setting the bar too low in seeking a quote demonstrating that Trump may have had some personal prejudices about black people, if what one is aiming to demonstrate is this quote here.

Okay, what quotes of Milosevic do you have that are more bigoted/hateful than the quotes of Trump?

This is a genuine question, if I realize that Milosevic's rhetoric was significantly worse than Trump's, I'll admit it.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2020, 02:52:44 AM by Aris Katsaris »