Too bad, those articles are then wrong.
Categorization of people into "races" is only incidentally about skin-color. People use skin-color as a shorthand, not as the reality of what racists actually think it's about.
Wow, what a mansplained "rebuttal." Even accepting your premise immediately above, it doesn't clear up your misuse of the terms. Racism is and has been understood to be the top level topic. The fact that "color of skin" has been used as short hand for racism is just that - a fact.
So basically your response was largely pointless.
Actually just false. Democrats were and still are the party that views race as a legitimate basis upon which to hang material rights differences.
So when exactly did the Deep South (Alabama, Mississippi, etc) supposedly switch from being fanatically racist to being fanatically anti-racist, from always supporting the racists of the DNC to always supporting the (supposed) anti-racists of the Republican party? And how did the most racist part of the country suddenly become the least racist then?
This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm expecting an answer here. There's many questions I pose that go conveniently not-answered, and I tend to believe that that's because you can't answer them.
Which is projection, since you don't actually answer the questions posed to you but just reassert the flawed premises behind them.
Your first question doesn't even makes sense. The country as a whole, including the deep south, has been consistently moving from a position of wide spread racism that was tolerated by the public, if not openly approved of, to one where racism is repugnant to all. That's true in the South as well. But there's no magic moment when it went from one condition to the other, just like there's no evidence that the Democratic racists reregistered as Republicans no matter how much you pretend. All that really happened, is that racism as an "acceptable" philosophy became repugnant, which meant that everyone racist or not, had to start voting based on their other priorities.
Also not really sure what you mean in your second question. Again you seem to build in your own strawman premise for me to defend. You've not established anything about "most racist" or "least racist" instead you want to imply that this is self evident and ask for some kind of philosophical stake in the ground. I mean I've been in the South and I've lived in NYC, if you want to hear racism it's NYC where you'll hear it. I can't count the number of times, for example, that a cab driver has launched a diatribe against some other ethnic group (whether it's Indian on Pakistani, or something else, it's never once been white on black).
Exactly, he's white and because he's white you didn't tell him to move back to his country (his family was "originally" from Poland), just to countries that (supposedly) share his politics. Sanders wasn't "originally" from Venezuela or Russia, yet told to go *there*, rather than Poland.
White people are, you see, treated as actual Americans and treated according to their opinions not, not as second-class citizens and by their origins.
That's exactly my point.
Sort of. Your actual point was about Trump, and you're backing into this one cause you think it's easier to argue than to actually provide evidence for a claim you made that you can't prove.
But in any event, I conceded way above that this particular insult was not appropriate - in my view - but that it's one that is still being moved in the public view from "okay" to "not okay" but not quite there. In any event, you pretend that the intent was racism, when you really know deep down it was the same as it was for Sanders a critique of their pursuit of stupid policies.
And, yes, btw, anyone who told Sanders to go back to Israel, they'd be an antisemite, and if they said Poland they'd be a racist, same way that Trump telling an "originally from Puerto Rico" woman to go back to Puerto Rico, is a racist.
Lol. Telling an individual to go back to where they came from is not racist. It's racist if you tell them that because of their race. If you hate Poles and tell Bernie to go back to Poland, because you'd tell every Pole you met to go back, you're a racist. If you hate Bernie, and it has nothing to do with his race, you're not a racist even if the insult you choose is arguably - and it's literally arguable - racist.
That's my problem with your argument. It's poorly constructed and you jump from a disputable premise to an unproven claim. You have zero basis, nor have you established in any way, that using a disputably racist phrasing means that the person who said it is a racist. Would I have preferred it if Trump apologized for that phrase and retuned it to the politics, sure, but not apologizing for anything is one of his flaws.
On the other hand, you are correct as a very general level, anyone can be insulted by being told to go back where they came from. I've heard tribal leaders say that about white people, however, in that case I suspect you believe that they are entitled to do so (again, consistency of principals not being a strong suit among those making your arguments).
If a "tribal leader" was running for president of the United States and told white people to go back where they came from (i.e. leave the United States), I'd call them a racist too. I had no problem calling Mugabe in Zimbabwe a racist.
That's an interesting limit. I didn't ask about a politician, yet that's how you responded. I think that's because your use case is false, you wouldn't claim it was racist outside of a very limited context designed to be self serving in use. And honestly, I don't believe you even there. As a technical matter - and I don't know the answer - are tribal leaders eligible to run for President, or are they considered to not be natural born citizens of the US given their independent nation status?
I think your comment is revealing. There's zero evidence that he's far right. His positions are pretty much center right.
Three questions here:
1) In the republican primaries of 2016, or indeed any republican primary in the last 20 years, will you please name candidates that were further to the "right" than him?[/quote]
Not in any specific order from 2016: Huckabee, Fiorina, Carson, Cruz, Rand Paul (though this is confused with his actual libertarian position), Rubio, Graham, Jindal, Perry. I don't know about Jeb Bush, but I didn't find his brother to be very conservative, his father on the other hand. I don't know a lot about Santorum, but his history indicates he probably is as well.
Who does that leave? Kasich, again not all that sure, he certainly took a number of pro-life and anti-LGBTQ positions over the years, but the media painted him as more moderate (largely because he was a weak candidate and they were trying to prop him up as a sacrificial lamb once it became clear that Trump had momentum).
Chris Christie - seems more in the middle. Scott Walker? Not entirely sure on a bunch of issues, but definitely anti-union. Pataki - again don't know but think more liberal.
So really most of the 2016 field. As far as past candidates? Dole, Reagan, Bush 1, and Romney all further to the Right, Bush II, in my view, more in the middle.
2) Among all the political leaders of democratic nations anywhere in the world, can you name three people who are further to the right than him?
Not even remotely relevant. Different countries have different needs and different poles of decision. The European right is not the same as the US right. I mean heck, both Europe's left and right are anti-semetic. It'd also be odd for the EU's collectivists to put in place a bunch of individualists.
3) Do you also believe Lepen in France to be "center right"?
I know LePen's name, but I've never made a study of his policies. Nor are they relevant here. The US debate on left versus right is not the same as the European one.
Again not rhetorical questions, please answer these.
They are not rhetorical they are just distractions. If your whole basis for disliking Trump is the mistaken belief that European right-left track directly to the US then you should apologize for the mistake and move on.
Trump has pursued reasonable policies that are justifiable in all these areas. Calling him a racist because you can't explain why his policies are wrong is ridiculous.
I'm calling him a racist because he told certain non-white people (ones who'd displeased him, of course), people who had been born in America, to go back to the countries they were "originally" from, and questioned their desire to have a say on how that Great Nation of Yours is to be run.
No matter how you squirm and try to downplay and excuse it, this alone (let alone the dozens other things he's done) would have sufficed to categorize him as a despicable racist, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Not squirming at all. You call him a racist because you want to avoid explaining how his policies are wrong. Same reason the left does it here. The left is a hot bed of terrible policies that often contradict each other and can't rationally be explained if voters pay attention, ergo they have to distract from them.
Trump is not a racist. To me that's just a fact, and has all kinds of evidence in how he's lived his life and who he's supported and been supported by over the years. There's really only one piece of evidence to the contrary from the 70's, and even there, it's more a business point than a personal animous. Trump was literally, part of the leftist media establishment woo'ed by polticians of all stripes and a known celebrity for decades. It's solely delusion on your part that he's a racist. His choice of those words was poor, and is arguably racist, but again it's still arguable, and it's pretty clear that the intent was about policy.
But let's be grown up here. We're not going to agree on that point, so how about you move on and actually make a case rather than continuing to reassert your
opinion as if it were incontrovertible fact that silences all opposition. Whether or not Trump is a racist has ZERO to do with whether the policies themselves are right or wrong, pretending otherwise is just the poisoning the well fallacy writ large. Are you going to continue with arguing from fallacy?
