Trump: Jews who vote D are ignorant and disloyal

[*PhilHos*]

(08-21-2019, 05:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So if you don't understand why someone would behave in a particular way, you are shitting on them?

Depends on the context, but yes. If you don't understand why a POC color is a Republican, then you're shitting on them. Maybe "understand" is the wrong word, but when people usually say things like that, it's not because they're trying to come to an understanding or come to an agreement; it's to bad mouth said person and Republicans .

[*PhilHos*]

(08-21-2019, 07:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Completely genuine question for anyone here:

Would POC questioning POC or Jews questioning Jews be okay compared to a white person or Christian doing it?

No. No one should be questioning others in that fashion. I admit I've done it myself to other Christians (not to their face, mind you), but that does not make it right. 

[CJD]

(08-22-2019, 11:45 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Depends on the context, but yes. If you don't understand why a POC color is a Republican, then you're shitting on them. Maybe "understand" is the wrong word, but when people usually say things like that, it's not because they're trying to come to an understanding or come to an agreement; it's to bad mouth said person and Republicans .

To be fair, most democrats don't understand why anyone except billionaires and religious people would vote Republican. So *shrug*.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-22-2019, 02:53 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: To be fair, most democrats don't understand why anyone except billionaires and religious people would vote Republican. So *shrug*.

Then why are they upset with Trump's comments? 

Seriously, though, thanks for proving my point. 

[CJD]

(08-22-2019, 03:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Then why are they upset with Trump's comments? 

Seriously, though, thanks for proving my point. 

I dunno.

This whole thing feels like a non-story to me. Trump is a dumbass and he says dumbass things. I'm not sure why we still see stories about it.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-22-2019, 03:53 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I dunno.

This whole thing feels like a non-story to me. Trump is a dumbass and he says dumbass things. I'm not sure why we still see stories about it.

Because they hate Trump. And these people think that by constantly bashing Trump that will somehow mean he won't be reelected.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2019, 04:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Because they hate Trump. And these people think that by constantly bashing Trump that will somehow mean he won't be reelected.

Not me.  If he gets re-elected so be it.  I do hate him though.  Did long before he ran for office.  

No, I share stories of him being an idiot, racist, sexist, whateverist because I enjoy sharing how he really he is and watching people try and defend him and his actions.  

[CJD]

(08-22-2019, 04:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Because they hate Trump. And these people think that by constantly bashing Trump that will somehow mean he won't be reelected.

The story is already written, in my opinion. All November 2020 does is give us the big reveal at the end.

 By now I can't imagine less than 95% of the voting population has decided that they either love or hate Trump. That final 5% I assume just doesn't actually pay attention to news in any way.

Honestly, I don't even know what the point of campaigning is.

[GMDino]

This 20 seconds is almost the entirety of Fox News' coverage of Trump's Jewish loyalty comments ... and they're denying he even said it

Guest: Trump said to Jews in America if you vote for Dems, your loyalty is in question

Ingraham: Nice try!

Kirk: That's not what he said! pic.twitter.com/3RD36cEjVu

— Lis Power (@LisPower1) August 21, 2019

[CJD]

(08-22-2019, 04:41 PM)GMDino Wrote:

This 20 seconds is almost the entirety of Fox News' coverage of Trump's Jewish loyalty comments ... and they're denying he even said it

Guest: Trump said to Jews in America if you vote for Dems, your loyalty is in question

Ingraham: Nice try!

Kirk: That's not what he said! pic.twitter.com/3RD36cEjVu

— Lis Power (@LisPower1) August 21, 2019

The guy phrased it stupidly. The implication from Trump is disloyalty to Israel.

Which...I am not sure how much American Jews commune with Israel in that way.

The way he said it, it sounds like he inferred disloyalty to America.

Those two Fox Newsers are still scum bags, but some context and explanation there would have been helpful.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2019, 04:47 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The guy phrased it stupidly. The implication from Trump is disloyalty to Israel.

Which...I am not sure how much American Jews commune with Israel in that way.

The way he said it, it sounds like he inferred disloyalty to America.

Those two Fox Newsers are still scum bags, but some context and explanation there would have been helpful.

Except they are going to deny, deny, deny no matter what.

[J24]

It's a dumbass quote from the president. Dude literally cannot keep his mouth shut from saying something stupid.

[Dill]

(08-21-2019, 04:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Not really, but still, who are you tell POC who to vote for?

I haven't told anyone whom to vote for. Further, criticizing others' political choices isn't telling them whom to vote for. And we do get to criticize others' views in a liberal democracy. Or did you mean "who am I to criticize opposing views in a democracy"?

Swinging wildly here. No specifics.

(08-21-2019, 04:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Of course not. But, that's exactly what Dems do to Republicans. Republicans have a differing opinion, but of course that means they're racist.

I hear this claimed frequently by Fox commentators, but no one calls Republicans "racist" for just "differing."  If some Republicans voice a racist opinion then that means they're "racist," yes, as it would anyone else.  No one calls Steve King a racist because he voted differently from Dems on tax cuts for the rich.

(08-21-2019, 04:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Dill Wrote: But you said there are Republicans who also "shit" on these POC who vote Republican, namely Trump and the far right.

No, I didn't. I said there are those on the right who call select people "traitors" and whatnot for voting Democrat.

Well here is what you wrote in post # 18:

"Actually, no both sides don't do it. Democrats and liberals typically shit on black Republicans and other POC on the right. But you don't see the same shitting on the "traitors" from the right, aside from Trump and the far right of course."

If we don't see the same "shitting on the 'traitors'" from the right ASIDE "from Trump and the far right," aren't you making an exception for Trump? The right doesn't shit on traitors--outside of Trump and the far right. "Aside from" is equivalent to "except," isn't it?  "The Traitors" would be the aforementioned POC, wouldn't they? Nothing about "voting Democrat."

If you do mean that Trump and the far right do call "select people 'traitors'" then that seems to negate your claim that "both sides don't do it."

This thread begins with an example of Trump--the highest ranking Republican in the world and leader of the party--calling Jews "disloyal" who vote Democrat. We don't have a similar example of Democrats doing that to Jews or POC or whomever who vote Republican. But you are still going to insist that is what THEY do? Not Republicans?

Your argument here and in the previous post seems to rest more on TRUTHINESS than any kind of factual record.
https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1385843-0

[Dill]

(08-22-2019, 03:45 PM)JPhilHos Wrote: Then why are they upset with Trump's comments? 
Seriously, though, thanks for proving my point. 

(08-22-2019, 04:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Because they hate Trump. And these people think that by constantly bashing Trump that will somehow mean he won't be reelected.

If people keep reporting the things Trump actually says and does--"bashing" him as you call it--it might indeed mean he won't be reelected.

Trump is accused by 22 women of sexual assault, and in self defense he insults their looks; he mocks the disabled, insults our allies, publicly sides with Putin over his own government agencies, and obstructs an investigation into a foreign attack on our election. Last week we were discussing how he called Congresswomen of Color "haters" of America. Now we are discussing his claim that Jews who vote Democrat are "disloyal." Every week its a new drama based on insults, burying attention to other problems like the worsening trade war with China, looming war with Iran, and Trump's call to bring Russia back into the G 7.

People who don't see much wrong with this have trouble believing that others really do; so they see only "bashing" when people complain Trump was played by North Korea, ignored the murder of journalist resident in the US, and turned an Iran solution into an Iran problem. They don't hate a world leader just because he publicly calls women "dogs."  

But if polls are to be believed, a majority of Americans think all this VERY bad behavior for someone occupying the highest office in the land and don't want this national shame to continue.  They do indeed "hate" Trump.  

[*PhilHos*]

(08-23-2019, 04:48 AM)Dill Wrote: I haven't told anyone whom to vote for. 

Good for you. 

(08-23-2019, 04:48 AM)Dill Wrote: Further, criticizing others' political choices isn't telling them whom to vote for. 

It is if your criticizing their political choice of who they're voting for. 

(08-23-2019, 04:48 AM)Dill Wrote: And we do get to criticize others' views in a liberal democracy.

We do. Doesn't mean all criticism is acceptable or morally right.

(08-23-2019, 04:48 AM)Dill Wrote: Or did you mean "who am I to criticize opposing views in a democracy"?

Nope. I said what I said. I meant what I meant. No hidden messages.

(08-23-2019, 04:48 AM)Dill Wrote: I hear this claimed frequently by Fox commentators, but no one calls Republicans "racist" for just "differing."  If some Republicans voice a racist opinion then that means they're "racist," yes, as it would anyone else.  No one calls Steve King a racist because he voted differently from Dems on tax cuts for the rich.

Yes, they do. Sure, there have been Republicans that have said racist things and deserved to be called racist. But, there have been MANY Republicans and conservatives who have been branded a racist, not for saying or doing anything racist, but for being a Republican/conservative.

There's a reason that, since I've been voting, every Republican presidential candidate has been called a racist and NONE has said or done anything remotely racist - well, aside from Donald Trump - and it ain't because they're all racist.

(08-23-2019, 04:48 AM)Dill Wrote: Well here is what you wrote in post # 18:

"Actually, no both sides don't do it. Democrats and liberals typically shit on black Republicans and other POC on the right. But you don't see the same shitting on the "traitors" from the right, aside from Trump and the far right of course."

If we don't see the same "shitting on the 'traitors'" from the right ASIDE "from Trump and the far right," aren't you making an exception for Trump? The right doesn't shit on traitors--outside of Trump and the far right. "Aside from" is equivalent to "except," isn't it?  "The Traitors" would be the aforementioned POC, wouldn't they? Nothing about "voting Democrat." 

My post doesn't exist in a vacuum. The original post, the one that started this whole thread was about Trump criticizing Jews who vote Democrat. The subject is about people of a group voting for a party that differs from the party the group usually votes for. THEY are the "traitors" of whom I speak.

(08-23-2019, 04:48 AM)Dill Wrote: If you do mean that Trump and the far right do call "select people 'traitors'" then that seems to negate your claim that "both sides don't do it." 

It would seem. Except in previous discussions you and I have had over "both sides" doing something, you've made it clear when one side does it more, than both sides don't really do it. 
I'd be willing to concede that both sides are guilty of calling people of certain groups who vote different from a majority of the group as traitorous or something like that. And I'm not even asking you to agree that Democrats do it more (though they do  )

(08-23-2019, 04:48 AM)Dill Wrote: This thread begins with an example of Trump--the highest ranking Republican in the world and leader of the party--calling Jews "disloyal" who vote Democrat. We don't have a similar example of Democrats doing that to Jews or POC or whomever who vote Republican. But you are still going to insist that is what THEY do? Not Republicans?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret-war-on-black-republicans

Quote:[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Late last month, Gloreatha Scurry-Smith, a congressional candidate in Florida’s Fifth district, found that one of her campaign signs had been vandalized. Smith says she initially wasn’t surprised that one of her billboards had been defaced, but was taken aback when she saw that her face had been spray painted white on a towering 8-foot by 4-foot campaign billboard.[/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]“As a black conservative often times you are thought of as an Uncle Tom or perhaps a traitor to your own race,” Smith told The Daily Beast. “I didn’t want to deal with that since we have such serious issues in our district that are way more important than this sign.”[/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]“In my race for the U.S. Senate, I was painted in blackface with big red lips and called an Uncle Tom,” [Michael] Steele told the Beast. “I had Oreo cookies thrown at me during the Lieutenant Governor debate in 2002.[/color]

Quote:[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson’s labeling of conservative black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an “Uncle Tom”...[/color]

[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)][color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)][color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)][color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]
[/color][/color][/color][/color]

[Dill]

(08-23-2019, 01:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Good for you. 

Dill Wrote: Further, criticizing others' political choices isn't telling them whom to vote for.

It is if your criticizing their political choice of who they're voting for. 

Dill: And we do get to criticize others' views in a liberal democracy.

We do. Doesn't mean all criticism is acceptable or morally right.

Or did you mean "who am I to criticize opposing views in a democracy"?

Nope. I said what I said. I meant what I meant. No hidden messages.

Any criticism of political choices of people voting for the other side can be cast as "telling others whom to vote for."  If I argue that you should vote for Biden I am arguing, at the same time, that you should NOT vote for Trump, even if I don't mention Trump by name. No way around that. And if telling people whom to vote for--or not--is unacceptable, then debate over political issues is itself unacceptable.  That follows from what you "meant."  

But it looks like there is another issue you are sliding over here in this and previous posts.  There is a difference between civil, rational political "criticism" accountable to public record, and "shitting" on people. If a female reporter writes an NYT article criticizing Trump's trade policy because it measurably hurt soybean farmers, that would be an example of the former. If Trump then tweeted she was a "pig" for criticizing his policy, and the failing NYT was "fake news" for publishing her article, that would be an example of the latter. 

One problem with current public discourse is that there are so many who see no difference. Any one who criticizes anyone in whatever mode is "shitting" on them. No such thing as neutral analysis--all is ATTACK motivated by some vaguely assigned "hate," which separates political judgment from any accountability to a factual record.  

So yes, "all criticism is not morally right."  But Trump is the best current exemplar of criticism that is "not morally right," e.g., when he says people who criticize the US for residual racism "hate" America or Jews who vote Democratic are "disloyal" or the free press is the enemy of the people because it publishes articles critical of his behavior and policies.  

And you defend Trump in the same manner, when you say that people only "bash" him because they "hate" him.  To say this is to say that his own behavior does not draw the "bashing." Thus separating him from personal accountability for his own actions.  It is to imply, or say directly, there is no legitimate criticism of Trump.

The inverse side of this mode appears when you assume that questioning peoples' political choices is "saying they aren't allowed to be an individual and have individual thoughts and opinions."  Framed thus, the only thing that could "allow" them to be an individual is no criticism at all.  "Shitting on" or no criticism--you are not recognizing any other options here.

[Dill]

(08-23-2019, 01:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, they do. Sure, there have been Republicans that have said racist things and deserved to be called racist. But, there have been MANY Republicans and conservatives who have been branded a racist, not for saying or doing anything racist, but for being a Republican/conservative.

There's a reason that, since I've been voting, every Republican presidential candidate has been called a racist and NONE has said or done anything remotely racist - well, aside from Donald Trump - and it ain't because they're all racist.

Dill Wrote: If you do mean that Trump and the far right do call "select people 'traitors'" then that seems to negate your claim that "both sides don't do it."

It would seem. Except in previous discussions you and I have had over "both sides" doing something, you've made it clear when one side does it more, than both sides don't really do it. 
I'd be willing to concede that both sides are guilty of calling people of certain groups who vote different from a majority of the group as traitorous or something like that. And I'm not even asking you to agree that Democrats do it more (though they do  )

Not sure which previous discussions you are referring to. The ones I remember have turned around undoing false equivalences and whataboutism, or specified actions (like Gingrich's Gopak Memo or Trump's misogynistic rhetoric as president) which cannot be attributed to "both sides."

As far as extreme rhetoric, I have never denied that one cannot find it in rank and file Democrats.  But both sides don't accept that in their leadership. That is an important difference (which I have explained to you before).  So there is not a Dem president publicly calling women "dogs" and warning people of "Mexican rapists," and calling the press "the enemy of the people" and otherwise WEEKLY shocking the world with his vulgarity.

 Not sure when you began voting. It matters here who is calling whom racist and under what circumstances. We have tape of Reagan and Nixon's clearly racist language.The Clintons and Obama were all called "racist."  Glen Beck famously pronounced that Obama had a "deep-seated hatred of Whites."   Looks like EVERYONE running for president gets called a "racist."  It is par for the course.

Could Republicans be accused more often than Democrats?  I don't see why that isn't possible. Seems like an empirical question, which could be answered once we agreed on clear metrics.

That raises another empirical question: What accounts for the difference? Are the accusations inaccurate or unfair? Is there a PERCEPTION that one party typically works against civil equality more than the other?  If so, that would explain why the rhetoric of beneficiaries of Civil Rights legislation might be especially sensitive to this--e.g., some black voters calling other black voters "uncle Tom."

If members of the "wounded " party were sufficiently upset about the aforementioned PERCEPTION, they could work to make sure their party's civil rights record was impeccable. E.g., their own voters could hold them to greater accountability. That's one option, and how democracy is supposed to work. Another option would be to ignore the perception or deny it could be rooted in fact. In that case, shoot the messenger.

No way to answer any of these empirical questions though, if the starting assumption is that ALL Republicans just always are accused of racism whenever some are. THAT perception seems to be driving much of the right-wing defensiveness whenever the issue of race appears US politics. And it seems to detach the issue from any possible research or measurement.

[GMDino]

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/new-video-emerges-of-trump-blurting-out-anti-semitic-slurs/

Quote:New video emerges of Trump blurting out anti-Semitic slurs


President Donald Trump this week said that the majority of American Jews were “disloyal” to Israel because they support the Democratic Party — but that’s far from the first time that the president has made controversial statements that deploy anti-Semitic tropes.

The Washington Post has obtained a video clip from 2011 that shows Trump boasting about how great one of his golf courses is before saying that “even these spoiled, rich Jewish guys, they can’t believe how good this [course] is.”



The clip was originally aired on the Golf Channel for the show “Donald J. Trump’s Fabulous World of Golf.”

Washington Post reporter J.M. Rieger notes that “full episodes of the show are not available for purchase and there is only a small amount of footage from the show online.” He also writes that “the Golf Channel said it would not re-air or release additional footage” of the show in 2016, while Trump was running for president.



Watch the video below — the clip of Trump talking about Jewish golfers begins at the 1:06 mark.

Quote:
[/url]JM Rieger

@RiegerReport




In 2011, Trump hosted "Donald J. Trump's Fabulous World of Golf” on Golf Channel.

In a clip obtained by The Washington Post, Trump is seen telling a group of golfers, “Even these spoiled, rich Jewish guys, they can’t believe how good this [course] is.”




359
10:26 AM - Aug 23, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

441 people are talking about this

[url=https://twitter.com/RiegerReport/status/1164906638689652736]

[GMDino]

Might as well leave this here too.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt-1.5411578?fbclid=IwAR01AWOYSDUpL0OS_NRtxj2xHSC-fY6tzgEsn4VJRpjt9bcK2CSbnbfqMTI

Quote:Netanyahu: Hitler Didn't Want to Exterminate the Jews
Prime minister tells World Zionist Congress that Hitler only wanted to expel the Jews, but Jerusalem's Grand Mufti convinced him to exterminate them, a claim that was rejected by most accepted Holocaust scholars.



[*]Trump has made it official: He is the greatest anti-Semite of our age



Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked public uproar when on Tuesday he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the one who planted the idea of the extermination of European Jewry in Adolf Hitler's mind. The Nazi ruler, Netanyahu said, had no intention of killing the Jews, but only to expel them.




In a speech before the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, Netanyahu described a meeting between Husseini and Hitler in November, 1941: "Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jew. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, 'If you expel them, they'll all come here (to Palestine).' According to Netanyahu, Hitler then asked: "What should I do with them?" and the mufti replied: "Burn them."


skip - Haaretz Weekly Ep. 35

Netanyahu's remarks were quick to spark a social media storm, though Netanyahu made a similar claim during a Knesset speech in 2012, where he described the Husseini as "one of the leading architects" of the final solution.

The claim that Husseini was the one to initiate the extermination of European Jewry had been suggested by a number of historians at the fringes of Holocaust research, but was rejected by most accepted scholars.
skip -


The argument concerning Husseini's role was recently mentioned in a book by Barry Rubin and Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, "Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East." The authors, like Netanyahu, draw a straight line between the mufti's support of Hitler and the policy of the Palestinian Liberation Organization under Yasser Arafat.

But even these two researchers do not claim that the dialogue described by Netanyahu ever took place. They say Hitler reached the conclusion to exterminate the Jews because of his desire to nurture Husseini, who opposed the transfer of Jews to pre-state Israel.