Trump's First 100 Days

[GMDino]

(02-20-2017, 03:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If it's a dog whistle, how come everyone seems to be able to hear it?

But everyone doesn't.

Some just say "Trump isn't racist" so this can't be a racist move.

Hide that UFO in the middle of Central Park...everyone will ignore it.

[hollodero]

(02-20-2017, 03:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You are correct. It makes so much more sense to roll with "He did because Obama is Black!" You guys keep pushing that and I'll believe he did for political reasons, none of which had to do with skin color. But like I said: "Good luck trying to get a liberal not to call someone they disagree with a racist."

Well of course he did it for political reasons to some degree. That fact alone, per se, doesn't make it any less racist. Or, if it was more about the name as you imply, it doesn't make it any less islamophobic.
When a demagogue uses the racial or religious bias of a fan base to rally them up, that is racist/islamophobic behaviour, hence said demagogue is racist/islamophobic. Said demagogue can not excuse himself by saying "I'm not actually a racist, I just used the existing racial (or islamophobic) bias of my supporters to gain political profit. They are the racists, I just benefitted from that, hence my shirt is clean." That is not a reasonable point to make.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-20-2017, 03:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: But everyone doesn't.

Some just say "Trump isn't racist" so this can't be a racist move.

Hide that UFO in the middle of Central Park...everyone will ignore it.

Well I'm constantly hearing people label things as dog whistles. I mean I never hear it until some lib points it out.  Maybe they are using the wrong sized pea.

[Dill]

(02-19-2017, 05:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I should know you can't stop a liberal from yelling racist once he gets his teeth sunk in and when you get more than one chanting it; forget about rationality. He simply tried to de-legitimize the President he didn't care what the reason. I've brought it up before, but he did the same thing with Cruz; but he's not Black, so that one don't count. 

As to your links: I've already said Hills and her crew didn't start it; however, they did kick it down the road; as your articles show. But for some reason it wasn't racist when she did it because she didn't ask for a birth certificate. As we know, Candidates are defined by their supporters, or have we changed that again? 

Strange "rationality" advocated above.

What the articles show is that Hillary and her campaign refused to go low, while Trump did not. That is not "kicking it down the road." That is called making an ethical decision.

So it wasn't racist when she did it--because she didn't do it.

You would exonerate Trump for exploiting the advantages racism provides--strengthening the existing, vicious racist animosity in the process--by claiming he was not "personally" motivated, just an opportunist. If Hispanic Cruz wasn't black then no taint of racism for questioning his origins either.

 So irrational liberals should know this: simply promoting racism doesn't make one a racist. 
 
That conclusion is in itself jaw-dropping for the ethical blindness it shares with Trump's actions.

[Dill]

(02-20-2017, 03:59 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well of course he did it for political reasons to some degree. That fact alone, per se, doesn't make it any less racist. Or, if it was more about the name as you imply, it doesn't make it any less islamophobic.
When a demagogue uses the racial or religious bias of a fan base to rally them up, that is racist/islamophobic behaviour, hence said demagogue is racist/islamophobic. Said demagogue can not excuse himself by saying "I'm not actually a racist, I just used the existing racial (or islamophobic) bias of my supporters to gain political profit. They are the racists, I just benefitted from that, hence my shirt is clean." That is not a reasonable point to make.

Yet, that is exactly what Bfine is arguing. He really seems to the think race charge is way off if a politician is just "using" racism.

Imagine if we found Hitler's lost diaries and discovered that he really thought Jews were ok, and felt kind of bad for killing millions but it was just such an effective way of gaining power, that's all. Would have been happy to kill Czechs if that worked. By Bfine's standards, he would no longer be racist--despite the libtard's eagerness to label him so.

The point missed is that there is already a selective, race-based empathy at work when one represents racism as merely opportunism. A candidate who is ok with ginning up racism to win is making an ethical choice about races and racism.

Can anyone imagine the flip version of this--a racist who would not use racism for gain? What principle would prevent that? Certainly not equality for all under the law.   

[Dill]

(02-20-2017, 03:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If it's a dog whistle, how come everyone seems to be able to hear it?

It's a dog whistle because you don't actually hear the "n-word" or some similar racial or sexist slur.

You can talk about "urban poor" or "fraudulent voters," for example, and no one can say you were only referring to African-Americans and/or Hispanics.

You didn't use the n-word but your right wing audience understands you have to be politically correct and "knows" exactly who you mean.  Those people.
 

[*michaelsean*]

(02-20-2017, 05:22 PM)Dill Wrote: It's a dog whistle because you don't actually hear the "n-word" or some similar racial or sexist slur.

You can talk about "urban poor" or "fraudulent voters," for example, and no one can say you were only referring to African-Americans and/or Hispanics.

You didn't use the n-word but your right wing audience understands you have to be politically correct and "knows" exactly who you mean.  Those people.
 

But everyone knows what you are saying, apparently, so it seems quite ineffectual.  Btw...who are liberals referring to when they say urban poor?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-20-2017, 03:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You are correct. It makes so much more sense to roll with "He did because Obama is Black!" You guys keep pushing that and I'll believe he did for political reasons, none of which had to do with skin color. But like I said: "Good luck trying to get a liberal not to call someone they disagree with a racist."

1) What political reason did Trump have for claiming Obama's birth certificate was fake in August 2012?

2) Show me where I claimed Trump did it because Obama was black. 

3) Show me where Hillary claimed Obama's birth certificate was fake. 

4) Good luck getting a conservative who doesn't support Trump to not believe and defend Trump's lies. Trump's blatant lies and lack of integrity are small potatoes and just detract from Trump's more serious **** ups. 

[Dill]

(02-20-2017, 05:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But everyone knows what you are saying, apparently, so it seems quite ineffectual.  Btw...who are liberals referring to when they say urban poor?

Everyone is supposed to know what rightists "mean" while knowing that they didn't actually say it.
It is effectual for the right because it means they can propose race-targeted policies without actually mentioning race.
They can then "gaslight" anyone who claims otherwise, claim they are seeing what isn't there.

And that has been the point since 1870.

Why ever would say this technique is ineffectual when Trump out dog-whistled his Republican opponents in the primary?

Usually liberals reference "urban poverty." When they refer to urban poor, they mean people living in urban environments configured in such a way that they make earning a decent living difficult (e.g., lack of transit, housing, educational and job opportunities), not lazy African-Americans living off taxes of honest, hardworking white folks.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-21-2017, 11:56 AM)Dill Wrote: Everyone is supposed to know what rightists "mean" while knowing that they didn't actually say it.
It is effectual for the right because it means they can propose race-targeted policies without actually mentioning race.
They can then "gaslight" anyone who claims otherwise, claim they are seeing what isn't there.

And that has been the point since 1870.

Why ever would say this technique is ineffectual when Trump out dog-whistled his Republican opponents in the primary?

Usually liberals reference "urban poverty." When they refer to urban poor, they mean people living in urban environments configured in such a way that they make earning a decent living difficult (e.g., lack of transit, housing, educational and job opportunities), not lazy African-Americans living off taxes of honest, hardworking white folks.

So they are referring to the same exact people in the same exact term, but they are being benevolent while the right is being malevolent.

Well if everyone is supposed to know what they mean, and urban poor is just a derogatory reference to black people, then they really can't deny it.  

[*bfine32*]

(02-20-2017, 05:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Strange "rationality" advocated above.

What the articles show is that Hillary and her campaign refused to go low, while Trump did not. That is not "kicking it down the road." That is called making an ethical decision.

So it wasn't racist when she did it--because she didn't do it.

You would exonerate Trump for exploiting the advantages racism provides--strengthening the existing, vicious racist animosity in the process--by claiming he was not "personally" motivated, just an opportunist. If Hispanic Cruz wasn't black then no taint of racism for questioning his origins either.

 So irrational liberals should know this: simply promoting racism doesn't make one a racist. 
 
That conclusion is in itself jaw-dropping for the ethical blindness it shares with Trump's actions.

Obviously, it's hard to "defend" against these claims of racisim because Obama is black, so folks can say he did it because Obama's black and folks really cannot say: No he didn't; as Obama is black.

Clinton supporters circulated an email questioning obama's Citizenship in 2008. This is undisputable. One then has to ask the question why/ I know how much disavowing means to you guys. Did Hillary disavow any of her supporters that curculated this email or did she remain quiet?

So we come back to the same question: Is Trump responsible if some folks bought into the birther movement because of racisim?


You guys feek free to continue with the lynch mob and personal attacks on POTUS, just because you are mad.

[GMDino]

(02-21-2017, 12:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously, it's hard to "defend" against these claims of racisim because Obama is black, so folks can say he did it because Obama's black and folks really cannot say: No he didn't; as Obama is black.

Clinton supporters circulated an email questioning obama's Citizenship in 2008. This is undisputable. One then has to ask the question why/ I know how much disavowing means to you guys. Did Hillary disavow any of her supporters that curculated this email or did she remain quiet?

So we come back to the same question: Is Trump responsible if some folks bought into the birther movement because of racisim?


You guys feek free to continue with the lynch mob and personal attacks on POTUS, just because you are mad.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/23/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/

Quote:The allegation about Obama’s birthplace tracks back to the bruising 2008 Democratic primary between Obama and Clinton.  According to a Telegraph article, as early as April 2008, a Clinton supporter passed around an email that questioned where Obama was born.


"Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy," it said. "She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth."

The cry that Obama was not a legitimate candidate grew much louder in June 2008.

On June 7, 2008, Clinton conceded and called for all Democrats to rally behind Obama. Some in her party did not care to listen. By June 10, 2008, opponents to Obama were posting on a website called Pumaparty.com. PUMA stood for Party Unity My Ass. The website encouraged frustrated Clinton supporters to back the Republican nominee.

John Avlon, editor-in-chief of the Daily Beast, explored the roots of the birther movement in his book  Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America. Avlon described a posting on the PUMA website with the heading "Obama May Be Illegal to Be Elected President!" He wrote that a Clinton volunteer in Texas, Linda Starr, played a key role in spreading the rumor.

Starr connected with Pennsylvania attorney Philip Berg in August and Berg followed up by suing in federal court to block Obama’s nomination. The suit was thrown out repeatedly on the grounds that Berg lacked standing and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear his appeal.

There is no record that Clinton herself or anyone within her campaign ever advanced the charge that Obama was not born in the United States. A review by our fellow fact-checkers at Factcheck.org reported that no journalist who investigated this ever found a connection to anyone in the Clinton organization.

Clinton, herself, answered this very accusation after Trump's tweet during an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon. Lemon asked Clinton if she started smear campaigns that Obama was born outside the United States.

"That is – no. That is so ludicrous, Don. You know, honestly, I just believe that, first of all, it’s totally untrue, and secondly, you know, the president and I have never had any kind of confrontation like that," Clinton said. "You know, I have been blamed for nearly everything, that was a new one to me."

We should note that the birther rumor is distinct from the myth about Obama’s religion, which is what got the ball rolling at the Trump event in New Hampshire.

...


It’s an interesting bit of history that the birther movement appears to have begun with Democrats supporting Clinton and opposing Obama. But Trump, and others who have made this claim, neglect to mention that there is no direct tie to Clinton or her 2008 campaign.


The story appears to have started with supporters of Clinton, an important distinction.


Trump goes on to completely distort the chain of events by claiming Clinton "was all in" on the birther movement. Most of the talk started after Clinton suspended her presidential campaign. And the only thing she officially has ever done is deny any accusation of starting a whisper campaign.

We rate this claim False.

Proof that is was a "supporter" not Hillary Clinton.

She backed Obama when she conceded and never talked about his birth certificate after.

Just because you cannot accept that Trump (who you are "not defending") continued to feed the birther movement and use it to solidify a base for himself and hit political aspirations doesn't make it "fake news."

So, how did you say it? Oh yeah:  

[quote pid='346732' dateline='1487692176']
feel free to continue with the lynch mob and personal attacks...just because you are mad.
[/quote]

[*bfine32*]

(02-21-2017, 12:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/23/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/


Proof that is was a "supporter" not Hillary Clinton.

She backed Obama when she conceded and never talked about his birth certificate after.

Just because you cannot accept that Trump (who you are "not defending") continued to feed the birther movement and use it to solidify a base for himself and hit political aspirations doesn't make it "fake news."

So, how did you say it? Oh yeah:  

[quote pid='346732' dateline='1487692176']
feel free to continue with the lynch mob and personal attacks...just because you are mad.

I said it was her supporters, not sure why you brought that point up again, unless you are showing how much we agree. Unless you are trying to stress the fact that a candidate is not responsible for the actions or his or her supporters.

So she never disavowed and only gave support after she lost. So there was no need to further build a base. Trump eventually disavowed the birther movement gave his support to Obama's citizenship too; does that not count?

What do I have to be mad about/ Seems folks that start multiple threads everyday about how POTUS sucks are mad and attacking. But I'm sure the liberal mind sees it diferently. Admittedly the working of such are a mystery to me.

[GMDino]

I said it was her supporters, not sure why you brought that point up again, unless you are showing how much we agree

So she never disavowed and only gave support after she lost. So there was no need to further build a base. Trump eventually disavowed the birther movement gave his support to Obama's citizenship too; does that not count?

What do I have to be mad about/ Seems folks that start multiple threads everyday about how POTUS sucks are mad and attacking. But I'm sure the liberal mind sees it diferently. Admittedly the working of such are a mystery to me.
[/quote]


You're mad because the man you are "not defending" has been shown to be a fool.

That's why you're still arguing about who started the birther movement while ignoring Trump's role in cultivating it for an additional 8 years.

That's why you are so upset that folks are showing the lies that Trump says almost every day.

You're mad because you don't want to see the truth.

[Dill]

(02-21-2017, 12:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So they are referring to the same exact people in the same exact term, but they are being benevolent while the right is being malevolent.

Well if everyone is supposed to know what they mean, and urban poor is just a derogatory reference to black people, then they really can't deny it.  

You are almost there, Mike.  The malevolent side says "urban poor" when complaining about lazy, shiftless parasites who commit crimes against "their own people" and suck tax money from hard-working whites.  The benevolent side refers to "urban poor" when speaking of increasing job and educational opportunities. And they refer to whites and Hispanics as well. So ALMOST the exact same people, with the term filtering very different attitudes about race.

And sure they can deny it.  They didn't use the word "black" or "African-American," right?  Haven't you seen people defending Trump against charges of racism in this very forum?

[*bfine32*]

(02-21-2017, 01:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: You're mad because the man you are "not defending" has been shown to be a fool.

That's why you're still arguing about who started the birther movement while ignoring Trump's role in cultivating it for an additional 8 years.

That's why you are so upset that folks are showing the lies that Trump says almost every day.

You're mad because you don't want to see the truth.

Thanks for telling me why I'm mad. No doubt I have flooded this forum with Threads expressing my anger. It has drowned out the more rational threads created here.

I have no idea why you put defending in quotes. Of course I'm defending him against these alligations of racisim.

Not one person would assoiciate Trump with the birther movement since 2012 until he annouced his candidacy and someone dug something he said a few (not quite 8) years back.

Here a synopsis of his cultivation. Let's all look at it with an open-mind:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-perpetuated-birther-movement-years/story?id=42138176.

He questioned it orginally because he thought he was going to be running against Obama. But you guys roll with Because he's racist; it sells.

[Dill]

(02-21-2017, 12:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously, it's hard to "defend" against these claims of racisim because Obama is black, so folks can say he did it because Obama's black and folks really cannot say: No he didn't; as Obama is black.

Clinton supporters circulated an email questioning obama's Citizenship in 2008. This is undisputable. One then has to ask the question why/ I know how much disavowing means to you guys. Did Hillary disavow any of her supporters that curculated this email or did she remain quiet?

So we come back to the same question: Is Trump responsible if some folks bought into the birther movement because of racisim?

You guys feek free to continue with the lynch mob and personal attacks on POTUS, just because you are mad.

Yes, it is hard to defend against charges of "racism" when your man gins up false accusations about the "African" running for president. Your tactic is apparently to separate Trump's own actions from his responsibility for them.

A Clinton staffer apparently circulated an email IN HOUSE raising the issue of Obama's heritage, and Clinton chose not to go there.  THIS IS INDISPUTABLE.

There was nothing and no one to disavow because no member of Hillary's campaign ginned up a public campaign on the basis of Obama's birth. Whenever Clinton has been asked about Obama's birth records, she has never replied she would get back to us later, at the right time.

By the time a rogue volunteer began making noises about Obama's birth, Clinton had already conceded to Obama and begun campaigning for him.

So you are defending the guy who questioned Obama's birth against "lynching" and "personal attacks" are you?
HE cannot be responsible if some folks out there are racist and respond to HIS RACE-BAITING to get attention and votes?  

[*bfine32*]

(02-21-2017, 01:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, it is hard to defend against charges of "racism" when your man gins up false accusations about the "African" running for president. Your tactic is apparently to separate Trump's own actions from his responsibility for them.

A Clinton staffer apparently circulated an email IN HOUSE raising the issue of Obama's heritage, and Clinton chose not to go there.  THIS IS INDISPUTABLE.

There was nothing and no one to disavow because no member of Hillary's campaign ginned up a public campaign on the basis of Obama's birth. Whenever Clinton has been asked about Obama's birth records, she has never replied she would get back to us later, at the right time.

By the time a rogue volunteer began making noises about Obama's birth, Clinton had already conceded to Obama and begun campaigning for him.

So you are defending the guy who questioned Obama's birth against "lynching" and "personal attacks" are you?
HE cannot be responsible if some folks out there are racist and respond to HIS RACE-BAITING to get attention and votes?  

Got it. Go with he's a racist.

Just don't be surprised at the reaction when the wolf really shows up.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-21-2017, 01:32 PM)Dill Wrote: You are almost there, Mike.  The malevolent side says "urban poor" when complaining about lazy, shiftless parasites who commit crimes against "their own people" and suck tax money from hard-working whites.  The benevolent side refers to "urban poor" when speaking of increasing job and educational opportunities. And they refer to whites and Hispanics as well. So ALMOST the exact same people, with the term filtering very different attitudes about race.

And sure they can deny it.  They didn't use the word "black" or "African-American," right?  Haven't you seen people defending Trump against charges of racism in this very forum?

How do you tell the difference?

But it seems "urban poor" is just another name for black people so it goes right up there next to "black" and African American".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-21-2017, 12:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously, it's hard to "defend" against these claims of racisim because Obama is black, so folks can say he did it because Obama's black and folks really cannot say: No he didn't; as Obama is black.

Clinton supporters circulated an email questioning obama's Citizenship in 2008. This is undisputable. One then has to ask the question why/ I know how much disavowing means to you guys. Did Hillary disavow any of her supporters that curculated this email or did she remain quiet?

So we come back to the same question: Is Trump responsible if some folks bought into the birther movement because of racisim?


You guys feek free to continue with the lynch mob and personal attacks on POTUS, just because you are mad.

Hillary kicked the email down the road?