America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

The go back where you came from tweet is causing some head scratching about which democratic congresswomen are actually "from" other countries.

Trump was almost certainly referring to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and her allies in what’s become known as “the squad.” The others are Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Only Omar, from Somalia, is foreign-born.


Ocasio-Cortez swiftly denounced his remarks. “Mr. President, the country I come from, & the country we all swear to, is the United States,” she tweeted. “You are angry because you can’t conceive of an America that includes us. You rely on a frightened America for your plunder.”

 

[jjaisli]

Is it head scratching? Only if you're searching for truth. Otherwise, it's nothing more than birthirism: round 2.

 

[Danoff]

Is it head scratching? Only if you're searching for truth. Otherwise, it's nothing more than birthirism: round 2.

Well he didn't name names, so there's a bit of "he must have been talking about these people but... they don't actually fit this description". The only conclusions one is left with is that 1) Trump is misinformed on this subject terribly, and went off on a horrible train of implications based on that misinformation or 2) he is making a blatantly racist remark. In either case, the tweet is shameful. It's just that one of those possibilities is worse than the other.

Edit:

Even if scenario 1, it's not clear that it's not racist. It's just that scenario 2, where he knows these are people born in American that he's telling to go back where they came from, it's definitely racist.

 

[GranTurNismo]

The go back where you came from tweet is causing some head scratching about which democratic congresswomen are actually "from" other countries.

“But Trump isn’t racist though!”

 

[jjaisli]

I'm still not quite sure if Trump really is the deranged, partially senile curmudgeon he appears to be during his rallies. Or if his 4th grade level mouth diarrhea is a cleverly calculated tactic that both props up the lowest percentile of his base and simultaneously stirs the exasperation and indignation from the extreme fringes of the left. Perhaps his whole plan is to have the Democrats elect the most progressive candidate possible, and one that the silent majority, who just want good job security, would be unlikely to support. The fact that Biden clearly makes him nervous leads me to believe the latter, pretty much everything else makes me believe the former.

 

[ryzno]

Or if his 4th grade level mouth diarrhea

To be fair to the kids, 4th graders aren't talking about grabbing women by the puss...

 

[Danoff]

Trump's response is also somewhat telling about his understanding (or lack of understanding) of racism. I agree with him that the liberals cry racism too much, and they're feeling the effects of that right this second actually. But, in regard to his response tweet, being anti-Israel is not being racist. To say that it is is to interpret Israel as an ethnically Jewish nation, which is, as far as I know, a mischaracterization.

It's also a total distraction from the validity of the claim that his remarks were racist, which is very Trump in nature. Deflect, roll on. Let's never get pinned down on exactly what he said or what he meant because we can always launch a counter-offensive on the other side.

Trump's twitter account is pretty horrific usually, but somehow I feel like this week we reached an interesting local minimum of awful.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Trump's response is also somewhat telling about the fact that he is vehemently racist.

FTFY.

I agree with him that the liberals cry racism too much, and they're feeling the effects of that right this second actually.

Agree to disagree. You know, maybe "liberals cry so much" about Trump being racist and all that because maybe he really is that racist? Just a thought. It's only natural that after a president imposes a Muslim Ban, calls Hispanics 'rapists and drug dealers", calls Nazis and Klansmen "very fine people" and orders Hispanics attempting to enter this country to make a better life for themselves and family (ironically, one of the most American things one can do) into detainment shelters in which the conditions are 3rd-world, he is called racist, and so much more. I could go on and on but I do not wish to derail this thread. We don't just say it because we are the opposing side, but because he is racist enough that we cannot stay silent, and at the very least we must be vocal about it. In an era in which people are becoming more and more aware of America's landscape, more likely to bring light to injustices, and use socially media to voice their opinions, calling political figures "racist", or merely pointing out their injustices, is not something that is going to die out.

To address Trump's actual tweet: the leaders who you're referring to aren't speaking badly about this country; they are speaking the harsh truth and you just can't handle it. And I've seen no record of any congresswoman explicitly calling Pelosi "racist".

 

[Danoff]

Agree to disagree. You know, maybe "liberals cry so much" about Trump being racist and all that because maybe he really is that racist? Just a thought. It's only natural that after a president imposes a Muslim Ban, calls Hispanics 'rapists and drug dealers", calls Nazis and Klansmen "very fine people" and orders Hispanics attempting to enter this country to make a better life for themselves and family (ironically, one of the most American things one can do) into detainment shelters in which the conditions are 3rd-world, he is called racist, and so much more. I could go on and on but I do not wish to derail this thread. We don't just say it because we are the opposing side, but because he is racist enough that we cannot stay silent, and at the very least we must be vocal about it. In an era in which people are becoming more and more aware of America's landscape, more likely to bring light to injustices, and use socially media to voice their opinions, calling political figures "racist", or merely pointing out their injustices, is not something that is going to die out.

You have to wait until it's clear or people will have already stopped listening.

Here's how it works. Trump gets called racist for something that's not clearly racist (like the travel ban, Muslim is not a race btw). People read what he actually said and think to themselves "Wow, Trump has a point, that's not necessarily racist. Fake News. Covfefe". And then after that every time he gets called racist they switch on confirmation bias, and all it does is prove to them that the liberals are out to brand him a racist. They've stopped actually thinking about whether it is.

...and then he can start saying actual racist stuff and it doesn't stick.

 

[GranTurNismo]

You have to wait until it's clear or people will have already stopped listening.

No, you don't have to wait until it's crystal clear to determine that it's racist. Just because he may not have used a racial slur in any of his tweets does not mean there is no racist intent.

You have to wait until it's clear or people will have already stopped listening.

Here's how it works. Trump gets called racist for something that's not clearly racist (like the travel ban, Muslim is not a race btw).

I'm not even going to bother arguing this point. Clearly not racist, mkay. Want to know how many people from the seven countries on Trump's travel ban have ever staged a terrorist attack in the US in history, or even killed an American? Zero. I've researched the Muslim Ban many times, and there is no justifiable reason why Trump would ban people of those nations to come to the USA, other than the fact that Trump's views on Muslims are wildly bigoted and he feels threatened by peaceful, non-white immigrants and refugees making a better life for themselves.

"The liberals" didn't need to brand Trump as a racist. Trump is branded as racist because he doesn't even try to hide the fact that he's racist.

 

[Danoff]

No, you don't have to wait until it's crystal clear to determine that it's racist. Just because he may not have used a racial slur in any of his tweets does not mean there is no racist intent.

Oh I totally agree that lacking a racial slur doesn't make something non-racist. But yes, before tossing around accusations of racism (or any kind of accusations really), it's a good idea to be actually correct about it or people will start thinking you're just talking nonsense.

I'm not even going to bother arguing this point.

...but then you did...

Clearly not racist, mkay. Want to know how many people from the seven countries on Trump's travel ban have ever staged a terrorist attack in the US in history, or even killed an American? Zero. I've researched the Muslim Ban many times, and there is no justifiable reason why Trump would ban people of those nations to come to the USA, other than the fact that Trump's views on Muslims are wildly bigoted and he feels threatened by peaceful, non-white immigrants and refugees making a better life for themselves.

Muslim does not mean non-white, and it's not a race.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Muslim does not mean non-white, and it's not a race.

None of the Muslims from any of those seven countries would identify as "white". But then again, as Muslim is not a race, there are many Muslims who would pass as white, same goes for Hispanics. But that wouldn't matter to Trump and many other conservatives. There is a major cultural aspect to being "white" too, and to many conservatives, only Europeans can fit into this "culture". Muslims, to these people, are perceived as foreign, philistine people, some even believing that they support violent ideologies, and as such, they are inferior and "non-American", therefore these people are racist and highly opposed to Muslims.

 

[Danoff]

None of the Muslims from any of those seven countries would identify as "white". But then again, as Muslim is not a race, there are many Muslims who would pass as white, same goes for Hispanics.

There are white Muslims. I don't mean "pass as white", I mean pretty much whatever you want white to mean (unless you want white to mean non-muslim).

But that wouldn't matter to Trump and many other conservatives. There is a major cultural aspect to being "white" too, and to many conservatives, only Europeans can fit into this "culture".

There are white people of European ancestry that are Muslim... in the US...

I understand that this is not necessarily something Trump is thinking about, but it should be something that is on the mind of someone who is crying "racism" when they hear "Muslim" which is a religion.

Muslims, to these people, are perceived as foreign, philistine people, some even believing that they support violent ideologies, and as such, they are inferior and "non-American", therefore these people are racist and highly opposed to Muslims.

Foreign does not make them of a particular race, or non-white. Supporting violent ideologies or being inferior for being foreign likewise does not make them of a particular race or non-white. So none of that makes these people racist.

You're correct in implying that if, to Donald Trump, Muslim means brown and inferior, then Trump is a racist (actually more to the point, if being from those countries means being brown and inferior...) . The problem is that you can't jump to that without some clear evidence that he thinks that lest you end up looking more racist than him.

Muslim is a religion, white people can join, even in America. Being anti-muslim, or anti-Israel, or Islamophobic, or antisemitic, or even xenophobic is not racist (eh, maybe sometimes for antisemitic because Jewish has double meaning). But a racist can be those things.

 

[UKMikey]

You have to wait until it's clear or people will have already stopped listening.

People read what he actually said and think to themselves "Wow, Trump has a point, that's not necessarily racist. Fake News. Covfefe"

people will start thinking you're just talking nonsense.

Only certain people. Other people will think there's something to those accusations. This may have happened if his ban targeted certain ":censored:hole" countries with majority brown populations rather than white Muslims.

 

[Danoff]

Only certain people. Other people will think there's something to those accusations. This may have happened if his ban targeted certain ":censored:hole" countries with majority brown populations rather than white Muslims.

That's true, I'm referring to some people. Specifically the people that liberals should be hoping don't stop listening to them because they're the people that liberals need to convert for 2020.

 

[UKMikey]

That's true, I'm referring to some people. Specifically the people that liberals should be hoping don't stop listening to them because they're the people that liberals need to convert for 2020.

If that subset of people are going to buy into the "fake news" scenario I'm not sure how much can be done to convince them. Maybe the battle is already lost.

Extreme identity politics may be poison to the political discourse but it's interesting that after two terms of Barack Obama the Republican Party didn't feel the need to lurch leftwards to regain the middle ground that had been lost to him. Instead they seemed to double down on GOPping. I guess it doesn't work in the opposite direction.

As a foreigner to US politics it's difficult for me to work out where your political centre is so it could be that Obama was a more centrist politician than this year's crop of non-Biden Dem candidates which would obviate the need for such a strategy though.

I agree that if you're going to accuse someone you should have all your ducks in a row first.

 

[Danoff]

If that subset of people are going to buy into the "fake news" scenario I'm not sure how much can be done to convince them. Maybe the battle is already lost.

Extreme identity politics may be poison to the political discourse but it's interesting that after two terms of Barack Obama the Republican Party didn't feel the need to lurch leftwards to regain the middle ground that had been lost to him. Instead they seemed to double down on GOPping. I guess it doesn't work in the opposite direction.

As a foreigner to US politics it's difficult for me to work out where your political centre is so it could be that Obama was a more centrist poitician than tthis year's crop of non-Biden Dem candidates which would obviate the need for such a strategy though.

Well the US has a tendency to lurch (on its own, minus political party orchestration) away from the more extreme views of the sitting party. Thus you get Trump after Obama. And Obama after Bush Jr. And Bush Jr. after Clinton. And Clinton after Bush Sr. (and the pattern doesn't hold up if I go back one further so I'll stop right there). So I'm not necessarily requesting that the liberals become conservative to court Trump supporters. I'm really more just suggesting that they don't make themselves look like liars and manipulators, especially with someone like Trump who will end up serving himself up on a platter all on his own.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm really more just suggesting that they don't make themselves look like liars and manipulators, especially with someone like Trump who will end up serving himself up on a platter all on his own.

That's pretty much what the unquoted part of my post is agreeing with. "People" will always see the party as liars and manipulators regardless though.

 

[Danoff]

That's pretty much what the unquoted part of my post is agreeing with. "People" will always see the party as liars and manipulators regardless though.

Must have gotten added afterward.

Yea, identity politics is a scourge.

 

[UKMikey]

Must have gotten added afterward.

Most of my posts are works in progress.

 

[Dotini]

Well the US has a tendency to lurch (on its own, minus political party orchestration) away from the more extreme views of the sitting party. Thus you get Trump after Obama. And Obama after Bush Jr. And Bush Jr. after Clinton. And Clinton after Bush Sr. (and the pattern doesn't hold up if I go back one further so I'll stop right there). So I'm not necessarily requesting that the liberals become conservative to court Trump supporters. I'm really more just suggesting that they don't make themselves look like liars and manipulators, especially with someone like Trump who will end up serving himself up on a platter all on his own.

In uber liberal Seattle there is the peculiar phenomenon of the "conservative progressive". One is running for city council in my very own hyper liberal district. She is calling for more police and more police precincts in response to the well-known "homelessness" crisis in Seattle.

 

[GranTurNismo]

@Danoff

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I would guess that Donald Trump's worldview is, broadly, that everyone other than people who like him are inferior/illegitimate.

Trump is probably something of a racist. It's probably more accurate to say he's Xenophobic and severely Islamophobic. At least that's what he projects. Even that is probably mostly pandering to his supporters. I don't think he really has any opinions other than "TRUMP GOOD". Worse, he's a dumb, cruel, egomaniacal troll. He's basically Commodus minus the athletic pretensions.

 

[mustafur]

The intention of what he said would be classed as racist, considering all but Omar are born in America and he likely didn't know this and based his argument on skin, doesn't exactly need explaining.

The soo called ''Muslim ban'' though wasn't exactly Islamaphobia, not how I saw it, it was just implementing a ban that pleased his Saudi Masters(in their cold war against the Shia world), you know the same Saudis that overpaid to stay in Trumps hotel, and not just once.

I got to admit, I preferred Trump over Hillary because of corruption and thought, well trump could go 50/50 on this, but he is worse there is no doubt about it, and he doesn't even hide the bribes through a foundation, it's all out in the open as public knowledge, there is no doubt he will not go down well in history when he is out of the Whitehouse he is easily more corrupted then the Clintons ever where.

 

[McLaren]

I'm not even going to bother arguing this point. Clearly not racist, mkay. Want to know how many people from the seven countries on Trump's travel ban have ever staged a terrorist attack in the US in history, or even killed an American? Zero. I've researched the Muslim Ban many times,

Iran & Yemen have produced people who have attacked the US.

The United States State Department states that IRGC provides support for Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Israel. They also say that IRGC has given much support and training to terrorists supporting the Palestinian resistance. They are also accused of aiding the Iraqi insurgency in southern Iraq.[4] On September 26, 2007, the United States Senate passed legislation by a vote of 76-22 designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.[5] U.S. President George W. Bush and Congress labeled the group under the guidelines established by Executive Order 13224 issued after the September 11, 2001 attacks.[6]

The IRGC is a branch of Iran's armed forces.

Six Yemeni suspected al-Qaeda members were blown up in their car in Marib province in November 2002 by a Hellfire missile attack from an unmanned CIA RQ-1 Predator aircraft.[27] Among the dead were Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi (aka Abu Ali al-Harithi), a Yemeni suspected senior al-Qaeda lieutenant believed to have masterminded the October 2000 USS Cole bombing ,[22][23][28] Al-Harethi was on a list of targets whose capture or death had been ordered by US President George W. Bush.[22] and Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), an American.[22][29][30]

Agree to disagree. You know, maybe "liberals cry so much" about Trump being racist and all that because maybe he really is that racist? Just a thought. It's only natural that after a president imposes a Muslim Ban, calls Hispanics 'rapists and drug dealers", calls Nazis and Klansmen "very fine people" and orders Hispanics attempting to enter this country to make a better life for themselves and family (ironically, one of the most American things one can do) into detainment shelters in which the conditions are 3rd-world, he is called racist, and so much more. I could go on and on but I do not wish to derail this thread. We don't just say it because we are the opposing side, but because he is racist enough that we cannot stay silent, and at the very least we must be vocal about it. In an era in which people are becoming more and more aware of America's landscape, more likely to bring light to injustices, and use socially media to voice their opinions, calling political figures "racist", or merely pointing out their injustices, is not something that is going to die out.

Pretty sure Danoff is referring to the fact that there are liberals out there who are quick to call someone/something they don't agree with racist. Doesn't even have to involve Trump, it's more so a re-occuring case of people who bought into certain media ignoring specific details regarding certain subjects and brand whatever they're talking about as racist. For example, many aren't quite fond of Ariel or Bond being black. Some of the criticizers are probably, indirectly, racist deep down, but some are most likely questioning the double standard of the specific media outlets saying Hollywood "white-washes" roles and then turns a previously white character, black. There's far too much to unwrap with that discussion and it's not necessary here, but there are folks who have turned around and act as if anyone having a problem with Ariel being black is racist. To Danoff's point, that word has lost a lot of its seriousness because claiming anyone was a racist could do immediate damage to them, but you have people who are, more than usual, on the left who float that term freely only to try and hush whomever they're not fond of.

To address Trump's actual tweet: the leaders who you're referring to aren't speaking badly about this country; they are speaking the harsh truth and you just can't handle it. And I've seen no record of any congresswoman explicitly calling Pelosi "racist".

There's no implication any of the 4 congresswomen called Pelosi racist, but the 4 of them & Pelosi have been butting heads recently b/c Pelosi & many other Democrats fear "the squad" is going to give Trump the election again. IIRC, Omar & AOC have low approval ratings among the Democratic party and the Democrats are worried that the more they speak out, the more central-leftist Democrat voters will distance themselves and cause a loss of support.

Pelosi did go after Omar for a couple anti-semitic tweets earlier this year.

 

[mustafur]

Iran & Yemen have produced people who have attacked the US.

The IRGC is a branch of Iran's armed forces.

The source you used for Yemenize terrorists are the Saudi Founded Alqueda, who are fighting the same people the US and Saudi Arabia where fighting in Yemen.

And a Countries own Military been labeled a terrorist organization because US Congress said so is ludicrous.

You don't see Irans Military on the same side of the planet as The US mainland but America has Bases Covering nearly every side of Iran.

..Omar for a couple anti-semitic tweets earlier this year.

Calling out AIPAC isn't anti Semetic, that is beyond obsurd.

 

[McLaren]

The source you used for Yemenize terrorists are the Saudi Founded Alqueda, who are fighting the same people the US and Saudi Arabia where fighting in Yemen.

He said zero people from any of the countries on the list have ever staged a terrorist attack against the US or killed an American. Abu Ali al-Harithi was Yemeni citizen whom was with Al-Qaeda, suspected of masterminding an attack on US citizens. He was killed alongside 5 other Yemeni citizens that joined Al-Qaeda.

And a Countries own Military been labeled a terrorist organization because US Congress said so is ludicrous.

Perhaps re-read what was written. The US did not label the military, they labeled a branch of Iran's military. We are not the only ones.

The IRGC has never been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, although the UNSCR 1929 had its assets frozen (this was lifted in 2016). In addition to the U.S., the United Kingdom, a fellow security council member, also calls to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist group.[118] The European Union has already sanctions in place on the IRGC, though it is not designated as a terrorist group as such.[119][120]

Although Saudi Arabia and Bahrain already designated the IRGC as a terrorist organisation,[121][122] several countries such as Canada and Australia are examining the possibility to designate the group as well (Canada already outlawed Quds Force in 2012).[123][124]

Calling out AIPAC isn't anti Semetic, that is beyond obsurd.

Then take it up with Pelosi. She was the one who forced Omar to apologize for the tweets and then said Omar didn't understand what she said was wrong.

Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders said in a statement Monday, “Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive.” They added, “We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...reshman-democrat-omar-for-anti-semitic-tropes

"I don't think our colleague is anti-Semitic," Pelosi said Friday, reiterating her previous defenses of Omar. "I think she has a different experience in the use of words, [and] doesn't understand that some of them are fraught with meaning."

It was the Democratic leader's latest attempt to quell tension that erupted earlier this month when Omar said she wanted to start a discussion about "allegiance to a foreign country" in reference to Israel.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday she does “not believe” that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn,) “understood the full weight” of a comment she made that some have criticized as anti-Semitic.

“She didn’t have a full appreciation of how they landed on other people where these words have a history and a cultural impact that might have been unknown to her,” Pelosi at a press briefing.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nanc...n-anti-semitic-way_n_5c814d2de4b06ff26ba69c89[/quote]

 

[mustafur]

perhaps re-read what was written. The US did not label the military, they labeled a branch of Iran's military.

Are they not part of Iran's Military?

Then take it up with Pelosi. She was the one who forced Omar to apologize for the tweets and then said Omar didn't understand what she said was wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...reshman-democrat-omar-for-anti-semitic-tropes

You didn't say Claimed Anti-semitic Tweets, you said it was Anti Semitic.

Pelosi did go after Omar for a couple anti-semitic tweets earlier this year.

 

[McLaren]

Are they not part of Iran's Military?

Having issue with a branch is not the same as having an issue with the entire miltary. People want ICE abolished right now. It does not mean they want the entire Department of Homeland Security disbanded.

This section of the forum can be a complete mess at times. It doesn't mean the entire forum is.

You didn't say Claimed Anti-semitic Tweets, you said it was Anti Semitic.

Because that's what they were originally labeled as by Pelosi herself, before she defended Omar as not realizing the tweets were regarded as such.

Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders said in a statement Monday, “Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive.” They added, “We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”.

 

[Danoff]

Trump is still rolling.

I find this response hilarious and sad. What he said was racist (if it was not, it's almost just as indefensibly idiotic), and it was hateful. Trump's response? One of them said the f-word once, not in congress or anything, just... said it... and she should be called out for that. Uh...

Deflect, counter-attack. Let's not for a second keep the focus on the fact that he literally told Americans born in America that have a different skin color from his to go home. Omar was called out as making anti-Semitic statements, and as I mentioned at the time, her statements were not. Accusing the state of Israel of paying off US politicians is not anti-semitic, at least not without more evidence, such as, for example, demonstrating that Israel is not actually doing that.

Edit:

BTW, jumping to call Omar anti-semitic when it's not clear that she was is another example of ruining credibility on the accusation bandwagon, and Trump is playing it right back at the people doing that. The left shouldn't be handing him these weapons. Her response to that accusation should be "go to hell" not "oh I'm so sorry".