America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,511 comments
  • 1,778,907 views
Danoff
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.
Click to expand...
Is it purely a left wing attack? As I understand she was criticised across the board. Maybe her political compatriots should stand behind her in this case but that wouldn't stop attacks on her coming from elsewhere on the political spectrum and handing ammo to Trump.
 
UKMikey
Is it purely a left wing attack? As I understand she was criticised across the board. Maybe her political compatriots should stand behind her in this case but that wouldn't stop attacks on her coming from elsewhere on the political spectrum and handing ammo to Trump.
Click to expand...

I think that criticism was mostly coming from the right. But the left jumped on instead of jumping off. I'd like to see some rigor with these accusations. "Racist" is losing its meaning, and is getting flung around at everyone for everything. When the left isn't the one doing it, they're quick to agree. I'd like to see everyone fight back against accusations of racism that are unsupported, because I'd really like for it to mean something when someone like Trump comes out and genuinely displays real racism. He should be strung up by his ears for what he said, but "racist" and "bigot" has been diluted and we don't have worse descriptions to grab.
 
Danoff
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".
Click to expand...
She was never going to do that though when her own party asked her to apologize. She knew if she chose to fight back at Pelosi & the party, her time as a congresswoman would be short lived as both parties would start actively pushing her out. Pelosi is already conflicting a bit with her & "the squad" to keep things cool within' the left so the election doesn't go Trump's way. It's not outside the realm of possibility for the 4 youngsters to be used as scapegoats for losing the election by some Democrats if they feel the 4 clashing with Trump caused voters to turn away.
 
Also, I really just have to point out that the hateful, vile thing that our sitting president just said is worse than anything any of these congresswomen have said about the US or Israel (why on Earth do we care so much about Israel?). But to depict a statement accusing Israel of bribing US congressional representatives as one of the most hateful and vile things said by a senator, or "impeach the mother f--" which was also said by one of them (outside of the senate), is to forget US history altogether.

We had a senator nearly beaten to death in the senate for speaking out against slavery.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...ne-senator-was-nearly-beaten-death-180962111/

Jefferson Davis made this speech in congress as he resigned

Davis
When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men--not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three fifths.

Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny to us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard. This is done not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit; but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children.
Click to expand...

That strikes me as more vile and hateful speech than claiming the nation of Israel is bribing people. Just sayin...
 
Danoff



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

This isn't very likely, but with the United States being the country of origin of three of the four apparent targets of his wrath [on this occasion], what if the United States is one of those countries to which he was referring with his "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)" remark?

It's kinda funny that he effectively forced someone to resign their post--by making it impossible for them to function in that role--for saying as much.

Danoff
Muslim is not a race btw
Click to expand...
I'll bite. To your mind, what criteria must be met for a particular group to be identified as a "race"?

I'll readily concede that the word is ambiguous and often subject to the context in which it's used, but the definition of the word to which I subscribe...

A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century the term race began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality.
Click to expand...
...sums it up rather neatly for me. Are there more specific examples of groups targeted with discriminatory rhetoric or acts? Absolutely, and I think that those ought to take precedence if and [only] when they apply.

Eunos_Cosmo
He's basically Commodus minus the athletic pretensions.
Click to expand...
Holy crap on a cracker. One digs a little deeper and finds the similarities are staggering.

UKMikey
Is it purely a left wing attack? As I understand she was criticised across the board. Maybe her political compatriots should stand behind her in this case but that wouldn't stop attacks on her coming from elsewhere on the political spectrum and handing ammo to Trump.
Click to expand...
I stand by what I said on this matter:

TexRex
As far as what Democrats have said to/of Omar, I'd suggest they don't have a firm grasp of the situation but think they should come out against just to be safe...you know...optics.
Click to expand...
 
TexRex
This isn't very likely, but with the United States being the country of origin of three of the four apparent targets of his wrath [on this occasion], what if the United States is one of those countries to which he was referring with his "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)" remark?
Click to expand...


Heh... well it would undermine Trump's thesis, which is that they should stop criticizing the US. It's entertaining, but I can't give Trump the credit for being that clever.


TexRex
I'll bite. To your mind, what criteria must be met for a particular group to be identified as a "race"?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that there is a hard and fast definition (in fact, I'm pretty sure there's not). As your example suggests there seems to be some level of social convention for it. But all of my understanding of the word "race" is that it is entangled in genetics and lineage. It's something inherited and passed on through genes, not an intellectual concept which is taught or learned. And I think that most people would agree that barring a genetic inheritance argument, that a race is not something that someone can voluntarily join or leave. So for example, if you say "I identify as black" (as if that's clearly a race), I think the social convention for what it means to be "black" suggests that you'd need the necessary genetic credentials to call yourself "black". Without the genetic component I think race is mistaken for "culture", which is something else.

Regardless, even without a strong definition for race, religion is not one. Religion is taught. Someone born from a religious person would not inherit that religion unless it was taught to them after birth.
 
The longer this presidency plays out, the more Trump makes himself look like a :censored:ing lunatic.

What's that old saying? Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.
 
Danoff
I'm not sure that there is a hard and fast definition (in fact, I'm pretty sure there's not). As your example suggests there seems to be some level of social convention for it. But all of my understanding of the word "race" is that it is entangled in genetics and lineage. It's something inherited and passed on through genes, not an intellectual concept which is taught or learned. And I think that most people would agree that barring a genetic inheritance argument, that a race is not something that someone can voluntarily join or leave. So for example, if you say "I identify as black" (as if that's clearly a race), I think the social convention for what it means to be "black" suggests that you'd need the necessary genetic credentials to call yourself "black". Without the genetic component I think race is mistaken for "culture", which is something else.

Regardless, even without a strong definition for race, religion is not one. Religion is taught. Someone born from a religious person would not inherit that religion unless it was taught to them after birth.
Click to expand...
I mean...I can align with the notion that race may well refer to widespread genetic traits, particularly visual ones, but it still bumps for me and I was amused that part of it also seemed to bump for you even as you provided examples. What is "black"? (Rhetorical question offered only to point out where it seemed to bump for you.)

Edit:

Danoff
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/trump-racist-comments-resolution-house-democrats/index.html

House resolution to condemn Trump's tweet as racist. This is a wonderful opportunity for republicans to try to prevent trump from taking down their party. They won't, but it's an opportunity to do so.
Click to expand...
Somehow I doubt it'll get even that far for them, rather it'll be dismissed as partisan drivel.
 
Last edited:
TexRex
I mean...I can align with the notion that race may well refer to widespread genetic traits, particularly visual ones, but it still bumps for me and I was amused that part of it also seemed to bump for you even as you provided examples. What is "black"? (Rhetorical question offered only to point out where it seemed to bump for you.)
Click to expand...

I'm with you.

I don't think that race needs to be clearly defined for someone to be racist though. All that needs to be present is that they believe it. For example, I know (fairly well) a particular racist in my personal life. I can say with clear certainty that this person is a racist. He articulated to me (within the last year) that the 3/5ths compromise was "on to something", and that black people are less intelligent as a race. He's also a staunch supporter of "the south" and a critic of the civil war, and of women's suffrage. He believes women are inferior and should not hold intellectual positions. He's also a Trump supporter (I bet you're shocked).

Now, if I grilled this person on what exactly constitutes a "black person", I could almost for sure trip him up. Even if you could find ancestry that were perfectly "black" (whatever that is), how many times can you mix it with Caucasian DNA before the result is no longer "a black person". Never? 1000? 100? 10? 2? Exactly which traits are key for being "black" and which ones are not. Is it skin color alone? Doubtful.

But... even if he would be scratching his head about what it means for someone to be a member of the group that he considers to be sub-human, he is still a racist none-the-less. Because he would identify (falsely or not) members of that group and discriminate against them on that basis.
 
Danoff
I'm with you.

I don't think that race needs to be clearly defined for someone to be racist though. All that needs to be present is that they believe it. For example, I know (fairly well) a particular racist in my personal life. I can say with clear certainty that this person is a racist. He articulated to me (within the last year) that the 3/5ths compromise was "on to something", and that black people are less intelligent as a race. He's also a staunch supporter of "the south" and a critic of the civil war, and of women's suffrage. He believes women are inferior and should not hold intellectual positions. He's also a Trump supporter (I bet you're shocked).

Now, if I grilled this person on what exactly constitutes a "black person", I could almost for sure trip him up. Even if you could find ancestry that were perfectly "black" (whatever that is), how many times can you mix it with Caucasian DNA before the result is no longer "a black person". Never? 1000? 100? 10? 2? Exactly which traits are key for being "black" and which ones are not. Is it skin color alone? Doubtful.

But... even if he would be scratching his head about what it means for someone to be a member of the group that he considers to be sub-human, he is still a racist none-the-less. Because he would identify (falsely or not) members of that group and discriminate against them on that basis.
Click to expand...

I think this is because racists are inherently un-intelligent, or at least (charitably) extremely ignorant. As soon as you start to unpack anything in your post the concept of racism actually starts to become untenable. Being able to unpack it requires some amount of intelligence.

Intelligent
Racist
Uncynical/Good Faith

You can have 2 of those qualities, but not all 3.

(You can substitute "Trump Supporter" for Racist and I think the same holds true, not meaning all Trump supporters are racist.)
 
Last edited:
Eunos_Cosmo
I think this is because racists are inherently un-intelligent, or at least (charitably) extremely ignorant.
Click to expand...

That might be true for someone with no qualifications and a deprived socio-economical background but some racists are very clever.

Not all intelligent people are nice.
 
Liquid
That might be true for someone with no qualifications and a deprived socio-economical background but some racists are very clever.

Not all intelligent people are nice.
Click to expand...

That's where the second part of my post comes in. You can be smart and "racist" but not in good faith. These are the people who go on Fox News (or whatever) preaching to the crowds about immigrants because they have something to gain from it.
 
Danoff
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/trump-racist-comments-resolution-house-democrats/index.html

House resolution to condemn Trump's tweet as racist. This is a wonderful opportunity for republicans to try to prevent trump from taking down their party. They won't, but it's an opportunity to do so.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/trump-racist-comment-vote-house-gop-list/index.html

4 republicans in the house voted to condemn the tweet. Pathetic.

Eunos_Cosmo
I think this is because racists are inherently un-intelligent, or at least (charitably) extremely ignorant. As soon as you start to unpack anything in your post the concept of racism actually starts to become untenable. Being able to unpack it requires some amount of intelligence.

Intelligent
Racist
Uncynical/Good Faith

You can have 2 of those qualities, but not all 3.

(You can substitute "Trump Supporter" for Racist and I think the same holds true, not meaning all Trump supporters are racist.)
Click to expand...

Yea the one I'm talking about is very intelligent (by some measure) and very racist. Also totally cynical and is a fairly mean-spirited person who dislikes people in general. So your 2 out of 3 isn't a bad prediction. I think that you're probably right about being un-intelligent, but it's for a specific kind of intelligence. There are many forms of high intelligence that are compatible with racism.
 
Danoff
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/trump-racist-comments-resolution-house-democrats/index.html

House resolution to condemn Trump's tweet as racist. This is a wonderful opportunity for republicans to try to prevent trump from taking down their party. They won't, but it's an opportunity to do so.
Click to expand...

As usual the post are twisted to fit a left agenda as it never said to "country but rather place" and it does seem that some of the districts these "Congresswomen are from are very close to being crime ridden hellholes where people of color are of domination.

"Trump on Sunday directed a series of tweets at Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Illhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley, saying the four congresswomen of color should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

Now of course he is a racist for speaking the truth, instead of worrying about immigrants, green deals, causing the cancellation of an influx of employment opportunities in one district in particular maybe they should worry about making the peoples lives that put them in office better rather than worry about everything other than their home districts while they pander for their own 15 minutes of fame in the national news cycle.

But of course with the left everything goes to the race card as they have such a weak policy plan to play for the actual working LEGAL American citizens.

And place is magically now country!
 
VFOURMAX1
As usual the post are twisted to fit a left agenda as it never said to "country but rather place" and it does seem that some of the districts these "Congresswomen are from are very close to being crime ridden hellholes where people of color are of domination.

"Trump on Sunday directed a series of tweets at Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Illhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley, saying the four congresswomen of color should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

Now of course he is a racist for speaking the truth, instead of worrying about immigrants, green deals, causing the cancellation of an influx of employment opportunities in one district in particular maybe they should worry about making the peoples lives that put them in office better rather than worry about everything other than their home districts while they pander for their own 15 minutes of fame in the national news cycle.

But of course with the left everything goes to the race card as they have such a weak policy plan to play for the actual working LEGAL American citizens.

And place is magically now country!
Click to expand...
So where do you buy your cool aid?
 
wyiwcob0fta31.jpg
 
McLaren
Err, Dwayne Johnson is also one of the most respected celebrities in the world as well and would likely landslide any other candidate far more than Oprah at the moment. Oprah would also likely get bullied by other Democrat candidates for being similar to Trump: a self-made billionaire with no political experience. She also has kept her political stances closet to heart, so it's unclear where exactly she would stand on multiple areas.
Click to expand...

Let us move away from the concept that a "celebrity" will make a good POTUS.
 
PocketZeven
I just want to make sure that being popular is not the most important qualification for a potus. That is in part how you ended up with Trump.
Click to expand...

As best I can tell, that's the only qualification (ok, they also have to be natural born citizens and 35).
 
PocketZeven
Let us move away from the concept that a "celebrity" will make a good POTUS.
Click to expand...
I’ll agree with that. I’m just correcting the issue surrounding Dwayne; there’s nothing about him that would be any worse than Oprah.

Not sure why you would suggest her in the first place though, if that’s how you feel about the concept.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
615K
AEKara38
AEKara38
Dylan
2025 NASCAR Discussion Thread
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Eggstor
Eggstor
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
446 447 448
Replies
13K
Views
735K
NW_Saint
NW_Saint
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
770
Dotini
Dotini

Latest Posts

Back