Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Squirrel

What is trump actually doing wrong? What did Obama ever do to unite ra

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

MontyPython

Another non answer. It's only wrong because 'Obama!'.

 

When Trump made Kate Steinle a campaign issue, and then after her Hispanic killer acquitted, called the verdict a "travesty of justice", was he or was he not "trafficking in racial grievance", the same as you accuse Obama of in the Martin case?

After all, there are plenty of other examples of a crime involving an Hispanic illegal alien, where the victim is non white, why highlight that one?

 

:wacko: :pinch: :blink:

 

In-F*CKING-credible. Sheesh Ladybird, you used to at least TRY to scrape together "honest" arguments. This is the most dishonest crap I can recall you ever posting. There is NO honest or legitimate comparison to be made between the two situations.

 

Steinle was an innocent person murdered by an illegal alien. His acquittal was an indisputable travesty of justice, and that travesty had exactly nothing to do with either person's race.

 

Trayvon was a vicious, violent thug who brutally assaulted an innocent person who had merely asked him what he was doing. When the innocent person's life was put in direct danger by Trayvon's vicious physical assault, the innocent person being assaulted did the only thing he could do to save his life. Trayvon got exactly what he deserved, and once again the race either of the individuals involved had NOTHING whatsoever to do with it.

 

It was Obama who tried to make the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident "racial", and YOU trying to make the Steinle incident racial.

 

Standard racially-divisive leftist bullsh*t, which you USED to be above, long ago.

 

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

So now trump is hating refugees Timmy? Maybe you can post some examples? I know he’s fed up with illegals. I guess that’s ok with you and I’m sure your feeding and housing a few on your own $. I know he wants to secure the border, a quick search will show prior to trump every democrat ran on that. I ono he revered to 3rd world countries as <censored> holes, they are or prove it wrong. So yeah just post a fact or 2 where he hates refugees. Again I’ll wait I’m willing to learn

https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/politics/trump-refugees-historic-cuts.html

https://www.nilc.org/issues/litigation/trump-tweets-with-refugee-refugees/

 

All back to no facts no answers Orange man bad

Just because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean that it isn't a sincere opinion. Stop moving the goal posts.

 

You beat me to it, MR. Timothy isn't old enough to have experienced or learned from the real racial struggles and gains and accomplishments that took place during the late 50's and 60's. Well I am and I did. To see all that gain and advancement and accomplishment destroyed by Obama in 8 short years was heartbreaking and infuriating. Any suggestion Obama "tried to respect both sides and argue for both sides"...and/or...that " Race issues only appear to be worse because people are actually confronting them and white people who were mostly able to ignore those issues and imagine that they didn't exist are being put in a position where they have to actually confront them"...and/or...that Trump is "consistently cruel" or "despicable" or "demonize(s) refugees" is pure horsesh*t, typical swill from mindless leftists.

 

There were tremendous gains made in race relations years before Timothy was even born, and Obama set them back decades.

 

<_<

Are you really suggesting that race relations are back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow?

 

BS. He consistently sided on the side of "blacks are victims" and threw his nose into conversations when the black "victim" was clearly in the wrong. His DOJ, particularly under Holder, went out of their way to NOT hold blacks accountable for their actions. Remember the Black Panthers at the polling place? He is half black and half white and called his own grandmother a "typical white person." Your denials do not make this any less true. And it wasn't just race. He, and the Dems as a whole, play identity politics along any fault line they can find in the US. Economic. Political. Racial. Religious. And so on.

 

1) He also talked about fatherhood, people improving their own communities, respecting police, his respect for the police, etc.

 

2) In context, the "typical white person" remark isn't wrong. Or bigoted.

 

3) So do Republicans and the right.

 

You live in lalaland, Timothy. You weren't even alive when the racial issues were really being addressed. You have no frame of reference except the ones that the Dems have given you of perpetual victimhood for blacks. You have bought into the lies of institutional and systemic racism. You still believe that most Republicans opposed Obama because of race which is another flat out lie. Obama perpetuated those myths, built his entire career on exploiting those myths, and counted on brainwashed ideologues to swallow them and vote for him...which they did. The man was horribly divisive and left the US the most fractured that I have seen in my life and I am bout twice as old as you. So don't tell me that all they are doing now is "actually confronting" racism. They are manufacturing and exploiting racism.

 

I never have once said or suggested that most Republicans opposed because Obama because of race. I would argue that the right is more responsible than Obama for the divisiveness, but not primarily because of race.

 

His list was pretty much debunked and reduced to "his election was a great accomplishment."

"Debunked" in your eyes. Just because people on the left here don't have time to go down all the rabbit holes doesn't mean there isn't an argument there.

 

Can you quit using the term "refugees" as if it somehow encompasses the masses of economic "migrants" that we are facing on our Southern border? Any political party that has to redefine terms and misuse words to hide what they are actually supporting is utterly morally bankrupt.

 

 

There you go using the term refugee to mean economic migrant. You can't even be honest in the words you use and you call out others on abiding by the tenets of their religion?

No, I used refugees in the sense of people fleeing violence from places like Syria, Honduras, and Guatemala. I was not including economic migrants in that group. Your suggestion that I was including economic migrants is a straw man argument.

 

You and I began a discussion on this topic several months ago, and I asked you to assume, for the sake of argument, that the right’s motivation for keeping illegals out was rooted in law. Then I wanted to know what sort of argument you could put together to let illegals in.

 

You said because we had plenty of room and it was the nice thing to do.

 

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but if you do, please tell me why we should keep allowing illegals to cross our border en masse.

I'm not talking about illegal immigrants broadly as a group. I said refugees and I meant refugees. People fleeing violence from places like Syria, Honduras, and Guatemala.

 

Also, when you assign motives to people who believe differently than you do on this subject, you’re making a big mistake in my opinion.

I've acknowledged many times that the motives and positions of people on the right are varied on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

I’m still waiting for the examples of what he did good or accomplished. We still haven’t had those to talk about. I guess democrats with house, senate and president only failed and left bad things they can’t defend. They can’t even post the semi mid level manage achievements. Let alone debate why they were good

Well, he did get a Nobel Peace Price, for nothing more than not being Bush...there's that... :hairpull:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Are you really suggesting that race relations are back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow?

 

No, that isn't what I said. Maybe you need to take the same reading comprehension course I've so often suggested for Other_PostersToo.

 

 

I would argue that the right is more responsible than Obama for the divisiveness...

 

Then you're as blind as a bat.

 

B)

Edited by MontyPython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones

https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/politics/trump-refugees-historic-cuts.html

https://www.nilc.org/issues/litigation/trump-tweets-with-refugee-refugees/

 

 

Just because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean that it isn't a sincere opinion. Stop moving the goal posts.

 

 

Are you really suggesting that race relations are back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow?

 

 

 

1) He also talked about fatherhood, people improving their own communities, respecting police, his respect for the police, etc.

 

2) In context, the "typical white person" remark isn't wrong. Or bigoted.

 

3) So do Republicans and the right.

 

 

 

I never have once said or suggested that most Republicans opposed because Obama because of race. I would argue that the right is more responsible than Obama for the divisiveness, but not primarily because of race.

 

 

"Debunked" in your eyes. Just because people on the left here don't have time to go down all the rabbit holes doesn't mean there isn't an argument there.

 

 

No, I used refugees in the sense of people fleeing violence from places like Syria, Honduras, and Guatemala. I was not including economic migrants in that group. Your suggestion that I was including economic migrants is a straw man argument.

 

 

I'm not talking about illegal immigrants broadly as a group. I said refugees and I meant refugees. People fleeing violence from places like Syria, Honduras, and Guatemala.

 

 

I've acknowledged many times that the motives and positions of people on the right are varied on this subject.

 

Saying refugees and meaning refugees doesn’t mean much anymore, at least not to me, because I am being told that everybody coming across the southern border is a refugee.

 

In an honest discussion you’re not going to be able to talk about one and not the other.

 

As for assigning motives, I bring this up because this is what media does and sort of what you’ve done in tossing in the Christian hypocrisy angle.

 

Maybe most of us oppose letting these people into the country for reasons that don’t have anything to do with racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

Saying refugees and meaning refugees doesn’t mean much anymore, at least not to me, because I am being told that everybody coming across the southern border is a refugee.

 

In an honest discussion you’re not going to be able to talk about one and not the other.

 

As for assigning motives, I bring this up because this is what media does and sort of what you’ve done in tossing in the Christian hypocrisy angle.

 

Maybe most of us oppose letting these people into the country for reasons that don’t have anything to do with racism.

Exactly right. Timothy tosses in the term refugees, when the conversation is about illegal immigrants. There’s obviously a difference between those coming here seeking refuge and those coming here because they wanna piece of the American welfare pie.

 

I’ll add one point about refugees specifically. Timothy’s links basically say “Trump bad because he drastically reduced Muslim refugees”. No context. No acknowledgement that there might be terrorists among the refugee groups and that we didn’t have proper vetting. So what’s happened since? There was an article that claimed that total number of refugees admitted is the highest ever. I don’t have the reasoning for this but if vetting is much better, and the admissions are done in a fair and orderly way, and even if Muslim admissions are back up, you won’t hear many complaints. BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER TO TIMOTHY AND THE LEFT. Truth was never their strong suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

 

The first sentence - see if you can find the YUGE, glaring error:

 

On December 7, 2015, President Trump called for a Muslim ban.

 

You didn't read any of the links you speed-Googled, did you?

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/politics/trump-refugees-historic-cuts.html

https://www.nilc.org/issues/litigation/trump-tweets-with-refugee-refugees/

 

 

Just because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean that it isn't a sincere opinion. Stop moving the goal posts.

 

 

Are you really suggesting that race relations are back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow?

 

 

 

1) He also talked about fatherhood, people improving their own communities, respecting police, his respect for the police, etc.

 

2) In context, the "typical white person" remark isn't wrong. Or bigoted.

 

3) So do Republicans and the right.

 

 

 

I never have once said or suggested that most Republicans opposed because Obama because of race. I would argue that the right is more responsible than Obama for the divisiveness, but not primarily because of race.

 

 

"Debunked" in your eyes. Just because people on the left here don't have time to go down all the rabbit holes doesn't mean there isn't an argument there.

 

 

No, I used refugees in the sense of people fleeing violence from places like Syria, Honduras, and Guatemala. I was not including economic migrants in that group. Your suggestion that I was including economic migrants is a straw man argument.

 

 

I'm not talking about illegal immigrants broadly as a group. I said refugees and I meant refugees. People fleeing violence from places like Syria, Honduras, and Guatemala.

 

 

I've acknowledged many times that the motives and positions of people on the right are varied on this subject.

 

:yawn:

 

:bs:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

Again Timmy or anyone I don’t even want to debate you on the harm he caused. Is there some good you can list or stand behind? What Great thing did he do , even at mid manager level let alone president with the house and senate in his party. Please let’s hear what you think the democrats did and how it helped the country. Certainly in 8 yrs you have some thing? I know what I think the democrats did wrong, so school me on what they did or you think they did to help the country? There has to be a million things don’t be shy. If you all can’t even list any good what’s the point of arguing the bad. Again what good did Obama or the democrats achieve in 8 yrs? I’m still waiting for my health insurance costs to drop 2500$ or to get my doctor back. Hell I’d be happy if they ever hit the levels they were at before or if I could afford to go in order to meet my outbof pocket. But by all means what did they help or accomplish? So far all anyone can do is try and defend what Obama did wrong. But even the left members can’t list what amazing things they think he did right. So again what do you think he acomplishef and did well? I’m betting the right members can list a few things trumps doing right and accomplishing. That alone says alot

Edited by Squirrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

No, that isn't what I said. Maybe you need to take the same reading comprehension course I've so often suggested for Other_PostersToo.

This is what you said:

 

You beat me to it, MR. Timothy isn't old enough to have experienced or learned from the real racial struggles and gains and accomplishments that took place during the late 50's and 60's. Well I am and I did. To see all that gain and advancement and accomplishment destroyed by Obama in 8 short years was heartbreaking and infuriating.

 

The main racial struggle and accomplishment of the 50's and 60's was to dismantle Jim Crow. You said that all of those gains and advancements and accomplishments in the 50's and 60's were destroyed by Obama. In other words he somehow managed to negate/destroy the accomplishment of ending Jim Crow. The only way my statement is off is that I said "back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow" instead of "as bad or worse than they were before the end of Jim Crow", but that would only push in the direction of your statement being even sillier.

 

In any case, your statement was shockingly dismissive of how terrible segregation and Jim Crow were.

 

 

The first sentence - see if you can find the YUGE, glaring error:

 

 

 

You didn't read any of the links you speed-Googled, did you?

 

:rolleyes:

So what? It's not ancient history or out of line with anything Trump has done since. Trump hasn't changed his tune except to stop explicitly calling for a Muslim ban because he wants plausible deniability in court proceedings.

 

Exactly right. Timothy tosses in the term refugees, when the conversation is about illegal immigrants.

I literally brought the subject up and specifically talked about refugees. So not, it's not about illegal immigrants, as much as some people would like it to be because it allows them to ignore other parts of the immigration issue.

 

Saying refugees and meaning refugees doesn’t mean much anymore, at least not to me, because I am being told that everybody coming across the southern border is a refugee.

 

In an honest discussion you’re not going to be able to talk about one and not the other.

What you "are being told" has little to do with MY position. Yes there is overlap on these issues. But people are trying to change the subject to illegal immigration in order to avoid having to address the refugee issue directly. I'm not going to fall for that trap.

 

As for assigning motives, I bring this up because this is what media does and sort of what you’ve done in tossing in the Christian hypocrisy angle.

 

Maybe most of us oppose letting these people into the country for reasons that don’t have anything to do with racism.

I didn't say anything about racism when it comes to immigration. It seems to me that you're coming from a defensive position and framing. You don't like any implication that your position might be "racist" and you're pushing any mention of the issue into that narrative. Which is why you often object when I bring motives into it.

 

It's fair to say that there are reasons why people might have a conservative/restrictive position on various immigration issues that don't come from a bad motive. I've acknowledged that every time you've brought it up.

 

But what you haven't acknowledged is that there ARE strains of racism and/or nativism and/or fear-mongering that are influencing a significant number of people on the right on this issue. Including Trump. You have yet to acknowledge that there is any reasonable reason why anyone who generally takes a more welcoming attitude towards refugees might find any significant amount of the rhetoric and actions coming from elements of the right objectionable.

 

Rather than automatically being defensive, why don't you engage that point beyond the idea of if it applies to you or not?

 

I think you're genuinely trying to have an honest and decent conversation on the issue and I'm trying to do the same in return. Yes, my original post was kind of harsh. I'd mention this: I nearly always try to separate discussion of ideas, actions, and people. People are rarely black and white and have a mix of both good and bad impulses, motives, and characteristics. The same applies to their actions. My original post didn't separate that out. But I will stand by this: very broadly speaking, the most prevalent Republican positions on the issue of refugees are mostly driven from a position of fear and mostly ignore the impulses most versions of Christianity teach about loving other people unconditionally, charity, and treating people like you would want to be treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/politics/trump-refugees-historic-cuts.html

https://www.nilc.org/issues/litigation/trump-tweets-with-refugee-refugees/

 

 

Just because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean that it isn't a sincere opinion. Stop moving the goal posts.

 

 

Are you really suggesting that race relations are back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow?

 

 

 

1) He also talked about fatherhood, people improving their own communities, respecting police, his respect for the police, etc.

 

2) In context, the "typical white person" remark isn't wrong. Or bigoted.

 

3) So do Republicans and the right.

 

 

 

I never have once said or suggested that most Republicans opposed because Obama because of race. I would argue that the right is more responsible than Obama for the divisiveness, but not primarily because of race.

 

 

"Debunked" in your eyes. Just because people on the left here don't have time to go down all the rabbit holes doesn't mean there isn't an argument there.

 

 

No, I used refugees in the sense of people fleeing violence from places like Syria, Honduras, and Guatemala. I was not including economic migrants in that group. Your suggestion that I was including economic migrants is a straw man argument.

 

 

I'm not talking about illegal immigrants broadly as a group. I said refugees and I meant refugees. People fleeing violence from places like Syria, Honduras, and Guatemala.

 

 

I've acknowledged many times that the motives and positions of people on the right are varied on this subject.

You dismissing how divisive Obama was doesn't change the fact that race relations freefell during his tenure. He contributed to that by the cases he chose to put the weight of his big mouth and his office behind and by the actions of himself and his administration. His "typical white person" comment was crap whether you believe the context is correct, or not. It is offensive and bigoted...something you claim to care about. HE is half white. He pretends like he is not.

 

You do know that 85-90% of claims for asylum and/or refugee status are found to be without merit, right. Particularly on the Southern border. Just because someone or a group of someones abuses the refugee statutes and processes does not make them refugees. You calling them refugees does not make the refugees. The vast majority are, as I stated, economic migrants, many of whom are abusing the refugees process to get in and then disappear. Have you seen the thread where 90% of them don't even come back for their hearings? Since they are, by and large, NOT refugees, when you call them refugees you are misusing (deliberately, because you are smart enough to the know all this) the term.

 

I see that your support for latest religious assertion has gone the way of your assertion on the positive contributions of predominately Muslim countries and cultures. Feel free to come back with support for either if you "have the time."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

I’m totally game to discussing REFUGEES only, and arguing about what’s legitimate for entry and what’s not, and what the statistics are on allowing in legitimate refugee seekers versus turning away legitimate refugee seekers,

 

Also, I’m totally game for discussing/arguing about whether we have a global responsibility to take in immigrants outside of those we want to grant admission to and those who are legitimately in need as refugees. It’s once again going to the parallel of abortion: 90+% are the problem that some of us would like to see solved, while the (much less than) 10% are the ones the left wants to focus on, while trying to make everyone believe their crap that they’re talking about the 90+%.

 

Finally, if another thread is whether people on the right are acting in a Christian way towards immigration, I’m all for that too. Bring it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

So what? It's not ancient history or out of line with anything Trump has done since. Trump hasn't changed his tune except to stop explicitly calling for a Muslim ban because he wants plausible deniability in court proceedings.

 

When your first sentence of your first link is an absolute lie, Timmy, what are we supposed to think?

 

 

No surprise that you (and the CATO Institute as well!) see no difference between "candidate Trump" and what HE might say on the campaign trail vs. "President Trump" and what HE might say.

 

Tell me, when DID President Trump's Muslim ban go into effect?

 

And I don't recall you getting too upset when 0-bama was doing the same exact thing (that Trump couldn't do as CANDIDATE, by the way).

Edited by stick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

Timmy, you do realize that Trump was elected AFTER he said he wanted to be cautious about immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, don't you? So whatever your point is, it's irrelevant - the people spoke.

Edited by stick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

I’m totally game to discussing REFUGEES only, and arguing about what’s legitimate for entry and what’s not, and what the statistics are on allowing in legitimate refugee seekers versus turning away legitimate refugee seekers,

 

Also, I’m totally game for discussing/arguing about whether we have a global responsibility to take in immigrants outside of those we want to grant admission to and those who are legitimately in need as refugees. It’s once again going to the parallel of abortion: 90+% are the problem that some of us would like to see solved, while the (much less than) 10% are the ones the left wants to focus on, while trying to make everyone believe their crap that they’re talking about the 90+%.

 

Finally, if another thread is whether people on the right are acting in a Christian way towards immigration, I’m all for that too. Bring it on.

I think we will find that anyone who “self-identifies” as a refugee is a refugee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

I think we will find that anyone who “self-identifies” as a refugee is a refugee.

:doh:

 

Naturally!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

This is what you said:

 

 

 

The main racial struggle and accomplishment of the 50's and 60's was to dismantle Jim Crow. You said that all of those gains and advancements and accomplishments in the 50's and 60's were destroyed by Obama. In other words he somehow managed to negate/destroy the accomplishment of ending Jim Crow. The only way my statement is off is that I said "back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow" instead of "as bad or worse than they were before the end of Jim Crow", but that would only push in the direction of your statement being even sillier.

 

In any case, your statement was shockingly dismissive of how terrible segregation and Jim Crow were.

 

Incredible.

 

First and foremost Timothy - In no conceivable fashion was I "dismissive" of Jim Crow. As for the rest of that nonsense, I guess I'll have to really dumb it down, hoping maybe you can finally follow a very simple concept. Here's as simplistic an analogy as I can think of off the top of my head:

 

Picture a one-acre empty lot. It's just dirt. Pure dirt. A whole acre of just dirt - No grass, no trees, no bushes, no flowers, nothing but dirt. Now somebody comes along and spends literally years improving that lot. First they plant grass seed, and nurture it, water it, fertilize it, mow it, etc, until it's a nice lawn. Then they go all around the outside edges and plant beautiful hedges. Then they design and fashion gardens with beautiful flowers and bushes and trees and such. Then garden paths. Then comfortable benches along those paths. Then maybe a couple beautiful fountains.

 

I think you get the general idea by now. Literally decades have been spent improving this lot that used to be nothing but dirt.

 

Now all of a sudden somebody comes along and wrecks it all. He dumps garbage. He cuts down the beautiful flowers and bushes and trees. He tosses old oil and oil cans and used-up batteries and beer cans and such. He parks a couple junky cars up on cinder blocks.

 

Again I'm sure you get the general idea. The point is that this person has in a very short time destroyed all those years of hard work improving the lot. But that doesn't mean he has taken it "back to where it was". It's now a lot of trash and garbage and dead grass and chopped flowers & bushes and so forth, but it's NOT just pure dirt, like it was before. That's why I responded as I did when you said "Are you really suggesting that race relations are back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow?"

 

No, I said no such thing, nor did I "suggest" any such thing. Obama destroyed decades of hard work and advances achieved in race relations, but that doesn't mean they went back to Jim Crow.

 

B)

Edited by MontyPython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

This is what you said:

 

 

 

The main racial struggle and accomplishment of the 50's and 60's was to dismantle Jim Crow. You said that all of those gains and advancements and accomplishments in the 50's and 60's were destroyed by Obama. In other words he somehow managed to negate/destroy the accomplishment of ending Jim Crow. The only way my statement is off is that I said "back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow" instead of "as bad or worse than they were before the end of Jim Crow", but that would only push in the direction of your statement being even sillier.

 

In any case, your statement was shockingly dismissive of how terrible segregation and Jim Crow were.

 

 

 

So what? It's not ancient history or out of line with anything Trump has done since. Trump hasn't changed his tune except to stop explicitly calling for a Muslim ban because he wants plausible deniability in court proceedings.

 

 

I literally brought the subject up and specifically talked about refugees. So not, it's not about illegal immigrants, as much as some people would like it to be because it allows them to ignore other parts of the immigration issue.

 

 

What you "are being told" has little to do with MY position. Yes there is overlap on these issues. But people are trying to change the subject to illegal immigration in order to avoid having to address the refugee issue directly. I'm not going to fall for that trap.

 

 

I didn't say anything about racism when it comes to immigration. It seems to me that you're coming from a defensive position and framing. You don't like any implication that your position might be "racist" and you're pushing any mention of the issue into that narrative. Which is why you often object when I bring motives into it.

 

It's fair to say that there are reasons why people might have a conservative/restrictive position on various immigration issues that don't come from a bad motive. I've acknowledged that every time you've brought it up.

 

But what you haven't acknowledged is that there ARE strains of racism and/or nativism and/or fear-mongering that are influencing a significant number of people on the right on this issue. Including Trump. You have yet to acknowledge that there is any reasonable reason why anyone who generally takes a more welcoming attitude towards refugees might find any significant amount of the rhetoric and actions coming from elements of the right objectionable.

 

Rather than automatically being defensive, why don't you engage that point beyond the idea of if it applies to you or not?

 

I think you're genuinely trying to have an honest and decent conversation on the issue and I'm trying to do the same in return. Yes, my original post was kind of harsh. I'd mention this: I nearly always try to separate discussion of ideas, actions, and people. People are rarely black and white and have a mix of both good and bad impulses, motives, and characteristics. The same applies to their actions. My original post didn't separate that out. But I will stand by this: very broadly speaking, the most prevalent Republican positions on the issue of refugees are mostly driven from a position of fear and mostly ignore the impulses most versions of Christianity teach about loving other people unconditionally, charity, and treating people like you would want to be treated.

 

Timmah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

You dismissing how divisive Obama was doesn't change the fact that race relations freefell during his tenure.

I disagree with the idea that they "freefell" during his tenure.

 

He contributed to that by the cases he chose to put the weight of his big mouth and his office behind and by the actions of himself and his administration. His "typical white person" comment was crap whether you believe the context is correct, or not. It is offensive and bigoted...something you claim to care about. HE is half white. He pretends like he is not.

How is acknowledging the common attitudes of most white people and saying she had that attitude bigoted?

 

As for the half white thing, under segregation "half white" was treated as "non-white".

 

You do know that 85-90% of claims for asylum and/or refugee status are found to be without merit, right. Particularly on the Southern border. Just because someone or a group of someones abuses the refugee statutes and processes does not make them refugees. You calling them refugees does not make the refugees. The vast majority are, as I stated, economic migrants, many of whom are abusing the refugees process to get in and then disappear. Have you seen the thread where 90% of them don't even come back for their hearings? Since they are, by and large, NOT refugees, when you call them refugees you are misusing (deliberately, because you are smart enough to the know all this) the term.

Syria by itself has produced several million refugees. There are more than enough legitimate refugees for it to be a real issue that stands on its own. You have created a straw man argument talking about other people.

 

I see that your support for latest religious assertion has gone the way of your assertion on the positive contributions of predominately Muslim countries and cultures. Feel free to come back with support for either if you "have the time."

I didn't respond to the religious assertion because you moved the goal posts.

 

When your first sentence of your first link is an absolute lie, Timmy, what are we supposed to think?

How is it a lie?

 

No surprise that you (and the CATO Institute as well!) see no difference between "candidate Trump" and what HE might say on the campaign trail vs. "President Trump" and what HE might say.

 

Tell me, when DID President Trump's Muslim ban go into effect?

 

And I don't recall you getting too upset when 0-bama was doing the same exact thing (that Trump couldn't do as CANDIDATE, by the way).

Trump modified it enough to create legal plausible deniability to deceive those who wish to be deceived. He got as close enough to it as he could get away with.

 

Incredible.

 

First and foremost Timothy - In no conceivable fashion was I "dismissive" of Jim Crow. As for the rest of that nonsense, I guess I'll have to really dumb it down, hoping maybe you can finally follow a very simple concept. Here's as simplistic an analogy as I can think of off the top of my head:

I thought about it later and "trivialize" is a better word.

 

Picture a one-acre empty lot. It's just dirt. Pure dirt. A whole acre of just dirt - No grass, no trees, no bushes, no flowers, nothing but dirt. Now somebody comes along and spends literally years improving that lot. First they plant grass seed, and nurture it, water it, fertilize it, mow it, etc, until it's a nice lawn. Then they go all around the outside edges and plant beautiful hedges. Then they design and fashion gardens with beautiful flowers and bushes and trees and such. Then garden paths. Then comfortable benches along those paths. Then maybe a couple beautiful fountains.

 

I think you get the general idea by now. Literally decades have been spent improving this lot that used to be nothing but dirt.

 

Now all of a sudden somebody comes along and wrecks it all. He dumps garbage. He cuts down the beautiful flowers and bushes and trees. He tosses old oil and oil cans and used-up batteries and beer cans and such. He parks a couple junky cars up on cinder blocks.

 

Again I'm sure you get the general idea. The point is that this person has in a very short time destroyed all those years of hard work improving the lot. But that doesn't mean he has taken it "back to where it was". It's now a lot of trash and garbage and dead grass and chopped flowers & bushes and so forth, but it's NOT just pure dirt, like it was before. That's why I responded as I did when you said "Are you really suggesting that race relations are back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow?"

 

No, I said no such thing, nor did I "suggest" any such thing. Obama destroyed decades of hard work and advances achieved in race relations, but that doesn't mean they went back to Jim Crow.

 

B)

Did you miss where I said this?

 

"The only way my statement is off is that I said "back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow" instead of "as bad or worse than they were before the end of Jim Crow", but that would only push in the direction of your statement being even sillier."

 

The problem with your analogy is that we didn't start with nothing but dirt. We weren't starting fresh. We had a horrible system where in much of the country people of one race were oppressing and denying basic human and civil rights to people of another race. To play into your analogy, in the 1950s we started with a toxic waste dump. We've been cleaning up the dump ever since. Even if you cut up the wildlife and dump some trash on it, that doesn't mean you've reversed all progress, you still don't have the toxic waste you had at the start.

 

In other words, dismantling Jim Crow is by far the greatest achievement of the last few decades. It's huge. When you say that Obama somehow equaled or exceeded that achievement in the wrong direction, it's an absurd trivialization of Jim Crow.

 

That's what I see a lot of in these conversations about racism. An outsized defensiveness and focus on things like what they (rightly or wrongly) perceive to be false accusations of racism, as if that's on par with other racial injustices that have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

How is acknowledging the common attitudes of most white people and saying she had that attitude bigoted?

 

Good Gawd.

 

"...the common attitudes of most white people..."??? What an incredibly racist thing to say. Tell me something: Just how many of those "most white people" did you know back in those days?

 

Oh that's right, you weren't born yet. So you're going purely by the indoctrination you received in school, and not through actual experience or knowledge or firsthand interaction in real life.

 

 

I thought about it later and "trivialize" is a better word.

 

It's no improvement on the utter nonsense of the original statement.

 

 

Did you miss where I said this?

 

"The only way my statement is off is that I said "back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow" instead of "as bad or worse than they were before the end of Jim Crow", but that would only push in the direction of your statement being even sillier."

 

The problem with your analogy is that we didn't start with nothing but dirt. We weren't starting fresh. We had a horrible system where in much of the country people of one race were oppressing and denying basic human and civil rights to people of another race. To play into your analogy, in the 1950s we started with a toxic waste dump. We've been cleaning up the dump ever since. Even if you cut up the wildlife and dump some trash on it, that doesn't mean you've reversed all progress, you still don't have the toxic waste you had at the start.

 

In other words, dismantling Jim Crow is by far the greatest achievement of the last few decades. It's huge. When you say that Obama somehow equaled or exceeded that achievement in the wrong direction, it's an absurd trivialization of Jim Crow.

 

That's what I see a lot of in these conversations about racism. An outsized defensiveness and focus on things like what they (rightly or wrongly) perceive to be false accusations of racism, as if that's on par with other racial injustices that have happened.

 

Then I must simply *sigh* and point out again that you clearly never experienced any of these things in real life, and are clearly not paying attention even now, during the period when you are alive and could be learning by honest, objective observation instead of mindlessly spouting leftist boilerplate. Sorry, but it's just plain stupid and ignorant to pretend that pointing out the ruinous destruction Obama has done to race relations somehow "trivializes" Jim Crow.

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

I disagree with the idea that they "freefell" during his tenure.

 

 

How is acknowledging the common attitudes of most white people and saying she had that attitude bigoted?

 

As for the half white thing, under segregation "half white" was treated as "non-white".

 

 

 

Syria by itself has produced several million refugees. There are more than enough legitimate refugees for it to be a real issue that stands on its own. You have created a straw man argument talking about other people.

 

 

I didn't respond to the religious assertion because you moved the goal posts.

 

 

How is it a lie?

 

 

Trump modified it enough to create legal plausible deniability to deceive those who wish to be deceived. He got as close enough to it as he could get away with.

 

 

I thought about it later and "trivialize" is a better word.

 

 

Did you miss where I said this?

 

"The only way my statement is off is that I said "back to where they were before the end of Jim Crow" instead of "as bad or worse than they were before the end of Jim Crow", but that would only push in the direction of your statement being even sillier."

 

The problem with your analogy is that we didn't start with nothing but dirt. We weren't starting fresh. We had a horrible system where in much of the country people of one race were oppressing and denying basic human and civil rights to people of another race. To play into your analogy, in the 1950s we started with a toxic waste dump. We've been cleaning up the dump ever since. Even if you cut up the wildlife and dump some trash on it, that doesn't mean you've reversed all progress, you still don't have the toxic waste you had at the start.

 

In other words, dismantling Jim Crow is by far the greatest achievement of the last few decades. It's huge. When you say that Obama somehow equaled or exceeded that achievement in the wrong direction, it's an absurd trivialization of Jim Crow.

 

That's what I see a lot of in these conversations about racism. An outsized defensiveness and focus on things like what they (rightly or wrongly) perceive to be false accusations of racism, as if that's on par with other racial injustices that have happened.

 

I’m still waiting for the achievements you believe he accomplished Timmy obviously your horrible at defending his failures. So what do you lb and the rest believe the democrats accomplished while in controls? Certainly your savior achieved some great things? I notice none of you want to talk about that and debate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

Timothy - you don’t seem to understand what racism even is. It is prejudice and generalization and resultant mistreatment based on race.

 

Therefore, YOU are a racist, because you support affirmative action for blacks. YOU are a racist because you propagate “typical white person” stereotypes.

 

Those of us who demand standards of ALL are not racist. Those of us who want to enforce the same immigration laws towards ALL are not racist. Those of us who support individual freedoms for ALL are not racist. You may call such attitudes ill advised or shortsighted or whatever BUT racist is not what they are.

 

YOU make this mistake all the time, and YOU are actually the racist here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin
:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

Timothy - you don’t seem to understand what racism even is. It is prejudice and generalization and resultant mistreatment based on race.

 

Therefore, YOU are a racist, because you support affirmative action for blacks. YOU are a racist because you propagate “typical white person” stereotypes.

 

Those of us who demand standards of ALL are not racist. Those of us who want to enforce the same immigration laws towards ALL are not racist. Those of us who support individual freedoms for ALL are not racist. You may call such attitudes ill advised or shortsighted or whatever BUT racist is not what they are.

 

YOU make this mistake all the time, and YOU are actually the racist here.

Apparently you missed the point where the left redefined racism last year. Racism no longer means prejudice and generalization or resultant mistreatment based on race. They've since added a "power" component. That way only whites are racist and minorities are unable to be racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...