|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 18 2018 08:04 A3th3r wrote:I freely admit that Trump argues too much with other world leaders but his business acumen is really impressive. The man knows how to make money and get businesses to redevelop & grow & spend money here in the US. Now Apple is joining Toyota in adding another American factory. Jobs are the key factor that drive the US economy so this is what we need right now. http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-building-new-campus-hiring-20000-new-employees-2018-1
That is one of the great lies about his business record. The reason that he has Russian connections in the first place is that no American would lend to him. This amazingly successful builder could not get credit from banks because he is notorious for making his money by screwing over his investors. He is not good at making money, he is good at losing other people's and making those under him far worse off.
|
On January 18 2018 07:43 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 07:07 Velr wrote:
Who cares?
Let the evangelicals drown in it... Bring it up again and again.. Fuck them... All the evangelicals care about is tough talk on abortion. 2016 showed them to be single issue voters. Not just abortion, also religious freedom. Evangelicals are beginning to, and have, embraced the supposedly oh-so-logical reasoning of "you HAVE to vote for x." The Democrat party hates them and actively opposes many of their priorities. What I can't stand is the dishonest excuse making ("No, Trump is really a good man!"), but when it comes to the voting it makes perfect sense.
Almost comical in last page we have "haha freedom caucus and brown people" and "haha 80% of dumb Trump voters would think he was faithful" and "haha all they care about is abortion."
The voting does make sense. Half of America reviles the other half. They just choose to overlook the transparency of it when they're in liberal circlejerk atmospheres. It will endure after Trump. I think somewhere around three quarters of it started long before Trump.
|
United States42685 Posts
Here's the thing though Danglars, it's true about the dumb Trump voters. Just because it gets under your skin doesn't change that.
|
On January 18 2018 08:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 07:43 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 07:07 Velr wrote:
Who cares?
Let the evangelicals drown in it... Bring it up again and again.. Fuck them... All the evangelicals care about is tough talk on abortion. 2016 showed them to be single issue voters. Not just abortion, also religious freedom. Evangelicals are beginning to, and have, embraced the supposedly oh-so-logical reasoning of "you HAVE to vote for x." The Democrat party hates them and actively opposes many of their priorities. What I can't stand is the dishonest excuse making ("No, Trump is really a good man!"), but when it comes to the voting it makes perfect sense. Almost comical in last page we have "haha freedom caucus and brown people" and "haha 80% of dumb Trump voters would think he was faithful" and "haha all they care about is abortion." The voting does make sense. Half of America reviles the other half. They just choose to overlook the transparency of it when they're in liberal circlejerk atmospheres. It will endure after Trump. I think somewhere around three quarters of it started long before Trump.
I said 80% would expect he is *not* faithful. I am saying Evangelicals simply don't give a shit about this stuff. Besides abortion, what do you think Evangelicals like about Trump? Gay stuff?
|
It's also laughable to suggest that Trump apologists constitute an entire half of the population. While I'm sure that makes his secretly ashamed supporters feel better, it's nowhere close to that many.
|
On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order.
I wrote out more but I'm not a lawyer so I don't feel comfortable posting off the top of my head, I'd have to go find my sources again.
Honestly I haven't seen a lot of defense of this action and it seems that the majority position (or maybe just the plurality) is that this will fail, but that it was a "good effort."
I am content to wait and see. But the judge cited tweets, that's like 5 different warning flares all going off at once.
|
On January 18 2018 08:39 farvacola wrote:
It's also laughable to suggest that Trump apologists constitute an entire half of the population. While I'm sure that makes his secretly ashamed supporters feel better, it's nowhere close to that many.
Not half. only 40.2%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
|
On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore.
If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too.
|
Issues like abortion and immigration have been kicked down the road for 30-40 years. People would rather run on these hot button issues that legislate to address them. And just like the every other immigration push in this country, including the ones that lead to our first federal immigration laws, there is this overtone of racism.
Just look at our first major immigration act in the 20th century: National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act
The smaller laws before that were not much better. Every push for immigration restrictions has always been about keeping the undesirables out. And the theme of who those undesirables always seems to have the same reasoning.
|
He is up 3 points since December! People must be digging the tax cuts
|
On January 18 2018 08:43 IyMoon wrote:He is up 3 points since December! People must be digging the tax cuts
Actually the tax plan is up to 46% approval at this point, lol. Was in low 30's at some point I think.
|
Well, I guess the deception on the tax plan is working then; they're fooling enough people to get away with their reprehensible behavior. unfortunate, but not surprising.
|
On January 18 2018 08:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. I wrote out more but I'm not a lawyer so I don't feel comfortable posting off the top of my head, I'd have to go find my sources again. Honestly I haven't seen a lot of defense of this action and it seems that the majority position (or maybe just the plurality) is that this will fail, but that it was a "good effort." I am content to wait and see. But the judge cited tweets, that's like 5 different warning flares all going off at once.
Tweets are statements by the president. They are admissible in court, since they are a written record. And I don't know where you are getting your information, but a TRO like this is like the sun rising. Courts stay things until a legal action is completed all the time. If people who legally in the country are challenging the change in their status, the court can stay their deportation until the court makes its final ruling. The man isn't a king, the courts can stay the enforcement of any executive order.
|
On January 18 2018 08:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:43 IyMoon wrote:On January 18 2018 08:41 Gorsameth wrote:On January 18 2018 08:39 farvacola wrote:
It's also laughable to suggest that Trump apologists constitute an entire half of the population. While I'm sure that makes his secretly ashamed supporters feel better, it's nowhere close to that many. Not half. only 40.2% https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ He is up 3 points since December! People must be digging the tax cuts Actually the tax plan is up to 46% approval at this point, lol. Was in low 30's at some point I think.
It is always going to be popular to give people money, no matter the cost later on
|
On January 18 2018 08:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore. If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too.
From the moment it had Gorsuch after the refusal to even recognize Obama's candidate, the supreme court became just awful enough to pull BS. That won't be a new revelation.
And the judge's previous injunction being reversed, in this climate, really is not an indicator that there is any flaw with the judge or their action. America screwed up. It will be generations, if ever, before all of the damage that will be done by 2020 is fixed.
|
On January 18 2018 08:51 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:42 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore. If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too. From the moment it had Gorsuch after the refusal to even recognize Obama's candidate, the supreme court became just awful enough to pull BS. That won't be a new revelation. And the judge's previous injunction being reversed, in this climate, really is not an indicator that there is any flaw with the judge or their action. America screwed up. It will be generations, if ever, before all of the damage that will be done by 2020 is fixed.
Now as is good a time as any to re-up this, which goes into Supreme Court nominations in presidential election years in a good bit of detail.
Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns.
Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election:
And goes on from there.
Edit: I'll just add the next few bits:
In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it. By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety.
|
On January 18 2018 08:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:00 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 04:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 18 2018 03:06 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 02:08 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 01:59 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 00:59 IyMoon wrote:On January 18 2018 00:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So much for blaming Democrats.
Nah, this is still on the dems. How can you be expected to get your whole party to vote for something? Nah this is 100% on the dems /s I'm not sure how it makes more sense to blame a small faction of dissenting Republicans willing to shut down the government than the entire Democratic party. Is partisanship supposed to be a virtue now? What kind of mental gymnastics is this? I blame all congressmen voting to shut down our government and hurt the country. Last time that was the GOP. This time it's both parties, but mostly Dems. Hence they get a larger share of the blame in my book. I'll grant you that I don't believe the GOP would be any better if the situations were reversed, but that still doesn't make this a good look for the self-proclaimed "party of adults." Obviously this assumes the shutdown actually occurs, so I'll reserve judgment until that actually happens. The real person to blame is the President, who blindsided both parties by saying he would sign anything one day and then going on a racist rant when the deal was presented to him. The Democrats are being told by their voters not to give an inch after those comments and the Republicans are pushing for a harder line on immigration. He backed both sides into a corner where they cannot compromise by changing his mind. This is a case of Trump not understanding that politician’s word needs to be their bond. If they say they are going to do something, they need to do it. We joke about them being dishonest, but they can’t lie to each other. It doesn’t work with lawyers and it doesn’t work in politics. I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. In no functioning democracy should an (unpopular, no less) President's private language be affecting public policy. This was never a moral issue. I doubt there's a single Democrat alive that believes this incident is going to tone down Trump's rhetoric. If you can't stomach a racist's comments in a private conversation for the sake of not jeopardizing policy, you're not enough of an adult to be fit for office. The negative effects of that leak were blindingly obvious. I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. It's reminiscent of when sometimes the Chinese people get overeager in their anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment and the CCP tries to tamp it down for diplomatic reasons. When that happens, I blame the CCP for whipping up latent anti-X sentiment with their propaganda for decades for their own benefit ("the real enemy isn't us, it's those Japs!"), not the people themselves. The President's private language expressing his public policy opinion is certainly affecting public policy. By the way Republicans including Lindsey Graham confirmed publicly what was said and also, apparently, spread the word around immediately after the meeting. It was bound to come out when it's a meeting with Congressmen about very public legislation that's going forward. For you to brush it off as private language is part of a pattern of excusing Trump's conduct which far outweighs the reaction in significance. When did I excuse Trump of anything? Read again fella: I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. The difference between you and I appears to be that I believe that the impropriety isn't limited to the first actor in the chain. Yes, what Trump said is inappropriate. However, it serves nobody's interest for Democrats to go into necessary conniptions over his language. Literally nobody has benefited from this leak. Trump is like 73, gives no shits what anyone thinks, for elected in part because of these shenanigans, and will likely be out of office in 3 years. He's not going to change his schtick. I expect my lawmakers, if they want to be perceived as worthy of any respect, to have the prudence and self-restraint to both realize that far more people will be hurt as a result of the reaction to Trump's action than by Trump's action itself, and act accordingly. That this meeting "wasn't private" is a bunch of post-hoc nonsense that I'm pretty sure Plansix just made up because he heard there was over 10 people in the room. When you're speaking in a professional setting, the expectation is that not all of your words are intended for the public. Reports are that there was various other "rough talk" and "cussing" around the room, which is pretty inconsistent with the idea that everyone was policing their words for the occasion. F-bombs are not uncommon at either of the workplaces I've been in (a large and prominent tech company and a bank)--and not just from the plebs at all--so it hardly shocks me that people would use rough language during professional meetings in the slimepit that is Washington either. You're misunderstanding the argument. It's not about cussing, it is about the racial undertones of what he said. I am sure racism was handled very differently at your companies compared to cussing. People cuss at my job as well. Racism is strictly zero.
The outrage is definitely, at least in part, about insensitive language being used to describe the circumstances of poor countries. The "racial undertones" amount to nothing more than the fact that most non-white countries are poor. Given that Trump was addressing an audience of Democratic senators in a negotiation context, it makes little sense for Trump to be resorting to stump speech racism. While the US left outrage is upset because they deem the statement racist, African countries themselves are more concerned with being labelled as shithole countries than Trump's so-called racism methinks.
Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist.
|
But denying Obama the appointment took it to the next level. It damaged the people’s trust in the judiciary.
|
On January 18 2018 08:58 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:00 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 04:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 18 2018 03:06 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 02:08 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 01:59 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 00:59 IyMoon wrote:Nah, this is still on the dems. How can you be expected to get your whole party to vote for something? Nah this is 100% on the dems /s I'm not sure how it makes more sense to blame a small faction of dissenting Republicans willing to shut down the government than the entire Democratic party. Is partisanship supposed to be a virtue now? What kind of mental gymnastics is this? I blame all congressmen voting to shut down our government and hurt the country. Last time that was the GOP. This time it's both parties, but mostly Dems. Hence they get a larger share of the blame in my book. I'll grant you that I don't believe the GOP would be any better if the situations were reversed, but that still doesn't make this a good look for the self-proclaimed "party of adults." Obviously this assumes the shutdown actually occurs, so I'll reserve judgment until that actually happens. The real person to blame is the President, who blindsided both parties by saying he would sign anything one day and then going on a racist rant when the deal was presented to him. The Democrats are being told by their voters not to give an inch after those comments and the Republicans are pushing for a harder line on immigration. He backed both sides into a corner where they cannot compromise by changing his mind. This is a case of Trump not understanding that politician’s word needs to be their bond. If they say they are going to do something, they need to do it. We joke about them being dishonest, but they can’t lie to each other. It doesn’t work with lawyers and it doesn’t work in politics. I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. In no functioning democracy should an (unpopular, no less) President's private language be affecting public policy. This was never a moral issue. I doubt there's a single Democrat alive that believes this incident is going to tone down Trump's rhetoric. If you can't stomach a racist's comments in a private conversation for the sake of not jeopardizing policy, you're not enough of an adult to be fit for office. The negative effects of that leak were blindingly obvious. I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. It's reminiscent of when sometimes the Chinese people get overeager in their anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment and the CCP tries to tamp it down for diplomatic reasons. When that happens, I blame the CCP for whipping up latent anti-X sentiment with their propaganda for decades for their own benefit ("the real enemy isn't us, it's those Japs!"), not the people themselves. The President's private language expressing his public policy opinion is certainly affecting public policy. By the way Republicans including Lindsey Graham confirmed publicly what was said and also, apparently, spread the word around immediately after the meeting. It was bound to come out when it's a meeting with Congressmen about very public legislation that's going forward. For you to brush it off as private language is part of a pattern of excusing Trump's conduct which far outweighs the reaction in significance. When did I excuse Trump of anything? Read again fella: I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. The difference between you and I appears to be that I believe that the impropriety isn't limited to the first actor in the chain. Yes, what Trump said is inappropriate. However, it serves nobody's interest for Democrats to go into necessary conniptions over his language. Literally nobody has benefited from this leak. Trump is like 73, gives no shits what anyone thinks, for elected in part because of these shenanigans, and will likely be out of office in 3 years. He's not going to change his schtick. I expect my lawmakers, if they want to be perceived as worthy of any respect, to have the prudence and self-restraint to both realize that far more people will be hurt as a result of the reaction to Trump's action than by Trump's action itself, and act accordingly. That this meeting "wasn't private" is a bunch of post-hoc nonsense that I'm pretty sure Plansix just made up because he heard there was over 10 people in the room. When you're speaking in a professional setting, the expectation is that not all of your words are intended for the public. Reports are that there was various other "rough talk" and "cussing" around the room, which is pretty inconsistent with the idea that everyone was policing their words for the occasion. F-bombs are not uncommon at either of the workplaces I've been in (a large and prominent tech company and a bank)--and not just from the plebs at all--so it hardly shocks me that people would use rough language during professional meetings in the slimepit that is Washington either. You're misunderstanding the argument. It's not about cussing, it is about the racial undertones of what he said. I am sure racism was handled very differently at your companies compared to cussing. People cuss at my job as well. Racism is strictly zero. The outrage is definitely, at least in part, about insensitive language being used to describe the circumstances of poor countries. The "racial undertones" amount to nothing more than the fact that most non-white countries are poor. Given that Trump was addressing an audience of Democratic senators in a negotiation context, it makes little sense for Trump to be resorting to stump speech racism. While the US left outrage is upset because they deem the statement racist, African countries themselves are more concerned with being labelled as shithole countries than Trump's so-called racism methinks. Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist.
Full stop, this is where we disagree. If we disagree on this, there's nothing more to say. We agree cussing isn't bad. We agree racism is bad. You don't classify this as racism. I do. I think that's really all there is to be said.
By the way, remember that video you insisted wasn't racist, but also did not watch? Did you ever end up watching it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
